Of the 206 bones that comprise the adult skeletal structure, the Bible mentions only a few: rib (Gen. 1:21–22), hip (Gen. 32:25), skull (Judg. 9:53), jaw (Isa. 30:28), and legs (John 19:31–33). The Hebrew noun ’etsem shows evidence of both collective “limbs” (masc. pl.) and an individual sense of bones (fem. pl.). Nevertheless, while bones could be isolated, anatomical description tended more toward a holistic sense so that bones could refer to physical and psychological collapse in laments (Jer. 23:9) or to the entire person as a corpse (Gen. 50:25; 1 Sam. 31:13).

Overwhelmingly, however, anatomical “units” are used metaphorically for human emotions or attitudes: shame becomes “decay in [the] bones” (Prov. 12:4), fear makes “bones shake” (Job 4:14), and a sad spirit “dries up the bones” (Prov. 17:22). The phrase “bone of my bones” is an idiom, a kinship formula used to describe unity and close relatives (Gen. 2:23; cf. 2 Sam. 5:1).

(1) A son of Kohath, grandson of Levi, and uncle of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (Exod. 6:18; Num. 3:19; 1 Chron. 6:2).

(2) The son of Mareshah, and either the grandson or great-great-grandson of Caleb (1 Chron. 2:42).

(3) A city located in the Judean hills eighteen miles south-southeast of Jerusalem, identified with modern El-Khalil in the West Bank, in an area well supplied with water from nearby wells and springs. There are several archaeological sites in the vicinity, but biblical Hebron has been positively identified with Tel Hebron (Jebel er-Rumeidah). Excavations there uncovered evidence of intermittent occupation ranging from the Early Bronze Age I (3300–3000 BC) to the Late Arab period (AD 1291–1516). Significant finds include a city wall from the Middle Bronze Age II (2000–1550 BC), an Akkadian cuneiform tablet, and five jar handles bearing the royal lmlk (“for the king”) stamp.

Hebron (also known as Kiriath Arba) played a significant role in OT narratives. After Lot chose to dwell in Sodom, Abram settled near the oaks of Mamre in Hebron (Gen. 13:18). When Sarah died, Abraham purchased land in Hebron for her burial (Gen. 23). Both Isaac and Jacob lived in Hebron, and from there Jacob sent Joseph to inquire about his brothers’ welfare (35:27; 37:14). When Moses sent twelve spies into the promised land, their glimpse of the large inhabitants of Hebron significantly influenced their negative report about the prospects for invasion (Num. 13:22, 33).

During the period of the conquest, Hebron’s king was among five kings whom Joshua killed after they attacked Gibeon (Josh. 10). Joshua went on to fight at Hebron, destroying the city and its Anakite inhabitants (11:21). The city was then deeded to Caleb (15:13), but later it was given to the Levites and became a city of refuge (20:7; 21:13).

Hebron played a prominent role during the united monarchy. After Saul died, God instructed David to go to Hebron. There the men of Judah anointed him as king, and he reigned from there for seven and a half years (2 Sam. 2:1–11). During this time, several sons were born to David in Hebron, and it was there that Joab, David’s commander, murdered Abner in revenge for his brother’s death (2 Sam. 3; 1 Chron. 3:1–4). When David’s authority became widely recognized, the elders of all the Israelite tribes came to Hebron and anointed him king over all Israel. He then moved his capital to Jerusalem after capturing it from the Jebusites (2 Sam. 5:1–10; 1 Chron. 11:1–9). When Absalom later conspired to become king, he chose Hebron as his headquarters (2 Sam. 15:1–10).

Hebron is next mentioned as one of the cities that Rehoboam fortified for the defense of Judah (2 Chron. 11:10) and as one of the locations where returning exiles settled (Neh. 11:25). During the Hasmonean period, Judas Maccabeus gained control over Hebron from the Edomites (Idumeans) (1 Macc. 5:65).

Sons of Jacob

Genesis 29–30, 35 records the birth of the sons of Jacob, which provides a covenantal and family basis for the later confederation of a dozen independent tribes of Semitic peoples. They shared a common history, culture, religion, and set of traditions that served for a time to bind them together as a single nation. According to the family records, the tribes were named after their forebears, who were born in the following manner. Jacob’s first (and unloved) wife, Leah, bore Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, in that order. Then his beloved Rachel gave him her maid Bilhah, who bore Dan and Naphtali. Leah’s maid then bore Gad and Asher. Then Leah bore Issachar and Zebulun. Finally, Rachel bore Joseph and Benjamin. At root, the later history of the tribes is a family history, traceable to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus, the story of the tribes begins in the early second millennium BC.

Genesis was written at a period considerably after the time of the patriarchs, and thus written with the awareness that the characterizations of the patriarchs reflected in some way the temperament of the individual tribes. The first story told about the actions of Jacob’s sons is how Simeon and Levi took terrible vengeance on the city of Shechem for the rape of their sister Dinah. This brought about Jacob’s rebuke. Jacob feared that this action would bring further retaliation upon his family (Gen. 34). The history of the patriarchs comes to its high point in the story of Joseph, an account that spans Gen. 37–50. Joseph was the brother revealed in dreams to be elected by God to rule. His brothers’ jealousy led them to seek to rid themselves of him. Reuben, the firstborn, is characterized as being the responsible one, wanting to do him no harm. But in Reuben’s absence, Judah led the others in selling Joseph into slavery. God was with Joseph, however, and through a series of events God made Joseph the leader of Egypt, fulfilling the prophetic dreams.

Genesis connects this family story with later tribal history. As prophetic dreams revealed Joseph’s destiny to rule over Egypt, Jacob’s blessing in Gen. 49 reveals the destiny of the later tribes. Reuben lost his double-portion inheritance of the firstborn due to his dishonoring his father (Gen. 35:22). This honor is tacitly conferred on Joseph in Gen. 48. Jacob said that Levi would be dispersed among Israel. As the priestly tribe, Levi inherited no land. Judah was predicted to be the tribe of kings.

Wilderness and Conquest

In the wilderness wanderings of Israel, the campsite was organized by tribe (Num. 2). At its center was the tabernacle. The tribe of Levi formed an inner circle that surrounded it. At the entrance to the tabernacle (facing east) were the priests, the sons of Aaron. The other divisions of Levi were the Merarites, the Gershonites, and the Kohathites. These together formed the inner circle that guarded the holy place. Levi was the holiest tribe of Israel, the only tribe allowed to maintain and service God’s dwelling place. The outer perimeter of the encampment was formed by twelve tribes (the tribe of Joseph counted as two). The eastern front was dominated by Judah and included Issachar and Zebulun. Dan, Asher, and Naphtali were to the north; Reuben, Simeon, and Gad to the south; and to the west were Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) and Benjamin.

When the people were on the move, the priests went in the front carrying the ark of the covenant, following the pillar of cloud. When it came to rest over a place, there the priests would set down the ark. Behind them followed Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. After them came the Gershonites and the Merarites, carrying the bundled tabernacle, which they set up around the ark when the people made camp. Reuben, Simeon, and Gad took their places. Then came the Kohathites, who carried the furnishings and vessels for the tabernacle. Next followed Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) and Benjamin. Finally, as a rearguard, came Dan, accompanied by Asher and Naphtali (Num. 10:11–33).

Once their sojourn in the wilderness was over, the Israelites began to conquer the land of Canaan. Joshua allotted portions of land to each tribe (Josh. 13–21). The descendants of Joseph constituted two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim. Each of those two received an inheritance; thus, Joseph can be said to have received a double portion as though firstborn. The Jordan River formed a natural border down the middle of the land. To its east were parts of Manasseh, Gad, and Reuben. The other tribes were to the west. The southernmost tribe was Judah. Within Judah was Simeon, which over time was absorbed into Judah. Levi had no land for an inheritance, since Yahweh was Levi’s inheritance—fulfilling Jacob’s prophecy of Levi and Simeon being scattered throughout Israel. Immediately north of Judah were Dan and Benjamin. The remaining tribes were more northern still. So that they would not forget Yahweh, the tribes across the Jordan built an alternative altar, not for sacrifice but rather as a reminder of the true and living God (Josh. 22).

Judges

The history of the conquest underscores the fact that the tribes failed to drive out the inhabitants of the land completely. Many cities remained centers for non-Israelite culture and religion. “When Joshua had grown old, the Lord said to him, ‘You are now very old, and there are still very large areas of land to be taken over’” (Josh. 13:1). Judges 1 lists many peoples that continued to live alongside the Israelites.

Some of these peoples became incorporated into the mix of tribes. Rahab and her family from Jericho became integrated into the tribe of Judah (Josh. 2–6). The Gibeonites were a Canaanite people group who were incorporated into Israel (Josh. 9). Ruth the Moabite married into Judah (Ruth 4). Uriah the Hittite is an example of a Canaanite who was fully naturalized, to the extent that he kept himself ceremonially pure and fought in God’s holy wars for Israel (2 Sam. 11:11).

The book of Judges records the relative success or failure of each tribe to subdue and settle its own territory, and Judah consistently stands out as superior in this respect. Judges 1:2 puts Judah first. Judah provided leadership and support to Simeon, helping it to fulfill its own calling (1:17). After describing Judah’s success, Judg. 1 delineates the other tribes’ failures.

Two stories at the end of Judges illustrate the character of Judah in this period. Whenever Bethlehem and the other cities of Judah are the setting, sojourners and others are treated hospitably, have no fears, and prosper. This is true also of the book of Ruth. But when folk travel elsewhere—to Moab or north to Ephraim or Benjamin—they meet only trouble. Ephraim provided no protection to Micah when the lawless Danites overran his house (Judg. 18). Moab brought only famine, barrenness, and death (Ruth 1).

But the worst case of all is the Benjamite city of Gibeah (Judg. 19–20). There, the sin of Sodom was repeated as men surrounded the host’s house and demanded the sojourner. All Israel took up arms to destroy the wicked city and to punish the wicked tribe. As in the first two verses of Judges, God appointed Judah to the leadership position (Judg. 20:18). Judah then did to Benjamin what God had done to Sodom, almost wiping out the tribe.

United Kingdom

Nevertheless, when the tribes came together and demanded a king, the first king whom God gave them, Saul, was from the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam. 9:17). Benjamin was situated midway between Judah of the south and the northern tribes. Saul was successful in leading the army of Israel, and for a time he enjoyed God’s blessing. But in the end, God rejected him and sent Samuel the prophet to anoint a Bethlehemite, David, to become the next king. However, upon Saul’s death, his son Ish-Bosheth (Ishbaal) claimed the throne (2 Sam. 2:8–9), around 1011 BC.

There followed a bitter civil war between the house of Saul, backed by the northern tribes, and the house of David, backed by Judah. After seven years, David had grown stronger and Ish-Bosheth weaker, until at Hebron David was finally acknowledged as king of all Israel (2 Sam. 5:3). David’s throne would last for centuries, until the destruction of Jerusalem. In the NT, David’s greater son Jesus inherited the throne. Thus, Jacob’s prophecy that the tribe of Judah would hold the scepter was fulfilled.

The northern tribes did not forget that they had once fought against David. David was caught in a scandal when his troops were in battle, and this may have further lessened their loyalty to him (2 Sam. 12). When his son Absalom rebelled and proclaimed himself king, the northern tribes once more allied themselves against David, and another civil war ensued. Although David won back his throne, the dissatisfaction of the northern tribes with the house of David continued (2 Sam. 15–19).

After David died, Solomon inherited his throne (971 BC). Throughout his reign, Solomon placed burdens on the tribes. He divided his kingdom into administrative districts that did not exactly correspond to the tribal territories. Dan and Zebulun were folded into other territories, and Asher seemed to have been ceded to Phoenicia (1 Kings 4). Thus, Solomon’s kingdom systematically weakened tribal identities. He laid a levy upon the tribes of Israel of thousands of men to provide a labor force for his building projects (1 Kings 5). Solomon built and consecrated the temple, and Jerusalem thus became both the political and religious center of the nation. The price for this, however, was the exacerbated discontent of the northern tribes.

Upon Solomon’s death, the tribes confronted his son Rehoboam with a demand to lighten Solomon’s “harsh labor and . . . heavy yoke” (1 Kings 12:4). Rehoboam foolishly replied, “My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions” (1 Kings 12:14). The northern tribes finally abandoned David’s house and thus became an independent political and religious state (931 BC).

Divided Kingdom

Throughout the period of the divided kingdom, tribal identities became less important, for their loyalties were now dominated by the reigning king of either nation. The border between the northern and the southern kingdoms was more or less a straight line, from Joppa on the west near the Mediterranean, to the upper tip of the Dead Sea. This cut through Dan, Ephraim, and Benjamin, leaving Simeon surrounded by Judah. Jerusalem was just south of the border. The first king of the north, Jeroboam, placed golden calves just north of the border, in Bethel, and also at the northern end of his kingdom, in the city of Dan. These served as cultic alternatives to the temple in Jerusalem for the duration of the northern kingdom. He also modified the law of Moses to allow for non-Levitical priests and a different liturgical calendar. The northern kingdom was called “Israel” (its capital was Samaria), and the southern kingdom was called “Judah” (1 Kings 12:25–33).

For half a century war ensued between the two kingdoms. The two formed an alliance during the reigns of Ahab and his sons. King Ahab of Israel gave his daughter Athaliah to be married to King Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram. Together the kingdoms fought against common enemies, such as Syria and Moab. They successfully turned back the superpower of the day, Assyria.

Under King Ahab and his wife Jezebel, Baal worship was aggressively promoted at the expense of traditional Yahwism. During this period Elijah and Elisha called the people back to the God of their ancestors, but with little success (1 Kings 17–2 Kings 13). A small group of faithful worshipers called the “sons of the prophets” did remain true to Yahweh, but most of Israel abandoned him. Hosea and Amos later also warned Israel, but their calls went unheeded. Ahab and Jezebel’s daughter Athaliah married Jehoram, and both of them promoted Baal worship in Judah just as in Israel. Thus, the people of Yahweh had become the people of Baal. Jezebel’s son Joram ruled Israel upon Ahab’s death, and Athaliah’s son Ahaziah ruled Judah upon Jehoram’s death.

Elisha secretly anointed one of Joram’s generals, Jehu, to bring the Omride dynasty to an end in Israel and to become the next king (2 Kings 9). Jehu killed both kings and Jezebel, and he destroyed all remnants of Ahab’s family. He also slaughtered the worshipers of Baal: “so Jehu destroyed Baal worship in Israel” (10:28). Upon the death of her son the king, Athaliah seized the throne and did to David’s house what Jehu had done to Ahab’s: she had every family member killed.

But one infant survived: Joash. He was secretly raised in the temple of Yahweh until he was seven years old. Then his supporters proclaimed him king. Athaliah cried out, “Treason! Treason!” (2 Kings 11:14), and the priest Jehoiada had her put to death. The place and objects of Baal worship were destroyed, ending state-sponsored Baalism in Judah (11:17–18).

Fall of Both Kingdoms

After both kingdoms’ period of infatuation with Baal (under the domination of the Omrides), their history as nations continued to their final fall. In Israel, the people never gave up Jeroboam’s perversion of the law of Moses. In Judah, kings varied widely in their regard for the law of Moses; sometimes they were faithful, sometimes very unfaithful. Meanwhile, Assyria was a constant threat. During the reign of the good king Hezekiah, Judah was overrun by the forces of the Assyrian king Sennacherib. God miraculously delivered Jerusalem (2 Kings 18). However, there was no such deliverance for Israel. Samaria was besieged for three years and finally taken (722 BC). Most of the population was deported (17:5–18). Other people groups were transplanted there who learned the law of Moses and feared Yahweh along with their own gods (17:24–41).

At this point in their history, only Judah remained as a political entity; the northern tribes of Israel were lost. After the faithful king Hezekiah, Judah’s next significant king was Manasseh. He is described in 2 Kings as the king most offensive to God. To categorize him, it was not enough to compare him unfavorably with David (see 2 Kings 14:3) or to equate him with Ahab and Jezebel (see 8:18). Rather, Manasseh was compared to the pagan nations that Joshua had driven out of the land, which were destroyed because of their wickedness. Manasseh was the last straw. Because of his complete abandonment to idolatry, God determined to make an end of Jerusalem (21:11–15).

Yet still the judgment was delayed. Two years after Manasseh’s death, Josiah reigned on the throne of David, and early in his career the Book of the Law was rediscovered in the temple. Josiah called for national repentance, and for a time Judah got rid of its idols and returned to God (2 Kings 23). But this repentance was relatively short-lived.

Josiah was the last good king of Judah. God sent Judah prophets such as Jeremiah, but they went unheeded. In the end, God sent King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon up against his own beloved city, Jerusalem. Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed, many of its people killed, and most of those who were left carried into exile to Babylon.

Exile and Restoration

The fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC essentially ended the existence of the tribes as independent political entities. For the remainder of their history they were, almost without exception, under the heel of great foreign powers. At this point, they were called “Jews.” Nebuchadnezzar conscripted some of the younger men to serve in his court (Dan. 1). The deportees remained in Babylon until its empire fell to the Medes and the Persians under Cyrus the Great in 539 BC.

Cyrus issued a decree at that time allowing the Jews to return to their ancestral land and rebuild the temple of Yahweh. They began to migrate back to the land of promise and began their efforts to rebuild the temple and the city of Jerusalem. These efforts continued under a succession of Persian kings. Although the Jews were home and able once again to worship God in the way he had specified in the law, Nehemiah lamented that they were little more than slaves, since they were subject to Persia (Neh. 9:36). Gone was the dynasty of David, gone were most of the tribes, and gone was the greatness of days past. The sins of their fathers had brought them to this sad situation.

In the return to the land, the genealogies of the returnees were very important. These preserved family and tribal identities so that their lineages would not be lost. The books that originated in the restoration period preserve these lists (see 1 Chron. 1–9).

Persia and the entire ancient world eventually were conquered by Alexander the Great. His successors divided the land after his death; two generals controlled Syria to the north and Egypt to the south of Palestine. They constantly squabbled over their borders, which included Palestine. Finally, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (r. 175–164 BC), king of Syria, decided to turn Jerusalem into a Greek city. He brought great pressure on the Jews to abandon their faith. Jews found with a copy of the law were killed, and circumcision of infants was forbidden. He ransacked the temple and placed an idol in it. Some Jews abandoned their faith, but others resisted. Finally, Antiochus died, and the Jews for a short time enjoyed independence. Over time, the Roman Empire engulfed Palestine. Herod the Great ruled as king of the Jews for Rome in the years 37–4 BC. Upon Herod’s death, his kingdom was divided among his sons.

New Testament

The Jews in Judea in Jesus’ day had learned to find their national, ethnic, and cultural identity in the law of Moses. They dutifully followed the purity laws, especially in keeping the Sabbath. Their religion was centered on the temple, and they kept Passover and the other prescribed obligations. Although the one remaining tribe, Judah, no longer could boast of a king on the throne of David or even independence, it was a nation whose people thought of themselves as Yahweh’s people. By Jesus’ time, they anticipated that a descendant of David, a Messiah, would arise to restore the lost kingdom of David.

Although the northern tribes were lost, there was some limited continuing awareness of tribal identity in this period. The book of Esther’s Mordecai is from the tribe of Benjamin, and there are a number of references to Benjamin in the intertestamental literature (e.g., 2 Macc. 3:4). Anna the prophetess was from the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36). Paul knew himself to be from the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5). He used his knowledge of this fact to help bolster his argument that he was truly a Jew. The Levites also survived the exile, and the priestly caste continued. The kingly and priestly tribes remained, with a few others.

Jesus is presented in Matt. 1 as a direct descendant of David through the line of kings. He is the promised Messiah (John 1:41), the “Lion of the tribe of Judah” (Rev. 5:5). Jesus promised his twelve disciples that some day they would rule over the tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). In Christ, the definition of the tribes of Israel had changed. Gentiles were now grafted onto the olive tree of Israel (Rom. 11:17). Revelation 7:4–10 records the number from each tribe who bear the seal of the Lamb. After hearing this, John turned and saw them: they were revealed to be a vast company of the redeemed from every tribe on earth. Thus, the church had spiritually become the twelve tribes of Israel.

In AD 70 the temple was destroyed. Soon afterward, Israel was scattered, not to be a nation again in the promised land until 1948.

The books of Samuel tell the story of how kingship began in Israel and was subsequently secured under David. Almost all of David’s own story is recounted in Samuel, including God’s promise to him of a dynasty. This promise became a key seedbed for the messianic hope within the OT, which finds its fulfillment in Jesus as David’s son (Matt. 1:1).

Genre and Purpose

Samuel is part of a block of texts running from Joshua through Kings (excluding Ruth), which is known in the Hebrew Bible as the Former Prophets. This block offers a more or less continuous account of Israel’s life in the land of promise from its entry under Joshua until the exile after Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians (2 Kings 25). Any assessment of the genre and purpose of Samuel must consider its relationship to these surrounding texts, though it should also recognize the distinctive elements of Samuel itself.

At its simplest, Samuel is a work of narrative prose that tells how kingship began in Israel and was secured under David after the failure of Saul, though it also contains a number of important poems. Although contemporary history writing would not be done in the same way, since Samuel points to the ways in which God is active throughout this time, Samuel certainly offers a testimony to this crucial period in Israel’s history. It is not the whole story of the period, as its testimony is concerned with a specific set of issues, and that testimony is related through God’s purposes for Samuel, Saul, and David. But this observation is vital for appreciating that Samuel is not just the story of how kingship came to Israel but is specifically a theological examination of it. It explores how God was at work, fulfilling the hope for kingship that had been expressed through Judg. 17–21, while also providing hope that the exile was not the end of his purposes for Israel as a whole and the kings of David’s line in particular. We should not think of this as a dry piece of history writing, for an important element is also that the telling of this story should entertain and grip those who either read or (perhaps more likely) heard it. Knowing that God had acted in the past for his people and that these actions continued to be important was not enough; the excitement that this should generate also needed to be apparent in the skill with which the story was told.

Outline

I. The Rise of Samuel (1 Sam. 1–7)

II. The Birth of Monarchy (1 Sam. 8–12)

III. Saul’s Early Reign and Rejection (1 Sam. 13–15)

IV. Long Rivalry Narrative: David and Saul (1 Sam.16–2 Sam. 1)

A. David’s anointing and arrival at court (1 Sam. 16–17)

B. David within Saul’s court (1 Sam. 18–20)

C. David as an outlaw in Judah (1 Sam. 21–26)

D. David in Philistine territory and Saul’s death (1 Sam. 27–2 Sam. 1)

V. Short Rivalry Narrative: David and Ish-Bosheth (2 Sam. 2:1–5:5)

VI. First Summary of David’s Reign (2 Sam. 5:6–8:18)

VII. Narrative of David’s Court (2 Sam. 9–20)

A. David accepts Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 9)

B. The war with Ammon and David’s sin (2 Sam. 10–12)

C. Long rebellion narrative: Absalom against David (2 Sam. 13–19)

D. Short rebellion narrative: Sheba against David (2 Sam. 20)

VIII. Second Summary of David’s Reign (2 Sam. 21–24)

Composition

Authorship and sources. The books of Samuel are anonymous, and any assessment of their authorship needs to start with this basic fact. There is a tradition in the Talmud (b. B. Bat. 14b; 15a) that associates the book with Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, presumably concluding that the books of Samuel constitute the source mentioned by 1 Chron. 29:29. But this reference is only to information on David’s life and thus is unlikely to refer to the whole of Samuel. Since Samuel’s own death is recorded in 1 Sam. 25:1, the book’s title in our tradition (in the LXX the books of Samuel are the first two books of Kingdoms, which continue into Kings) is unlikely to refer to authorship. Rather, it is more likely that a later author has drawn together a range of source materials in order to offer a coherent testimony about the origins of kingship.

For some time, the main sources behind Samuel seemed to have been identified, and they included a series of Shiloh traditions concerning the end of the house of Eli and the rise of Samuel (1 Sam. 1:1–4:1a), an ark narrative (2 Sam. 4:1b–7:1; 6), traditions concerning Saul and the origins of kingship (1 Sam. 7:2–15:35), a history of David’s rise (1 Sam. 16:1–2 Sam. 5:5), a succession narrative (2 Sam. 9–20), and a Samuel appendix (2 Sam. 21–24). Within this analysis, the place of 2 Sam. 5:6–25 and 2 Sam. 7:1–8:17 remained unclear, but the general thought was that the sources were more or less placed one after the other in their chronological sequence. But the probability of this conclusion has been challenged in recent times because the various sections of the books are clearly aware of information in other parts, so that the whole is actually well integrated. In addition, the actual boundaries of the sources remained unclear. An unfortunate effect of the source theories is that they tended to downplay some parts of the book, especially 2 Sam. 21–24, as being of less importance, whereas some recent studies have shown that they are closely integrated into the rest of the book, tying together themes developed elsewhere while also showing the structural integrity of the whole of Samuel.

Samuel is likely the end product of several stages of material collected together, rather than being the product of sources that are kept intact, but it is still a unified work. Possibly the oldest material is the collection of longer poems in 1 Sam. 2:1–10; 2 Sam. 1:17–27; 22:1–23:7, all of which draws on common themes and language and comments on the nature of kingship. The opening and closing blocks form the bookends, raising the hope of kingship (1 Sam. 2:1–10) and then commenting on how the king must submit to God’s reign (2 Sam. 22:1–23:7). In the central poem (2 Sam. 1:17–27) David laments the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. It is likely that these poems were joined with the stories about Samuel, Saul, and David in the ninth century BC but were then carefully placed to comment on the stories and yet also be commented on by them. Further editing may have continued until the time of Hezekiah in the late eighth century BC. Later on, more or less the whole of Samuel as we know it was included in the Former Prophets, perhaps during the exile. The important point to note here is that Samuel is a carefully composed whole and not simply a collection of source materials.

Literary devices. Evidence for the nature of the book’s composition can be seen in how it employs certain literary devices throughout. Two that are worth noting are the way the text plays with narrative chronology and employs repetition in various forms. The play with narrative chronology means that although the movement of the book is broadly chronological (moving from the origins of the monarchy to the latter period of David’s reign), not every element is recorded in its actual chronological sequence, since at some points other factors were more important. Alternatively, at some points different narrative strands are brought into a chronological relationship with one another, most notably in comparing the locations of David and Saul in 1 Sam. 27–2 Sam. 1. A simple example of relating material outside its chronological sequence occurs in 1 Sam. 26:12, where it is said that God had caused Saul’s soldiers to sleep so that David could enter Saul’s camp only after David had reached Saul, though clearly the soldiers must already have been asleep.

At other points, the breaks with chronological sequence cover different stories about David. For example, in 2 Sam. 5:17–8:14 there are four accounts about David, two in which he overcomes enemies (5:17–25; 8:1–14) and two associated with events in Jerusalem and public worship (6:1–7:29). Since 7:1 tells us that David’s desire to build a temple came after God had delivered him from all his enemies, it follows that the events of chapter 7 must have come after those of 8:1–14. Here, arranging the material to highlight the theme of public worship was more important than placing it in chronological sequence.

This same section also demonstrates the use of repetition. Hence, 5:17–25 recounts two nearly identical defeats of the Philistines in which David must trust God, while the victories in 8:1–14 are twice said to come about because God gave David victory wherever he went (8:6, 14). Similarly, both 6:1–23 and 7:1–29 depend upon interest in the ark and thus mutually interpret each other. Other large-scale repetitions include two announcements of the coming of kingship (1 Sam. 2:10, 34), two announcements of the end of Eli and his family in the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sam. 2:27–36; 3:10–14), and two times when David does not kill Saul (1 Sam. 24; 26). In an oral culture, such repetitions are not evidence of poor composition but rather are a crucial tool for emphasizing the central themes being developed. In addition, variations within each repetition are a tool for increasing the audience’s interest, showing that the authors of Samuel were interested in both giving historical testimony and entertaining their audience.

Text

It is generally agreed that the text of Samuel poses more than its fair share of difficulties, something that can be seen in the often significant differences between the received Hebrew text (MT) and the early translations, especially the main Greek translation (LXX). For example, in 1 Sam. 17 the best-regarded edition of the LXX lacks vv. 12–31, 50, 55–58, and even in shared material it is sometimes significantly shorter. It is generally agreed that the Greek version resolves a number of anomalies, but is this because the MT has been expanded or because the LXX has been abbreviated? In addition, three significant Samuel manuscripts were found at Qumran. Although two of these are only fragmentary, one covers significant portions of Samuel. Although the disputed portions of 1 Sam. 17 are absent from it, there are some points where it appears to support the LXX and others where it agrees with the MT while also introducing some other issues of its own.

It is clear, therefore, that complex issues are involved in determining the text of Samuel, and one must avoid taking a doctrinaire position and allow each point to be resolved on its own merits. At the same time, the difficulties should not be magnified beyond reason, since large sections of the text can be established with reasonable certainty, and for all the problems, the MT remains a reliable guide. One might suggest in the case of 1 Sam. 17, for example, that the LXX text represents an early attempt to address apparent difficulties in the narrative (especially the question of when Saul met David) that nevertheless failed to realize that not everything in Samuel is narrated in exact chronological order. Nevertheless, anyone who compares different translations of Samuel (e.g., NIV and NRSV) will notice variants and should make use of good commentaries at that point.

Central Themes

The reign of God. Kingship lies at the heart of Samuel. But although it is concerned with the story of Israel’s first two kings (Abimelek in Judg. 9 is an aberration and probably only a local figure), it places their story within the framework of God’s reign. No matter what authority a king in Israel might claim, it was always subject to God’s greater authority. Indeed, Samuel makes clear that God did not need a king but rather chose the monarchy as the means by which his own reign might be demonstrated.

An important way in which God’s reign is demonstrated is through the motif of the reversal of fortunes, in which the powerful are brought down and the weak raised. This is announced in Hannah’s Song (1 Sam. 2:4–8) and is then demonstrated when God removed the corrupt family of Eli from their position of power in the sanctuary at Shiloh (2:27–36; 4:1–18). On the other hand, Samuel himself came to prominence even though he had no position of power. Saul, likewise, although a member of a relatively wealthy family (9:1–2), knew that he was not someone who had automatic power (9:21) but still was raised up to be king by God. Yet when he, like Eli before him, became corrupt and clung to power rather than submit to God, he too was removed so that he could be replaced (15:28–29).

David also came from a humble position as the youngest son in his family (1 Sam. 16:11), but unlike Eli and Saul, he would not grasp power for himself. Indeed, he twice refused to kill Saul when he had the chance (1 Sam. 24; 26) and punished those who claimed that they could exercise violence on his behalf (2 Sam. 1:11–16; 4:9–12). Even when it seemed that David had later lost all to Absalom, he held to the fact that he could reign only as long as he had God’s support (2 Sam. 15:25–26). This, in fact, is a central theme in 2 Sam. 7 when David wanted to build a temple for God, for there it is made clear that David cannot act without God’s authority, and that his descendants will have authority as long as they too submit to God (2 Sam. 7:11b–15). David’s closing songs (22:1–23:7) make clear that the king has no authority apart from God.

Kingship. Kingship in Israel is closely related to the theme of God’s reign. The possibility of kingship first arises in Hannah’s Song (1 Sam. 2:10) and is confirmed by the man of God who announces the judgment against Eli’s family (2:34). Both references occur before Israel’s elders requested a king because of the failure of Samuel’s sons (8:1–9), indicating that the request for a king did not take God by surprise. In addition, it indicates that authentic kingship in Israel could only be that which was initiated by God.

The story of Saul’s rise to the throne needs to be read in light of this. Although the human move to kingship stemmed from the request of the elders for a king (1 Sam. 8:4–9), it was still the case that Saul could become king only because of God’s decision. Although 1 Sam. 8–12 often has been broken down into supposedly conflicting sources, it is better to read it as a unified text but to note that the narrator’s voice is not equivalent to any of the characters that speak through it. When the text is understood in this way, it is possible to appreciate that kingship was part of God’s purposes for Israel, but it needed to follow his model. Kings in Israel could prosper only when they submitted to the greater reign of God. It was Saul’s mistake that he did not recognize this. David, although he made some terrible mistakes, always understood this truth, and his closing songs (2 Sam. 22:1–23:7) reflect on it. David learned what Saul never did: power is never something to be grasped; rather, it can only be accepted as a gracious gift from God to be used for his purposes.

New Testament Connections

The importance of the books of Samuel for the NT is far greater than its five direct citations there (Acts 13:22; Rom. 15:9; 2 Cor. 6:18 [2×]; Heb. 1:5) might indicate. The theme of kingship and the associated promise to David in 2 Sam. 7 are fundamental to the messianic hope throughout the OT and are picked up in the NT. Even when the NT cites other OT texts (such as Ps. 2) with reference to Jesus, it is still the books of Samuel that lie behind the citation. In addition, the NT frequently indicates that Jesus was a son of David (e.g., Matt. 1:1). Although such texts do not cite Samuel directly, they clearly allude to it because of God’s promise that David’s throne would be established forever (2 Sam. 7:16). Jesus’ ministry transcends that of David in every way, but we cannot understand his ministry apart from David and God’s promise to him.

The Israelite conquest of the Promised Land is narrated in Numbers through 2 Samuel and includes key figures such as Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Saul, and David, although the main events of the conquest are described in Joshua and Judges. There is considerable scholarly debate about the very complicated details of the conquest. Much of this debate centers on archaeology and the dating of sites and artifacts that have been excavated in the last century. Further complicating things is the fact that many of the events recorded in the Bible are not recorded anywhere else, making verification of events challenging.

Dating the conquest (using the destruction of Jericho as a fixed point) is notoriously difficult. Scholars who accept the biblical account as historically reliable tend to date the conquest of Jericho in the early twelfth century BC. This dating is based on the identification of the pharaoh in the exodus story as one of the Ramesses (who reigned in the Nineteenth or Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty, or roughly the thirteenth to tenth centuries BC). Some archaeologists, however, have argued that during this time Jericho was no more than a small, unwalled village with little or no military significance, thus making the story of Jericho’s destruction in the Bible impossible. Thus, other scholars have suggested a fifteenth- or sixteenth-century date for the conquest (when Jericho was known to be fortified). This solution, however, makes identification of the exodus pharaoh difficult and requires spreading out the events in Judges over four centuries instead of two. Both sides have different theories of how to accommodate the statement in 1 Kings 6:1 that it was 480 years after the exodus that Solomon began to build the temple. This controversy involving biblical scholars, historians, and archaeologists promises to continue for many years to come.

The background for the Canaanite conquest is found in the Pentateuch narratives that describe the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt and their trek toward Palestine. Indeed, the conquest is anticipated already in God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants will become a mighty nation (Gen. 12:1–3; see also 15:16). The story describes God’s initial command to quickly conquer the land after meeting them on Mount Sinai (Num. 13), and the people’s rebellion caused by fear of the Canaanites, who are described as “giants in the land” (NLT). As a result, the Israelites are forced to wander in the Sinai wilderness until the entire generation dies (with the exception of Joshua and Caleb).

As narrated in the Bible, the conquest begins with defeat of the Midianites on the eastern side of the Jordan River under the leadership of Moses (Num. 31–32). Then, after Moses’ death, the Israelites cross the Jordan River to attack Jericho (Josh. 1–7). After the miraculous destruction of Jericho, the Israelites move to Ai and encounter initial defeat due to one man’s sin (Josh. 8). Later, after being tricked by the Gibeonites, the Israelites engage in battle with the five kings of the Amorites (Josh. 9–10). Finally, Josh. 11 describes the conquest of the northern part of the land and especially the military and strategically important city of Hazor.

The book of Judges relates fewer, more concentrated battles against different enemies, sometimes in offensive attacks and other times as defensive battles to preserve land control. The final stage of the conquest under David’s kingship is described in 2 Sam. 1–8. After Saul’s death, a short and violent confrontation takes place between Israelite forces still loyal to Saul’s family and those loyal to David. Political power is consolidated with a few key assassinations, rather than through full-fledged war, orchestrated by David’s men (there is some debate about how involved David was in these events). As a result, David, with the full support of the army (both the forces previously loyal to Saul and his own), takes the city of Jerusalem and then finally conquers the areas of the Philistines, the Ammonites, and the Moabites (areas that Saul had been unable to subdue). Thus, large-scale fighting for territory ends during David’s reign.

The tribal boundaries are described in Josh. 14–22. How closely these boundaries describe land actually conquered and how much of it was a territorial stake that required further warfare in order to be obtained are subject to intense debate. By the time of David, however, the allotment (described in Joshua) fairly closely reflects the largest reaches of the United Kingdom under David (described in 2 Samuel).

The descriptions of the Israelites’ total destruction of their enemies, often including women, children, and livestock, have created theological difficulties for interpreters trying to reconcile the seeming incongruity of God’s love for humankind, especially the innocent, and his commands to completely destroy these cultures. Some scholars have sought to justify these actions by describing the horrific religious practices of these people (such as child sacrifice and ritual sexual perversions), but there are questions about how widespread these practices actually were and doubt about how they would justify a response involving the death of innocents. Currently, there is no strong scholarly consensus on how to resolve this difficult theological issue.

The term “government” may refer to the philosophy that shapes a nation or people’s institutions, customs, and laws or, more specifically, to actual offices and structures to enact this philosophy. Generally speaking, government serves to bring order and direction to a people. This can be accomplished through the rule of one, or a few, or many. As a constituent portion of bringing order, some sort of entity for enforcement and protection must be created. This usually takes the form of a military or police force.

The biblical worldview emphasizes the rule of God over everything, inherent in his position as the Creator. Since, however, God did imbue humanity with authority over creation and with the capacity for relationship, his government can find expression in the actions and decisions of human beings (1 Sam. 8:7–9; Rom. 13:1–4). The successful ruler will be the individual who understands his or her place before God and who desires to lead God’s people with humility and justice (1 Kings 3:7–9).

Before the Monarchy

Clan. The earliest forms of governmental relations apparently were in the extended family or clan. The progenitor of the clan normally was the patriarch, who led several families, all of which were to some degree related to him. The patriarch was responsible for land allotments and maintenance of the family’s spiritual life and well-being (Gen. 13:8–9; 31:22–35; Job 1:4–5). He was responsible for forming contractual agreements under which the family functioned, in relation both to land acquisitions and to marriages (Gen. 21:22–34; 24:1–11; 26:26–33). He alone decided to whom the patriarchy passed when he died, and his power was almost absolute (Gen. 27), though there is some indication that God desired a husband’s first responsibility to be to his spouse rather than to his father (Gen. 2:24).

Tribe. Beyond the clan, the next larger societal unit was the tribe. Although tribes were for the most part still related genetically, the distance of the relationship permitted the inclusion of persons from outside the family. This may have been the case with Caleb, who is identified both as a member of the tribe of Judah (Num. 13:6) and as a descendant of the Kenizzites, who were Edomites (Gen. 36:9–11; Num. 32:12). If modern nomadic tribes are any indication, the governmental structure of the related tribes was a type of confederation coming together for defensive purposes. The decisions would have been made by a group of elders from the various clans. Like the clan chief of the smaller structures, the tribal elders could make covenants and were responsible for keeping order in the tribe (Deut. 21:19; Ruth 4:1–12; 2 Sam. 5:3).

During the period following the exodus and before the time of the judges, Israel’s tribal structure was maintained, though with a single leader. The leadership of Moses and Joshua was in many ways a precursor to the offices of both judge and king. The men had considerable power, and opposition to their leadership often was dealt with harshly (Num. 12; 16). Yet, their rule was established through presence of the Spirit of God rather than physical lineage. The weight of leading such a large body of people had its difficulties, and it is related that Moses delegated some of his authority to judges who rendered decisions for the people (Exod. 18).

Judges. The period of the judges witnessed a devolution of sorts in the governmental structures of Israel. The relationship between the various tribes was somewhat strained, and it seems clear from the narrative that no judge ever led more than a handful of tribes. Although these judges were like Moses and Joshua in that they were imbued with power by the Spirit of God, their focus was almost solely military in nature, and the everyday aspects of governance seem to have been left to the individual tribes. There was little sense of ordered society, and lawlessness and anarchy seem to have been the order of the day. In two cases, those of Gideon and Abimelek, attempts were made to found petty kingdoms (Judg. 8:22–23, 30–31; 9:1–21). Similarly, Jephthah seems to have established a minor kingdom east of the Jordan, in Gilead (Judg. 11:6–11). However, these attempts were transitory in nature and lacked the stability that grows out of a unified identity. Indeed, one of the roles of the judges seems to have been to solidify the people’s resolve for permanent leadership in the form of a monarch, which they hoped would raise them to greatness and standing in the world (1 Sam. 8:1–6).

The Monarchy

The period of the monarchy represented a strong centralized government invested in the mind and decisions of a single man. The term “king” was applied symbolically to any great leader, but above all it was applied to God, to whom Israel’s throne rightfully belonged (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23; Ps. 2). With the office of the king came a bureaucracy designed to increase efficiency, but which sometimes involved corruption.

Establishing the monarchy. The first ruler called “king” was Saul, son of Kish, though he is often referred to as a prince or a chieftain rather than a king (1 Sam. 13:13–14). It is difficult to say whether this related specifically to the level of office that he possessed or if it was a sort of disparaging comparison to David, who was viewed by the biblical writer as a true king. As king, David took possession of the great fortress of Jerusalem. In many ways, he combined the ecclesiastical and the military headship of the nation through the movement of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem and the purchase of the threshing floor for the temple. Solomon attempted to further break down the old tribal divisions by dividing the whole country into administrative districts (1 Kings 4:7), not according to tribal divisions, but instead after the pattern established during the Egyptian hegemony of Canaan that had existed several centuries earlier. The kingdom was divided into two separate kingdoms at the death of Solomon, but for the people of God the monarchy had become the standard of government through which God ruled. This monarchial expectation found expression in the messianic hope of Israel (Ezek. 47).

The role of the king. The chief duty of the king was to act as the commander in chief of the army. With the establishment of a monarchy, the people gained a standing army that could be kept in the field for protection of the nation (1 Sam. 13:2). The king was also intimately connected with the religious organization of the people. He was considered a central component of the cult, so that major moments in his life were cause for worship (Pss. 2; 45; 110). It is certain that the king, especially after David, performed priestly functions. David wore an ephod (1 Chron. 15:27), and Solomon addressed the people in the temple (1 Kings 8:14). Indeed, the coronation itself identified the king as both priest and king (Ps. 110:4). The fact that Solomon built the temple and played a significant role in its dedication shows the intimate relation that the king had with the national sanctuary, which was attached to his palace. The king also served as judge (1 Kings 3:16–28; 7:7) over his people, and he determined the economic structures of the society, including taxes, monetary weights, and covenants with other nations. The king did not hold absolute authority, however, and like the rest of Israel, he was subject to the law (Deut. 17:14–20).

Successors and officers. Once the kingship had been established, the hereditary principle arose naturally. Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth maintained a small kingship of northern tribes for some time after Saul’s death (2 Sam. 2:8–10). Still, the king appears to have had the right to select which of his descendants would be his successor (1 Kings 1). When the decision was made, the people often proclaimed their satisfaction at the result (1 Kings 1:25; 2 Kings 14:21), and a ceremony of anointing took place. Sometimes the anointing was a private affair (2 Kings 9:6), but the presence of certain psalms related to the ceremony itself suggests that, generally speaking, it was a national event and time of worship (Ps. 2:2).

The bureaucracy that came with the king meant the installation of several new offices. The chief officer of the king was the commander of his army (2 Sam. 2:8; 8:16). Another high-ranking military officer was the captain of the bodyguard, who was not placed under the orders of the commander of the army (2 Sam. 8:18; 23:22–23). The king also had more domestic officers, such as the officer over the household (2 Kings 18:18), the court historian, the court secretary, various deputies and advisers, and the king’s friend (2 Sam. 8:16–18; 1 Kings 4:1–6).

Revenue. The means of sustaining the state varied by era and king. While it is true that the king had his own flocks and land (1 Sam. 8:15–17; 1 Chron. 27:25–28), he could also, depending on how strong he was, raise revenue through gifts from vassals (1 Kings 4:21; 10:25) and through the spoils of war (2 Chron. 27:5). Starting with the control and regulation of trade routes during the reign of Solomon, the king maintained a stream of revenue through taxation of merchants moving through the land and trade with other nations.

After the Exile

The period following the exile witnessed a transition in the government of Israel. Apart from a very short period from about 160 to 60 BC, Israel was under the control of foreign powers. These various empires ruled with a variety of methods, determined by their own philosophy of government.

Persian rule. The Persians established a rule based largely on a sort of benevolent dictatorship, though there are multiple accounts of vicious responses to any notion of rebellion from its vassals. In 539 BC Cyrus permitted the Jews to return from their captivity in Babylon to Jerusalem and showed them certain favors. One of his successors, Darius I (r. 522–486 BC), continued the liberal policy of Cyrus toward the Jews and played a major role in the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem (Ezra 5:13–17; 6:1–15). He also organized the Persian Empire to facilitate the easy collection of tribute from subject nations. He ultimately divided the kingdom into twenty provinces ruled by governors, a system maintained through the remainder of his dynastic line. Another important development during this period was the increase in power of the Jewish priesthood. With no Jewish monarchy in place, governmental power in Israel became concentrated in the office of the high priest.

Greek and Roman rule. Alexander the Great and his successors brought Hellenism into the Jewish experience. His acquisition of power was distinctly different because it was not simply a political one. Its cultural and spiritual influence was much more significant. The people were subjected to new language, art, thought, and philosophy. The struggle that ensued divided the Jewish population into competing groups, one dedicated to the preservation of the old ways and one more receptive to the Hellenistic life.

The coming of the Romans brought with it a more complex balance of power, with authority shifting between the high priest, vassal kings appointed by the Romans, and Roman governors called “prefects” and “procurators.” Among the kings of this period, Herod the Great was the most successful and important. Herod gained control of the region with the help of Augustus Caesar and Marc Antony, being invested with the office by the Roman senate and then winning an important military victory over Jerusalem in 37 BC. Herod was hated by the Jews because of his pagan commitments, his cruelty, and his desire to Hellenize Judea. His children did not enjoy his success or his power, however, and following his death Roman influence and intervention in Judea became more direct and significant.

The priestly class also held significant power in the office of the high priest and in the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin addressed issues such as legal procedure, verdicts, and decrees of a political nature and also dealt with questions relating to the temple, priesthood, and sacrifices. The Sanhedrin was in many respects the highest political authority (although its control was always mitigated by Roman power and presence). It could deal with most criminal cases, though its authority was limited in capital cases.

The Roman presence in the region was represented by the governance of prefects and procurators. These governors were appointed by Rome over Judea after the removal of Archelaus in AD 6, and over all of Palestine at the death of Herod Agrippa. Prefects and procurators were the highest power in their province, but they answered to the legate and ultimately to Caesar. They lived primarily in Caesarea, but they traveled to Jerusalem for high festivals or in the case of civil unrest. They tended to have as little contact as possible with the Jews unless their own personal interest demanded it. Decisions concerning everyday life were left to the Jewish authorities. With Roman citizens living in their areas, the procurators had direct influence; however, such citizens could go over the procurator’s head and appeal to Caesar if they did not receive the sentence that they desired.

(1) A son of Kohath, grandson of Levi, and uncle of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (Exod. 6:18; Num. 3:19; 1 Chron. 6:2).

(2) The son of Mareshah, and either the grandson or great-great-grandson of Caleb (1 Chron. 2:42).

(3) A city located in the Judean hills eighteen miles south-southeast of Jerusalem, identified with modern El-Khalil in the West Bank, in an area well supplied with water from nearby wells and springs. There are several archaeological sites in the vicinity, but biblical Hebron has been positively identified with Tel Hebron (Jebel er-Rumeidah). Excavations there uncovered evidence of intermittent occupation ranging from the Early Bronze Age I (3300–3000 BC) to the Late Arab period (AD 1291–1516). Significant finds include a city wall from the Middle Bronze Age II (2000–1550 BC), an Akkadian cuneiform tablet, and five jar handles bearing the royal lmlk (“for the king”) stamp.

Hebron (also known as Kiriath Arba) played a significant role in OT narratives. After Lot chose to dwell in Sodom, Abram settled near the oaks of Mamre in Hebron (Gen. 13:18). When Sarah died, Abraham purchased land in Hebron for her burial (Gen. 23). Both Isaac and Jacob lived in Hebron, and from there Jacob sent Joseph to inquire about his brothers’ welfare (35:27; 37:14). When Moses sent twelve spies into the promised land, their glimpse of the large inhabitants of Hebron significantly influenced their negative report about the prospects for invasion (Num. 13:22, 33).

During the period of the conquest, Hebron’s king was among five kings whom Joshua killed after they attacked Gibeon (Josh. 10). Joshua went on to fight at Hebron, destroying the city and its Anakite inhabitants (11:21). The city was then deeded to Caleb (15:13), but later it was given to the Levites and became a city of refuge (20:7; 21:13).

Hebron played a prominent role during the united monarchy. After Saul died, God instructed David to go to Hebron. There the men of Judah anointed him as king, and he reigned from there for seven and a half years (2 Sam. 2:1–11). During this time, several sons were born to David in Hebron, and it was there that Joab, David’s commander, murdered Abner in revenge for his brother’s death (2 Sam. 3; 1 Chron. 3:1–4). When David’s authority became widely recognized, the elders of all the Israelite tribes came to Hebron and anointed him king over all Israel. He then moved his capital to Jerusalem after capturing it from the Jebusites (2 Sam. 5:1–10; 1 Chron. 11:1–9). When Absalom later conspired to become king, he chose Hebron as his headquarters (2 Sam. 15:1–10).

Hebron is next mentioned as one of the cities that Rehoboam fortified for the defense of Judah (2 Chron. 11:10) and as one of the locations where returning exiles settled (Neh. 11:25). During the Hasmonean period, Judas Maccabeus gained control over Hebron from the Edomites (Idumeans) (1 Macc. 5:65).

Temples have always been the domain and house of the gods throughout the ancient Near East. As the abode of the God of Israel, the Jerusalem temple served the same purpose. The temple played an important role in the social, religious, and political life of ancient Israel. No archaeological remains of the actual temple building exist today; nevertheless, the temple has dominated biblical scholarship. The Jerusalem temple was originally built by Solomon in 953 BC and was destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. After the exile, the temple was rebuilt and then rededicated by Zerubbabel in 515 BC (Ezra). Herod the Great significantly expanded and changed the temple, but it was eventually destroyed by the Romans under the direction of Titus in AD 70.

The biblical text refers to the temple in several ways: temple, house of God/Yahweh, and sanctuary/shrine. These terms all refer to the dwelling or house of God and an area of sacredness. The sources for information on the temple are biblical texts, Josephus, and the Mishnah (tractate Middot). The most detailed accounts of the construction of the Solomonic temple are found in 1 Kings 6–8; 2 Chron. 2–4. In addition to these major sections, there are several references to building activities and repairs to the temple throughout the OT. Another major text is Ezek. 40, but it is debated whether this represents the actual temple or an ideal temple. There are several references in the NT that directly or indirectly refer to functions and specific components of the Temple Mount complex.

Archaeological Investigation

The location of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem has been undisputed. Current scholarly opinion locates the temple on the spot of the current Muslim shrine, the Dome of the Rock. Today the larger enclosed area is referred to as the harem esh-sharif (the noble sanctuary). Explorers in the nineteenth century did not attempt archaeological research of the temple itself, although various explorations focused on recording visible features and conducting soundings along the sides of the Temple Mount. Even after the unification of Jerusalem in 1967, with three major excavations in the city, no archaeological investigation of the temple was conducted. Due to the political and religious variables associated with the Muslim holy sites, there are no foreseeable archaeological investigations. A recent renovation of the Mosque of Omar, located on the southern end of the Temple Mount, removed truckloads of earth. Unfortunately, there was no archaeological supervision of the project and no archaeological excavations of the site were conducted.

In spite of the limited archaeological excavations, several popular accounts of alternate locations of the temple have been proposed. Most of these place the temple somewhere other than the Dome of the Rock, but none of these proposals has garnered scholarly support to rival the current location.

First Temple: Temple of Solomon

Throughout the ancient Near East, temples served as monumental edifices that provided divine legitimacy for the king or dynasty. While temples should be considered part of the religious sphere of society, their construction, maintenance, and associated activities are interlinked with the political sphere. The construction of the temple in Jerusalem is also linked to state formation by the Israelites. The Solomonic temple ushered in a new period of religious activity among the ancient Israelites. Previously, Israel had worshiped at various shrines and sanctuaries, and its central religious practice was associated with the tabernacle. With the establishment of the monarchy, dynastic kingship and centralized authority were created. Although the biblical text credits Solomon as the Israelite king who built the temple, the project was initiated under David. David united the Israelite tribes, captured Jerusalem and made it the capital of the kingdom, and built a royal palace. He made Jerusalem the political capital but also the religious center when he brought the holy ark, the visible symbol of Yahweh’s presence, to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5–6). David intended to build Yahweh a permanent dwelling (2 Sam. 7:2).

Location. The biblical text preserves multiple traditions and accounts of the location and acquisition of land for the temple. In the ancient world the city temple was commonly located on the acropolis (highest point) of the city. The temple is located on the highest point of a ridge where the OT city of Jerusalem is located (Jebusite city, later the City of David). There are two accounts of the purchase of the land: the threshing floors of Araunah (2 Sam. 24:18–25) and of Ornan (1 Chron. 21:15–30; 2 Chron. 3:1 [here the NIV supplies “Araunah,” but see, e.g., the NET, NASB, ESV]). It is possible that Araunah and Ornan were kin, but most likely they are the same person, with Samuel and Chronicles using variant names. However, the two accounts disagree further on the amount paid for the land: fifty silver shekels (2 Sam. 24:24) and six hundred shekels of gold (1 Chron. 21:25). One theory explains this discrepancy as arising from two separate transactions. First, David purchased the threshing floor to build an altar to Yahweh, and he later purchased the whole mountain to build a temple. Later tradition associates the hill where David built an altar with the location where earlier Abraham built an altar to sacrifice Isaac (Mount Moriah).

Construction and dimensions. Solomon started to build during the fourth year of his reign (2 Chron. 3:1), and construction lasted for seven years. The plan of the temple was revealed to Solomon during a night in the sanctuary at Gibeon (2 Chron. 1:7–13). The king obtained building materials, specifically cedar from Lebanon (2 Chron. 2:3–10), and construction and design expertise from Phoenician artisans (1 Kings 7:13–14, 45). The Solomonic temple consisted of a tripartite plan similar to other temples in Syro-Palestine during this period. There are two accounts for the construction and dedication of the first temple (1 Kings 6–8; 2 Chron. 3–7). Both accounts offer similar descriptions but there are some differences in measurements. Most scholars account for these differences by viewing the dimensions in the book of Chronicles as reflecting the temple measurements after Hezekiah’s repair and rebuilding projects.

The basic plan was a rectangle, 70 cubits long (120 ft. 7 in.) and 20 cubits wide (34 ft. 5 in.) on a straight axis facing east; the height was 30 cubits (51 ft. 7 in.). These measurements refer to the inside dimensions (1 cubit = 20.67 in.). The three distinct architectural units formed three distinct rooms where various functions were performed and also reflected levels of holiness. The three units were the ’ulam (“porch” or “vestibule”), the hekal (“cella” or “nave”), and the debir (the innermost sanctuary, the most holy place). In the biblical accounts the whole building is called the “house [bayit] of the Lord,” and the word “temple” is used for the hekal. There was a three-story structure built around the sides and back of the temple (see below).

The porch was 10 cubits (17 ft. 2 in.) by 20 cubits (34 ft. 5 in.). The account in Kings does not provide its height; the account in Chronicles gives the height as 120 cubits. In its description and measurements in the biblical text, the porch is considered separate from the temple (bayit, house). The porch contained two pillars of bronze: yakin (“he will establish”) on the right side and bo’az (“in strength”) on the left (see Boaz; Jakin). The pillars were bronze, 18 cubits (35 cubits in Chronicles) in height, with elaborate double capitals. The bottom capital was 5 cubits, round in shape, and surrounded by nets with pomegranates. Above this was another capital, 4 cubits high, shaped like a lily.

The hekal was 40 cubits long and 20 cubits wide and was the only part with windows (1 Kings 6:4). The debir was a cube, 20 cubits per side. The debir is also called the “holy of holies.” The difference in height (10 cubits shorter than the hekal  ) is due to the rise in the bedrock. This measurement is confirmed today in the interior of the Dome of the Rock.

The walls of the house (hekal and debir) were built of whole stones dressed in the quarry, as “no hammer, chisel or any other iron tool was heard at the temple site while it was being built” (1 Kings 6:7). The roof was made of cedar wood (1 Kings 6:10), with crossbeams and intersecting boards. The stone walls were covered from ground to ceiling with boards of cedar wood, and the floor was made of cypress wood, covered with gold (1 Kings 6:30). The wood had carved engravings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. The hekal and the debir were separated by a partition made of olive wood.

The three-story structure surrounding the temple was constructed of cedar wood. Each story was 5 cubits. The width of the first floor was 5 cubits, the middle 6 cubits, and the top 7 cubits. This structure was entered from the right side of the temple, and the floors were connected by openings with ladders. This structure formed chambers and storage for the activities of the priests.

In front of the temple was a courtyard surrounded by a wall. Inside the courtyard was a great bronze basin (known as “the Sea”). This basin rested on the backs of twelve bronze oxen. Ten smaller basins in groups of five were set on elaborate wheeled stands. A large altar also was located in this courtyard.

In the holy of holies stood two large cherubim of olive wood covered with gold. They were 10 cubits in height, with a wingspan of 10 cubits. These cherubim stood over the ark of the covenant. In the hekal were the golden altar, the golden table, and ten lampstands.

History. From Solomon to Zedekiah, the temple was used for political and religious power shifts. Kings of Israel raided the temple treasury to pay off invaders, closed the temple, or placed idols in the temple in periods of apostasy. During periods of reform they repaired and rebuilt the temple and its furnishings.

Under Rehoboam’s reign, Shishak king of Egypt ransacked the temple and removed all its treasures (1 Kings 14:25–28; 2 Chron. 12:9). Asa and his father, Abijah, added to the treasure of the temple with silver, gold, and other vessels (2 Chron. 15:18) but used these to pay Ben-Hadad of Syria to help him fight Baasha king of Israel (16:2–3). Asa’s son Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 17) ruled during a time of prosperity and reform. It was under his rule that the court in front of the temple probably was enlarged (20:5). The sons of Athaliah broke into the temple and worshiped Baal. During the reign of Amaziah the temple was plundered by Jehoash king of Israel (2 Chron. 25). Uzziah ruled for a long period of prosperity (787–736 BC) but attempted to burn incense on the altar in the hekal, a ritual kept solely for the priests. A later king, Jotham, built the Upper Gate of the house of Yahweh (2 Kings 15:35; 2 Chron. 27:3). Jotham’s son Ahaz took the silver and gold from the temple and sent it as a present to the king of Assyria. He moved and changed various vessels of the temple and shut its doors (2 Chron. 28:24).

Hezekiah son of Ahaz ruled during a time of prosperity and revival. He reopened the temple doors (2 Chron. 29), cleaned out the temple, and created a 500-cubit-square mount around the temple. Hezekiah conducted many building projects in Jerusalem and reforms throughout the land. He also “stripped off the gold with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the temple of the Lord” to pay a ransom to Sennacherib king of Assyria (2 Kings 18:16). Due to his building activities, most scholars attribute major changes to the temple to Hezekiah’s reign. The differences in the temple descriptions in Kings and Chronicles probably reflect two different periods of history concerning the temple (e.g., Kings represents the temple during the period of Solomon, while Chronicles represents the changes to the temple by Hezekiah). Manasseh, Hezekiah’s son, undid the work of his father by building altars in the temple.

The last resurgence of the temple in the life of the people of Israel was under Josiah. He instigated a reform throughout the land and a cleansing of the temple. Hilkiah the high priest found a copy of the “Book of the Law” (2 Kings 22:8). After a reading of the law in the public square, a collection was taken from the people to be given to workers for temple repair. The Babylonians took some of the temple treasure (2 Chron. 36:7) under the rule of Jehoiakim. The last two kings of Judah, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, also lost temple treasure to Babylon, and eventually the temple was destroyed during the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC (2 Chron. 36).

Second Temple: Zerubbabel and the Temple of Herod the Great

Zerubbabel’s temple. Solomon’s temple was rebuilt by the Jews who returned from exile under the decree of the Persian king Darius (Ezra 6:1–5). The temple was built under the direction of the governor Zerubbabel with the support of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 6:13–18) and was dedicated in 515 BC. This would have been a poorer temple due to the poverty of the inhabitants of Judah. During the Hasmonean period (152–37 BC) a platform and a fortress were constructed. Not much is known about the temple during this period. It would be greatly eclipsed by the work of Herod the Great.

Temple of Herod the Great. Herod invested heavily in building projects throughout his kingdom. He was keen on bringing Hellenistic culture to the Jews but also on upholding traditional Jewish religious practices, especially when it came to the temple. Just as the first temple mimicked the religious architecture of the ancient Near East, the second temple reflected the massive sacred architecture of the classical world. John 2:20 indicates that thus far it had taken forty-six years (beyond Herod’s life) to build. Herod could not alter the dimensions of the temple, but he was able to make additions to the outside, alter its outer furnishings, and expand the compound and platform to match the grandeur of Greco-Roman temples. Today scholars refer to all these buildings and the temple as the Temple Mount complex.

Herod expanded the space of the Temple Mount by building a “box” around the mountain. This was a massive wall with varying height due to the topography. This wall is still visible today, especially the current religious site of the Western Wall. This construction allowed for a level platform with various buildings and plazas on the top. The leveling was done by filling in the gaps and building subterranean arches in low areas. One of these areas is located on the southeast corner (the underground arched supports are erroneously called “Solomon’s Stables” today). The whole area was surrounded by a colonnaded portico (Solomon’s Colonnade [John 10:23; Acts 3:11; 5:12]). On the northwest corner was the Antonia Fortress (Acts 21:35), and the southern end of the complex contained the Royal Stoa, a basilica-style building (four rows of forty columns) that housed the Sanhedrin and had other religious and political functions (Luke 22:66).

This complex became the religious and political center of the city of Jerusalem, and Herod built many auxiliary components. Several entrances and bridges from the Upper City were built. The public entered the complex from the south. A southern complex consisting of monumental stairs (210 feet wide) and entrance and exit gates (Double and Triple Gates) took pedestrians from the outside up through underground tunnels to the top of the temple compound. These stairs became an area for public forums. In addition, several shops (Mark 11:15–17) were built around the complex, as well as a large bathhouse for ritual cleansing. In order to facilitate the many sacrifices, Herod built a complex hydrologic system that brought water into the city. This was accomplished by various aqueducts and storage pools. The Temple Mount had many cisterns and a new pool on the northeast end of the Temple Mount complex, the Pool of Israel. Although Herod could not alter the dimensions of the temple itself, he was able to enlarge the facade, added storage chambers and auxiliary buildings, build a second story above the temple, and construct several courtyards and various buildings associated with them. In keeping with the earlier tripartite level of holiness, these additional temple buildings and courtyards retained the same linear degree of holiness and exclusion.

Josephus called Herod’s temple “a structure more noteworthy than any under the sun” (Ant. 15.412). Herod built a new monumental facade in front of the existing temple and added a second story. Herod’s temple measured 100 cubits (172 ft.) in all three dimensions. It stood on top of a foundation that gave it added height. It had two stories, each one 45 cubits (77.5 ft.) in height. On the roof was a parapet, 3 cubits in height, which contained golden spikes, 1 cubit in height, to prevent birds from perching on the roof’s edge. The temple was decorated with gold overlay. The opening between the ’ulam (“porch”) and the sanctuary was 20 cubits high and 10 cubits wide (34 ft. by 17 ft.). There were two sets of double folding doors. The sanctuary contained the golden menorah, the table of the bread of the Presence, and the altar of incense. Between the sanctuary and the holy of holies was a large tapestry (veil) (Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). The holy of holies had gold plating on its walls. Around the temple were thirty-eight cells built in three stories (m. Mid. 4:3–4). All of the cells were interconnected by openings between adjoining cells and by one in the ceiling to reach the cell above. To the north, between the outer wall of the temple and the cells, was an inner stairway with access to the top of the temple and the upper chamber (second story of the temple). The upper chamber allowed priests to service the holy of holies. They would be suspended in baskets, covered on three sides, through openings in the floor to clean the gold overlay in the holy of holies.

The temple courtyard was surrounded by various gates and buildings. These were specific entrances and buildings that the priests used for the various functions of the sacrifices and offerings (Mark 13:1–2). These included the Kindling Gate, Wood Chamber, Gate of the Firstlings, Golah Chamber, Water Gate, Chamber of the Hearth, Gate of Jeconiah, Rinsing Chamber, Gate of the Offering-Women, Salt-Parva Chamber, and Gate of the Flame-Singers. In front of the temple were two narrow courts: the court of the priests to the west and the court of the Israelites (men) to the east. Inside the temple court was the altar of burnt offering. During the Second Temple period it was a stationary, square-shaped altar constructed of unhewn stones. According to the Mishnah (m. Mid. 3:1), this altar was 32 cubits square at the base and about 10 cubits in height. A ramp 32 cubits long, also built of unhewn stones, led the priests up to the altar from the south. A laver, the great bronze basin known as “the Sea,” stood west of the altar between the altar and the temple porch (’ulam) for the washing of hands and feet. North of the altar was the place of slaughtering.

The court of the women, 135 cubits square, was in front of the temple to the east. This court had four smaller courts, one at each corner. Women could enter the temple only as far as this court. It was surrounded by a colonnade. Inside these porches (porticoes) were thirteen collection boxes for money. This is where Jesus saw the poor widow donating two copper coins (Luke 21:1–3). The court had four large lampstands nearly half the height of the temple. The Mishnah states that each of the corner chambers was 40 cubits square and roofless. The central area was exposed to the sky, with a portico around each courtyard—typical of Mediterranean buildings. The chamber to the immediate right of the court’s entrance (northeast) was the chamber of the woodshed, where priests examined logs for impurities (e.g., parasites). To the left (southeast) was the chamber of the Nazirites. To the northwest was the chamber of the lepers. A leper who had been healed brought an offering and then bathed in this chamber before coming to the priests for the performance of rituals. In the southwest corner was the chamber of the house of oil. Between the court of the women and the temple court was the Nicanor Gate. Fifteen semicircular steps led up to this gate. It was on these steps that the Levites sang the fifteen Psalms of Ascent (Pss. 120–134).

Surrounding the temple and the court of the women was a balustrade or railing that served as a boundary beyond which no Gentile could enter. Outside this boundary was the court of the Gentiles (see John 12:20–22; Acts 21:27–29). Archaeologists have found an inscription that forbids Gentiles, upon pain of death, to enter any farther. Herod’s temple was destroyed in AD 70. The Temple Mount continued to be used and considered sacred, as Roman temples, Crusader churches, and Muslim shrines marked the sacredness of the location.

Role of the Temple

The temple was the dwelling place of Yahweh. It was the domain of the religious leaders, priests, and Levites. It also represented the relationship/covenant between God and the nation of Israel. Various kings used the temple for their political maneuvering and attempts to shift the religious worship of the nation. The temple was the visible presence of God and embodied the political and religious aspirations of the people. The temple sat on top of a sacred mountain.

During turbulent political times the temple was central to God’s protection and judgment. From the Babylonian and Roman periods, two texts spoke of a future temple. Ezekiel’s vision saw a futuristic temple measuring 500 cubits square surrounded by a massive court measuring 3,000 cubits square (Ezek. 40:1–47:12). Among the DSS, the Temple Scroll also talks about a rebuilt temple. Today many Christians and Jews look to a future rebuilding of the temple.

(1) A son of Kohath, grandson of Levi, and uncle of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (Exod. 6:18; Num. 3:19; 1 Chron. 6:2).

(2) The son of Mareshah, and either the grandson or great-great-grandson of Caleb (1 Chron. 2:42).

(3) A city located in the Judean hills eighteen miles south-southeast of Jerusalem, identified with modern El-Khalil in the West Bank, in an area well supplied with water from nearby wells and springs. There are several archaeological sites in the vicinity, but biblical Hebron has been positively identified with Tel Hebron (Jebel er-Rumeidah). Excavations there uncovered evidence of intermittent occupation ranging from the Early Bronze Age I (3300–3000 BC) to the Late Arab period (AD 1291–1516). Significant finds include a city wall from the Middle Bronze Age II (2000–1550 BC), an Akkadian cuneiform tablet, and five jar handles bearing the royal lmlk (“for the king”) stamp.

Hebron (also known as Kiriath Arba) played a significant role in OT narratives. After Lot chose to dwell in Sodom, Abram settled near the oaks of Mamre in Hebron (Gen. 13:18). When Sarah died, Abraham purchased land in Hebron for her burial (Gen. 23). Both Isaac and Jacob lived in Hebron, and from there Jacob sent Joseph to inquire about his brothers’ welfare (35:27; 37:14). When Moses sent twelve spies into the promised land, their glimpse of the large inhabitants of Hebron significantly influenced their negative report about the prospects for invasion (Num. 13:22, 33).

During the period of the conquest, Hebron’s king was among five kings whom Joshua killed after they attacked Gibeon (Josh. 10). Joshua went on to fight at Hebron, destroying the city and its Anakite inhabitants (11:21). The city was then deeded to Caleb (15:13), but later it was given to the Levites and became a city of refuge (20:7; 21:13).

Hebron played a prominent role during the united monarchy. After Saul died, God instructed David to go to Hebron. There the men of Judah anointed him as king, and he reigned from there for seven and a half years (2 Sam. 2:1–11). During this time, several sons were born to David in Hebron, and it was there that Joab, David’s commander, murdered Abner in revenge for his brother’s death (2 Sam. 3; 1 Chron. 3:1–4). When David’s authority became widely recognized, the elders of all the Israelite tribes came to Hebron and anointed him king over all Israel. He then moved his capital to Jerusalem after capturing it from the Jebusites (2 Sam. 5:1–10; 1 Chron. 11:1–9). When Absalom later conspired to become king, he chose Hebron as his headquarters (2 Sam. 15:1–10).

Hebron is next mentioned as one of the cities that Rehoboam fortified for the defense of Judah (2 Chron. 11:10) and as one of the locations where returning exiles settled (Neh. 11:25). During the Hasmonean period, Judas Maccabeus gained control over Hebron from the Edomites (Idumeans) (1 Macc. 5:65).

(1) A son of Kohath, grandson of Levi, and uncle of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (Exod. 6:18; Num. 3:19; 1 Chron. 6:2).

(2) The son of Mareshah, and either the grandson or great-great-grandson of Caleb (1 Chron. 2:42).

(3) A city located in the Judean hills eighteen miles south-southeast of Jerusalem, identified with modern El-Khalil in the West Bank, in an area well supplied with water from nearby wells and springs. There are several archaeological sites in the vicinity, but biblical Hebron has been positively identified with Tel Hebron (Jebel er-Rumeidah). Excavations there uncovered evidence of intermittent occupation ranging from the Early Bronze Age I (3300–3000 BC) to the Late Arab period (AD 1291–1516). Significant finds include a city wall from the Middle Bronze Age II (2000–1550 BC), an Akkadian cuneiform tablet, and five jar handles bearing the royal lmlk (“for the king”) stamp.

Hebron (also known as Kiriath Arba) played a significant role in OT narratives. After Lot chose to dwell in Sodom, Abram settled near the oaks of Mamre in Hebron (Gen. 13:18). When Sarah died, Abraham purchased land in Hebron for her burial (Gen. 23). Both Isaac and Jacob lived in Hebron, and from there Jacob sent Joseph to inquire about his brothers’ welfare (35:27; 37:14). When Moses sent twelve spies into the promised land, their glimpse of the large inhabitants of Hebron significantly influenced their negative report about the prospects for invasion (Num. 13:22, 33).

During the period of the conquest, Hebron’s king was among five kings whom Joshua killed after they attacked Gibeon (Josh. 10). Joshua went on to fight at Hebron, destroying the city and its Anakite inhabitants (11:21). The city was then deeded to Caleb (15:13), but later it was given to the Levites and became a city of refuge (20:7; 21:13).

Hebron played a prominent role during the united monarchy. After Saul died, God instructed David to go to Hebron. There the men of Judah anointed him as king, and he reigned from there for seven and a half years (2 Sam. 2:1–11). During this time, several sons were born to David in Hebron, and it was there that Joab, David’s commander, murdered Abner in revenge for his brother’s death (2 Sam. 3; 1 Chron. 3:1–4). When David’s authority became widely recognized, the elders of all the Israelite tribes came to Hebron and anointed him king over all Israel. He then moved his capital to Jerusalem after capturing it from the Jebusites (2 Sam. 5:1–10; 1 Chron. 11:1–9). When Absalom later conspired to become king, he chose Hebron as his headquarters (2 Sam. 15:1–10).

Hebron is next mentioned as one of the cities that Rehoboam fortified for the defense of Judah (2 Chron. 11:10) and as one of the locations where returning exiles settled (Neh. 11:25). During the Hasmonean period, Judas Maccabeus gained control over Hebron from the Edomites (Idumeans) (1 Macc. 5:65).

An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationship between a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.

Theology of Marriage

The biblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, which establishes a number of important points relating to marriage.

First, in Gen. 2:18 God highlights the first expressed inadequacy within creation: the man is alone. The solution to the man’s solitude is found not among the animals (a fact demonstrated by the careful search expressed by having the man name each of them) but in a creature specifically created to address the problem of his solitude: woman. She is created from his “rib” (a better translation is “side”), so that she is more like him than any of the animals. In spite of this, she is not a clone, but rather a complement to him. She is described as a “helper suitable for him,” which highlights her fulfillment of the inadequacy God had previously identified.

Second, the role of the wife is not restricted to providing a means by which to fulfill the command to fill the earth (through bearing children), for the problem identified in Gen. 2:18 cannot be reduced to this alone. The OT establishes that human beings are relational and social, and that isolation is not good, quite aside from considerations relating to childbearing. Indeed, when marriage is employed as a metaphor for the relationship between God and his people (see below), it can be conceptualized quite apart from the notion of procreation, suggesting that the latter should not be considered the primary purpose of marriage.

Third, Gen. 2:23 describes the relationship between the man and the woman in terms strongly reminiscent of the traditional kinship formula used with reference to family members elsewhere in the OT: “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (cf., e.g., Gen. 29:14; Judg. 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1; 19:13–14—similar to the modern English expression “my flesh and blood”; see also Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31). Although “be united” (other translations use “cleave”) and “one flesh” are frequently understood to refer to sexual union, this is not the only, or even the primary, implication of the words. Genesis 2:24 expresses the unification of the husband and the wife as the antithesis of the man’s leaving his father and mother. These terms (“leave” or “forsake,” “be united” or “cleave”) are used elsewhere in covenantal contexts. “Cleave” is usually used of people in the sense of clinging to another out of affection and loyalty (Gen. 34:3; Ruth 1:14; 2 Sam. 20:2; 1 Kings 11:2). It is also frequently used of Israel clinging to God (Deut. 10:20; 11:22; 13:5; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8). “Forsake” is used of breaking covenants (Deut. 12:19; 14:27; 29:25; Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17, 19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:9). The verb also appears in the context of marital divorce in Prov. 2:16–17; Isa. 54:6; 62:4.

The implication of Gen. 2:24 is that the man was formerly “united” to his parents in a familial relationship, but when he marries, the covenantal relationship with his parents is superseded by the new relationship with his wife. Thus, in establishing the covenantal relationship of marriage, the man and the woman form a new family unit (they become “one flesh,” which parallels the kinship formula more fully expressed in Gen. 2:23). It is noteworthy that Gen. 2 thus defines a family as husband and wife; a family is formed before any children are born. Furthermore, the emphasis on the priority of the relationship between husband and wife is particularly striking, given both the importance of honoring one’s parents (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) and the distinctly patrilocal nature of inheritance whereby sons would remain in the parents’ household after marriage and ultimately inherit a share of it, but daughters would leave their parents’ house to be with their husbands.

Fourth, the description of the woman as the man’s “helper” cannot alone be used to demonstrate that the wife’s role was either subordinate or superior to her husband’s. Although the term is elsewhere often used as a description of God, it is also used of subordinate helpers, and other contextual indications determine the relative status of the helper aside from the use of the term itself.

Marriage in the Old Testament

The Bible presents few formal legal, liturgical, or cultic requirements for marriage (whereas there are specific laws dealing with divorce), although it does record some details of specific marriages from which some insight into marriage practices can be gleaned. Marriages often were established through an arrangement between the parents of the husband and those of the wife or between the husband and the parents of his prospective wife (e.g., Gen. 24; 38:6), but there appears to be some diversity, with examples of a man choosing his own wife (e.g., Judah in Gen. 38:2) or instances when the consent of the woman is sought (e.g., Gen. 24:8, 58). The requirement of a formal certificate for divorce (Deut. 24:1, 3), together with examples of marriage contracts from the ancient Near East, are possible evidence that marriage within Israel required certification, although there is no explicit confirmation of this in the OT or in Israel prior to the rabbinic period. The marriages recorded in the OT often involved feasts of varying duration (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:12), the bride being accompanied to her home in a festive procession that included music and singing (Ps. 78:63; Jer. 7:34; 16:9), and a blessing pronounced over the bride that she might bear many children (Gen. 24:60; Ruth 4:11). Deuteronomy 22:15 suggests that evidence of the bride’s virginity was retained by the wife’s family to guard against false accusations by a husband seeking divorce.

Another aspect of marriage that appears to have been normative although not legislated was the payment of a mohar, or “bride-price” (Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1 Sam. 18:25), as well as the provision of a dowry (1 Kings 9:16). The former was a payment made by the groom’s family to the bride’s family, the latter an amount given by the father to his daughter. Typically, the former appears to have exceeded the latter in value. The bride-price, at least in later times, functioned as insurance should the wife be divorced.

The Bible does not issue any specific age constraints upon those being married, indicating that the OT practice probably did not differ significantly from that of other nations in the ancient Near East, where girls were considered ready for marriage once they had reached puberty or the age of twelve, and boys were generally slightly older. Constraints were placed on the eligibility of marriage partners, and generally marriages were endogamous: marriage partners were chosen from within the clan, tribe, or nation (e.g., Gen. 24:1–9; 27:46–28:5; cf. Deut. 7:3, which prohibits marriage with some, but not all, foreigners, and Deut. 21:10–14, which permits Israelite warriors to take a wife from among female prisoners of war). While there were exceptions to this constraint (e.g., Moses married a Midianite; Bathsheba was married to a Hittite; Boaz married Ruth, a Moabite), in later times the restriction was given legal sanction under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:2, 12; Neh. 13:25; cf. Luke 14:26; 18:29).

In spite of the likelihood that many marriages in the OT and the ancient world in general were arranged, the notion of romantic love as both an ideal for marriage and a basis for choosing one’s spouse clearly was known and even regarded as desirable. This is reflected in the approbation given romantic love in Song of Songs as well as in stories such as that of Jacob (Gen. 29:18; see also Judg. 14:1–3; 1 Sam. 18:20).

Socially, marriage was of particular import for a woman in the ancient world, for her well-being usually depended on her place within the house of either her father or her husband. Because inheritance was passed down the male line, women without connection to the house of a man were in a very tenuous state. Inheritance itself was also an important issue in the ancient world, and so great value was placed not just on marriage but also on bearing children (particularly male [see also Firstborn]). Associated with these social functions of marriage in ancient Israel is the fact that the OT permits and records a number of instances of polygamy (always polygyny, never polyandry). This afforded social security to widows (see also Levirate Law, Levirate Marriage) and helped ensure the line of inheritance. It should be noted, however, that neither the welfare aspect of marriage nor the related acceptance of polygamy is based on the biblical foundation for marriage in Gen. 2, and consequently, polygamy does not reflect the biblical ideal for marriage.

The fundamental importance of the marriage relationship is also highlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g., Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).

Marriage in the New Testament

Jesus reinforces the importance of marriage, emphasizing its divine origin and lifelong nature (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9) as well as its inviolability (Mark 10:2–12). In light of this, Jesus’ assertion that at the resurrection there will be no marriage is surprising (Matt. 22:30). Although Jesus offers no explanation as to why there will be no marriage following the resurrection, it is perhaps likely that the fundamental need identified by God in Gen. 2:18 (the man was alone) will be solved in a different manner in the age to come: the intimate help and companionship ideally found in marriage will be provided in perfected relationship with God and all others.

Paul elaborates somewhat on marriage in the Christian community. Christian marriage ought to be characterized by mutual submission in some respects (1 Cor. 7:4; Eph. 5:21) while reflecting some asymmetrical aspects of the relationship between Christ and the church in others (Eph. 5:22–33). Christians ought to marry within the church (2 Cor. 6:14–18, although this passage is not restricted to marriage); however, those who are married to nonbelievers are not to seek divorce, but are to remain faithful to their spouses for the sake of both the spouse and their children (1 Cor. 7:10–16).

The NT makes reference to some of the marriage customs of the day, including sharing a feast (Matt. 22:2–12; Luke 12:36; John 2:1–11), the expectation that guests be suitably attired (Matt. 22:11–12), and a procession to the groom’s home (Matt. 25:1–13; Luke 12:35–38).

Symbolic Use of Marriage

Marriage is used figuratively in both Testaments. The relationship between God and his people is described with marriage language (Isa. 62:4–5; Jer. 2:2). By using such language, the prophets emphasize the intimacy and unity inherent in the relationship between God and his chosen people, as well as the devastating betrayal when the covenant is broken. The use of the marriage metaphor is thus extended to the use of divorce language to describe God’s treatment of unfaithful Israel (Jer. 3:8), and the notion of adultery and promiscuity is equated with the worship of foreign gods (Ezek. 16; 23). The prophet Hosea’s marriage is itself a graphic representation of God’s relationship with his people and, in particular, their faithlessness; however, it also holds out the anticipation of a new covenant, one wherein God declares, “You will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master’ ” (Hos. 2:16). The metaphorical use of marriage to image the relationship between God and his people also reflects the implicit belief in the asymmetrical nature of the relationship between husband and wife in the ancient world.

The NT primarily identifies the church as the bride and Christ as the husband when using marriage language figuratively (e.g., Eph. 5:22–33). In so doing, the NT affirms Christ’s deity by explicitly depicting him in the place occupied by God in the OT’s use of marriage symbolism. Jesus uses marriage in his parabolic teaching about the kingdom of God (Matt. 22:2–14; 25:1–12), as well as in reference to himself as bridegroom when explaining the behavior of his disciples (Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35). Revelation depicts the return of Christ as the time of the marriage between the bride and the bridegroom (Rev. 19:7; 21:9).

Terminology

The word “Palestine” is derived from the name of one of the Sea Peoples (Heb. pelishtim) who migrated to the southern coastal region of the Fertile Crescent from one or more of the coastal regions of the Mediterranean (see Philistines).

The word “Palestine” has at times been used to refer to an area as small as this southwestern coastal region (functioning at times as a synonym for “Philistia”) and as large as the land on both sides of the Jordan River, including the Negev in the south.

Most English versions of the Bible do not mention “Palestine,” although in the KJV the Hebrew word peleshet (usually rendered “Philistia” or “Philistines”) is translated as “Palestina” in Exod. 15:14; Isa. 14:29, 31 and as “Palestine” in Joel 3:4.

Other designations of this region within the Scripture include “Canaan” (Gen. 10:19; Josh. 22:9), “the land” (Gen. 13:17; Josh. 2:1), “the land of Canaan” (Gen. 17:8; Num. 13:2), “the land of the Hebrews” (Gen. 40:15), “the land . . . promised on oath” (Gen. 50:24; Deut. 6:23), in various combinations and order “the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites, Periz-zites, Jebusites, and Girgashites” (Exod. 3:17; 13:5; 23:23), “the Lord’s land” (Josh. 22:19), “the land of Israel” (1 Sam. 13:19; Ezek. 47:18), and “Trans-Euphrates,” which was “beyond the river” from the perspective of those in Persia (Ezra 4:10; Neh. 2:7). Compare also “the tribes of Israel” (2 Sam. 24:2; Ezek. 47:13), “Israel and Judah” (2 Sam. 5:5; 2 Chron. 30:6), and “from Dan to Beersheba” (Judg. 20:1; 1 Kings 4:25).

In the NT, this territory is usually designated by reference to the provinces of Judea and Galilee (Matt. 2:22; John 7:1), which sometimes are mentioned with the Decapolis (Matt. 4:25) and Samaria (Acts 9:31; cf. Luke 3:1).

Boundaries and Size

Boundaries. Palestine is in the southwestern portion of the Fertile Crescent (i.e., western Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel). It is located northeast of the Nile River basin and west-southwest of the basins of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Generally speaking, it is bounded by Lebanon to the north, the Mediterranean Sea (= the Sea, the Great Sea, or the western sea) on the west, Wadi el-Arish (= the river of Egypt, the Wadi of Egypt) in the southwest, the Sinai Peninsula in the south, and the Transjordan in the east (Gen. 15:18; Num. 34:3–7, 11–12; Deut. 1:7; 11:24; 34:2; Josh. 1:4; 11:16; 2 Kings 24:7). When the Transjordan is considered part of Palestine (cf. Deut. 34:1), the eastern boundary is the Syrian (Syro-Arabian) Desert. In several biblical texts the northeast boundary of this region is “the great river, the Euphrates” (Gen. 15:18; Deut. 1:7; 11:24; Josh. 1:4; 1 Chron. 5:9; cf. 2 Sam. 8:3).

Size. Because of fluidity in the use of the term “Palestine,” it is difficult to speak precisely of the land area designated by it. Palestine west of the Jordan River is about six thousand square miles, similar to the land area of the state of Hawaii.

A description of “the whole land” viewed by Moses included both the Negev and Gilead, part of the Transjordan (Deut. 34:1–3). In the OT, the Negev is regularly included as one of the regions of the land on the west side of the Jordan (Deut. 1:7; Josh. 10:40; 11:16; Jer. 17:26). The unity of the land on both sides of the Jordan is reflected in texts that focus on Israel’s inheritance of land (Deut. 3:12–17), cities of refuge (Num. 35:14; Josh. 20:7–8), and military victories (Josh. 12:1–8; 24:8–13).

The land area of Palestine increases considerably if one includes these areas, for the Transjordan region is about 4,000 square miles, while the Negev is about 4,600 square miles.

Topographical Regions

Frequent seismic activity, the rising and falling of the landmass, and deposits from the inundation and withdrawal of seas produced seven topographical regions current in Palestine.

Coastal plain. The coastal plain is the fertile terrain bordering the Mediterranean, though the coastline itself consists of beaches, sand dunes, wetlands, and rock cliffs.

The southern portion of the coastal plain was once inhabited by the Philistines (with the coastal cities of Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod). Moving north of the Yarkon River, we pass through the marshy Plain of Sharon and the Dor Plain. In the north, hills rise near Carmel and extend west to the central highlands. North of the Carmel range lie the Acco Plain, the Asher Plain, and the coastlands of Phoenicia (including Tyre and Sidon).

Hill country. The hill country is located between, and runs parallel to, the coastal plain on the west and the Jordan Valley on the east. The hills, ridges, plateaus, and valleys of the hill country are the setting for most of the OT narratives.

The hill country is bisected by the Jezreel Valley, which runs east-west from the Jordan Valley to the Bay of Acco (Haifa Bay), north of Carmel.

The hill country south of the Jezreel Valley is called “the central highlands,” which consist of the rough and rocky hills of Samaria in the north (such as Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal) and the more arid (and, historically, less populated) Judean hill country in the south. The highest hills of this area exceed three thousand feet.

In Scripture the southern hill country (or portions of it) is called “the hill country of Judah/Judea” (Josh. 11:21; Luke 1:39) and “the hill country of Bethel” (Josh. 16:1; 1 Sam. 13:2), while the northern (Samarian) hill country (or portions of it) is called “the hill country of Israel” (Josh. 11:21), “the hill country of Naphtali” (Josh. 20:7), and, most frequently, “the hill country of Ephraim” (Josh. 17:15; Judg. 2:9; 1 Kings 4:8).

The hill country north of the Jezreel Valley consists of two parts, Lower and Upper Galilee, divided by the fault through which runs Wadi esh-Shaghur. Lower Galilee has fertile basins and hills about two thousand feet above sea level. Farther north is Upper Galilee, with hills averaging about three thousand feet. It forms a transition to the mountains of Lebanon, which lie to the north.

The Shephelah (“lowland” or “piedmont”) is the region of gentle and rolling hills between five hundred and one thousand feet above sea level between the Judean hill country and the coastal plain. These hills formerly were covered with sycamore trees and provided Judeans with protection against an attack from the west.

Jezreel Valley. The Jezreel Valley is often equated with the Plain of Esdraelon, though some distinguish the fault basin (Esdraelon) from the rift valley (Jezreel).

On its west side, this fertile plain begins north of Carmel at the coast, moving east to the Jordan Valley. The central highlands lie to the north (Galilee) and south (Samaria) of this plain.

The fertile soil of this low-lying basin was valued for farming. Traders and armies regularly passed through this great plain, and it was often the place of military conflict (cf. Judg. 6:33; 1 Sam. 29:1, 11; Hos. 1:5).

Jordan Valley. The Jordan Valley (also known as the Jordan Rift Valley or the Dead Sea Rift) begins near the base of Mount Hermon in the north (9,232 feet). Moving south, the rift continues to the Hula Valley, through which the Jordan River flows to the Sea of Galilee (Sea of Gennesaret, Lake Kinnereth). The Sea of Galilee is about twelve miles long and five miles wide, located within an area of hills and valleys.

The Jordan River meanders south, flowing through a deep gorge and falling three thousand feet before coming to the Dead Sea (also called “the Sea of the Arabah” [Deut. 4:49; Josh. 3:16] and “the Salt Sea” [Num. 34:3, 12; Josh. 15:2, 5 ESV, NASB]), the lowest place on earth. At its lowest point, the Dead Sea is more than 2,600 feet below sea level.

The Jordan Valley rises as one continues south from the Dead Sea (forty-eight miles long and eight miles wide) through the arid Arabah (cf. Isa. 33:9; Zech. 14:10) to the Gulf of Aqaba.

The term “Arabah” is generally used to refer to the extension of the rift south of the Dead Sea, though at one time in the history of ancient Israel it referred to a region that included the Jordan Valley between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea, on both the east (Deut. 3:17; Josh. 12:1–3) and the west (Deut. 11:30; Josh. 11:2; Ezek. 47:8) sides of the Jordan River.

Transjordan. The Transjordan region is located east of the Jordan Valley and west of the Syrian (Syro-Arabian) Desert. Three major rivers run across this region, each moving from east to west. The Yarmouk (Yarmuk) and the Jabbok (Zarqa) rivers empty into the Jordan River, while the Arnon River (Wadi el-Mujib) flows into the Dead Sea.

In ancient Israel, regions of the Transjordan, from north to south, included Bashan (Karnaim), north of the Yarmuk River; Gilead, south of the Yarmuk; Ammon, the region of modern-day Amman, southeast of Gilead; Moab, south of the Arnon River; and Edom, south of Wadi el-Hesa (Zered River [cf. Num. 21:12; Deut. 2:13–14]).

The capture of the territory belonging to Sihon between the Jabbok and the Arnon rivers was a significant event in the history of ancient Israel (Num. 21:24; Josh. 12:1–2).

Although the Transjordan is often excluded from “Palestine,” there were times in biblical history when the land on both sides of the Jordan was considered a unit. For example, “the other half of Manasseh, the Reubenites and the Gadites” received their tribal inheritance east of the Jordan (cf. Josh. 13:8–32). They inhabited Bashan, Gilead, and the land of the Amorites (cf. Deut. 3:12–17; 34:1; Judg. 20:1).

According to 2 Sam. 8, David established control over Moab (vv. 2, 12), the Beqaa Valley (“along the Euphrates River” [v. 3 GW]), Aram (v. 6; vv. 12–13 MT), Ammon and Amalek (v. 12), and Edom (v. 14; vv. 12–13 LXX, Syriac; cf. 1 Chron. 18:2–13).

In Scripture, the central Transjordan hill country is sometimes called “the hill country of Gilead” (Gen. 31:21, 23, 25; Deut. 3:12). The southern elevated region in Edom is called “the hill country of Seir” (Gen. 36:8–9; Deut. 2:5).

Negev. The Negev (Negeb) is shaped like an inverted triangle with its peak at the southern city of Eilat (Elath) near the biblical Ezion Geber (cf. 1 Kings 9:26). It is bounded on the north by the Judean hill country, on the west by Sinai, and on the east by the Arabah Valley (which lies along the rift south of the Dead Sea).

The Negev is an extremely dry area, with the most rain found in the northern (twelve inches annually) and western (ten inches annually) sections, and the least in the Arabah Valley (two inches annually). It is a place of sand dunes, rocky desert, and brown hills that increase in height as one moves toward Sinai.

Although the Negev is described as “a land of hardship and distress, of lions and lionesses, of adders and darting snakes” (Isa. 30:6), it was also a place of wells and springs, in addition to cities and towns such as Beersheba (Josh. 15:21–32; 2 Sam. 24:7).

Sinai peninsula. The Sinai peninsula is about twenty-three thousand square miles. It consists primarily of plains, plateaus, and hills (the highest of which is Jebel Yiallaq, at 3,656 feet), with a coastline along the Mediterranean of 145 miles.

The longest river in the region is the Wadi el-Arish, which runs 155 miles northward from central Sinai to the Mediterranean.

Israel’s activities in the Desert of Sinai are often mentioned in the Pentateuch (e.g., Exod. 19:1–2; Num. 1:1; 9:5).

The Desert of Sinai is distinguished from the Desert of Sin (Exod. 16:1) and the Desert of Paran (Num. 10:12). Other arid areas within the Sinai Peninsula include the Desert of Zin (Num. 34:3), the Desert of Shur (Exod. 15:22), and the Desert of Etham (Num. 33:8).

Climate

The climate of Palestine consists of a dry and hot season from June to August and a wet season from mid-October to mid-April. It is common for the wet season to consist of two distinct periods of heavy rain, one at the beginning and one toward the end of this period (cf. “spring and autumn rains” [Deut. 11:14; Joel 2:23; James 5:7]).

Two transitional seasons of about six weeks each bridge the wet and the dry seasons. One occurs between early September and the end of October, the other between early April and the middle of June.

Average temperatures throughout the region range from 46.5–55 degrees (Fahrenheit) in January (both the coldest and the wettest month in Palestine) to 71.5–93 degrees in August.

Most rainfall in Palestine occurs as cyclonic storm systems (about twenty-five each year) bring warm air from North Africa eastward over the Mediterranean, clashing with cooler air from Europe and Asia. As clouds move over the land, precipitation falls heaviest on the west side of the hills, leaving the east side of the hills with less rain.

Typically, rainfall is heaviest in the northern areas of Palestine, the regions closest to the Mediterranean, and in the Transjordan. The area around the Dead Sea is extremely dry, with evaporation exceeding precipitation. In contrast, the northern highlands have forty inches of annual rainfall.

In Palestine, precipitation can also take the form of both snow (cf. 2 Sam. 23:20; Prov. 25:13) and, in a significant way, dew (cf. Judg. 6:37–40; Song 5:2). Dew provides moisture for agriculture especially in the coastal plain, the central highlands, and the Jezreel Valley.

During the transitional seasons, desiccating winds (sometimes called sirocco winds) bring warm desert air from the east (and at times from the south), raising the temperature and lowering the relative humidity throughout Palestine. These winds often bring fine dust from the desert. The effects are most onerous in the Jordan Valley. References to an east wind in Scripture are common (Gen. 41:6; Hos. 13:15; Jon. 4:8; see also “south wind” in Job 37:17; Luke 12:55).

Roads

Two major highways passed through Palestine: “the Way of the Sea,” or Via Maris (cf. Isa. 9:1; Matt. 4:15), and “the King’s Highway” (cf. Num. 20:17; 21:22).

The Way of the Sea moved north from Egypt through the coastal plain, heading east through the Jezreel Valley. From this point it branched out in three directions: northwest through Phoenicia, north toward Damascus, and east to join with the King’s Highway.

The King’s Highway was a Transjordanian route passing from the Gulf of Aqaba in the south (cf. Deut. 2:8) through Edom, Moab, Gilead, and Bashan to Damascus in the north.

Merchants and armies used these highways to pass through Palestine, while local traffic often used east-west roads to move throughout the area.

An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationship between a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.

Theology of Marriage

The biblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, which establishes a number of important points relating to marriage.

First, in Gen. 2:18 God highlights the first expressed inadequacy within creation: the man is alone. The solution to the man’s solitude is found not among the animals (a fact demonstrated by the careful search expressed by having the man name each of them) but in a creature specifically created to address the problem of his solitude: woman. She is created from his “rib” (a better translation is “side”), so that she is more like him than any of the animals. In spite of this, she is not a clone, but rather a complement to him. She is described as a “helper suitable for him,” which highlights her fulfillment of the inadequacy God had previously identified.

Second, the role of the wife is not restricted to providing a means by which to fulfill the command to fill the earth (through bearing children), for the problem identified in Gen. 2:18 cannot be reduced to this alone. The OT establishes that human beings are relational and social, and that isolation is not good, quite aside from considerations relating to childbearing. Indeed, when marriage is employed as a metaphor for the relationship between God and his people (see below), it can be conceptualized quite apart from the notion of procreation, suggesting that the latter should not be considered the primary purpose of marriage.

Third, Gen. 2:23 describes the relationship between the man and the woman in terms strongly reminiscent of the traditional kinship formula used with reference to family members elsewhere in the OT: “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (cf., e.g., Gen. 29:14; Judg. 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1; 19:13–14—similar to the modern English expression “my flesh and blood”; see also Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31). Although “be united” (other translations use “cleave”) and “one flesh” are frequently understood to refer to sexual union, this is not the only, or even the primary, implication of the words. Genesis 2:24 expresses the unification of the husband and the wife as the antithesis of the man’s leaving his father and mother. These terms (“leave” or “forsake,” “be united” or “cleave”) are used elsewhere in covenantal contexts. “Cleave” is usually used of people in the sense of clinging to another out of affection and loyalty (Gen. 34:3; Ruth 1:14; 2 Sam. 20:2; 1 Kings 11:2). It is also frequently used of Israel clinging to God (Deut. 10:20; 11:22; 13:5; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8). “Forsake” is used of breaking covenants (Deut. 12:19; 14:27; 29:25; Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17, 19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:9). The verb also appears in the context of marital divorce in Prov. 2:16–17; Isa. 54:6; 62:4.

The implication of Gen. 2:24 is that the man was formerly “united” to his parents in a familial relationship, but when he marries, the covenantal relationship with his parents is superseded by the new relationship with his wife. Thus, in establishing the covenantal relationship of marriage, the man and the woman form a new family unit (they become “one flesh,” which parallels the kinship formula more fully expressed in Gen. 2:23). It is noteworthy that Gen. 2 thus defines a family as husband and wife; a family is formed before any children are born. Furthermore, the emphasis on the priority of the relationship between husband and wife is particularly striking, given both the importance of honoring one’s parents (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) and the distinctly patrilocal nature of inheritance whereby sons would remain in the parents’ household after marriage and ultimately inherit a share of it, but daughters would leave their parents’ house to be with their husbands.

Fourth, the description of the woman as the man’s “helper” cannot alone be used to demonstrate that the wife’s role was either subordinate or superior to her husband’s. Although the term is elsewhere often used as a description of God, it is also used of subordinate helpers, and other contextual indications determine the relative status of the helper aside from the use of the term itself.

Marriage in the Old Testament

The Bible presents few formal legal, liturgical, or cultic requirements for marriage (whereas there are specific laws dealing with divorce), although it does record some details of specific marriages from which some insight into marriage practices can be gleaned. Marriages often were established through an arrangement between the parents of the husband and those of the wife or between the husband and the parents of his prospective wife (e.g., Gen. 24; 38:6), but there appears to be some diversity, with examples of a man choosing his own wife (e.g., Judah in Gen. 38:2) or instances when the consent of the woman is sought (e.g., Gen. 24:8, 58). The requirement of a formal certificate for divorce (Deut. 24:1, 3), together with examples of marriage contracts from the ancient Near East, are possible evidence that marriage within Israel required certification, although there is no explicit confirmation of this in the OT or in Israel prior to the rabbinic period. The marriages recorded in the OT often involved feasts of varying duration (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:12), the bride being accompanied to her home in a festive procession that included music and singing (Ps. 78:63; Jer. 7:34; 16:9), and a blessing pronounced over the bride that she might bear many children (Gen. 24:60; Ruth 4:11). Deuteronomy 22:15 suggests that evidence of the bride’s virginity was retained by the wife’s family to guard against false accusations by a husband seeking divorce.

Another aspect of marriage that appears to have been normative although not legislated was the payment of a mohar, or “bride-price” (Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1 Sam. 18:25), as well as the provision of a dowry (1 Kings 9:16). The former was a payment made by the groom’s family to the bride’s family, the latter an amount given by the father to his daughter. Typically, the former appears to have exceeded the latter in value. The bride-price, at least in later times, functioned as insurance should the wife be divorced.

The Bible does not issue any specific age constraints upon those being married, indicating that the OT practice probably did not differ significantly from that of other nations in the ancient Near East, where girls were considered ready for marriage once they had reached puberty or the age of twelve, and boys were generally slightly older. Constraints were placed on the eligibility of marriage partners, and generally marriages were endogamous: marriage partners were chosen from within the clan, tribe, or nation (e.g., Gen. 24:1–9; 27:46–28:5; cf. Deut. 7:3, which prohibits marriage with some, but not all, foreigners, and Deut. 21:10–14, which permits Israelite warriors to take a wife from among female prisoners of war). While there were exceptions to this constraint (e.g., Moses married a Midianite; Bathsheba was married to a Hittite; Boaz married Ruth, a Moabite), in later times the restriction was given legal sanction under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:2, 12; Neh. 13:25; cf. Luke 14:26; 18:29).

In spite of the likelihood that many marriages in the OT and the ancient world in general were arranged, the notion of romantic love as both an ideal for marriage and a basis for choosing one’s spouse clearly was known and even regarded as desirable. This is reflected in the approbation given romantic love in Song of Songs as well as in stories such as that of Jacob (Gen. 29:18; see also Judg. 14:1–3; 1 Sam. 18:20).

Socially, marriage was of particular import for a woman in the ancient world, for her well-being usually depended on her place within the house of either her father or her husband. Because inheritance was passed down the male line, women without connection to the house of a man were in a very tenuous state. Inheritance itself was also an important issue in the ancient world, and so great value was placed not just on marriage but also on bearing children (particularly male [see also Firstborn]). Associated with these social functions of marriage in ancient Israel is the fact that the OT permits and records a number of instances of polygamy (always polygyny, never polyandry). This afforded social security to widows (see also Levirate Law, Levirate Marriage) and helped ensure the line of inheritance. It should be noted, however, that neither the welfare aspect of marriage nor the related acceptance of polygamy is based on the biblical foundation for marriage in Gen. 2, and consequently, polygamy does not reflect the biblical ideal for marriage.

The fundamental importance of the marriage relationship is also highlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g., Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).

Marriage in the New Testament

Jesus reinforces the importance of marriage, emphasizing its divine origin and lifelong nature (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9) as well as its inviolability (Mark 10:2–12). In light of this, Jesus’ assertion that at the resurrection there will be no marriage is surprising (Matt. 22:30). Although Jesus offers no explanation as to why there will be no marriage following the resurrection, it is perhaps likely that the fundamental need identified by God in Gen. 2:18 (the man was alone) will be solved in a different manner in the age to come: the intimate help and companionship ideally found in marriage will be provided in perfected relationship with God and all others.

Paul elaborates somewhat on marriage in the Christian community. Christian marriage ought to be characterized by mutual submission in some respects (1 Cor. 7:4; Eph. 5:21) while reflecting some asymmetrical aspects of the relationship between Christ and the church in others (Eph. 5:22–33). Christians ought to marry within the church (2 Cor. 6:14–18, although this passage is not restricted to marriage); however, those who are married to nonbelievers are not to seek divorce, but are to remain faithful to their spouses for the sake of both the spouse and their children (1 Cor. 7:10–16).

The NT makes reference to some of the marriage customs of the day, including sharing a feast (Matt. 22:2–12; Luke 12:36; John 2:1–11), the expectation that guests be suitably attired (Matt. 22:11–12), and a procession to the groom’s home (Matt. 25:1–13; Luke 12:35–38).

Symbolic Use of Marriage

Marriage is used figuratively in both Testaments. The relationship between God and his people is described with marriage language (Isa. 62:4–5; Jer. 2:2). By using such language, the prophets emphasize the intimacy and unity inherent in the relationship between God and his chosen people, as well as the devastating betrayal when the covenant is broken. The use of the marriage metaphor is thus extended to the use of divorce language to describe God’s treatment of unfaithful Israel (Jer. 3:8), and the notion of adultery and promiscuity is equated with the worship of foreign gods (Ezek. 16; 23). The prophet Hosea’s marriage is itself a graphic representation of God’s relationship with his people and, in particular, their faithlessness; however, it also holds out the anticipation of a new covenant, one wherein God declares, “You will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master’ ” (Hos. 2:16). The metaphorical use of marriage to image the relationship between God and his people also reflects the implicit belief in the asymmetrical nature of the relationship between husband and wife in the ancient world.

The NT primarily identifies the church as the bride and Christ as the husband when using marriage language figuratively (e.g., Eph. 5:22–33). In so doing, the NT affirms Christ’s deity by explicitly depicting him in the place occupied by God in the OT’s use of marriage symbolism. Jesus uses marriage in his parabolic teaching about the kingdom of God (Matt. 22:2–14; 25:1–12), as well as in reference to himself as bridegroom when explaining the behavior of his disciples (Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35). Revelation depicts the return of Christ as the time of the marriage between the bride and the bridegroom (Rev. 19:7; 21:9).

Temples have always been the domain and house of the gods throughout the ancient Near East. As the abode of the God of Israel, the Jerusalem temple served the same purpose. The temple played an important role in the social, religious, and political life of ancient Israel. No archaeological remains of the actual temple building exist today; nevertheless, the temple has dominated biblical scholarship. The Jerusalem temple was originally built by Solomon in 953 BC and was destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. After the exile, the temple was rebuilt and then rededicated by Zerubbabel in 515 BC (Ezra). Herod the Great significantly expanded and changed the temple, but it was eventually destroyed by the Romans under the direction of Titus in AD 70.

The biblical text refers to the temple in several ways: temple, house of God/Yahweh, and sanctuary/shrine. These terms all refer to the dwelling or house of God and an area of sacredness. The sources for information on the temple are biblical texts, Josephus, and the Mishnah (tractate Middot). The most detailed accounts of the construction of the Solomonic temple are found in 1 Kings 6–8; 2 Chron. 2–4. In addition to these major sections, there are several references to building activities and repairs to the temple throughout the OT. Another major text is Ezek. 40, but it is debated whether this represents the actual temple or an ideal temple. There are several references in the NT that directly or indirectly refer to functions and specific components of the Temple Mount complex.

Archaeological Investigation

The location of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem has been undisputed. Current scholarly opinion locates the temple on the spot of the current Muslim shrine, the Dome of the Rock. Today the larger enclosed area is referred to as the harem esh-sharif (the noble sanctuary). Explorers in the nineteenth century did not attempt archaeological research of the temple itself, although various explorations focused on recording visible features and conducting soundings along the sides of the Temple Mount. Even after the unification of Jerusalem in 1967, with three major excavations in the city, no archaeological investigation of the temple was conducted. Due to the political and religious variables associated with the Muslim holy sites, there are no foreseeable archaeological investigations. A recent renovation of the Mosque of Omar, located on the southern end of the Temple Mount, removed truckloads of earth. Unfortunately, there was no archaeological supervision of the project and no archaeological excavations of the site were conducted.

In spite of the limited archaeological excavations, several popular accounts of alternate locations of the temple have been proposed. Most of these place the temple somewhere other than the Dome of the Rock, but none of these proposals has garnered scholarly support to rival the current location.

First Temple: Temple of Solomon

Throughout the ancient Near East, temples served as monumental edifices that provided divine legitimacy for the king or dynasty. While temples should be considered part of the religious sphere of society, their construction, maintenance, and associated activities are interlinked with the political sphere. The construction of the temple in Jerusalem is also linked to state formation by the Israelites. The Solomonic temple ushered in a new period of religious activity among the ancient Israelites. Previously, Israel had worshiped at various shrines and sanctuaries, and its central religious practice was associated with the tabernacle. With the establishment of the monarchy, dynastic kingship and centralized authority were created. Although the biblical text credits Solomon as the Israelite king who built the temple, the project was initiated under David. David united the Israelite tribes, captured Jerusalem and made it the capital of the kingdom, and built a royal palace. He made Jerusalem the political capital but also the religious center when he brought the holy ark, the visible symbol of Yahweh’s presence, to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5–6). David intended to build Yahweh a permanent dwelling (2 Sam. 7:2).

Location. The biblical text preserves multiple traditions and accounts of the location and acquisition of land for the temple. In the ancient world the city temple was commonly located on the acropolis (highest point) of the city. The temple is located on the highest point of a ridge where the OT city of Jerusalem is located (Jebusite city, later the City of David). There are two accounts of the purchase of the land: the threshing floors of Araunah (2 Sam. 24:18–25) and of Ornan (1 Chron. 21:15–30; 2 Chron. 3:1 [here the NIV supplies “Araunah,” but see, e.g., the NET, NASB, ESV]). It is possible that Araunah and Ornan were kin, but most likely they are the same person, with Samuel and Chronicles using variant names. However, the two accounts disagree further on the amount paid for the land: fifty silver shekels (2 Sam. 24:24) and six hundred shekels of gold (1 Chron. 21:25). One theory explains this discrepancy as arising from two separate transactions. First, David purchased the threshing floor to build an altar to Yahweh, and he later purchased the whole mountain to build a temple. Later tradition associates the hill where David built an altar with the location where earlier Abraham built an altar to sacrifice Isaac (Mount Moriah).

Construction and dimensions. Solomon started to build during the fourth year of his reign (2 Chron. 3:1), and construction lasted for seven years. The plan of the temple was revealed to Solomon during a night in the sanctuary at Gibeon (2 Chron. 1:7–13). The king obtained building materials, specifically cedar from Lebanon (2 Chron. 2:3–10), and construction and design expertise from Phoenician artisans (1 Kings 7:13–14, 45). The Solomonic temple consisted of a tripartite plan similar to other temples in Syro-Palestine during this period. There are two accounts for the construction and dedication of the first temple (1 Kings 6–8; 2 Chron. 3–7). Both accounts offer similar descriptions but there are some differences in measurements. Most scholars account for these differences by viewing the dimensions in the book of Chronicles as reflecting the temple measurements after Hezekiah’s repair and rebuilding projects.

The basic plan was a rectangle, 70 cubits long (120 ft. 7 in.) and 20 cubits wide (34 ft. 5 in.) on a straight axis facing east; the height was 30 cubits (51 ft. 7 in.). These measurements refer to the inside dimensions (1 cubit = 20.67 in.). The three distinct architectural units formed three distinct rooms where various functions were performed and also reflected levels of holiness. The three units were the ’ulam (“porch” or “vestibule”), the hekal (“cella” or “nave”), and the debir (the innermost sanctuary, the most holy place). In the biblical accounts the whole building is called the “house [bayit] of the Lord,” and the word “temple” is used for the hekal. There was a three-story structure built around the sides and back of the temple (see below).

The porch was 10 cubits (17 ft. 2 in.) by 20 cubits (34 ft. 5 in.). The account in Kings does not provide its height; the account in Chronicles gives the height as 120 cubits. In its description and measurements in the biblical text, the porch is considered separate from the temple (bayit, house). The porch contained two pillars of bronze: yakin (“he will establish”) on the right side and bo’az (“in strength”) on the left (see Boaz; Jakin). The pillars were bronze, 18 cubits (35 cubits in Chronicles) in height, with elaborate double capitals. The bottom capital was 5 cubits, round in shape, and surrounded by nets with pomegranates. Above this was another capital, 4 cubits high, shaped like a lily.

The hekal was 40 cubits long and 20 cubits wide and was the only part with windows (1 Kings 6:4). The debir was a cube, 20 cubits per side. The debir is also called the “holy of holies.” The difference in height (10 cubits shorter than the hekal  ) is due to the rise in the bedrock. This measurement is confirmed today in the interior of the Dome of the Rock.

The walls of the house (hekal and debir) were built of whole stones dressed in the quarry, as “no hammer, chisel or any other iron tool was heard at the temple site while it was being built” (1 Kings 6:7). The roof was made of cedar wood (1 Kings 6:10), with crossbeams and intersecting boards. The stone walls were covered from ground to ceiling with boards of cedar wood, and the floor was made of cypress wood, covered with gold (1 Kings 6:30). The wood had carved engravings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. The hekal and the debir were separated by a partition made of olive wood.

The three-story structure surrounding the temple was constructed of cedar wood. Each story was 5 cubits. The width of the first floor was 5 cubits, the middle 6 cubits, and the top 7 cubits. This structure was entered from the right side of the temple, and the floors were connected by openings with ladders. This structure formed chambers and storage for the activities of the priests.

In front of the temple was a courtyard surrounded by a wall. Inside the courtyard was a great bronze basin (known as “the Sea”). This basin rested on the backs of twelve bronze oxen. Ten smaller basins in groups of five were set on elaborate wheeled stands. A large altar also was located in this courtyard.

In the holy of holies stood two large cherubim of olive wood covered with gold. They were 10 cubits in height, with a wingspan of 10 cubits. These cherubim stood over the ark of the covenant. In the hekal were the golden altar, the golden table, and ten lampstands.

History. From Solomon to Zedekiah, the temple was used for political and religious power shifts. Kings of Israel raided the temple treasury to pay off invaders, closed the temple, or placed idols in the temple in periods of apostasy. During periods of reform they repaired and rebuilt the temple and its furnishings.

Under Rehoboam’s reign, Shishak king of Egypt ransacked the temple and removed all its treasures (1 Kings 14:25–28; 2 Chron. 12:9). Asa and his father, Abijah, added to the treasure of the temple with silver, gold, and other vessels (2 Chron. 15:18) but used these to pay Ben-Hadad of Syria to help him fight Baasha king of Israel (16:2–3). Asa’s son Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 17) ruled during a time of prosperity and reform. It was under his rule that the court in front of the temple probably was enlarged (20:5). The sons of Athaliah broke into the temple and worshiped Baal. During the reign of Amaziah the temple was plundered by Jehoash king of Israel (2 Chron. 25). Uzziah ruled for a long period of prosperity (787–736 BC) but attempted to burn incense on the altar in the hekal, a ritual kept solely for the priests. A later king, Jotham, built the Upper Gate of the house of Yahweh (2 Kings 15:35; 2 Chron. 27:3). Jotham’s son Ahaz took the silver and gold from the temple and sent it as a present to the king of Assyria. He moved and changed various vessels of the temple and shut its doors (2 Chron. 28:24).

Hezekiah son of Ahaz ruled during a time of prosperity and revival. He reopened the temple doors (2 Chron. 29), cleaned out the temple, and created a 500-cubit-square mount around the temple. Hezekiah conducted many building projects in Jerusalem and reforms throughout the land. He also “stripped off the gold with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the temple of the Lord” to pay a ransom to Sennacherib king of Assyria (2 Kings 18:16). Due to his building activities, most scholars attribute major changes to the temple to Hezekiah’s reign. The differences in the temple descriptions in Kings and Chronicles probably reflect two different periods of history concerning the temple (e.g., Kings represents the temple during the period of Solomon, while Chronicles represents the changes to the temple by Hezekiah). Manasseh, Hezekiah’s son, undid the work of his father by building altars in the temple.

The last resurgence of the temple in the life of the people of Israel was under Josiah. He instigated a reform throughout the land and a cleansing of the temple. Hilkiah the high priest found a copy of the “Book of the Law” (2 Kings 22:8). After a reading of the law in the public square, a collection was taken from the people to be given to workers for temple repair. The Babylonians took some of the temple treasure (2 Chron. 36:7) under the rule of Jehoiakim. The last two kings of Judah, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, also lost temple treasure to Babylon, and eventually the temple was destroyed during the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC (2 Chron. 36).

Second Temple: Zerubbabel and the Temple of Herod the Great

Zerubbabel’s temple. Solomon’s temple was rebuilt by the Jews who returned from exile under the decree of the Persian king Darius (Ezra 6:1–5). The temple was built under the direction of the governor Zerubbabel with the support of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 6:13–18) and was dedicated in 515 BC. This would have been a poorer temple due to the poverty of the inhabitants of Judah. During the Hasmonean period (152–37 BC) a platform and a fortress were constructed. Not much is known about the temple during this period. It would be greatly eclipsed by the work of Herod the Great.

Temple of Herod the Great. Herod invested heavily in building projects throughout his kingdom. He was keen on bringing Hellenistic culture to the Jews but also on upholding traditional Jewish religious practices, especially when it came to the temple. Just as the first temple mimicked the religious architecture of the ancient Near East, the second temple reflected the massive sacred architecture of the classical world. John 2:20 indicates that thus far it had taken forty-six years (beyond Herod’s life) to build. Herod could not alter the dimensions of the temple, but he was able to make additions to the outside, alter its outer furnishings, and expand the compound and platform to match the grandeur of Greco-Roman temples. Today scholars refer to all these buildings and the temple as the Temple Mount complex.

Herod expanded the space of the Temple Mount by building a “box” around the mountain. This was a massive wall with varying height due to the topography. This wall is still visible today, especially the current religious site of the Western Wall. This construction allowed for a level platform with various buildings and plazas on the top. The leveling was done by filling in the gaps and building subterranean arches in low areas. One of these areas is located on the southeast corner (the underground arched supports are erroneously called “Solomon’s Stables” today). The whole area was surrounded by a colonnaded portico (Solomon’s Colonnade [John 10:23; Acts 3:11; 5:12]). On the northwest corner was the Antonia Fortress (Acts 21:35), and the southern end of the complex contained the Royal Stoa, a basilica-style building (four rows of forty columns) that housed the Sanhedrin and had other religious and political functions (Luke 22:66).

This complex became the religious and political center of the city of Jerusalem, and Herod built many auxiliary components. Several entrances and bridges from the Upper City were built. The public entered the complex from the south. A southern complex consisting of monumental stairs (210 feet wide) and entrance and exit gates (Double and Triple Gates) took pedestrians from the outside up through underground tunnels to the top of the temple compound. These stairs became an area for public forums. In addition, several shops (Mark 11:15–17) were built around the complex, as well as a large bathhouse for ritual cleansing. In order to facilitate the many sacrifices, Herod built a complex hydrologic system that brought water into the city. This was accomplished by various aqueducts and storage pools. The Temple Mount had many cisterns and a new pool on the northeast end of the Temple Mount complex, the Pool of Israel. Although Herod could not alter the dimensions of the temple itself, he was able to enlarge the facade, added storage chambers and auxiliary buildings, build a second story above the temple, and construct several courtyards and various buildings associated with them. In keeping with the earlier tripartite level of holiness, these additional temple buildings and courtyards retained the same linear degree of holiness and exclusion.

Josephus called Herod’s temple “a structure more noteworthy than any under the sun” (Ant. 15.412). Herod built a new monumental facade in front of the existing temple and added a second story. Herod’s temple measured 100 cubits (172 ft.) in all three dimensions. It stood on top of a foundation that gave it added height. It had two stories, each one 45 cubits (77.5 ft.) in height. On the roof was a parapet, 3 cubits in height, which contained golden spikes, 1 cubit in height, to prevent birds from perching on the roof’s edge. The temple was decorated with gold overlay. The opening between the ’ulam (“porch”) and the sanctuary was 20 cubits high and 10 cubits wide (34 ft. by 17 ft.). There were two sets of double folding doors. The sanctuary contained the golden menorah, the table of the bread of the Presence, and the altar of incense. Between the sanctuary and the holy of holies was a large tapestry (veil) (Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). The holy of holies had gold plating on its walls. Around the temple were thirty-eight cells built in three stories (m. Mid. 4:3–4). All of the cells were interconnected by openings between adjoining cells and by one in the ceiling to reach the cell above. To the north, between the outer wall of the temple and the cells, was an inner stairway with access to the top of the temple and the upper chamber (second story of the temple). The upper chamber allowed priests to service the holy of holies. They would be suspended in baskets, covered on three sides, through openings in the floor to clean the gold overlay in the holy of holies.

The temple courtyard was surrounded by various gates and buildings. These were specific entrances and buildings that the priests used for the various functions of the sacrifices and offerings (Mark 13:1–2). These included the Kindling Gate, Wood Chamber, Gate of the Firstlings, Golah Chamber, Water Gate, Chamber of the Hearth, Gate of Jeconiah, Rinsing Chamber, Gate of the Offering-Women, Salt-Parva Chamber, and Gate of the Flame-Singers. In front of the temple were two narrow courts: the court of the priests to the west and the court of the Israelites (men) to the east. Inside the temple court was the altar of burnt offering. During the Second Temple period it was a stationary, square-shaped altar constructed of unhewn stones. According to the Mishnah (m. Mid. 3:1), this altar was 32 cubits square at the base and about 10 cubits in height. A ramp 32 cubits long, also built of unhewn stones, led the priests up to the altar from the south. A laver, the great bronze basin known as “the Sea,” stood west of the altar between the altar and the temple porch (’ulam) for the washing of hands and feet. North of the altar was the place of slaughtering.

The court of the women, 135 cubits square, was in front of the temple to the east. This court had four smaller courts, one at each corner. Women could enter the temple only as far as this court. It was surrounded by a colonnade. Inside these porches (porticoes) were thirteen collection boxes for money. This is where Jesus saw the poor widow donating two copper coins (Luke 21:1–3). The court had four large lampstands nearly half the height of the temple. The Mishnah states that each of the corner chambers was 40 cubits square and roofless. The central area was exposed to the sky, with a portico around each courtyard—typical of Mediterranean buildings. The chamber to the immediate right of the court’s entrance (northeast) was the chamber of the woodshed, where priests examined logs for impurities (e.g., parasites). To the left (southeast) was the chamber of the Nazirites. To the northwest was the chamber of the lepers. A leper who had been healed brought an offering and then bathed in this chamber before coming to the priests for the performance of rituals. In the southwest corner was the chamber of the house of oil. Between the court of the women and the temple court was the Nicanor Gate. Fifteen semicircular steps led up to this gate. It was on these steps that the Levites sang the fifteen Psalms of Ascent (Pss. 120–134).

Surrounding the temple and the court of the women was a balustrade or railing that served as a boundary beyond which no Gentile could enter. Outside this boundary was the court of the Gentiles (see John 12:20–22; Acts 21:27–29). Archaeologists have found an inscription that forbids Gentiles, upon pain of death, to enter any farther. Herod’s temple was destroyed in AD 70. The Temple Mount continued to be used and considered sacred, as Roman temples, Crusader churches, and Muslim shrines marked the sacredness of the location.

Role of the Temple

The temple was the dwelling place of Yahweh. It was the domain of the religious leaders, priests, and Levites. It also represented the relationship/covenant between God and the nation of Israel. Various kings used the temple for their political maneuvering and attempts to shift the religious worship of the nation. The temple was the visible presence of God and embodied the political and religious aspirations of the people. The temple sat on top of a sacred mountain.

During turbulent political times the temple was central to God’s protection and judgment. From the Babylonian and Roman periods, two texts spoke of a future temple. Ezekiel’s vision saw a futuristic temple measuring 500 cubits square surrounded by a massive court measuring 3,000 cubits square (Ezek. 40:1–47:12). Among the DSS, the Temple Scroll also talks about a rebuilt temple. Today many Christians and Jews look to a future rebuilding of the temple.

Jerusalem was held by the Jebusites, who mocked David’s forces. But David captured the city, which from then on bore the title “City of David,” also called “fortress of Zion” (2 Sam. 5:5–9). David made it his capital. Later, Solomon built the temple there, making it also the religious center of the nation (1 Kings 8:1–14). “Zion” (of uncertain meaning) sometimes is a designation for the city of Jerusalem. It is said to have towers, ramparts, and citadels (Ps. 48:12–13), and Jeremiah prophesied its razing (Jer. 26:18). But it is also a designation for the mountain on which the city is built (Isa. 24:23; Zech. 8:3).

Since the God of Israel has a special relationship with Israel and its king, God’s purposes for the world often are couched in terms of Mount Zion. God set his king on Mount Zion (Ps. 2:6). The psalmist praises God, who has established Zion “forever” (Ps. 48:1–8). It is there that God is said to reign (Isa. 24:23). Nevertheless, the king on David’s throne and the inhabitants of Zion can be censured by God and found wanting (Amos 6:1). In fact, it is precisely because God identifies with the city that the people bear particular responsibility to represent his character. Thus, the time came when Zion was indeed “plowed like a field” (Mic. 3:12). Lamentations mourns Zion’s destruction numerous times. After God’s people spent a period of time in exile, God brought them back to Zion (Ps. 126). Although the ancient city was again destroyed by the Romans, Zion has become in the NT a symbol of the present heavenly dwelling place of God, entered into by faith (Heb. 12:22), and the future destiny of the saints (Rev. 14:1).