The English word “angel” refers to nonhuman spirits, usually good. The biblical words usually translated “angel” (Heb. malak; Gk. angelos) mean “messenger” and can refer to one sent by God or by human beings. A messenger must be utterly loyal, reliable, and able to act confidentially (Prov. 13:17). The messenger speaks and acts in the name of the sender (Gen. 24).

Messengers sent by God are not always angels. Yahweh’s prophets were his messengers (Hag. 1:13), as were priests (Mal. 2:7).

Old Testament

There are few references to angels (plural) in the OT. In heaven they praise God and worship him (Pss. 103:20; 148:2). God sends his angels to accompany his people (Gen. 28:12; 32:1) and to protect them (Ps. 91:11) and once sent them to destroy Egypt (Ps. 78:49).

An angel in human form was referred to as a “man of God” (Judg. 13:6), the same term used for a prophet (cf. 1 Kings 13:14).

Angels evoked fear and wonder. They are described as shining (Matt. 28:3; Acts 12:7). When humans bowed to worship angels, they were rebuked because God alone is to be worshiped (Rev. 22:8–9).

God himself, not being a part of the created order, cannot be seen. In order to communicate with people, he sometimes speaks through a form called “the angel of the Lord.” The angel of the Lord appeared to Abraham in human form (Gen. 18; cf. Josh. 5:13–15), but to Moses as fire (Exod. 3:2). When he spoke, it was God speaking (Exod. 3:4, 14). He guided and guarded Israel out of Egypt and through the desert (23:20–23). He appeared within the pillar of fire or cloud (13:21–22; 14:19), being seen through the pillar on occasion as “the glory of the Lord” (16:7–10; 24:16–17; 33:9–11; 40:17, 34–38), and later as he filled Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 8:11).

In a series of visions of the glory of the Lord (Ps. 18:7–15; Ezek. 1; Rev. 4:7) we encounter four “living creatures” called “cherubim” (Ezek. 10:20–22) that are not explicitly identified as angels and whose visible appearance is part human and part animal. Their form was placed on the cover of the Ark of the Covenant (Exod. 25:18) and embroidered on the curtains of the tabernacle (26:1). Cherubim guarded the eastern entry into the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:24), implying that Eden, the place where God appeared on earth, was now excluded from the area allocated to humankind.

In Isaiah’s vision of God’s glory, he describes, literally, “flaming ones” (Heb. seraphim) located above God and crying, “Holy, holy, holy” (Isa. 6:1–7). All we know of them is that they had six wings, whereas the cherubim had four (Ezek. 1:11). It may be that seraphim are not a separate class of angels but simply a description appropriate to all angels, since elsewhere we are told (Ps. 104:4; Heb. 1:7) that God’s angels are “flames of fire.”

Angels are also called “holy ones” (Deut. 33:2) and “spirits” or “winds” (Zech. 6:5; cf. Ps. 104:4). Since God’s people are also called “holy ones” (Dan. 7:27; NIV: “holy people”), it may be difficult to know if a given reference is to angels or people (e.g., Deut. 33:3).

Angels are first named in the book of Daniel: Gabriel, whose name means “hero of God” (8:16; 9:21; [cf. Luke 1:19, 26]); Michael, whose name means “who is like God?” (10:13, 21; 12:1 [cf. Jude 9; Rev. 12:7]) and who is also called “one of the chief princes,” “your prince,” and “the great prince.” The Hebrew word for “prince” (sar) also means “commander” (e.g., 1 Sam. 17:55) and thus might refer to Michael’s standing as a commander of God’s angelic armies (cf. Jude 9, where he is called “archangel”). During the intertestamental period, texts outside the Scriptures tend to give more attention to angels in elaborate stories, introducing such names as Raphael and Uriel (see Tobit, 1 Enoch, etc.).

Intertestamental Period and New Testament

During the intertestamental period some Jews came to think that angels ranked higher than humans, since the Greeks asserted that anything physical was evil and only purely spiritual beings could be holy. Increasingly detailed stories about angels served to distance God from the evils of physical reality. The myth of the fall of the angels arose during this time through a series of writings claiming to come from the pen of Enoch (1 Enoch), stimulating a large number of other writings. Some people even went so far as to worship angels (Col. 2:18).

Some references to angels are difficult to understand. In Matt. 18:10 Jesus warns people to treat children well because their angels have constant access to God. The simplest meaning is that angelic messengers will tell God what has happened with these children. Rhoda’s reference to Peter’s “angel” as if it were his ghost probably reflects a local superstition (Acts 12:15) or a sectarian Jewish belief that the righteous become angels when they die. Paul’s comment that a woman should have “authority over her own head” (i.e., her head covered) “because of the angels” (1 Cor. 11:10) remains something of a puzzle, and his unique reference to the language of angels appears to be hyperbole (1 Cor. 13:1).

Paul warns us that Satan can appear as “an angel of light,” meaning that he would work through one who claimed to bring a message in accord with the gospel (2 Cor. 11:14). The devil has his “angels/messengers” (Matt. 25:41), although we know little about them.

Angels do not marry, reproduce, or die (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35–36). The NT affirms that angels rank below God’s people and serve them (1 Cor. 6:3; Heb.1:4–14; 2:5, 16), as they did Jesus (Matt. 4:11; Mark 1:13; cf. 1 Kings 19:5–7; Luke 22:43). Angels have limited understanding or knowledge of God’s plans and purposes (1 Pet. 1:12), although they reveal God’s word (Rev. 1:1). They bring the spirits of God’s people to heaven when they die (Luke 16:22) and implement God’s judgment on the last day (Matt. 13:39, 49; 16:27; 24:31; 25:31; Mark 8:38; 13:27; Luke 9:26; 2 Thess. 1:7; Rev. 14:15–19). They rejoice when a sinner repents (Luke 15:10). Christians already stand in the greater assembly that includes the angels (Heb.12:22). Eventually, Jesus will welcome his people into the heavenly courtroom in the presence of the angels (Luke 12:8–9; Rev. 3:5). See also Archangel.

A barren woman is one who is infertile and without children. The biblical world placed great value on the blessing of having children. This value and the division of labor between the genders in an ancient agricultural society affected how society esteemed women and how a woman viewed her own identity. Being without children brought despair. This can be seen in Rachel’s despondent plea (Gen. 30:1) and in the fact that wives would offer a servant in their place to bear a child (16:3; 30:3, 9).

In most of the stories about women and infertility, God reversed their circumstances: Sarah (Gen. 11:30), Rebekah (25:21), Rachel (30:22), Samson’s mother (Judg. 13:2–3), Hannah (1 Sam. 1:2), the Shunammite (2 Kings 4:16), Elizabeth (Luke 1:7). For Michal, barrenness appears as a punishment (2 Sam. 6:23).

Caring for the barren is part of God’s praiseworthy caring for the needy (Ps. 113:5–9).

A barren woman is one who is infertile and without children. The biblical world placed great value on the blessing of having children. This value and the division of labor between the genders in an ancient agricultural society affected how society esteemed women and how a woman viewed her own identity. Being without children brought despair. This can be seen in Rachel’s despondent plea (Gen. 30:1) and in the fact that wives would offer a servant in their place to bear a child (16:3; 30:3, 9).

In most of the stories about women and infertility, God reversed their circumstances: Sarah (Gen. 11:30), Rebekah (25:21), Rachel (30:22), Samson’s mother (Judg. 13:2–3), Hannah (1 Sam. 1:2), the Shunammite (2 Kings 4:16), Elizabeth (Luke 1:7). For Michal, barrenness appears as a punishment (2 Sam. 6:23).

Caring for the barren is part of God’s praiseworthy caring for the needy (Ps. 113:5–9).

Births in the ancient world were the domain of women. The women who bore children were often assisted in the birthing process by midwives (Gen. 35:17; 38:28; Exod. 1:15–20). Although work was forbidden on the Sabbath, Jewish law permitted midwives to assist laboring women with births on the Sabbath because childbirth was viewed as saving a life.

Many women utilized a birthing stool (Exod. 1:16). Upon birth, the newborn often was washed with water, rubbed with salt, and wrapped in cloths (Ezek. 16:4; Luke 2:7, 12). The OT required women to undergo a rite of purification following childbirth (Exod. 13:2, 20; 34:20; Lev. 12:6–8; Luke 2:22–24). This purification lasted forty days after the birth of a son and eighty days after the birth of a daughter and concluded with the sacrifice of both a burnt offering and a sin offering.

Birthing was valued, and women who were considered to be infertile often faced great shame (1 Sam. 1:10–11; Luke 1:25). Jewish tradition drew additional connections between childbirth and a woman’s character. For instance, death in childbirth was threatened for women who did not follow the law. Pain in childbirth was associated with the sin of Eve (Gen. 3:16), and conversely, absence of pain was interpreted as a sign that a woman was particularly righteous. According to Josephus, Moses was borne with no pain to his mother, and the Protevangelium of James indicates the same about Mary’s labor with Jesus.

The birthing process posed significant risk to both woman and child. Estimates of mortality rates for babies vary, but it is thought that as many as 50 percent of children did not survive beyond the age of five, with many failing to live through the first week outside the womb. Conservative guesses place the death rate for mothers around 5 percent. Death rates during childbirth were higher among Greek women, who often married younger than their Jewish counterparts and frequently suffered complications in childbirth due to their youth.

The Bible sometimes employs the language of birth as a spiritual metaphor. In John 3:3–6 Jesus instructs Nicodemus about the need for spiritual birth by explaining that he must be born again. In Rom. 8:22 Paul describes the whole of creation as experiencing the pain of childbirth as it awaits redemption, and in Gal. 4:19 he says that he is in labor for a second time with the Galatians as he desires the formation of Christ in them.

The mother of John the Baptist. She was a descendant of Aaron and the wife of Zechariah (Luke 1:5). She and her husband are described in Luke 1 as righteous but barren in their old age. When Zechariah had the opportunity to serve in the temple and burn incense, an angel prophesied that he and Elizabeth would have a son, and they would name him “John.” Elizabeth was the relative of Mary the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:36), but the Bible does not specify how they were related. Mary visited Elizabeth when both were pregnant, and Elizabeth was filled with the Spirit when she heard Mary’s voice. She called Mary “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43).

An angel who first appears in the book of Daniel (8:16; 9:21). His name means “strong man of God.” Gabriel functions as the spokesperson for God to the prophet, and in particular he explains the meaning of the visions that Daniel experienced. Although not mentioned by name in Dan. 10, he is likely the angel who comes to Daniel with the aid of Michael, another angel, to inform Daniel of the meaning of the vision recounted in Dan. 11. Gabriel is also sent to Zechariah and to Mary to inform them of the significance of the births of, respectively, John (the Baptist) and Jesus (Luke 1:19, 26).

The KJV rendering of the Greek word euangelizō, referring to the proclamation of the “good news” or “gospel” (Luke 1:19; 8:1; Acts 13:32; Rom. 10:15). See also Gospel.

Several kings of the Jews, related by birth, had the name “Herod.” The Herods formed a royal dynasty that flourished during the time of Christ and the early church. The founder of the dynasty was Antipater, who was appointed by Caesar in 47 BC as procurator of Judea. The Herods, being partly Edomite (descended from Esau) as well as loyal servants of Rome, were never fully accepted by their Jewish subjects. The family history was characterized by lust, intrigue, and bloodshed. They opposed the Christian faith, sometimes violently, being responsible for the attempted murder of Jesus (Matt. 2:16), the beheading of John the Baptist (Matt. 14:1–12), and the execution of the apostle James (Acts 12:2).

(1) Herod I (Herod the Great), son of Antipater, known as King Herod (Matt. 2:1; Luke 1:5). He ruled Palestine in the years 37–4 BC with Roman consent. A skillful politician, he managed to retain the favor of Rome by deftly switching allegiances when necessary. A capable ruler in some respects, he engaged in extensive building works. His finest project was the beautification of the temple, which he hoped would win Jewish favor. The rabbis would later say, “Whoever has not seen Herod’s building has not seen anything beautiful.”

His rule, however, was marred by paranoia, suspicion, and cruel jealousy. He had some of his wives and sons killed for suspected plotting. In Matthew’s Gospel he is visited by wise men looking for “one who has been born king of the Jews.” Subsequently, he massacred the male infants of Bethlehem, trying to rid himself of this new, royal challenger (Matt. 2:1–11). Upon his death, his kingdom was divided among three of his sons, Herod Antipas, Herod Archelaus, and Herod Philip.

(2) Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, also known simply as Herod or as Herod the tetrarch (Matt. 14:1; Luke 3:19). He was given jurisdiction over Galilee and Perea, which he ruled from 4 BC to AD 39 (Luke 3:1). For this reason, when Pilate heard that Jesus came from Galilee, he sent him to Antipas for questioning (Luke 23:6–12).

He is infamous for his role in the death of John the Baptist, which later haunted him (Matt. 14:1–12; Mark 6:14–29). Jesus referred to him as “that fox,” alluding to his predatory destructiveness for having killed John the Baptist, who criticized him for taking his half brother’s wife, Herodias, in marriage. He also sought to kill Jesus (Luke 13:31–32). Jesus warned the disciples of the yeast of Herod (Mark 8:15). Yeast was a metaphor sometimes used to describe how evil spreads and corrupts the whole person, perhaps a reference to Herod’s lust for Herodias and his murderous opposition to God’s word and Son. (See also Antipas.)

(3) Herod Archelaus, ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (4 BC–AD 6) and son of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:22). (See also Archelaus.)

(4) Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem; he was tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis in the years 4 BC–AD 34 (Luke 3:1). He rebuilt Paneas and named it “Caesarea Philippi” after the emperor and himself (Matt. 16:13; Mark 8:27). Apparently, he married his niece Salome III, the daughter of Herodias and his half brother Herod son of Mariamne II.

(5) Herod (Philip), son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II, he was married to Herodias, who left him for his half brother Antipas (Matt. 14:3; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19). Though sharing a common name, this is a different son of Herod the Great than the Herod Philip of Luke 3:1.

(6) Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great, also called “King Herod” in Scripture (Acts 12:1). At the height of his power (r. AD 37–44), he ruled an area coextensive with that of his grandfather. He persecuted the early church, killing James the brother of John. Encouraged by the Jews, he imprisoned Peter, intending to put him on trial, until an angel of God miraculously intervened to free him. He died prematurely in Caesarea when struck down for not giving glory to God (Acts 12:20–25).

(7) Herod Agrippa II (reigned in Chalcis AD 48–52, in Iturea AD 52–c. 93), the son of Herod Agrippa I. Prompted by the governor Festus, he gave audience to the apostle Paul to make his defense. He rejected Paul’s attempt to persuade him of the truth of the Christian faith (Acts 25:13–27; 26).

A compound of aromatic spices closely related to the daily life of Israel. It became synonymous with “frankincense” at a later time. Aromatic spices were used in Israel for cosmetics (Prov. 7:17; Song 5:5) and for medical (Jer. 8:22; 46:11; 51:8) purposes but occupied a special place in Israelite worship when used as incense. Incense was professionally compounded (Exod. 30:34–35) and was offered on the golden altar by the high priest twice a day (Exod. 30:7–8; cf. Luke 1:8–11) and on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:12–13; cf. 10:1–2). As the incense burned, its sweet fragrance filled the sanctuary, forming an atmospheric curtain to protect the sanctuary and to characterize it as God’s private domain (Isa. 6:4). Prayers offered with the smoke of the incense guaranteed acceptance by God (Deut. 33:10; cf. Gen. 8:21; Exod. 29:18; Ezek. 20:41). In Ps. 141:2, prayers are said to ascend to God like incense, providing a background to the book of Revelation, where incense represents the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8; 8:3–4).

The inability or choice not to speak (Ps. 38:13; Isa. 56:10). Mosaic law claims that God either makes people mute or allows them to speak (Exod. 4:11). Muteness can be a divine judgment, as when Zechariah is unable to speak after he questions the message of the angel (Luke 1:20). The prophets anticipate a time of reversal, when “the mute tongue [will] shout for joy” (Isa. 35:6). Jesus heals at least two mute people (Matt. 9:32–34; 12:22–24). In both cases the condition is caused by demon possession. Ironically, as the Suffering Servant, one who bears God’s judgment, he becomes mute before his accusers (Isa. 53:7; Matt. 26:63; 27:12, 14; Acts 8:26–35). Paul claims that idols are “mute,” whereas God’s Spirit speaks through believers (1 Cor. 12:2–3).

The inability or choice not to speak (Ps. 38:13; Isa. 56:10). Mosaic law claims that God either makes people mute or allows them to speak (Exod. 4:11). Muteness can be a divine judgment, as when Zechariah is unable to speak after he questions the message of the angel (Luke 1:20). The prophets anticipate a time of reversal, when “the mute tongue [will] shout for joy” (Isa. 35:6). Jesus heals at least two mute people (Matt. 9:32–34; 12:22–24). In both cases the condition is caused by demon possession. Ironically, as the Suffering Servant, one who bears God’s judgment, he becomes mute before his accusers (Isa. 53:7; Matt. 26:63; 27:12, 14; Acts 8:26–35). Paul claims that idols are “mute,” whereas God’s Spirit speaks through believers (1 Cor. 12:2–3).

A priest is a minister of sacred things who represents God to the people and the people to God. The OT identifies priests of Yahweh and priests of other gods and idols. The only pagan priest that the NT mentions is the priest of Zeus from Lystra who wanted to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, whom the crowd mistook for deities (Acts 14:13). All other NT references build upon OT teaching about priests of Yahweh.

Old Testament

Early biblical history records clan heads offering sacrifices for their families (Gen. 12:7–8; 13:18; 22; 31:54; 46:1). Although the patriarchs performed these duties, they are never called “priests”; the only priests mentioned from this time are foreigners such as Melchizedek, the Egyptian priest of On, and Moses’ father-in-law Jethro (Gen. 14:18; 41:45, 50; 46:20; Exod. 3:1; 18:1). Whereas all Israelites could be called “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6), a distinctive priesthood came to light when God instructed Moses to prepare special priestly clothes for Aaron and his sons (Exod. 28). The high priest was distinguished from the others by more magnificent clothes. By failing to wear their special clothes while serving at the tabernacle, the priests would incur guilt and die (Exod. 28:43).

By being anointed, the priests became holy like the tabernacle and its furnishings and thus were distinguished from their compatriots (Lev. 8–9). Their holy status was to be scrupulously maintained, as it was essential for serving the congregation and ensured that they would not die due to their close contact with God. Their prime role was to minister before God by offering sacrifices so that the holy place and the people could be purified. They were also to live holy lives as an example to others, assess and treat uncleanness among the people, discern God’s will through the Urim and Thummim, pronounce God’s blessings, and teach God’s precepts and laws (Lev. 10:10–11; Num. 6:22–27; Deut. 33:8–11).

Like other Levites, the priests received no land in Canaan, since God was their inheritance. In payment for their services, the priests received a portion of the sacrifices and a tithe of the tithe given by the Israelites for the Levites’ support.

The Bible consistently states that priests were to come from the tribe of Levi, but it is not always clear whether all Levites or only Aaron’s descendants could serve as priests. Some texts (particularly Exodus through Numbers) indicate that only those of Aaron’s line qualified to be priests (Ezek. 40:46 narrows this to Zadok’s descendants), and that all other Levites, though more holy than the other tribes, did not. Other passages indicate that Levites at times served as priests, even though some contexts indicate that this service was inappropriate. For instance, a Levite served as priest to Micah and then the Danites (Judg. 17:7–13; 18:19–20). Viewed more positively, Samuel, a Levite from Ephraim (1 Chron. 6:16, 27) who served Eli while young, also acted as priest.

After the division of the kingdom, Jeroboam I rejected specific biblical instructions about the priesthood by erecting shrines to calf idols at Dan and Bethel and enlisted non-Levites as priests (1 Kings 12:31; 13:33; 2 Chron. 11:15). Political concerns apparently led him to cut off the northern kingdom from worship at the temple in Jerusalem. As a result, many Levites and priests relocated to Jerusalem.

Ezra records that 341 Levites and 4,289 priests returned to Jerusalem after the exile (Ezra 2:36–42). In line with earlier practice, the priests offered sacrifices to God and were joined by the Levites in rebuilding the wall and teaching the law to the people. Isaiah has a broader understanding of the priesthood, as he anticipates Israel bringing peoples of other nations as an offering to God and indicates that some of them would serve as priests and Levites (Isa. 66:19–21).

New Testament

In NT times many priests exerted religious and civil power as leaders of the Sadducees and the Essenes. Some priests, such as Zechariah, were portrayed as righteous men (Luke 1:5–6). Others were said to have come to faith in Jesus (Acts 6:7). Supporting the role assigned by Moses, Jesus regularly required those whom he healed to show themselves to the priest. Even so, most Gospel references to priests underscore their opposition to Jesus’ ministry and the role they played in his trial and crucifixion. This opposition continued after the resurrection, as priests challenged the witness of the apostles. When Peter and John proclaimed that a crippled beggar had been healed by Jesus’ power, the priests and others jailed, interrogated, and forbade them from speaking in Jesus’ name (Acts 4:1–20). The Sanhedrin questioned Stephen about charges of blasphemy and speaking against the temple and the Mosaic law (6:11–7:1). Saul (Paul) received a letter of authority from the high priest to arrest Christians (9:1–2). Later, as a follower of Jesus, he stood trial before Ananias, who charged him before Felix (24:1), and a wider group of chief priests who charged him before Festus (25:1–3).

Hebrews uniquely highlights how the priesthood of Jesus surpassed the OT priesthood. The OT priests presented sin offerings, but their sacrifices needed to be repeated regularly, whereas Jesus, the faithful and merciful high priest, offered a sacrifice that never needed repeating and was available to everyone at all times. Jesus also surpassed the Aaronic priests because they first needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins, but he never sinned. Furthermore, since he offered the perfect sacrifice of himself, all people, not just priests, could draw near to God.

The NT develops the idea of a priesthood of all believers by taking the concept that Israel would be a kingdom of priests and transferring it to the church (1 Pet. 2:4–9; cf. Exod. 19:6). Reflecting the general biblical view of priesthood, believers offer spiritual sacrifices to God, represent God to the world by revealing his works of salvation, and represent the world to God through prayer. In the NT, the priesthood of believers is corporate; a priestly office in the church is never expressly mentioned.

A traditional translation in the KJV for terms (Heb. shekar; Gk. sikera) referring to intoxicating or fermented drinks and beers other than wine. The NIV generally translates the terms as “fermented drink” or “beer.” Isaiah graphically described the effect of strong drink on excessive drinkers (Isa. 28:7), and Hannah defended herself against Eli’s accusation of drunkenness (1 Sam. 1:14–15). Excessive drinking generally was condemned (Prov. 20:1; Isa. 5:11). Although a fermented beverage was allowed in the sacrificial meal as a drink offering (Num. 28:7; Deut. 14:26), it was forbidden to ministering priests and Nazirites (Lev. 10:9; Num. 6:3; cf. Luke 1:15). Kings and princes were not to drink it, lest it lead them to forget the law and pervert justice (Prov. 31:4–5).

A divine communication in the form of visual imagery, usually accompanied by words, and often using symbols that require explanation and spur reflection about God’s otherwise imperceptible presence and activity. Presumably, the recipient “sees” the vision as an event of inward perception, often within a dream during sleep or in a divinely induced state of ecstasy (Gen. 15; Dan. 7:1; 10:1–9; 2 Cor. 12:1–4). Characteristically, visions entail conversation with God or an angelic representative, often following a question-and-answer format (Dan. 7:15–28; Zech. 1:8–15, 18–21). The visionary is actually in the scene as direct observer and active participant (Dan. 8:1–2).

Prophetic visions are meant to be retold. For example, imagery is accompanied by the authentication of divine commissioning (Isa. 6; Ezek. 1:1–3:15; Rev. 10), leading to announcement of judgment (Jer. 1:4–19). This close conjunction of image and word (1 Sam. 3:21) is reinforced by statements about a prophet “seeing” God’s word (e.g., Mic. 1:1 ESV, NRSV, NASB) and about prophetic books as collections of visions (2 Chron. 32:32; Nah. 1:1). Vision reports join oracles and other forms of prophetic speech as essential features of these works. Visions contribute to the community’s spiritual well-being (Prov. 29:18; Ezek. 7:26), but not always (Lam. 2:14; Ezek. 13; Zech. 13:4; Col. 2:18).

Visions drive the narrative surrounding Jesus’ birth (Matt. 1:18–2:23; Luke 1:1–2:20). The baptism of Jesus includes a visionary element, the Holy Spirit’s anointing of Jesus for his ministry, accompanied by the Father’s word (Matt. 3:16–17; Mark 1:10–11; Luke 3:22; John 1:32–33). Jesus’ transfiguration is comparable (Matt. 17:1–9; Mark 9:2–10; Luke 9:28–36). Visions mark key transition points in the narrative of Acts (e.g., chaps. 9–11). The book of Revelation opens with a vision of the Son of Man (1:9–20) and is structured around three vision cycles of judgment interspersed with visions of heaven meant to bolster the readers’ faithfulness.

Because calendars are culturally constructed systems, there are several important differences between the modern calendar and the calendars used in biblical times. When dealing with ancient Jewish and early Christian sources, we can reconstruct complete calendar systems. However, the Bible itself, written over many centuries, employs several calendar systems and systems of dating. No single normative calendar system emerges from biblical materials. Nevertheless, many aspects of life in biblical Israel depended on the use of calendars, which regulated religious festivals, agricultural activity, various aspects of the legal system, and the recording of historical events.

Measurement of Time in Antiquity

There were several methods of reckoning time in antiquity. Some units of time corresponded to the observation of celestial phenomena (see Gen. 1:14), such as the rising and setting of the sun (defining the day), the waxing and waning of the moon (the lunar month), the ascension of the sun in the sky at noon (the solar year). Other measurements of time were defined by the agricultural cycle, including planting and the beginning and end of the harvest (see Exod. 23:16; Ruth 1:22). An agricultural scheme serves as the basis of the Gezer Calendar, an important archaeological object of the tenth century BC unearthed about thirty miles northwest of Jerusalem. The Gezer Calendar divides the year into eight periods of one or two months, each of which corresponds to the planting, tending, and harvest of various crops. Still other units of time, such as the seven-day week and the lunisolar year (see below), were derived by counting or calculation and did not correspond to any observable celestial or terrestrial phenomena.

The division of days into hours and minutes is possible in modern times because of mechanical and electronic timepieces. Without these devices, divisions of time shorter than the day would have been approximations at best. Biblical texts refer to dawn, morning, noon, evening, night, and midnight. In NT times, the twelve daylight hours were numbered (Matt. 27:45; John 11:9). There was also a system of dividing the night into “watches,” attested in both the NT and the OT.

The Month and the Year in the Bible

The Hebrew words for “month” are related to the words for “moon” and “new” (i.e., the “new moon”), which suggests that the ancient Israelite month was a lunar month corresponding to the waxing and waning of the moon over a period of twenty-nine or thirty days. The Bible refers to numbered days in each month, as high as the twenty-seventh day.

There are several systems of naming the months in the Bible. Four “Canaanite” month names appear in the OT: Aviv (the first month), Ziv (the second), Ethanim (the seventh), and Bul (the eighth). Because of the infrequent use of these names, some scholars have questioned whether this system was in widespread use in ancient Israel. The names probably are derived from agricultural terms.

In many cases the months are simply numbered. In this system, the first month began in the spring season. According to biblical narrative, this way of reckoning the beginning of the year was commanded to Moses at the time of the exodus (Exod. 12:1). However, the Bible applies this scheme to events much earlier, as in the story of the flood of Noah, which began in the second month (Gen. 7:11), and scholars have associated the numerical system of months with late biblical sources, around the time of the exile. The system may have come into use around that time and replaced an older system.

In some late biblical texts Babylonian month names are adopted, including Nisan (the first month), Sivan (the third), Elul (the sixth), Chislev (the ninth), Tebet (the tenth), Shebat (the eleventh), and Adar (the twelfth). Following biblical usage, the Babylonian month names were adopted in the ancient Jewish calendar, which is still in use today.

Based on references to the “twelfth month,” the Israelite year apparently consisted of twelve lunar months. Accordingly, the lunar year consisted of approximately 354 days, which means that it would not have corresponded to the solar year of approximately 365¼ days. The beginning of the year would have drifted between eleven and twelve days each year. Presumably, this would have been an unacceptable situation, given the fact that many of the biblical festivals were both assigned to lunar dates and were correlated to agricultural events. The problem probably was solved through the intercalation of “leap months,” as was the practice in maintaining the later Jewish calendar. The result is a lunisolar calendar, in which the year is composed of twelve lunar months and is corrected relative to the solar year by the periodic addition of a second Adar (Adar II) seven times in every nineteen-year period. The Bible does not mention this procedure or identify who was responsible for maintaining the calendar in ancient Israel.

Biblical Dates

Modern systems of absolute dating, in which all years are numbered relative to a single historical reference point—for example, the birth of Jesus (Anno Domini), the journey of Muhammad in AD 622 (Anno Hegira 1) from Mecca to Medina in Islamic culture, and the creation of the world (Anno Mundi) in Jewish tradition—were unparalleled in biblical times. Instead, events were usually dated relative to the reigns of kings, Israelite or otherwise. For example, the accession of Abijah is dated to the eighteenth year of Jeroboam’s reign (1 Kings 15:1), and the proclamation of Cyrus is dated to his first regnal year (Ezra 1:1). In other cases, events were dated relative to important historical events. The beginning of Amos’s career as prophet is dated to “two years before the earthquake” (Amos 1:1), and Exod. 12:41 dates the departure from Egypt to the 430th year of the captivity. In other instances, the fixed points on which relative dates are based cannot be determined. The beginning of Ezekiel’s career as a prophet is dated to the otherwise unspecified “thirtieth year” (Ezek. 1:1). The verse may simply refer to Ezekiel’s age.

The same practices of dating events are followed in the NT. The birth of John the Baptist is dated to “the time of Herod king of Judea” (Luke 1:5). The census of Caesar Augustus is identified as “the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria” (Luke 2:2). As in the OT, such formulas presuppose that the reader has a basic awareness of the succession and reigns of kings and emperors—an advantage lost to modern interpreters, who continue to debate the absolute dating of these events. Perhaps analogously to Ezek. 1:1, the beginning of Jesus’ ministry is dated to his thirtieth year of age (Luke 3:23). Other events and persons reported in the NT can be correlated to extrabiblical historical records to establish absolute dates for biblical events (e.g., the death of Herod Agrippa I in AD 44 [Acts 12:23]). These are distinct from instances in which biblical authors are making a conscious effort to provide dates intelligible to their readers. In contrast to OT historical narrative, for the most part, the NT shows little interest in dating events in its narrative, even according to ancient conventions of relative dating.

The Bible says that on judgment day, God will evaluate the deeds done during our lifetime (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12). God saves us by grace alone, through faith alone, because of what Christ alone has done; nevertheless, our works serve as the evidence or “fruit” of regeneration (Matt. 7:15–27). Works also become God’s standard when the lost are condemned in his heavenly court, since he “will repay each person according to what they have done” and each person has, in fact, sinned (Rom. 2:6; 3:23). But what will God do with young children and the mentally challenged, neither of whom can understand God’s moral law well enough to sin against it or obey it consciously? How will God treat people who could never understand the gospel no matter how clearly an evangelist presents it? The received answer to this question appeals to the idea that we must reach an “age of accountability” before God holds us responsible for our own deeds, and that this age varies with the individual person. But does Scripture endorse this idea?

The parents of miscarried children and those whose children have died at an early age have the greatest emotional stake in the answer to this question. They want to hear that they will see their children again; and the position taken here is that they will, though for a different reason than the one commonly given. Specifically, we must not say that the innocence of these children qualifies them for heaven, because Adam’s corruption affects us all (Rom. 5:12; cf. Pss. 51:5; 58:3). Their inherited depravity could not show itself in overt sins, at least not at a very early age, but Scripture implies that they suffer from it nonetheless. Consequently, as with every case of salvation, the future of children and the mentally handicapped is decided on the basis of God’s grace. They are guilty and stand in need of the cross, as we all do. But would God apply the work of Christ to them by the Spirit before they can function as moral agents and respond consciously to the gospel? A circumstantial case can be made for answering in the affirmative to this question, with this caveat: the argument given applies only to these special cases. It does not encourage the view that unreached sinners are essentially infants in God’s sight and thus justified by similar arrangements.

We begin by noting that God claims some people for his own purposes, even in infancy. He does so in John the Baptist’s case, filling him with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). David and Jeremiah also see God’s hand upon them from their earliest days (Ps. 22:10; Jer. 1:5), as does the apostle Paul (Gal. 1:15). At a minimum, these texts show us that God can and, in some cases, has dealt with human beings before they could ever respond consciously to him. David also expects to be personally reunited with his deceased son, saying, “I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). A final clue is the response of Jesus to children during the days of his earthly life. He rebukes his disciples for keeping children away from him, saying that God’s kingdom belongs to “such as these” (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14; cf. Matt. 18:3). Of course, these episodes are included mainly to show adults what discipleship means, with special reference to humility and self-forgetfulness. In following Jesus, we must care no more for our social status and dignity than young children typically do. Yet one would not do well to argue that Jesus welcomes children into his company merely for illustrative purposes, as if they mean no more to him than handy visual aids. The disciples place children low on their Lord’s list of ministry priorities, and Jesus raises them all the way up. Our answer to this question must be an educated guess, but the safest conclusion seems to be that while children still need the cross, they receive its benefits consistently by other means and thus go to heaven when they die.

The Bible says that on judgment day, God will evaluate the deeds done during our lifetime (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12). God saves us by grace alone, through faith alone, because of what Christ alone has done; nevertheless, our works serve as the evidence or “fruit” of regeneration (Matt. 7:15–27). Works also become God’s standard when the lost are condemned in his heavenly court, since he “will repay each person according to what they have done” and each person has, in fact, sinned (Rom. 2:6; 3:23). But what will God do with young children and the mentally challenged, neither of whom can understand God’s moral law well enough to sin against it or obey it consciously? How will God treat people who could never understand the gospel no matter how clearly an evangelist presents it? The received answer to this question appeals to the idea that we must reach an “age of accountability” before God holds us responsible for our own deeds, and that this age varies with the individual person. But does Scripture endorse this idea?

The parents of miscarried children and those whose children have died at an early age have the greatest emotional stake in the answer to this question. They want to hear that they will see their children again; and the position taken here is that they will, though for a different reason than the one commonly given. Specifically, we must not say that the innocence of these children qualifies them for heaven, because Adam’s corruption affects us all (Rom. 5:12; cf. Pss. 51:5; 58:3). Their inherited depravity could not show itself in overt sins, at least not at a very early age, but Scripture implies that they suffer from it nonetheless. Consequently, as with every case of salvation, the future of children and the mentally handicapped is decided on the basis of God’s grace. They are guilty and stand in need of the cross, as we all do. But would God apply the work of Christ to them by the Spirit before they can function as moral agents and respond consciously to the gospel? A circumstantial case can be made for answering in the affirmative to this question, with this caveat: the argument given applies only to these special cases. It does not encourage the view that unreached sinners are essentially infants in God’s sight and thus justified by similar arrangements.

We begin by noting that God claims some people for his own purposes, even in infancy. He does so in John the Baptist’s case, filling him with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). David and Jeremiah also see God’s hand upon them from their earliest days (Ps. 22:10; Jer. 1:5), as does the apostle Paul (Gal. 1:15). At a minimum, these texts show us that God can and, in some cases, has dealt with human beings before they could ever respond consciously to him. David also expects to be personally reunited with his deceased son, saying, “I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). A final clue is the response of Jesus to children during the days of his earthly life. He rebukes his disciples for keeping children away from him, saying that God’s kingdom belongs to “such as these” (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14; cf. Matt. 18:3). Of course, these episodes are included mainly to show adults what discipleship means, with special reference to humility and self-forgetfulness. In following Jesus, we must care no more for our social status and dignity than young children typically do. Yet one would not do well to argue that Jesus welcomes children into his company merely for illustrative purposes, as if they mean no more to him than handy visual aids. The disciples place children low on their Lord’s list of ministry priorities, and Jesus raises them all the way up. Our answer to this question must be an educated guess, but the safest conclusion seems to be that while children still need the cross, they receive its benefits consistently by other means and thus go to heaven when they die.

Several kings of the Jews, related by birth, had the name “Herod.” The Herods formed a royal dynasty that flourished during the time of Christ and the early church. The founder of the dynasty was Antipater, who was appointed by Caesar in 47 BC as procurator of Judea. The Herods, being partly Edomite (descended from Esau) as well as loyal servants of Rome, were never fully accepted by their Jewish subjects. The family history was characterized by lust, intrigue, and bloodshed. They opposed the Christian faith, sometimes violently, being responsible for the attempted murder of Jesus (Matt. 2:16), the beheading of John the Baptist (Matt. 14:1–12), and the execution of the apostle James (Acts 12:2).

(1) Herod I (Herod the Great), son of Antipater, known as King Herod (Matt. 2:1; Luke 1:5). He ruled Palestine in the years 37–4 BC with Roman consent. A skillful politician, he managed to retain the favor of Rome by deftly switching allegiances when necessary. A capable ruler in some respects, he engaged in extensive building works. His finest project was the beautification of the temple, which he hoped would win Jewish favor. The rabbis would later say, “Whoever has not seen Herod’s building has not seen anything beautiful.”

His rule, however, was marred by paranoia, suspicion, and cruel jealousy. He had some of his wives and sons killed for suspected plotting. In Matthew’s Gospel he is visited by wise men looking for “one who has been born king of the Jews.” Subsequently, he massacred the male infants of Bethlehem, trying to rid himself of this new, royal challenger (Matt. 2:1–11). Upon his death, his kingdom was divided among three of his sons, Herod Antipas, Herod Archelaus, and Herod Philip.

(2) Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, also known simply as Herod or as Herod the tetrarch (Matt. 14:1; Luke 3:19). He was given jurisdiction over Galilee and Perea, which he ruled from 4 BC to AD 39 (Luke 3:1). For this reason, when Pilate heard that Jesus came from Galilee, he sent him to Antipas for questioning (Luke 23:6–12).

He is infamous for his role in the death of John the Baptist, which later haunted him (Matt. 14:1–12; Mark 6:14–29). Jesus referred to him as “that fox,” alluding to his predatory destructiveness for having killed John the Baptist, who criticized him for taking his half brother’s wife, Herodias, in marriage. He also sought to kill Jesus (Luke 13:31–32). Jesus warned the disciples of the yeast of Herod (Mark 8:15). Yeast was a metaphor sometimes used to describe how evil spreads and corrupts the whole person, perhaps a reference to Herod’s lust for Herodias and his murderous opposition to God’s word and Son. (See also Antipas.)

(3) Herod Archelaus, ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (4 BC–AD 6) and son of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:22). (See also Archelaus.)

(4) Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem; he was tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis in the years 4 BC–AD 34 (Luke 3:1). He rebuilt Paneas and named it “Caesarea Philippi” after the emperor and himself (Matt. 16:13; Mark 8:27). Apparently, he married his niece Salome III, the daughter of Herodias and his half brother Herod son of Mariamne II.

(5) Herod (Philip), son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II, he was married to Herodias, who left him for his half brother Antipas (Matt. 14:3; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19). Though sharing a common name, this is a different son of Herod the Great than the Herod Philip of Luke 3:1.

(6) Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great, also called “King Herod” in Scripture (Acts 12:1). At the height of his power (r. AD 37–44), he ruled an area coextensive with that of his grandfather. He persecuted the early church, killing James the brother of John. Encouraged by the Jews, he imprisoned Peter, intending to put him on trial, until an angel of God miraculously intervened to free him. He died prematurely in Caesarea when struck down for not giving glory to God (Acts 12:20–25).

(7) Herod Agrippa II (reigned in Chalcis AD 48–52, in Iturea AD 52–c. 93), the son of Herod Agrippa I. Prompted by the governor Festus, he gave audience to the apostle Paul to make his defense. He rejected Paul’s attempt to persuade him of the truth of the Christian faith (Acts 25:13–27; 26).

The act of announcing, usually associated with the arrival of a significant figure. In church history the term has been specifically applied to the announcement of the arrival of a son to Mary whose name would be called “Jesus” (Luke 1:26–35). More generally speaking, however, notice of the coming miraculous birth of any child can appropriately be called an annunciation. For instance, the reporting of the coming of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 18:10), the arrival of Samson to Manoah and his wife (Judg. 13:2–5), and the birth of John to Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:11–20) could also be identified as annunciations. In each case, the arrival of the child is to a barren womb, and thus the miraculous intervention of God in the lives of the human families is emphasized. As is often the case when comparing the events of Jesus’ life with earlier events, his coming took on a heightened importance. Only with the annunciation of Jesus did God reveal that the child would be born of a virgin.

Because calendars are culturally constructed systems, there are several important differences between the modern calendar and the calendars used in biblical times. When dealing with ancient Jewish and early Christian sources, we can reconstruct complete calendar systems. However, the Bible itself, written over many centuries, employs several calendar systems and systems of dating. No single normative calendar system emerges from biblical materials. Nevertheless, many aspects of life in biblical Israel depended on the use of calendars, which regulated religious festivals, agricultural activity, various aspects of the legal system, and the recording of historical events.

Measurement of Time in Antiquity

There were several methods of reckoning time in antiquity. Some units of time corresponded to the observation of celestial phenomena (see Gen. 1:14), such as the rising and setting of the sun (defining the day), the waxing and waning of the moon (the lunar month), the ascension of the sun in the sky at noon (the solar year). Other measurements of time were defined by the agricultural cycle, including planting and the beginning and end of the harvest (see Exod. 23:16; Ruth 1:22). An agricultural scheme serves as the basis of the Gezer Calendar, an important archaeological object of the tenth century BC unearthed about thirty miles northwest of Jerusalem. The Gezer Calendar divides the year into eight periods of one or two months, each of which corresponds to the planting, tending, and harvest of various crops. Still other units of time, such as the seven-day week and the lunisolar year (see below), were derived by counting or calculation and did not correspond to any observable celestial or terrestrial phenomena.

The division of days into hours and minutes is possible in modern times because of mechanical and electronic timepieces. Without these devices, divisions of time shorter than the day would have been approximations at best. Biblical texts refer to dawn, morning, noon, evening, night, and midnight. In NT times, the twelve daylight hours were numbered (Matt. 27:45; John 11:9). There was also a system of dividing the night into “watches,” attested in both the NT and the OT.

The Month and the Year in the Bible

The Hebrew words for “month” are related to the words for “moon” and “new” (i.e., the “new moon”), which suggests that the ancient Israelite month was a lunar month corresponding to the waxing and waning of the moon over a period of twenty-nine or thirty days. The Bible refers to numbered days in each month, as high as the twenty-seventh day.

There are several systems of naming the months in the Bible. Four “Canaanite” month names appear in the OT: Aviv (the first month), Ziv (the second), Ethanim (the seventh), and Bul (the eighth). Because of the infrequent use of these names, some scholars have questioned whether this system was in widespread use in ancient Israel. The names probably are derived from agricultural terms.

In many cases the months are simply numbered. In this system, the first month began in the spring season. According to biblical narrative, this way of reckoning the beginning of the year was commanded to Moses at the time of the exodus (Exod. 12:1). However, the Bible applies this scheme to events much earlier, as in the story of the flood of Noah, which began in the second month (Gen. 7:11), and scholars have associated the numerical system of months with late biblical sources, around the time of the exile. The system may have come into use around that time and replaced an older system.

In some late biblical texts Babylonian month names are adopted, including Nisan (the first month), Sivan (the third), Elul (the sixth), Chislev (the ninth), Tebet (the tenth), Shebat (the eleventh), and Adar (the twelfth). Following biblical usage, the Babylonian month names were adopted in the ancient Jewish calendar, which is still in use today.

Based on references to the “twelfth month,” the Israelite year apparently consisted of twelve lunar months. Accordingly, the lunar year consisted of approximately 354 days, which means that it would not have corresponded to the solar year of approximately 365¼ days. The beginning of the year would have drifted between eleven and twelve days each year. Presumably, this would have been an unacceptable situation, given the fact that many of the biblical festivals were both assigned to lunar dates and were correlated to agricultural events. The problem probably was solved through the intercalation of “leap months,” as was the practice in maintaining the later Jewish calendar. The result is a lunisolar calendar, in which the year is composed of twelve lunar months and is corrected relative to the solar year by the periodic addition of a second Adar (Adar II) seven times in every nineteen-year period. The Bible does not mention this procedure or identify who was responsible for maintaining the calendar in ancient Israel.

Biblical Dates

Modern systems of absolute dating, in which all years are numbered relative to a single historical reference point—for example, the birth of Jesus (Anno Domini), the journey of Muhammad in AD 622 (Anno Hegira 1) from Mecca to Medina in Islamic culture, and the creation of the world (Anno Mundi) in Jewish tradition—were unparalleled in biblical times. Instead, events were usually dated relative to the reigns of kings, Israelite or otherwise. For example, the accession of Abijah is dated to the eighteenth year of Jeroboam’s reign (1 Kings 15:1), and the proclamation of Cyrus is dated to his first regnal year (Ezra 1:1). In other cases, events were dated relative to important historical events. The beginning of Amos’s career as prophet is dated to “two years before the earthquake” (Amos 1:1), and Exod. 12:41 dates the departure from Egypt to the 430th year of the captivity. In other instances, the fixed points on which relative dates are based cannot be determined. The beginning of Ezekiel’s career as a prophet is dated to the otherwise unspecified “thirtieth year” (Ezek. 1:1). The verse may simply refer to Ezekiel’s age.

The same practices of dating events are followed in the NT. The birth of John the Baptist is dated to “the time of Herod king of Judea” (Luke 1:5). The census of Caesar Augustus is identified as “the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria” (Luke 2:2). As in the OT, such formulas presuppose that the reader has a basic awareness of the succession and reigns of kings and emperors—an advantage lost to modern interpreters, who continue to debate the absolute dating of these events. Perhaps analogously to Ezek. 1:1, the beginning of Jesus’ ministry is dated to his thirtieth year of age (Luke 3:23). Other events and persons reported in the NT can be correlated to extrabiblical historical records to establish absolute dates for biblical events (e.g., the death of Herod Agrippa I in AD 44 [Acts 12:23]). These are distinct from instances in which biblical authors are making a conscious effort to provide dates intelligible to their readers. In contrast to OT historical narrative, for the most part, the NT shows little interest in dating events in its narrative, even according to ancient conventions of relative dating.

Old Testament

Students of biblical history must work with several overlapping systems of chronology. This section defines several approaches and describes how they are interconnected.

Absolute and relative dates. Absolute dates consist of a numerical value falling in one of two eras, BC (“Before Christ”; also referred to as BCE, “Before the Common Era”) or AD (Anno Domini, “in the year of our Lord”; also referred to as CE, “Common Era”). For example, Samaria fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC. This system of absolute dating, a commonplace of modern life, was devised only in the sixth century AD, so it is unknown in biblical and other ancient sources. Instead of absolute dates, the Bible and other ancient historiographic sources give relative dates; that is, events are dated in relation to other recorded events, as in 1 Kings 15:1: “In the eighteenth year of the reign of Jeroboam son of Nebat, Abijah became king of Judah.” The system of relative dates in the OT can be collated to form a single relative chronology.

Using royal histories. For the purposes of constructing a unified chronology, the royal history in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles is of central importance, with its tabulations of the ages of the kings at accession and the lengths of their reigns. The biblical chronology can then be assigned to absolute dates by establishing synchronisms with other historical chronicles (most usefully, from Mesopotamia), which in turn can be fixed to a handful of absolute dates. Of particular importance are records (all nonbiblical cuneiform texts) of observed astronomical phenomena, the appearance of which in history can now be calculated with a high degree of mathematical certainty. Annalistic sources (documents that record an entry for each passing year, such as the cuneiform eponym chronicles) are particularly valuable. The Bible contains no annalistic sources, but rather is made up of chronistic sources—that is, texts that record and quantify the passage of time, but without a separate accounting of each year. When miscalculations or textual corruptions affect chronistic records, they are difficult to correct (see 1 Sam. 13:1). The biblical data, consisting of summary figures, probably go back to annalistic sources that were compiled from year to year (perhaps the records mentioned in, e.g., 1 Kings 11:41; 14:19).

The assembly of a unified biblical chronology on the basis of the royal histories is further complicated by the fact that several calendars—royal, agricultural, cultic—were in simultaneous use. There may also have been a discrepancy between Israel and Judah with regard to the reckoning of the cultic New Year. Added to this, in several cases the biblical data imply a period of coregency, during which the reigns of the outgoing king and his appointed successor overlapped, creating the potential for the years of the coregency to be counted twice. In biblical times there were two systems of reckoning dates based on royal succession: the “accession-year” system, which omitted from the length of a king’s reign any partial year from his accession to the first New Year, and the “nonaccession-year” system, which began counting the years of a king’s reign as soon as he acceded. In nonaccession-year dating, any year in which there are two kings gets counted twice: once as the last year of the former king, and once as the first year of the new king. The biblical chronologies appear to use both systems, with a movement from the nonaccession-year system to the accession-year system in later centuries. Obviously, the choice of systems dictates the significance of the figures presented in the Bible and must be taken into account in the collation of data.

Combining royal regnal data and various genealogical tables (based on, e.g., Gen. 5; 11; the summary figures in Exod. 12:41; 1 Kings 6:1), it is possible to reconstruct a putative world chronology from the creation of Adam to the exile. Famously, in 1650 James Ussher followed this procedure, working backward from absolute dates known from classical sources, to determine that the world was created on the night before October 23, 4004 BC. In its day, this was a work of impressive scholarship, but Ussher’s chronology is too short to encompass not only archaeological findings (from the land of Israel itself, there are Neolithic and Chalcolithic artifacts going back ten thousand years), but also findings in all branches of the sciences that corroborate the age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years and the appearance of modern humans approximately two hundred thousand years before the present. Beginning in the first millennium BC, however, the Bible provides chronological data that, with modest adjustments, agree with other historical and archaeological findings.

Weighing the sources. Because of the variety of materials in the OT, it is crucial to determine which sources are of historical value, weighing each in terms of internal and external coherence. As noted above, the backbone of OT chronology is the series of regnal data for the kings of Israel and Judah found in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. These data are useful because they provide a continuous chronology of several hundred years that can be anchored at several points to datable events in external historical sources. In addition, the history of the kings of Judah and Israel contains references to historical figures known from extrabiblical records. In contrast, the chronology of the OT prior to the period of judges, while internally coherent, cannot be correlated to known absolute dates. Where non-Israelite figures are mentioned, they are often unnamed (e.g., the pharaohs of the eras of Abraham and Moses), anachronistically described (e.g., Abraham’s contacts with the Philistines [Gen. 21:34], a group that did not appear in Palestine until long after the ostensible Middle Bronze Age date of Abraham), or do not correspond to known historical figures (e.g., Abimelek, Nimrod). Although cultural-historical investigation may shed light on the patriarchal narratives and their historical setting, such an approach yields nothing more than vague chronological findings. In some cases, the late date of the biblical texts has obscured chronological indicators, interfering with the project of cultural history. Setting aside questions of the historicity of the patriarchal narratives, apart from the reports of their ages, there is little data to work with when it comes to constructing a chronology of the patriarchs.

The story of the exodus from Egypt presents an event that, in principle, should be datable on the basis of external data. The mass migration of millions of persons, the destruction of the army of a geopolitical superpower, and the subsequent conquest of a small but powerful country are events that promise to provide a chronological anchor for the beginning of Israel’s history. Unfortunately, the event recorded in the Bible has not left a clear mark, either in the historiography of Egypt or in the archaeology of Palestine. On closer inspection, the biblical text contains a number of features that frustrate any attempt to date the events on their basis. Unlike in the histories of the biblical monarchs, the pharaoh of the Exodus, a figure of international stature in his own day, is never named in the Bible. Some have attempted to fix a date to the exodus on the basis of the occurrence of the name “Rameses” in Exod. 1:11; 12:37. This name was not current in Egypt before the thirteenth century BC. If it provides a clue as to the date of the exodus, it does so only at the expense of broader biblical chronology, according to which the exodus occurred in the fifteenth century BC (in particular, based on the figures given in Exod. 12:41; 1 Kings 6:1). It is not until we get into the monarchic period, when the history of Israel is intertwined with that of named international figures, that absolute dates can be established with certainty.

Biblical events that can be assigned absolute dates based on cuneiform historical records include the following. Ahab was king of Israel at the time of the battle of Qarqar in 853 BC. The Kurkh monolith of Shalmaneser III records his participation in the coalition of Hadadezer, though the event is not mentioned in the Bible. Jehu was on the throne of Judah in 841 BC, when Shalmaneser III recorded that he gave tribute to Assyria. Joash was king of Israel in 796 BC, when he rendered tribute to Adad-nirari III. Menahem was king in 740 and 738 BC (see 2 Kings 15:19), when he paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser III (the biblical Pul). Ahaz paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser in 734 BC, and Manasseh to Esarhaddon around 674 BC. These synchronisms provide in each case upper and lower limits for fixing the reign of the kings of Israel and Judah. In some cases, the chronology of the book of Kings must be adjusted to fit these dates, on the assumption that the Deuteronomistic Historian lacked firsthand knowledge about the history of the northern kingdom, was attempting to work with conflicting sources, or made errors in calculation. Other important synchronisms include Hoshea’s coup against Pekah (2 Kings 15:30), dated based on an inscription of Tiglath-pileser III to 732 BC; the fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:6), dated based on the Babylonian Chronicle to 722 BC; Sennacherib’s Judean campaign in 701 BC (2 Kings 18:13–19:36); the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BC (Jer. 46:2); the capture of Jerusalem in 597 BC (2 Kings 24:12); and the release of Jehoiachin from captivity in 561 BC, coinciding with the accession of Amel-Marduk (2 Kings 25:27).

Periodization of history. In addition to relative and absolute chronologies, biblical scholars refer to several schemes of periodization defined by technological and political developments.

The most ancient scheme of periodization is implied in the Bible itself, which conceives of periods of judges (Judg. 17:6), united monarchy, divided monarchy, and exile. The transitions between phases in this scheme are defined by dramatic social and political discontinuities. Another approach to the periodization of Israelite history involves defining the major transitions in terms of the material culture. Prior to the fall of Jerusalem, modern biblical scholars and archaeologists divide Syro-Palestinian history into several periods, named for developments in metallurgical technology. While there is some variety of opinion among scholars regarding the exact dates used, the following scheme is widely used (given with rough correlations to the biblical periods):

Early Bronze Age – 3300 to 2200 BC (Primeval period?)

Middle Bronze Age – 2200 to 1550 BC (Patriarch)

Late Bronze Age – 1550 to 1200 BC (Period in Egypt, exodus)

Iron Age – 1200 to 586 BC (Judges monarchy)

The Iron Age is further subdivided as follows:

Iron Age – 1200 to 1000 BC (Judges)

Iron Age IIA – 1000 to 900 BC (United monarchy)

Iron Age IIB – 900 to 700 BC (Divided monarchy)

Iron Age IIC – 700 to 586 BC (Fall of Samaria to fall of Jerusalem

The divisions between these periods are heuristic and do not correspond to precisely dated developments in metallurgy. For instance, some iron artifacts may be dated to the Bronze Age, though not widespread iron metalworking on an industrial scale. Especially in the various subdivisions of the Iron Age, transitions begin to be defined by political events rather than the metal sequence: Iron IA corresponds to the biblical period of the judges, Iron IIA to the united monarchy, Iron IIB to the divided monarchy, and Iron IIC to the period between the falls of Samaria and Jerusalem, when the southern kingdom alone had political autonomy. Some scholars round off the dates to avoid a periodization based on short-term political events and to emphasize the gradual rate of change in material culture and technology (e.g., using the round dates 900, 700, 600).

For events and dates after the fall of Jerusalem, historians employ a scheme of periodization based heavily on political factors. The series of periods are named for the dominant geopolitical powers in Syria-Palestine:

Neo-Babylonian period – 622 to 539 BC (Late Judean monarchy, exile)

Persian period – 539 to 330 BC (Return from exile)

Hellenistic period – 330 to 63 BC (Intertestamental)

Roman period – 63 BC to AD 324 (New Testament events

Although there was significant redaction (and, according to some, composition) of biblical texts in the Hellenistic period, no biblical narratives are ostensibly set in the period. Thus, the internal periodization of history in the Hebrew Bible ends with the return from exile (the Persian period).

New Testament

The birth of Jesus. According to Matt. 2:1 (see also Luke 1:5), Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod the Great, who, as we know from Josephus, died in 4 BC (see Matt. 2:15–19). In his attempt to kill Jesus, Herod ordered the slaughter of male children up to the age of two, based on information that he obtained from the magi concerning the appearance of the star heralding Jesus’ birth (Matt. 2:16). Thus, Matthew’s account implies a date no later than 4 BC, but possibly several years earlier. Some scholars have attempted to correlate the magi’s observance of a star with one of several striking celestial phenomena, including a conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars in 7 BC (so Johannes Kepler). Such attempts, however, are weakened by the fact that Matthew’s description of the star is vague, unnaturalistic, and difficult to identify certainly with a planetary alignment or any other known phenomenon (in particular, the star is said to move and then come to rest over Jesus’ location). Another line of investigation involves Luke’s correlation of Jesus’ birth with a Roman census that he dates to the time of Quirinius (Luke 2:1–2). This report, however, contradicts the testimony of Josephus, according to whom Quirinius became governor in AD 6 (a decade after the death of Herod). Most likely, Jesus was born shortly before 4 BC, during the reign of Herod.

The beginning and duration of Jesus’ public ministry. According to Luke 3:23, Jesus was “about thirty years old” at the time of his baptism and the beginning of his public ministry. In John 8:57, Jesus is challenged: “You are not yet fifty years old.” These two round numbers provide reasonable limits for the age of Jesus during his ministry. Owing to a paucity of chronological indicators in the Synoptic Gospels, the ministry of Jesus as depicted in Matthew, Mark, and Luke could have taken place within the space of a single year. In contrast, John narrates postbaptism events during three occurrences of the annual Passover festival (John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55), suggesting that Jesus’ ministry lasted for three years or longer. Unfortunately, the chronology of John appears in some instances to be at odds with the other Gospels. Most significantly, he places Jesus’ cleansing of the temple at the beginning, rather than the end, of his ministry (John 2:13–22; cf. Mark 11:15–19 pars.). It is unclear to what degree strict chronology has been modified in the interest of other concerns in each of the Gospels. According to John’s account, the cleansing of the temple occurred forty-six years after the beginning of its construction, an event that Josephus dates to either the eighteenth or the fifteenth year of Herod’s reign (John 2:20), placing the incident in the year AD 28 or 31. Ultimately, there are two sources of uncertainty pertaining to the chronology of Jesus’ ministry: the imprecise (and possibly symbolic) report of his age in Luke 3:23 and the indeterminate length of his ministry.

The death of Jesus. All four Gospels agree that Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judea, was instrumental in the trial and execution of Jesus. Pilate governed from AD 26 to 36; this provides a latest possible date for the death of Jesus. To refine the chronology beyond this, scholars have attempted to date the end of Jesus’ life based on its occurrence during the Feast of Passover (15 Nisan in the Jewish calendar) and by trying to determine in which year the feast would have coincided with his crucifixion on a Friday. This approach is complicated by the discrepancy between John, according to whom the Passover meal was eaten in the evening following the crucifixion (John 19:14), and Mark, who appears to have an imperfect knowledge of Passover customs (Mark 14:12–16) and thus describes Jesus’ final supper with his disciples as a Passover meal (i.e., on 14 Nisan). Following John’s chronology yields a date for the crucifixion of Friday, April 7 (Nisan 14), AD 30, or Friday, April 3 (Nisan 14), AD 33.

Of these two options, the AD 30 date conforms more closely to Luke 3:23, and it suggests that following a ministry of about three years, Jesus was in his mid- to late thirties at the time of his crucifixion.

Paul’s career. The chronology of Paul’s career remains a difficult question in biblical studies. There are two major sources for this chronology: the letters of Paul (esp. Galatians) and the book of Acts. When independent chronologies are constructed from each of these sources, several difficulties arise, including the absence of absolute anchors in Paul’s letters, lack of clear agreement between Acts and the letters regarding the number of visits to Jerusalem, and, by implication, the periodization of Paul’s career into distinct phases of concerted activity or “missionary journeys.” These data must in turn be synchronized, sometimes requiring some ingenuity, with other historically documented events such as the dating of Claudius’s edict (Acts 18:2), the dates of Aretas’s control of Damascus (2 Cor. 11:32–33), the death of Herod Agrippa in AD 44 (mentioned in Acts 12:23), the presence of Sergius Paulus in Cyprus during Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 13:7 [this figure is known from inscriptions, but none of them clearly bears on the question]), and Festus’s succession of Felix as the procurator of Palestine (Acts 23–26), which Josephus puts in AD 53.

If we grant a fair measure of historical reliability to the outline of Acts, Paul experienced his conversion around AD 33, visited Jerusalem in AD 36 (Gal. 1:18), completed his first missionary journey and then visited Jerusalem to confer with the other apostles (Acts 15:1–29; Gal. 2:1) in the late 40s, conducted his second and third missionary journeys in the first half of the 50s before being finally arrested in Jerusalem around AD 57, and was taken to Rome in AD 59–60.

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (c. 50 BC–AD 21) was a successful Roman military commander and politician best known for conducting a census mentioned at the beginning of Christ’s birth narrative in Luke 2:2. Ancient historians, including Tacitus, Strabo, and Josephus, wrote about Quirinius, so a fair bit is known about his career. However, all this information lends to a historical problem when compared to the Gospel accounts. Jesus’ birth takes place during the time of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 1:5), but only Luke’s account mentions Quirinius conducting a census as the governor of Syria before Herod’s death. Every other known account places this census in AD 6/7, some ten years after Herod’s death.

For centuries a number of attempts have been made to solve the problem, but without more evidence each solution remains inconclusive. The following suggestions have been made: (1) The census began during Herod’s reign but ended when Quirinius was governor of Syria. (2) “Quirinius” is a textual error, and Luke originally wrote of another governor in 2:2. Adherents to this theory usually cite Tertullian (Marc. 4.19), but no manuscript of Luke supports this. (3) Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, performing one census in Herod’s day and one in AD 6/7. The ancient inscription Lapis Tiburtinus may support this. (4) “First” (Gk. prōtē) in Luke 2:2 should be translated “before,” which makes Luke’s census the one “before Quirinius was governor.” However, some grammarians disagree. (5) “Governor” (hēgemoneuōn) in Luke 2:2 is ambiguous; therefore, Quirinius must have had some kind of office warranting Luke’s mention. This appeal requires more evidence.

The condition of being wholly, or partly, without hearing. The Greek word kōphos can refer to one’s inability to speak (Matt. 9:32–33; 12:22; 15:30–31; Luke 1:22; 11:14) or hear (Matt. 11:5; Mark 7:37; 9:25; Luke 7:22). Such a condition was often believed to be a judgment from God (Mic. 7:16). God has control over deafness (Exod. 4:11; Ps. 94:9; Prov. 20:12; Luke 1:20). God’s people were to mirror his compassion toward the deaf (Lev. 19:14). In NT times, hearing deficiencies were sometimes caused by Satan (Mark 9:25) but were always met by Jesus’ miraculous power (Matt. 11:5; Mark 7:32–37; 9:25). Figuratively, deafness describes people’s spiritual rebellion, their unwillingness to hear, know, and obey God (Ps. 58:4; Prov. 28:9; Isa. 6:10; 29:18; 35:5; Jer. 6:10; Ezek. 12:2; Matt. 13:14–16; Mark 4:10–12; Luke 8:10; Acts 28:26–27). God is described as being deaf to a rebellious people (Deut. 1:45; Pss. 28:1; 39:12), whereas idols are deaf because they have no real life (Deut. 4:28; Pss. 115:6; 135:17; Dan. 5:23; Rev. 9:20).

The condition of being wholly, or partly, without hearing. The Greek word kōphos can refer to one’s inability to speak (Matt. 9:32–33; 12:22; 15:30–31; Luke 1:22; 11:14) or hear (Matt. 11:5; Mark 7:37; 9:25; Luke 7:22). Such a condition was often believed to be a judgment from God (Mic. 7:16). God has control over deafness (Exod. 4:11; Ps. 94:9; Prov. 20:12; Luke 1:20). God’s people were to mirror his compassion toward the deaf (Lev. 19:14). In NT times, hearing deficiencies were sometimes caused by Satan (Mark 9:25) but were always met by Jesus’ miraculous power (Matt. 11:5; Mark 7:32–37; 9:25). Figuratively, deafness describes people’s spiritual rebellion, their unwillingness to hear, know, and obey God (Ps. 58:4; Prov. 28:9; Isa. 6:10; 29:18; 35:5; Jer. 6:10; Ezek. 12:2; Matt. 13:14–16; Mark 4:10–12; Luke 8:10; Acts 28:26–27). God is described as being deaf to a rebellious people (Deut. 1:45; Pss. 28:1; 39:12), whereas idols are deaf because they have no real life (Deut. 4:28; Pss. 115:6; 135:17; Dan. 5:23; Rev. 9:20).

Evangelism is the proclamation of the “evangel” (Gk. euangelion), the good news, of Jesus Christ. The content of the evangel includes Jesus’ birth, which was announced as good news to Zechariah by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:19) and by the angels to the shepherds (Luke 2:10). The good news speaks of the reality of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 17:18), is described as a message of grace (Acts 20:24) and reconciliation to God through the sacrificed body of Christ (Col. 1:22–23), and includes the expectation of a day of divine judgment (Rom. 2:16). Paul preached the gospel (from Old English gōdspel, “good news”) message, which he claimed had its origin with God, not humans (Gal. 1:11–12). He summarizes this message in 1 Cor. 15:3b–5: “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.” The introduction to the Gospel of Mark (1:1) may indicate that this written gospel could serve evangelistic purposes.

Evangelistic efforts in the New Testament. Numerous figures throughout the NT participated in evangelistic endeavors. John the Baptist’s preaching about the coming Messiah is described as evangelism (Luke 3:18). Evangelism was a characteristic activity of Jesus’ own ministry (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14; Luke 20:1), which focused on proclaiming the advent of the kingdom of God (Luke 4:43; 8:1) and at times was targeted toward the poor (Matt. 11:5; Luke 4:18; 7:22). Jesus commanded those who follow him to engage in evangelism. He sent out the twelve apostles for evangelistic purposes (Luke 9:2), and he issued the Great Commission to this end (Matt. 28:18–20).

The missionary enterprise recorded in Acts demonstrates the efforts of the earliest Christians to spread the gospel. The apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 5:42) proclaimed the gospel in spite of great opposition and persecution, and believers who were scattered outside Jerusalem because of persecution spread the gospel in new locales (8:4). Philip evangelized Samaritans and an Ethiopian (8:12, 35). The ministry of Paul and Barnabas is characterized as preaching the good news (14:7, 15, 21; 15:35; 16:10; 17:18). Philip, one of the seven chosen to distribute food (6:5), was given the name “the Evangelist” (21:8). Timothy, additionally, is said to be Paul’s fellow worker in evangelism (1 Thess. 3:2; cf. 2 Tim. 4:5).

Evangelism was a central part of Paul’s ministry (Rom. 1:9; 1 Cor. 1:17; 15:1–2; Eph. 6:19; 1 Thess. 2:2, 9). He indicated an explicit interest in sharing the gospel with Gentiles (Rom. 15:16; Gal. 1:16; 2:7; Eph. 3:8) and with those who had never heard it (Rom. 15:20; 2 Cor. 10:16), and he expressed a desire to preach the gospel at Rome (Rom. 1:15). Paul wrote of the necessity of evangelism in order for people to be saved (Rom. 10:15), and he preached the gospel message free of charge (1 Cor. 9:16, 18; 2 Cor. 11:7). He listed the role of the evangelist in the church along with apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11).

Goal and methods of evangelism. Evangelism’s goal is to spread the gospel across ethnic and religious boundaries until it reaches all nations (Mark 13:10; Col. 1:23). To this end, Acts details an intentional effort by the earliest Christians to share the gospel with those who came from both Jewish and non-Jewish backgrounds. Acts 8:25 records Peter and John’s evangelistic efforts in Samaritan villages, and Acts 15:7 identifies Peter as an evangelist to Gentiles. An outreach specifically to Gentiles is chronicled in Acts 11:20, and Paul’s intentional program of traveling from city to city further contributes to this goal (Rom. 15:19).

The evangelists recorded in the NT demonstrate a range of methods and approaches to sharing the good news. They often began with a point of contact from the religious worldview of their audience. For instance, Philip used Scripture as a starting point in speaking with an individual who was familiar with some portion of it (Acts 8:35). Similarly, when addressing Jews, Paul preached Jesus as the fulfillment of various OT Scriptures (Acts 13:32–41), but when preaching the gospel to the Greeks in Athens, he acknowledged their religiosity and their previous worship of one called “an unknown God” (17:22–23). Evangelists sought opportunities to gain an audience, and Paul even took advantage of an illness to stay with the Galatians and share the gospel with them (Gal. 4:13). Finally, much of the evangelistic work in the early church was coupled with miraculous signs and wonders, which served to authenticate the message being proclaimed (Rom. 15:19; 1 Thess. 1:5).

Several kings of the Jews, related by birth, had the name “Herod.” The Herods formed a royal dynasty that flourished during the time of Christ and the early church. The founder of the dynasty was Antipater, who was appointed by Caesar in 47 BC as procurator of Judea. The Herods, being partly Edomite (descended from Esau) as well as loyal servants of Rome, were never fully accepted by their Jewish subjects. The family history was characterized by lust, intrigue, and bloodshed. They opposed the Christian faith, sometimes violently, being responsible for the attempted murder of Jesus (Matt. 2:16), the beheading of John the Baptist (Matt. 14:1–12), and the execution of the apostle James (Acts 12:2).

(1) Herod I (Herod the Great), son of Antipater, known as King Herod (Matt. 2:1; Luke 1:5). He ruled Palestine in the years 37–4 BC with Roman consent. A skillful politician, he managed to retain the favor of Rome by deftly switching allegiances when necessary. A capable ruler in some respects, he engaged in extensive building works. His finest project was the beautification of the temple, which he hoped would win Jewish favor. The rabbis would later say, “Whoever has not seen Herod’s building has not seen anything beautiful.”

His rule, however, was marred by paranoia, suspicion, and cruel jealousy. He had some of his wives and sons killed for suspected plotting. In Matthew’s Gospel he is visited by wise men looking for “one who has been born king of the Jews.” Subsequently, he massacred the male infants of Bethlehem, trying to rid himself of this new, royal challenger (Matt. 2:1–11). Upon his death, his kingdom was divided among three of his sons, Herod Antipas, Herod Archelaus, and Herod Philip.

(2) Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, also known simply as Herod or as Herod the tetrarch (Matt. 14:1; Luke 3:19). He was given jurisdiction over Galilee and Perea, which he ruled from 4 BC to AD 39 (Luke 3:1). For this reason, when Pilate heard that Jesus came from Galilee, he sent him to Antipas for questioning (Luke 23:6–12).

He is infamous for his role in the death of John the Baptist, which later haunted him (Matt. 14:1–12; Mark 6:14–29). Jesus referred to him as “that fox,” alluding to his predatory destructiveness for having killed John the Baptist, who criticized him for taking his half brother’s wife, Herodias, in marriage. He also sought to kill Jesus (Luke 13:31–32). Jesus warned the disciples of the yeast of Herod (Mark 8:15). Yeast was a metaphor sometimes used to describe how evil spreads and corrupts the whole person, perhaps a reference to Herod’s lust for Herodias and his murderous opposition to God’s word and Son. (See also Antipas.)

(3) Herod Archelaus, ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (4 BC–AD 6) and son of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:22). (See also Archelaus.)

(4) Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem; he was tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis in the years 4 BC–AD 34 (Luke 3:1). He rebuilt Paneas and named it “Caesarea Philippi” after the emperor and himself (Matt. 16:13; Mark 8:27). Apparently, he married his niece Salome III, the daughter of Herodias and his half brother Herod son of Mariamne II.

(5) Herod (Philip), son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II, he was married to Herodias, who left him for his half brother Antipas (Matt. 14:3; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19). Though sharing a common name, this is a different son of Herod the Great than the Herod Philip of Luke 3:1.

(6) Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great, also called “King Herod” in Scripture (Acts 12:1). At the height of his power (r. AD 37–44), he ruled an area coextensive with that of his grandfather. He persecuted the early church, killing James the brother of John. Encouraged by the Jews, he imprisoned Peter, intending to put him on trial, until an angel of God miraculously intervened to free him. He died prematurely in Caesarea when struck down for not giving glory to God (Acts 12:20–25).

(7) Herod Agrippa II (reigned in Chalcis AD 48–52, in Iturea AD 52–c. 93), the son of Herod Agrippa I. Prompted by the governor Festus, he gave audience to the apostle Paul to make his defense. He rejected Paul’s attempt to persuade him of the truth of the Christian faith (Acts 25:13–27; 26).

The Bible says that on judgment day, God will evaluate the deeds done during our lifetime (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12). God saves us by grace alone, through faith alone, because of what Christ alone has done; nevertheless, our works serve as the evidence or “fruit” of regeneration (Matt. 7:15–27). Works also become God’s standard when the lost are condemned in his heavenly court, since he “will repay each person according to what they have done” and each person has, in fact, sinned (Rom. 2:6; 3:23). But what will God do with young children and the mentally challenged, neither of whom can understand God’s moral law well enough to sin against it or obey it consciously? How will God treat people who could never understand the gospel no matter how clearly an evangelist presents it? The received answer to this question appeals to the idea that we must reach an “age of accountability” before God holds us responsible for our own deeds, and that this age varies with the individual person. But does Scripture endorse this idea?

The parents of miscarried children and those whose children have died at an early age have the greatest emotional stake in the answer to this question. They want to hear that they will see their children again; and the position taken here is that they will, though for a different reason than the one commonly given. Specifically, we must not say that the innocence of these children qualifies them for heaven, because Adam’s corruption affects us all (Rom. 5:12; cf. Pss. 51:5; 58:3). Their inherited depravity could not show itself in overt sins, at least not at a very early age, but Scripture implies that they suffer from it nonetheless. Consequently, as with every case of salvation, the future of children and the mentally handicapped is decided on the basis of God’s grace. They are guilty and stand in need of the cross, as we all do. But would God apply the work of Christ to them by the Spirit before they can function as moral agents and respond consciously to the gospel? A circumstantial case can be made for answering in the affirmative to this question, with this caveat: the argument given applies only to these special cases. It does not encourage the view that unreached sinners are essentially infants in God’s sight and thus justified by similar arrangements.

We begin by noting that God claims some people for his own purposes, even in infancy. He does so in John the Baptist’s case, filling him with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). David and Jeremiah also see God’s hand upon them from their earliest days (Ps. 22:10; Jer. 1:5), as does the apostle Paul (Gal. 1:15). At a minimum, these texts show us that God can and, in some cases, has dealt with human beings before they could ever respond consciously to him. David also expects to be personally reunited with his deceased son, saying, “I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). A final clue is the response of Jesus to children during the days of his earthly life. He rebukes his disciples for keeping children away from him, saying that God’s kingdom belongs to “such as these” (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14; cf. Matt. 18:3). Of course, these episodes are included mainly to show adults what discipleship means, with special reference to humility and self-forgetfulness. In following Jesus, we must care no more for our social status and dignity than young children typically do. Yet one would not do well to argue that Jesus welcomes children into his company merely for illustrative purposes, as if they mean no more to him than handy visual aids. The disciples place children low on their Lord’s list of ministry priorities, and Jesus raises them all the way up. Our answer to this question must be an educated guess, but the safest conclusion seems to be that while children still need the cross, they receive its benefits consistently by other means and thus go to heaven when they die.

Both men and women could take the Nazirite vow (Num. 6:1–21), consecrating themselves to God and abstaining from all grapevine products, avoiding contact with corpses, and allowing their hair to grow long. The first two stipulations mandate separation from conditions reflective of decay and corruption, clearly an affront to God’s holiness (cf. Amos 2:11–12). Long hair was the sign of the vow, symbolic of the power of God (Judg. 16:17).

Inadvertently touching a corpse interrupted the vow. Rededication necessitated shaving the head and sacrificing sin and burnt offerings, along with a guilt offering for having defiled something holy (Lev. 5:14–19). The vow could last one’s entire life, as was intended for Samson (Judg. 13:7) and Samuel (1 Sam. 1:11), or it could simply be for a period of time (Acts 18:18; 21:24). In the latter case, the vow was terminated with the presentation of sin, burnt, and fellowship offerings and shaving and burning the hair at the tabernacle.

An individual could take the vow by personal volition, or it could be imposed by others. Most of the biblical examples fall into the latter category. The angel of the Lord declared that Samson would be a Nazirite for his entire life, although Samson despised the sanctity of the vow in just about every way (Judg. 13–16). Hannah dedicated Samuel for his life (1 Sam. 1:11). John the Baptist was also apparently given over to these conditions by the word of the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:15).

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (c. 50 BC–AD 21) was a successful Roman military commander and politician best known for conducting a census mentioned at the beginning of Christ’s birth narrative in Luke 2:2. Ancient historians, including Tacitus, Strabo, and Josephus, wrote about Quirinius, so a fair bit is known about his career. However, all this information lends to a historical problem when compared to the Gospel accounts. Jesus’ birth takes place during the time of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 1:5), but only Luke’s account mentions Quirinius conducting a census as the governor of Syria before Herod’s death. Every other known account places this census in AD 6/7, some ten years after Herod’s death.

For centuries a number of attempts have been made to solve the problem, but without more evidence each solution remains inconclusive. The following suggestions have been made: (1) The census began during Herod’s reign but ended when Quirinius was governor of Syria. (2) “Quirinius” is a textual error, and Luke originally wrote of another governor in 2:2. Adherents to this theory usually cite Tertullian (Marc. 4.19), but no manuscript of Luke supports this. (3) Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, performing one census in Herod’s day and one in AD 6/7. The ancient inscription Lapis Tiburtinus may support this. (4) “First” (Gk. prōtē) in Luke 2:2 should be translated “before,” which makes Luke’s census the one “before Quirinius was governor.” However, some grammarians disagree. (5) “Governor” (hēgemoneuōn) in Luke 2:2 is ambiguous; therefore, Quirinius must have had some kind of office warranting Luke’s mention. This appeal requires more evidence.

The traditional designation “virgin birth” refers to the supernatural conception of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, apart from sexual relations. Technically, one should speak of a “virginal conception,” since Jesus was virginally conceived but was born normally. The virgin “birth” is considered by some theologians to be the means by which the two natures of Jesus Christ are preserved: his humanity stems from the fact that he was born of the virgin Mary, while his deity proceeds from the reality that God was his father and he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. The later Apostles’ Creed formulates the matter this way: Jesus Christ “was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.” Here, three aspects of the virgin birth are discussed: (1) the virgin birth and Isa. 7:14; (2) the virgin birth in the NT; (3) the historicity of the virgin birth.

Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah 7:14 reads, “The virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (ESV). Two key issues are involved in Isaiah’s prophecy. First, should the Hebrew word ’almah be translated as “virgin” or as “young woman”? While the Hebrew term does not necessarily mean a virgin, but only a young woman of marriageable age, the Greek term parthenos used in the LXX of Isa. 7:14 and quoted in Matt. 1:23 has stronger connotations of virginity. Second, when was Isa. 7:14 fulfilled? Most likely the OT text was partially fulfilled in Isaiah’s day (with reference to King Ahaz’s unnamed son or to Isaiah’s son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz [Isa. 8:1]) but found its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus, as Matt. 1:23 points out.

New Testament. The infancy narratives recorded in Matt. 1–2 and in Luke 1–2 provide the story line for Jesus’ virginal conception: (1) Mary was a virgin engaged to Joseph (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:27, 34; 2:5); (2) she was found to be pregnant while still engaged to Joseph, a conception produced by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35; cf. Matt. 1:18–25; Luke 1:34); (3) only after Jesus was born did Mary and Joseph have sexual relations (Matt. 1:24–25). Even though there is nothing in these narratives like the hypostatic union formulated in the later church creeds, it is clear that Matthew and Luke in some way associate Jesus’ deity and humanity with the virginal conception. Other NT texts are considered by some as possible references to the virgin birth. John 1:14 states that “the Word became flesh,” which certainly highlights Jesus’ two natures—deity and humanity—but does not thereby explicitly mention the virgin birth. Paul does something similar in Rom. 1:3 (“[God’s] Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David”), Gal. 4:4 (“God sent his Son, born of a woman”), and Phil. 2:6–11 (Jesus existed in the form of God but took on human likeness). Beyond these passages, there is little else regarding the virgin birth stated or alluded to in the NT.

Historicity. Two important considerations indicate that the virgin birth of Jesus was a historical event and not a mythic legend. First, the simplicity of the descriptions of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, when compared with the fantastic details found in contemporary accounts of Greco-Roman and Jewish supernatural births, bespeak the authenticity of the NT documents. For example, one can cite the stories of the supernatural birth of Alexander the Great in Greek sources and of Noah in extrabiblical Jewish sources. In addition, secondary details such as the mention of Anna’s father, Phanuel (Luke 2:36), add nothing significant to the account and thus appear to be matter-of-fact reporting by an eyewitness. Second, the commonalities between Matthew and Luke regarding the virgin birth of Jesus attest to its historicity.

In conclusion, while the NT does not contain extensive information concerning the virgin birth of Jesus, there is sufficient evidence to support its historicity.

Because calendars are culturally constructed systems, there are several important differences between the modern calendar and the calendars used in biblical times. When dealing with ancient Jewish and early Christian sources, we can reconstruct complete calendar systems. However, the Bible itself, written over many centuries, employs several calendar systems and systems of dating. No single normative calendar system emerges from biblical materials. Nevertheless, many aspects of life in biblical Israel depended on the use of calendars, which regulated religious festivals, agricultural activity, various aspects of the legal system, and the recording of historical events.

Measurement of Time in Antiquity

There were several methods of reckoning time in antiquity. Some units of time corresponded to the observation of celestial phenomena (see Gen. 1:14), such as the rising and setting of the sun (defining the day), the waxing and waning of the moon (the lunar month), the ascension of the sun in the sky at noon (the solar year). Other measurements of time were defined by the agricultural cycle, including planting and the beginning and end of the harvest (see Exod. 23:16; Ruth 1:22). An agricultural scheme serves as the basis of the Gezer Calendar, an important archaeological object of the tenth century BC unearthed about thirty miles northwest of Jerusalem. The Gezer Calendar divides the year into eight periods of one or two months, each of which corresponds to the planting, tending, and harvest of various crops. Still other units of time, such as the seven-day week and the lunisolar year (see below), were derived by counting or calculation and did not correspond to any observable celestial or terrestrial phenomena.

The division of days into hours and minutes is possible in modern times because of mechanical and electronic timepieces. Without these devices, divisions of time shorter than the day would have been approximations at best. Biblical texts refer to dawn, morning, noon, evening, night, and midnight. In NT times, the twelve daylight hours were numbered (Matt. 27:45; John 11:9). There was also a system of dividing the night into “watches,” attested in both the NT and the OT.

The Month and the Year in the Bible

The Hebrew words for “month” are related to the words for “moon” and “new” (i.e., the “new moon”), which suggests that the ancient Israelite month was a lunar month corresponding to the waxing and waning of the moon over a period of twenty-nine or thirty days. The Bible refers to numbered days in each month, as high as the twenty-seventh day.

There are several systems of naming the months in the Bible. Four “Canaanite” month names appear in the OT: Aviv (the first month), Ziv (the second), Ethanim (the seventh), and Bul (the eighth). Because of the infrequent use of these names, some scholars have questioned whether this system was in widespread use in ancient Israel. The names probably are derived from agricultural terms.

In many cases the months are simply numbered. In this system, the first month began in the spring season. According to biblical narrative, this way of reckoning the beginning of the year was commanded to Moses at the time of the exodus (Exod. 12:1). However, the Bible applies this scheme to events much earlier, as in the story of the flood of Noah, which began in the second month (Gen. 7:11), and scholars have associated the numerical system of months with late biblical sources, around the time of the exile. The system may have come into use around that time and replaced an older system.

In some late biblical texts Babylonian month names are adopted, including Nisan (the first month), Sivan (the third), Elul (the sixth), Chislev (the ninth), Tebet (the tenth), Shebat (the eleventh), and Adar (the twelfth). Following biblical usage, the Babylonian month names were adopted in the ancient Jewish calendar, which is still in use today.

Based on references to the “twelfth month,” the Israelite year apparently consisted of twelve lunar months. Accordingly, the lunar year consisted of approximately 354 days, which means that it would not have corresponded to the solar year of approximately 365¼ days. The beginning of the year would have drifted between eleven and twelve days each year. Presumably, this would have been an unacceptable situation, given the fact that many of the biblical festivals were both assigned to lunar dates and were correlated to agricultural events. The problem probably was solved through the intercalation of “leap months,” as was the practice in maintaining the later Jewish calendar. The result is a lunisolar calendar, in which the year is composed of twelve lunar months and is corrected relative to the solar year by the periodic addition of a second Adar (Adar II) seven times in every nineteen-year period. The Bible does not mention this procedure or identify who was responsible for maintaining the calendar in ancient Israel.

Biblical Dates

Modern systems of absolute dating, in which all years are numbered relative to a single historical reference point—for example, the birth of Jesus (Anno Domini), the journey of Muhammad in AD 622 (Anno Hegira 1) from Mecca to Medina in Islamic culture, and the creation of the world (Anno Mundi) in Jewish tradition—were unparalleled in biblical times. Instead, events were usually dated relative to the reigns of kings, Israelite or otherwise. For example, the accession of Abijah is dated to the eighteenth year of Jeroboam’s reign (1 Kings 15:1), and the proclamation of Cyrus is dated to his first regnal year (Ezra 1:1). In other cases, events were dated relative to important historical events. The beginning of Amos’s career as prophet is dated to “two years before the earthquake” (Amos 1:1), and Exod. 12:41 dates the departure from Egypt to the 430th year of the captivity. In other instances, the fixed points on which relative dates are based cannot be determined. The beginning of Ezekiel’s career as a prophet is dated to the otherwise unspecified “thirtieth year” (Ezek. 1:1). The verse may simply refer to Ezekiel’s age.

The same practices of dating events are followed in the NT. The birth of John the Baptist is dated to “the time of Herod king of Judea” (Luke 1:5). The census of Caesar Augustus is identified as “the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria” (Luke 2:2). As in the OT, such formulas presuppose that the reader has a basic awareness of the succession and reigns of kings and emperors—an advantage lost to modern interpreters, who continue to debate the absolute dating of these events. Perhaps analogously to Ezek. 1:1, the beginning of Jesus’ ministry is dated to his thirtieth year of age (Luke 3:23). Other events and persons reported in the NT can be correlated to extrabiblical historical records to establish absolute dates for biblical events (e.g., the death of Herod Agrippa I in AD 44 [Acts 12:23]). These are distinct from instances in which biblical authors are making a conscious effort to provide dates intelligible to their readers. In contrast to OT historical narrative, for the most part, the NT shows little interest in dating events in its narrative, even according to ancient conventions of relative dating.