Pieces of metal stamped with a particular impression, used as a medium of exchange. From time immemorial people used animals, grain, or other commodities to barter (Hos. 3:2), pay taxes (1 Sam. 8:15), or as a measure of wealth (Job 1:3). Substituting smaller, more easily handled pieces of precious metal had obvious advantages. Gradually people used precious metal such as silver or gold along with commodities (Gen. 20:14–16) and then in place of them (37:28) as a means of payment. Such metal had been refined, but it could have been in most any form (rings, bars, ingots, dust) as long as it weighed the appropriate amount. Local and international standards developed to regulate the weights, and later the concept grew in popularity to use standard, authorized, clearly stamped pieces of precious metal—coins.

Old Testament. Minting of coins may have begun as far back as the late eighth century BC, and it gradually spread throughout the known world. The first coins apparently were made in Asia Minor using electrum, a natural alloy of gold and silver.

When the Persians took over much of the ancient Near East in the sixth century BC, the use of coins spread, and Persian coins came to the land of the Bible. At the end of the Hebrew Bible there is mention of large quantities of Persian coins called “darics” (1 Chron. 29:7; Ezra 8:27), also translated as “drachmas” (NASB) or “drams” (KJV) (Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70–72). These darics were stamped with the likeness of Darius the Great (521–486 BC) and were minted from gold and occasionally silver. At about the same time, silver tetradrachmas (four-drachma coins) from Athens made their way to the western shores of the Mediterranean. Local imitations of this coin were stamped with “YHD” to represent the province of Judah.

New Testament. Coins appear dozens of times in the NT; some have Hellenistic roots, while others come from the periods of Hasmonean or Roman rule.

For several centuries after Alexander the Great conquered the ancient Near East (fourth century BC), coins with the images of Alexander or his Seleucid or Ptolemaic successors were circulated in Judea. In particular, silver shekels from the Phoenician port cities of Tyre and Sidon enjoyed wide usage for a long time. Also called a “stater,” the shekel or four-drachma coin recovered by Peter from the fish’s mouth (Matt. 17:27) may have been such a Tyrian coin. Many or all of the thirty silver coins that the chief priests gave Judas for betraying Jesus (Matt. 26:15; 27:3) probably were Tyrian shekels as well, since this coin came to be the accepted currency at the temple in Jerusalem and the priests would have had a good supply of them.

After the Hellenistic rulers lost control of Judea during the rebellion led by the Maccabean or Hasmonean family in the second century BC, the Jews could mint their own coins for the first time. The honor of producing the first Jewish coin apparently goes to John Hyrcanus I (134–104 BC), son of Simon and nephew of Judas Maccabeus. Simon’s modest bronze lepton (pl. lepta), or prutah, has an inscription on one side and two cornucopias and a pomegranate on the other. Use of such agricultural symbols apparently fulfilled two purposes: it portrayed the fertility of the land that God had given his people, and it helped the Jews avoid depicting people on coins, as the Greeks and later the Romans would do. During this period devout Jews avoided such images in order to help fulfill the second commandment (Exod. 20:4), to avoid graven images. Hyrcanus I’s son Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BC) minted great quantities of different types of bronze lepta, still often found in excavations in Israel today. These coins remained in circulation for many years, probably through the ministry of Jesus. Thus, the two small coins for which Jesus commended the widow for donating to the temple treasury (Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2) may well have been lepta of Alexander Jannaeus. The tiny lepton, typically smaller than a dime and worth only 1/400 of a shekel, also appears in Luke 12:59.

It is also possible that the aforementioned lepta were not minted by Alexander Jannaeus, since later rulers, including the Jewish king Herod the Great (40–4 BC), also minted large numbers of similar small bronze coins. Though not known for his piety, Herod continued to avoid human representations on his coins. For the most part, so did his sons and the later Roman procurators (including Pontius Pilate [governed AD 26–36]), who ruled Judea before the revolt in AD 66.

Other Roman coins, such as the silver denarius (pl. denarii) minted outside Judea, clearly did not avoid human representation, however. Jesus’ request for a coin with Caesar’s image and inscription (Matt. 22:15–22) refers to the denarius. The denarius in Jesus’ day could have portrayed the emperor Tiberius (r. AD 14–37) or even Augustus (r. 27 BC–AD 14), whose coins were probably still in circulation. The silver denarius came to represent the daily wage of a common laborer, as clearly shown in the parable of laborers (Matt. 20:1–16). The denarius also appears in many other passages, although modern translators sometimes use a more interpretive expression (“two silver coins” for “two denarii” in Luke 10:35; “a year’s wages” for “three hundred denarii” in Mark 14:5).

Although many of the references discussed above contain specific terms that can be identified with coins known from history, others cannot. General terms meaning “coins” or “pieces of money” sometimes appear, as when Jesus scattered the coins of the money changers (John 2:15), or the rather common term for silver that appears frequently and is often translated as “money” (Matt. 28:12; Luke 9:3) or “silver” (Acts 3:6; 1 Pet. 1:18) as well as “silver coins” (Matt. 27:3 GW).

Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and in the Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors. The NT uses the Greek term kardia similarly to the OT Hebrew terms leb and lebab and in some cases depends on OT usage.

Mind and Emotions

Metaphorically, the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or even the whole person. It also refers to the center of something or its inner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importance and location.

Mind. The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these cases does not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while the neurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, it has no bearing on this use of language. We also should not confuse some modern English idioms or distinctions as being related to the biblical viewpoint. The Bible does not make a distinction between “head knowledge” and “heart knowledge,” nor does it employ language making the “heart” good or superior and the “head/mind” bad, inferior, or merely intellectual. It does not prize the emotional over the thoughtful; it has a more integrated viewpoint.

Deuteronomy 6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occurs in three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common to all three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospel writers want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,” but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrew word for “heart” includes the mind.

The mental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heart is where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1 Chron. 29:18; Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1 Kings 3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makes plans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1 Chron. 29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, and skill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1 Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is the place of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role of conscience (2 Sam. 24:10; 1 John 3:20–21).

It is often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for “heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp the mental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to love God with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6). Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes our perspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” is clearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents to talk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. In order for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds need to be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him. Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation on and determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is not merely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview in which the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truth requires careful, reflective thought.

Emotions and attitude. The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number of feelings and sentiments, such as gladness (Exod. 4:14; Acts 2:26), hatred (Lev. 19:17), pride (Deut. 8:14), resentment (Deut. 15:10), dread (Deut. 28:67), sympathy (Judg. 5:9), love (Judg. 16:15), sadness (1 Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition (James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudes such as willingness, courage, and desire.

Idioms

The word “heart” also appears in several idioms.

Hardness of heart. A hard heart is obstinate or averse (Mark 3:5), while a tender heart is humble (2 Kings 22:19). In the book of Exodus the translations typically say that God or Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh’s/his heart. These passages in Exodus use not the Hebrew words for hardness but rather those for being heavy or for strengthening. The neutral sense of strengthening the heart takes on nuances in context for being bold or obstinate. Pharaoh was strengthened in his opposition to God, and this obstinacy fits the idiom of having a hard heart.

Uncircumcised/circumcised heart. An uncircumcised heart is a metaphor for an obstinate and rebellious heart, while a circumcised heart is linked to being humble and faithful (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Acts 7:51). Perhaps the metaphor is based on the role of circumcision in the covenant.

“A man after his [God’s] own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14). This description of David may mean either “according to his [God’s] choice” (cf. 2 Sam. 7:21), stressing God’s choice over the people’s choice, or it may mean “in accordance with his [God’s] desire” (1 Sam. 14:7; 1 Kings 15:3), referring to how David showed conformity with God’s agenda.

All the heart. The phrase “with all [one’s] heart” in some cases means “wholeheartedly” or “single-mindedly,” which emphasizes unity of purpose and focus. In other cases it seems to mean, more broadly, “with all of one’s thinking or perspective” and implies the work of adjusting our worldview away from common cultural assumptions and toward God’s teaching.

Say in one’s heart. This expression denotes talking to oneself (i.e., thinking) rather than out loud or indicates reflection or deliberation. There are several warnings not to lie to oneself—that is, not to deliberate, believe, and act on the stated false premise.

Take [a matter] to heart. To take something to heart is to take it very seriously or to give it high priority.

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses in several ways.

Family. In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing of wealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancient Israel special provisions were made for inheriting land upon the death of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; the rest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lacked sons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers, father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OT provides guidance for additional circumstances (Gen. 38:8–9; Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10; Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concern for the stability of the family and the retention of the land within a tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legal standing even while the father was still alive; his status was based on birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.

Old Testament. Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as an inheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29; Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, not something that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7). Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”) and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God will dwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14; Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance moves beyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 the anointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land of Canaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similar expansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).

God’s relationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance. On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance (Deut. 32:9; 1 Sam. 10:1; 1 Kings 8:51–53); on the other hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer. 10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’s relationship with Israel.

New Testament. Inheritance language is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways. First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,” the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their union with Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom. 8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in that inheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described in various ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14), blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1 Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enacted by the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28). Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through the Spirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heaven and awaits the consummation (1 Pet. 1:4–6).

The connection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit is especially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses a combination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. Before Christ came, God’s people were heirs under the care of guardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them from under the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sons and daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit, who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of the Spirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters rather than slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritance in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa. 44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1).

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses in several ways.

Family. In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing of wealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancient Israel special provisions were made for inheriting land upon the death of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; the rest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lacked sons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers, father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OT provides guidance for additional circumstances (Gen. 38:8–9; Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10; Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concern for the stability of the family and the retention of the land within a tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legal standing even while the father was still alive; his status was based on birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.

Old Testament. Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as an inheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29; Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, not something that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7). Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”) and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God will dwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14; Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance moves beyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 the anointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land of Canaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similar expansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).

God’s relationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance. On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance (Deut. 32:9; 1 Sam. 10:1; 1 Kings 8:51–53); on the other hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer. 10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’s relationship with Israel.

New Testament. Inheritance language is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways. First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,” the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their union with Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom. 8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in that inheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described in various ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14), blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1 Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enacted by the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28). Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through the Spirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heaven and awaits the consummation (1 Pet. 1:4–6).

The connection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit is especially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses a combination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. Before Christ came, God’s people were heirs under the care of guardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them from under the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sons and daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit, who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of the Spirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters rather than slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritance in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa. 44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1).

The word “inn” appears twice in most English versions of the Bible (NASB, NRSV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, NET): in the account of the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:7) and in the parable of the good Samaritan (10:34). The former is likely a mistranslation, since the Greek term (katalyma) probably refers not to a first-century hotel (Bethlehem was too small to have an inn), but either to a “caravansary” (a stopping place for caravans) or to a “guest room” in a private home (cf. Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11; so NIV). Because of the crowds associated with the census, Joseph and Mary were forced out of human accommodations and into an area reserved for animals; the baby Jesus was laid in a feeding trough (manger). The “inn” in the story of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37) represents a different Greek term (pandocheion) and likely refers to a roadside inn. The Samaritan took the wounded man here for recuperation.

One who owns, manages, or serves as host at an inn. The only direct reference to an innkeeper in the OT is in an Aramaic translation (Targum) of Josh. 2:1 that designates Rahab as such (cf. Josephus, Ant. 5.8, 30). The innkeeper (Gk. pandocheus) of Luke 10:35 was paid by the good Samaritan to care for the victim of robbers along the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. No innkeeper (only the “inn” or “guest room”) is mentioned in the nativity account of Luke 2:4–7.

Origins, Composition, and Constitution

Origins. The Bible is not unique in offering an account of human origins. Interesting accounts are found in Sumerian (Enki and Ninmah, Hymn to E-engurra), Akkadian (Atrahasis Epic, Enuma Elish), and Egyptian texts (Pyramid Texts, Instruction of Merikare). These texts provide a helpful window into the biblical world and show the common concern to explain the origin and role of humanity in the world.

One distinct feature of ancient Near Eastern texts is that they generally speak of human origins in a collective sense. Specialists refer to this phenomenon as polygenesis. Such a collective creation better serves the purpose of the gods, who have made the human race as a labor force. In the Bible, however, the book of Genesis describes an original human pair who are the progenitors of the human race. This phenomenon is referred to as monogenesis. Humanity is not merely created to serve and do the work of the gods. Instead, it is a special creation of God, intended to bear his image.

Composition. The composition of humanity is described in Gen. 2:7: “The Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Humanity is not distinct from animals in having the breath of life (1:30). Indeed, the description of the composition of humanity is also quite, well, human. Genesis describes humans as made from the dust. Dust is not fertile, nor is it pliable. It refers to the earth and that which is dead. The wordplay between “man” (’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah) appears to be a major focus of the text (2:7) and suggests that the major connection being established concerns the first humans as archetypes.

Constitution. Certain passages of Scripture have led interpreters to posit a trichotomous nature of humanity (i.e., mind, body, soul; cf. 2 Cor. 4:16; 5:1–9; 1 Thess. 5:23). Likewise, even though the Greek language can bifurcate the soul (psychē) and the body (sōma), a kind of dualism should not be inferred from this (cf. Matt. 6:25; 27:50; Luke 10:27; 2 Cor. 4:11). Either approach is foreign to the unified biblical mind-set. The only dualism in the anthropological perspective of the NT is in the nature of humanity in relation to Christ’s new creative work.

Form and Function

Form: male and female. Just as God created man (’ish), he also created woman (’ishah) (Gen. 1:26–27). Although woman is initially created as a “suitable helper” (2:18), it should be noted that the underlying Hebrew term (’ezer) is used almost exclusively in reference to God elsewhere. This suggests that “suitable helper” does not indicate a difference of essence, value, or status.

The Bible describes woman as coming from the “side” of man, probably communicating something about their equality (Gen. 2:21–22). Thus, it should be understood that just as all humanity shares a connection to the ground, so also a man shares an intimate connection with a woman. Although the phrase “one flesh” often is taken as a euphemism, it probably is a remarkably descriptive statement of the archetypal nature of Adam and Eve (cf. 2:24).

Function: image of God. The distinction between humanity and the other animals created by God is that humans are created in God’s image. The concept of the image of God, however, is not unique to the biblical text (Gen. 1:26–27; cf. Instruction of Merikare). Throughout the ancient Near East, kings were thought to actually be the image of a god. In the Christian understanding, only Christ is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4), whereas humanity is created in the image of God. Although this may imply a kingly role with regard to humanity’s function over the rest of creation, the main parallel should be seen in how images are meant to represent a god’s presence.

Humanity in Pauline Thought

Paul’s conception of humanity is thoroughly eschatological insomuch as his vision of Christ as the image of God is identified with Christ as “risen Lord.” Christ as the image of God is the final destiny of the humanity that is “in Christ” (1 Cor. 15:23–28; 44–49; Eph. 1:9–10). Because of the effects of sin, creation has been subjected to futility (Rom. 8:19–22), and humanity to death (Rom. 5:12–14; 1 Cor. 15:21–22). Yet Paul’s outburst of “new creation” (Gal. 6:15; cf. 2 Cor. 5:17) indicates his understanding of the cosmological, and therefore anthropological, effects of being united with Christ. Indeed, if God is making the “former things” into “new things” (2 Cor. 5:17; cf. Isa. 65:17–19), this new creative act certainly impacts humanity. That reality is already partially realized in the elimination of distinctions in this present “evil age” (Gal. 1:4), for in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one” (Gal. 3:28; cf. 1 Cor. 12:12–13; Gen. 17). Until the end, the Christian lives in the tension of already beginning to experience the act of new creation and not yet completely disinheriting the effects of sin (Rom. 8:18–30; 2 Cor. 12:5–10).

Behind the English translation “mercy” lie diverse biblical words in Hebrew (khesed, khanan, rakham) and in Greek (charis, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchnon). These words are also translated as “love,” “compassion,” “grace,” “favor,” “kindness,” “loving-kindness,” and so on, depending on context. Hence, a conceptual approach to the meaning of “mercy” is best.

God’s Mercy

Mercy as part of God’s character. Mercy is a distinguishing characteristic of the nature of God. God is called “the Father of mercies” (2 Cor. 1:3 NRSV [NIV: “Father of compassion”]). God is “rich in mercy” (Eph. 2:4; cf. 2 Sam. 24:14; Dan. 9:9). God’s mercy was demonstrated in his covenantal faithfulness to his people (1 Kings 8:23–24; Mic. 7:18–20). God redeemed the oppressed Israelites from slavery under Pharaoh because of his mercy, which was stirred when he heard their groaning and cry for help. Here, the rekindling of God’s mercy toward the Israelites was depicted in terms of remembering his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod. 2:23–25). Mercy is a manifestation of God’s faithfulness to his covenant. Hence, God’s mercy to his covenant people never ceases (Pss. 119:132; 103:17).

God has absolute sovereignty in electing the people to whom he wills to show mercy. A classic expression appears in Exod. 33:19: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” Paul quoted this to explain God’s sovereignty in electing Jacob as the recipient of God’s mercy (Rom. 9:13–15). God’s mercy cannot be acquired by human effort or desire (Rom. 9:16). God even ordered the Israelites to show no mercy to the Canaanites because of their corruption and idolatry (Deut. 7:2).

Diverse images are used to describe God’s mercy. God is compared to a loving father who has compassion on his children (Jer. 31:20; Mal. 3:17). “As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust” (Ps. 103:13–14). God’s compassion is also compared to that of a nursing mother who feeds her baby at her breast (Isa. 49:15). The images of the loving father and the loving mother reflect closely the heart of God’s mercy toward his chosen people. God is especially merciful to the needy, the weak, the afflicted, and the oppressed (Exod. 2:23–24; Ps. 123:2–3; Isa. 49:13; Heb. 4:16). God is called “a father to the fatherless” and “a defender of widows” (Ps. 68:5). Sinners appeal for God’s mercy when they request forgiveness (Ps. 51:1). “Have mercy on me” is a common form of expression when the psalmist entreats God for his forgiveness (Pss. 41:4, 10; 51:1). God’s mercy is also shown in his act of salvation and blessing (Exod. 15:13; Deut. 13:17–18; Judg. 2:18; Eph. 2:4–5).

God’s mercy in redemptive history. Redemptive history is a successive demonstration of God’s mercy toward his chosen people. It was because of God’s mercy that he took the initiative to save fallen human beings (Gen. 3:15). Death was the due penalty for Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:17), but God preached the good news of mercy that the descendant of the woman would someday crush the head of the serpent. In Rev. 20:2 that ancient serpent in the garden of Eden is identified as “the devil, or Satan,” whose head was crushed by Jesus Christ on the cross and is bound by the coming Messiah “for a thousand years” and will be “thrown into the lake of burning sulfur” (Rev. 20:2, 10). In spite of God’s judgment on Cain, the first murderer, God showed mercy by putting a mark on him so that no one would kill him (Gen. 4:15). As the psalmist later confesses, God proves himself as the merciful God who “does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities” (Ps. 103:10).

Noah and his family were saved from the judgment of the flood because of God’s special mercy toward them (Gen. 6:8). Immediately after God confused the languages of human beings because of their challenge to him (Gen. 11:1–9), God showed mercy on Abram, “a wandering Aramean” (Deut. 26:5), and designated him to be the father of his chosen people (Gen. 12:1–3). Jacob’s election originated solely from God’s mercy, as Paul pointed out by quoting Scripture: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Rom. 9:13). The exodus is also the clearest evidence of God’s demonstration of mercy toward his chosen people (Exod. 2:23–25). They were saved not by their own righteousness but rather by God’s mercy on the covenant people, who suffered under the bondage of Pharaoh’s slavery. God’s mercy reached its climax when he sent his only Son, Jesus Christ, to save sinners (Rom. 5:8). It is because of God’s mercy that we are saved, not because of our righteousness (Titus 3:5).

Christ’s Mercy

Jesus Christ lived a life full of mercy. He is, in a sense, the bodily manifestation of God’s mercy. Jesus expressed deep mercy whenever he saw the sick and the lost. The writers of the Gospels describe Jesus’ demonstrations of mercy when he healed the blind, the lame, the deaf, the leprous, the demon-possessed, and the dead (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 8:2; Luke 7:13; John 11:33). Jesus especially had compassion on the crowds, who did not have a spiritual leader, and he compared them to “sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).

Jesus’ ministry of healing and evangelism was motivated by his deep mercy and compassion toward people in physical and spiritual need (Luke 4:16–21; cf. Isa. 61:1–2). Whenever the sick appealed to his mercy, Jesus never refused to dispense it to them (Matt. 15:22; 17:14–18). For example, he healed the two blind men who entreated his mercy (Matt. 20:30–34). When a leper, kneeling before him, entreated his mercy, Jesus touched him (risking his own uncleanness according to the law) and healed him (Matt. 8:2–3). When a centurion asked for Jesus’ mercy on his sick servant, he was willing to go and heal the sick man (Matt. 8:5–13). Jesus’ mercy was aroused especially when he saw people crying for the dead, and even he shed tears (John 11:33–35). When Jesus saw a widow crying for her dead son during a funeral procession, he comforted and had compassion on her and made her son alive (Luke 7:12–15).

According to Heb. 2:17–18, Jesus became “a merciful and faithful high priest” to make atonement for the sins of his people. He is also compared to the high priest who is able to sympathize with our weaknesses because he “has been tempted in every way, just as we are” (Heb. 4:15). His high priestly work on earth was highlighted in terms of his ministry of mercy toward his people. Like God’s mercy, Jesus’ mercy was shown in his actions of salvation (Luke 19:10; Eph. 5:2; 1 Tim. 1:14–16; Titus 3:4–7), of blessing (Mark 10:13–16), and of forgiveness (Mark 2:10; Luke 23:34). Paul’s personal experience led him to confess, “He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy” (Titus 3:5). Jesus’ character of mercy was most vividly manifested on the cross when he prayed for the forgiveness of the crucifying soldiers and the cursing crowds (Luke 23:33–37).

Human Response to God’s Mercy

What is the proper response to God’s mercy and compassion? God expects believers to show the same kind of mercy toward other people. One of the best examples is the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23–35). The central focus of this parable is on the unmerciful servant, to whom a tremendous mercy is shown by the king, but who refuses to show a little mercy to his fellow servant. The parable concludes with the king’s statement that no mercy will be shown to those who do not show mercy and forgiveness to others. Hence, a forgiving attitude is a must for believers, who have received immeasurable mercy from God when he forgave their sins at the time of repentance. The Lord’s Prayer also includes the believer’s forgiveness of others as being inseparably linked to the request for forgiveness from God (Matt. 6:12). Jesus affirms this idea in a subsequent statement: “For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins” (6:14–15).

Mercy is one of the eight blessings in the Beatitudes: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy” (Matt. 5:7). Jesus’ response to the critical Pharisees reveals that our merciful life should precede our religious life (9:13). According to the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), the true neighbor is the one who shows mercy to the afflicted. Its conclusion, “Go and do likewise” (10:37), requires believers to show mercy to their suffering neighbors. At the last judgment the righteous are characterized by their lives of showing mercy to the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the unclothed, the sick, and the imprisoned (Matt. 25:37–40). In Luke 6:36, Jesus summarizes the law of mercy: “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” According to James, “judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful”; however, “mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:12–13). And according to the prophets, a merciless life is characteristic of godless people (Isa. 13:18; Jer. 6:23; 21:7; 50:42; Amos 1:11–12).

It is by God’s mercy that believers can persevere during the time of suffering (2 Cor. 4:1). Their prayer is the channel through which they draw God’s mercy. Hence, the writer of Hebrews exhorts believers to “approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy” (Heb. 4:16).

In the OT, “neighbor” is derived from the verb “to associate with.” This is an important connection because relationships of various kinds are central to the issue of neighbor. Depending on the context, a neighbor can include a friend (2 Sam. 13:3), a rival (1 Sam. 28:17), a lover (Jer. 3:1), or a spouse (Jer. 3:20). However, “neighbor” essentially defines someone who lives and works nearby, those with shared ethical responsibilities, rather than a family member (Prov. 3:29). Eventually, “neighbor” acquired the more technical meaning of “covenant member” or “fellow Israelite” (= “brother” [Jer. 31:34]). The legal literature prohibits bearing false witness against a neighbor (Deut. 5:20) as well as coveting a neighbor’s house, animal, slave, or wife (Deut. 5:21). Fraud, stealing, or withholding from a neighbor are prohibited (Lev. 19:13; Ps. 15:3). These are the negative stipulations. The theological ethics that arise from Lev. 19 are climactic—ethically, politically, socially, and economically. Positively, Israelites are to judge their neighbors justly (Lev. 19:15), loving their neighbors as themselves (19:18). Even the resident alien is to be protected by these core moral virtues (Lev. 19:33–34; cf. Exod. 12:43–49).

When the NT addresses the topic, not surprisingly it is Lev. 19:18 that is routinely cited. Asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus quotes Lev. 19:18 as the horizontal counterpart to loving the Lord (Matt. 19:16–30). A lawyer’s question put to Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” elicits the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:29). Jesus teaches that extending mercy is more important than conveniently defining “neighbor.” A neighbor was anyone someone met in need—Jew, Gentile, or Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). Jewish law came to define “neighbor” in purely legal terms within Judaism. Jesus addressed the limits of one’s responsibility, challenging the particularism of Judaism, denouncing prejudiced love, and including non-Jews. Beyond “in” or “out” groups, believers are now to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:43–48). Mission work continues to expand social, political, and economic boundaries. The OT reality of relationships is still in force, but “neighbor” in the NT now prioritizes fellow believers (Rom. 13:8–10; 15:2; Gal. 6:10; Eph. 4:25; James 2:8).

Almost all the oil to which the Bible refers is olive oil. Oil was used primarily for cooking, but also for medicinal purposes, cosmetics, lighting, and religious ceremonies.

Olive oil was produced in several different ways, but there were some common characteristics of all the different production methods. Olive trees were numerous in Israel and often were cultivated and planted in groves. The Mount of Olives in Jerusalem was so named because of the large olive groves there (2 Sam. 15:30). Olives were harvested sometime in the fall by handpicking them or hitting the tree to make the olives fall (Deut. 24:20). Next, the olives were partially crushed so that the kernels (pits) could be removed without crushing them. Crushing the kernel would result in ruining the oil. Then the pits were removed by hand, and the pitted olives were crushed to procure the oil. The olives could be crushed by foot (Mic. 6:15 NRSV), by beating them with a heavy stick, or by placing them in a shallow stone trench and rolling a stone wheel over them. Finally, the crushed olives were placed in a woven sieve to allow the oil to drain out. The remains of the olives were then soaked in water and pressed at least twice more. This produced more oil, though of much lower quality. As a result, oil was sold according to its quality level. By the time of the monarchy in Israel, there were several large mills that produced large quantities of oil both for use in the country and for export. The finest quality oil—the clear, pure oil drained off before pressing—was specially processed and suitable for ceremonial use.

Oil was one of the major export products of Palestine, with huge economic impact on Israel and Judah. Oil often was used as currency for other needed materials (Deut. 7:13; Neh. 5:11; Luke 16:6). For example, Elisha preformed a miracle with oil to help a widow pay her debts (2 Kings 4:7). Oil was kept as part of the royal stores (2 Kings 20:13; 2 Chron. 32:28). There are dozens of ostraca that detail the trading, bartering, and selling of oil.

Oil was one of the main ingredients for cooking. A typical meal consisted of flour pressed together with oil and fried with oil on a griddle (1 Kings 17:12–16). This was also the typical way in which grain offerings were made at the tabernacle and temple (Lev. 2:1, 4–7). Oil was also used in lamps because it burned cleanly and produced bright light (2 Kings 4:10; Matt. 25:3–8). Lamps were used throughout the house. Small lamps, often no larger than a hand, were used to give people light when they were walking and traveling at night. In such instances, extra oil usually was carried as a reserve (Matt. 25:1–13). Both the tabernacle and the temple used olive oil to light their lamps. The finest oil was also used for sacrifices at the tabernacle (Exod. 27:20; 29:40; Lev. 24:2; Num. 28:5).

Oil was used cosmetically as well. For instance, oil was put in the hair for beauty (Eccles. 9:8). Oil was also the normal base for perfumes, mixed with a variety of spices (Esther 2:12). The tabernacle had special anointing oil that was mixed to make a perfume (Exod. 30:25). Oil was also used medicinally to help heal wounds, either by mixing it with other substances or by itself to help seal a wound (Luke 10:34). The elders of the church were commissioned to pray for and anoint the sick with oil (James 5:14).

To pity someone is to feel or express compassion toward that person. Of the two main Hebrew verbs translated “pity,” khus describes an attitude of merciful kindness toward a person (Deut. 25:12), and khamal refers to sparing someone from something negative (Lam. 2:2). When khus and khamal occur in the same sentence, the NIV generally translates them “pity” and “spare” respectively (e.g., Deut. 13:8; Ezek. 7:4). The Greek eleeō can also be translated “to have mercy” (Luke 17:13 NASB), while splanchnizomai graphically depicts compassion (Luke 10:33), as splanchna, from which splanchnizomai is derived, is the Greek word for “intestines” (compare English: “My heart goes out to you”).

Most often, when “pity” occurs in the Bible, lack of pity is under discussion. The Israelites were to show no pity to the Canaanites (Deut. 7:16), nor were they to pity those who violated the Mosaic law (Deut. 19:21; 25:11–12). God repeatedly warned the Israelites that he would show them no pity when he judged them (Isa. 9:17; Jer. 13:14; Ezek. 7:4). However, God does express pity (Ezek. 16:5–6; Zech. 8:14–15), particularly through Jesus Christ (Matt. 18:27; Mark 9:22; Luke 17:13–14) and Christians (1 John 3:17).

According to the Bible, the Samaritans are the descendants of the peoples whom Sargon II settled in Samaria after he conquered it and the northern Israelites (see also Samaria). As such, they were not quite Jewish, not quite Gentile. Although there is a Samaritan religious sect, it is a mistake to equate Samaritans in the Bible with one of the sectarians in every instance. Samaritans are mentioned rarely in the OT; for example, 2 Kings 17:29 reports that the Samaritans worshiped the gods that they brought from their home countries at high places that they made.

The NT mentions the Samaritans. The story of the woman at the well in John 4 depicts Jesus ministering to a Samaritan. We learn in this passage (John 4:9) that Jews like Jesus did not eat or drink from the same vessel as a Samaritan since they believed it would render them ritually unclean [see NET: “For Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans”]. One of the chief points of contention between Jews and Samaritans is highlighted in this passage: Samaritans believe that Mount Gerizim is God’s chosen worship site, not Zion. Also alluded to here is the Samaritans’ belief in a “returning one” (Aram. taheb), who will guide the Samaritans to repentance and reestablish proper worship. In John 8:48 Jesus’ opponents level a charge against him, asking him if he is not indeed a Samaritan and possessed by a demon.

In the Synoptic Gospels, Samaritans are variously depicted as being included in Jesus’ ministry (Luke 9:52) or excluded from it (Matt. 10:5). In other places in the Gospels, Samaritans are used as a foil by which Jesus indicts his listeners for not following God as well as they should. His Jewish audience would not have missed the point in his parable when the Samaritan proves to be a more compassionate neighbor than the priest or Levite (Luke 10:25–37), or when Jesus heals ten lepers and only one, a Samaritan, returns to praise God and give thanks (17:16). Given Luke’s emphasis on the inclusive nature of the Gospel, his mentioning of Samaritans in such positive ways highlights that emphasis.

In the book of Acts, Luke continues to use the Samaritans as an example of how the Gospel is for everyone. Peter and John, after confirming that Samaria had received and responded to the word, preached in the villages of the Samaritans (Acts 8:14–25).

Scholars are not certain when Jews and Samaritans became two different religious groups, but most likely this happened when John Hyrcanus destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim in 128 BC. Although there were tensions before this, as is evident in Nehemiah and in Josephus, before the destruction of their temple the rift probably was not complete.

The Samaritans exist today and have the following basic beliefs: (1) There is only one God. (2) Moses was the last and greatest prophet. (3) The five books of Moses are the only authoritative Scripture. (4) Mount Gerizim is God’s chosen place. (5) There will be a day of judgment and recompense. (6) The “returning one,” the Taheb, will appear.

Reconstructing the beliefs of the Samaritans before the fourth century AD is difficult because all we have before then are the sparse statements of outside sources and archaeological remains. Archaeological remains of a Samaritan synagogue on the Greek island of Delos include dedicatory inscriptions dated from the late third to early second centuries BC and the second to first centuries BC. These inscriptions mention those who worship on Mount Gerizim.

, Pass of A place name that occurs twice with respect to defining the border between Judah and Benjamin (Josh. 15:7; 18:17). It derives from the Hebrew word for either “ground” (“earth”) or “red.” Located on the leeward side of the Judean hills, the Pass of Adummim was part of the road from Jerusalem to Jericho that connected the hill country and Transjordan through the Jordan Valley. Its underlying bedrock is cenomanian limestone, whose exfoliation and disintegration yields the red soil (terra rosa), from which the slope probably derives its name. Several important biblical events occurred on this route, including the return of Michal to David (2 Sam. 3:14–16) and David’s flight from Absalom (2 Sam. 15–16). On his trips through Jericho to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled this route as well. The ruggedness of this route informs the parable of the good Samaritan, which Jesus told on his final trip along this route to Jerusalem (Luke 10:25–42).

A name given by the apostles to Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, missionary companion of Paul, and cousin of John Mark (Acts 4:36). Luke interprets the name “Barnabas” to mean (in Aramaic) “son of encouragement,” although this etymology is debated. Barnabas was known in the early church for his generosity and reconciling spirit.

Barnabas first appears in the book of Acts as a model of generosity for the Jerusalem church when he sells a piece of property to support the poor in the church (4:36–37). His example contrasts sharply with Ananias and Sapphira, who are judged by God for lying to the Holy Spirit concerning their own gift to the church. Barnabas next appears as the member of the Jerusalem church courageous enough to bring Saul, the former persecutor, to the leaders of the Jerusalem church (9:26–27). Later, when reports of Gentile conversions in Antioch were received in Jerusalem, Barnabas was sent to Antioch to supervise the work there. Barnabas went to Tarsus and brought Saul with him to Antioch (11:22–26). There they ministered together, at one point delivering famine relief to Jerusalem (11:30).

The church in Antioch received a revelation from the Holy Spirit to send Barnabas and Saul on the first missionary outreach (Acts 13:2). Accompanied by Barnabas’s cousin John Mark, they traveled to Barnabas’s home island of Cyprus and then to the Roman province of Galatia. Mark deserted the group in Perga and returned to Jerusalem, but Paul and Barnabas established churches in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts 13–14). After returning to Antioch, Barnabas accompanied Paul to the Jerusalem council to settle the Judaizing controversy concerning whether Gentiles must keep the law and be circumcised to be saved (Acts 15).

Upon returning to Antioch, Paul suggested a return to the churches in Galatia. Barnabas proposed taking John Mark, but Paul refused, and the ensuing conflict resulted in Paul’s departure to Galatia with Silas, with Barnabas taking John Mark to Cyprus (Acts 15:36–41). This is the last we hear of Barnabas in Acts.

Paul mentions Barnabas five times in his letters (1 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 2:1, 9, 13; Col. 4:10). He refers to Mark as Barnabas’s cousin (Col. 4:10), speaks of their Jerusalem famine visit (Gal. 2:1, 9), and relates an episode of apparent hypocrisy when Barnabas withdrew from Gentile table fellowship under pressure from Jewish Christians (Gal. 2:13).

Later church writings attributed additional traditions to Barnabas. Clement of Alexandria claimed that Barnabas was one of the seventy sent out by Jesus in Luke 10 and also identified him as the author of the Epistle of Barnabas. Tertullian said that Barnabas wrote Hebrews, and the fifth or sixth century Acts of Barnabas describes his later ministry and martyrdom in Cyprus. None of these later traditions have sufficient evidence to confirm their historicity.

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

Almost all the oil to which the Bible refers is olive oil. Oil was used primarily for cooking, but also for medicinal purposes, cosmetics, lighting, and religious ceremonies.

Olive oil was produced in several different ways, but there were some common characteristics of all the different production methods. Olive trees were numerous in Israel and often were cultivated and planted in groves. The Mount of Olives in Jerusalem was so named because of the large olive groves there (2 Sam. 15:30). Olives were harvested sometime in the fall by handpicking them or hitting the tree to make the olives fall (Deut. 24:20). Next, the olives were partially crushed so that the kernels (pits) could be removed without crushing them. Crushing the kernel would result in ruining the oil. Then the pits were removed by hand, and the pitted olives were crushed to procure the oil. The olives could be crushed by foot (Mic. 6:15 NRSV), by beating them with a heavy stick, or by placing them in a shallow stone trench and rolling a stone wheel over them. Finally, the crushed olives were placed in a woven sieve to allow the oil to drain out. The remains of the olives were then soaked in water and pressed at least twice more. This produced more oil, though of much lower quality. As a result, oil was sold according to its quality level. By the time of the monarchy in Israel, there were several large mills that produced large quantities of oil both for use in the country and for export. The finest quality oil—the clear, pure oil drained off before pressing—was specially processed and suitable for ceremonial use.

Oil was one of the major export products of Palestine, with huge economic impact on Israel and Judah. Oil often was used as currency for other needed materials (Deut. 7:13; Neh. 5:11; Luke 16:6). For example, Elisha preformed a miracle with oil to help a widow pay her debts (2 Kings 4:7). Oil was kept as part of the royal stores (2 Kings 20:13; 2 Chron. 32:28). There are dozens of ostraca that detail the trading, bartering, and selling of oil.

Oil was one of the main ingredients for cooking. A typical meal consisted of flour pressed together with oil and fried with oil on a griddle (1 Kings 17:12–16). This was also the typical way in which grain offerings were made at the tabernacle and temple (Lev. 2:1, 4–7). Oil was also used in lamps because it burned cleanly and produced bright light (2 Kings 4:10; Matt. 25:3–8). Lamps were used throughout the house. Small lamps, often no larger than a hand, were used to give people light when they were walking and traveling at night. In such instances, extra oil usually was carried as a reserve (Matt. 25:1–13). Both the tabernacle and the temple used olive oil to light their lamps. The finest oil was also used for sacrifices at the tabernacle (Exod. 27:20; 29:40; Lev. 24:2; Num. 28:5).

Oil was used cosmetically as well. For instance, oil was put in the hair for beauty (Eccles. 9:8). Oil was also the normal base for perfumes, mixed with a variety of spices (Esther 2:12). The tabernacle had special anointing oil that was mixed to make a perfume (Exod. 30:25). Oil was also used medicinally to help heal wounds, either by mixing it with other substances or by itself to help seal a wound (Luke 10:34). The elders of the church were commissioned to pray for and anoint the sick with oil (James 5:14).

A feeling of animosity, a disposition toward hostility, rejection, or negative favoritism.

Hate is as old as the conflict between Cain and Abel or as the rebellion of Satan. Many stories involve hatred and animosity between people (e.g., Gen. 37:4; 2 Sam. 13:22). Beside humans hating each other, people hate God and that which is morally upright (Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9; 7:10; 32:41; Pss. 68:1; 81:15; 120:6). It is correct, however, to hate sin (Pss. 97:10; 101:3; Prov. 8:13), as God does (Ps. 5:6; Prov. 6:16–19; Isa. 61:8; Rev. 2:6), though he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11). The two great commandments oppose the tendency to hate by calling us to love God wholly and love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5; 10:12; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:33; Luke 10:27). The reverse is also commanded: we should not hate our neighbor (Lev. 19:17) nor even hate our enemy, but rather do good and pray for our enemy (Exod. 23:4–5; Prov. 25:21; Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27; cf. Deut. 10:19). Hateful actions are not necessarily motivated by hateful feelings, as a father who does not give needed punishment to his son is said to treat him with hatred (Prov. 13:24).

With regard to a hate crime, the main issue was intent—that is, whether an accident had occurred or whether a murder had been committed deliberately, “with malice aforethought” (Num. 35:20). Hate was a criterion of intent and had to be established by multiple witnesses for the two parties involved. Having hate did not garner greater punishment or make it a worse crime; hatred signified that it was a crime because it was intentional (Deut. 4:42; 19:4, 6, 11; Josh. 20:5).

With regard to marriage, in a polygamous marriage there was a danger of preferential treatment: a loved wife and a hated wife. The law forbids reducing the care of one wife in favor of another (Exod. 21:10) and protects the rights of the firstborn son even if he is born to the hated wife (Deut. 21:15–17). Hatred may be expressed by either party withholding conjugal relations. This probably lies behind the description in Gen. 29:31 of Jacob hating Leah (some translations say “unloved”).

Rejection, favoritism, or preference may be called “hate,” as in the case of a nonpreferred wife in a polygamous marriage, in not choosing Esau to continue the covenant line (Mal. 1:2–3; Rom. 9:13), or in not having a greater love for Christ than anything else (Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25).

A feeling of animosity, a disposition toward hostility, rejection, or negative favoritism.

Hate is as old as the conflict between Cain and Abel or as the rebellion of Satan. Many stories involve hatred and animosity between people (e.g., Gen. 37:4; 2 Sam. 13:22). Beside humans hating each other, people hate God and that which is morally upright (Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9; 7:10; 32:41; Pss. 68:1; 81:15; 120:6). It is correct, however, to hate sin (Pss. 97:10; 101:3; Prov. 8:13), as God does (Ps. 5:6; Prov. 6:16–19; Isa. 61:8; Rev. 2:6), though he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11). The two great commandments oppose the tendency to hate by calling us to love God wholly and love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5; 10:12; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:33; Luke 10:27). The reverse is also commanded: we should not hate our neighbor (Lev. 19:17) nor even hate our enemy, but rather do good and pray for our enemy (Exod. 23:4–5; Prov. 25:21; Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27; cf. Deut. 10:19). Hateful actions are not necessarily motivated by hateful feelings, as a father who does not give needed punishment to his son is said to treat him with hatred (Prov. 13:24).

With regard to a hate crime, the main issue was intent—that is, whether an accident had occurred or whether a murder had been committed deliberately, “with malice aforethought” (Num. 35:20). Hate was a criterion of intent and had to be established by multiple witnesses for the two parties involved. Having hate did not garner greater punishment or make it a worse crime; hatred signified that it was a crime because it was intentional (Deut. 4:42; 19:4, 6, 11; Josh. 20:5).

With regard to marriage, in a polygamous marriage there was a danger of preferential treatment: a loved wife and a hated wife. The law forbids reducing the care of one wife in favor of another (Exod. 21:10) and protects the rights of the firstborn son even if he is born to the hated wife (Deut. 21:15–17). Hatred may be expressed by either party withholding conjugal relations. This probably lies behind the description in Gen. 29:31 of Jacob hating Leah (some translations say “unloved”).

Rejection, favoritism, or preference may be called “hate,” as in the case of a nonpreferred wife in a polygamous marriage, in not choosing Esau to continue the covenant line (Mal. 1:2–3; Rom. 9:13), or in not having a greater love for Christ than anything else (Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25).

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses in several ways.

Family. In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing of wealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancient Israel special provisions were made for inheriting land upon the death of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; the rest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lacked sons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers, father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OT provides guidance for additional circumstances (Gen. 38:8–9; Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10; Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concern for the stability of the family and the retention of the land within a tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legal standing even while the father was still alive; his status was based on birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.

Old Testament. Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as an inheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29; Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, not something that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7). Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”) and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God will dwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14; Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance moves beyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 the anointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land of Canaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similar expansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).

God’s relationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance. On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance (Deut. 32:9; 1 Sam. 10:1; 1 Kings 8:51–53); on the other hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer. 10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’s relationship with Israel.

New Testament. Inheritance language is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways. First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,” the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their union with Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom. 8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in that inheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described in various ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14), blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1 Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enacted by the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28). Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through the Spirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heaven and awaits the consummation (1 Pet. 1:4–6).

The connection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit is especially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses a combination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. Before Christ came, God’s people were heirs under the care of guardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them from under the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sons and daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit, who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of the Spirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters rather than slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritance in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa. 44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1).

Origins, Composition, and Constitution

Origins. The Bible is not unique in offering an account of human origins. Interesting accounts are found in Sumerian (Enki and Ninmah, Hymn to E-engurra), Akkadian (Atrahasis Epic, Enuma Elish), and Egyptian texts (Pyramid Texts, Instruction of Merikare). These texts provide a helpful window into the biblical world and show the common concern to explain the origin and role of humanity in the world.

One distinct feature of ancient Near Eastern texts is that they generally speak of human origins in a collective sense. Specialists refer to this phenomenon as polygenesis. Such a collective creation better serves the purpose of the gods, who have made the human race as a labor force. In the Bible, however, the book of Genesis describes an original human pair who are the progenitors of the human race. This phenomenon is referred to as monogenesis. Humanity is not merely created to serve and do the work of the gods. Instead, it is a special creation of God, intended to bear his image.

Composition. The composition of humanity is described in Gen. 2:7: “The Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Humanity is not distinct from animals in having the breath of life (1:30). Indeed, the description of the composition of humanity is also quite, well, human. Genesis describes humans as made from the dust. Dust is not fertile, nor is it pliable. It refers to the earth and that which is dead. The wordplay between “man” (’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah) appears to be a major focus of the text (2:7) and suggests that the major connection being established concerns the first humans as archetypes.

Constitution. Certain passages of Scripture have led interpreters to posit a trichotomous nature of humanity (i.e., mind, body, soul; cf. 2 Cor. 4:16; 5:1–9; 1 Thess. 5:23). Likewise, even though the Greek language can bifurcate the soul (psychē) and the body (sōma), a kind of dualism should not be inferred from this (cf. Matt. 6:25; 27:50; Luke 10:27; 2 Cor. 4:11). Either approach is foreign to the unified biblical mind-set. The only dualism in the anthropological perspective of the NT is in the nature of humanity in relation to Christ’s new creative work.

Form and Function

Form: male and female. Just as God created man (’ish), he also created woman (’ishah) (Gen. 1:26–27). Although woman is initially created as a “suitable helper” (2:18), it should be noted that the underlying Hebrew term (’ezer) is used almost exclusively in reference to God elsewhere. This suggests that “suitable helper” does not indicate a difference of essence, value, or status.

The Bible describes woman as coming from the “side” of man, probably communicating something about their equality (Gen. 2:21–22). Thus, it should be understood that just as all humanity shares a connection to the ground, so also a man shares an intimate connection with a woman. Although the phrase “one flesh” often is taken as a euphemism, it probably is a remarkably descriptive statement of the archetypal nature of Adam and Eve (cf. 2:24).

Function: image of God. The distinction between humanity and the other animals created by God is that humans are created in God’s image. The concept of the image of God, however, is not unique to the biblical text (Gen. 1:26–27; cf. Instruction of Merikare). Throughout the ancient Near East, kings were thought to actually be the image of a god. In the Christian understanding, only Christ is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4), whereas humanity is created in the image of God. Although this may imply a kingly role with regard to humanity’s function over the rest of creation, the main parallel should be seen in how images are meant to represent a god’s presence.

Humanity in Pauline Thought

Paul’s conception of humanity is thoroughly eschatological insomuch as his vision of Christ as the image of God is identified with Christ as “risen Lord.” Christ as the image of God is the final destiny of the humanity that is “in Christ” (1 Cor. 15:23–28; 44–49; Eph. 1:9–10). Because of the effects of sin, creation has been subjected to futility (Rom. 8:19–22), and humanity to death (Rom. 5:12–14; 1 Cor. 15:21–22). Yet Paul’s outburst of “new creation” (Gal. 6:15; cf. 2 Cor. 5:17) indicates his understanding of the cosmological, and therefore anthropological, effects of being united with Christ. Indeed, if God is making the “former things” into “new things” (2 Cor. 5:17; cf. Isa. 65:17–19), this new creative act certainly impacts humanity. That reality is already partially realized in the elimination of distinctions in this present “evil age” (Gal. 1:4), for in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one” (Gal. 3:28; cf. 1 Cor. 12:12–13; Gen. 17). Until the end, the Christian lives in the tension of already beginning to experience the act of new creation and not yet completely disinheriting the effects of sin (Rom. 8:18–30; 2 Cor. 12:5–10).

Justification is an important topic because of its relationship to Christian salvation and sanctification. The word “justification” occurs only five times in the Bible (NIV), but related words comprise significant themes in both Testaments. Part of the difficulty in the exposition of “justification” is English terminology. English has two word groups that express the same conceptual range for single word groups in Hebrew and Greek. So in addition to words related to justification, such as “justly,” “just,” and the very important verb “to justify,” no discussion can avoid the terms “righteous” and “righteousness.” Care must also be exercised in allowing the biblical texts to determine word meaning, since both “justice” and “righteousness” terminology can have contemporary connotations foreign to the biblical texts.

Justification is often related to a legal setting in both Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts, with its judge, defendant, evidence, criteria for evaluating the evidence, verdicts, and the implications of verdicts. This is a good word picture for justification and is used in the Bible itself. As long as the legal picture is extended to everyday affairs, moral and ethical concerns, and different criteria for evidence evaluation, it is a fine starting point for understanding the doctrine of justification.

Common and Extraordinary Justification

The salvific importance of justification has greatly shaped the exposition that follows. Justification has been somewhat awkwardly divided into common and extraordinary justification, with the latter bearing a significant relationship to the doctrine of salvation. The former is discussed only briefly in OT and NT paragraphs. In common justification, a person’s works or deeds are judged according to a standard of righteousness. Righteous deeds are judged and given the verdict “righteous.” Unrighteous deeds are judged and given the verdict “unrighteous.” Extraordinary justification occurs when an unrighteous person or deed is judged and given the verdict “righteous” by some supernatural intervention.

Common justification in the OT may be described in various contexts: (1) in comparative or relative righteousness between humans (e.g., Gen. 38:26; Ezek. 16:51–52); (2) in specific or concrete situations with God as judge (e.g., 2 Chron. 6:23: “Judge between your servants, condemning the guilty and bringing down on their heads what they have done, and vindicating the innocent by treating them in accordance with their innocence”; (3) in specific or concrete situations with a human as judge (e.g., Deut. 25:1: “When people have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty”); (4) in giving justice (e.g., 2 Sam. 15:4; cf. Ps. 82:3); (5) in proving correct or right (e.g., Ps. 51:4; Isa. 43:9).

Extraordinary justification is much rarer in the OT. A possible example is Dan. 8:14, where in a vision the sanctuary is desecrated and after a time “will be reconsecrated” or, in other terms, “will be justified holy.” It seems quite unusual that the unholy “is justified” as holy. In Isa. 45:25 we find the promise that “in the Lord all the offspring of Israel shall be justified” (ESV). Another verse declares that Yahweh’s “righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities” (Isa. 53:11). The need for extraordinary justification and the deficiency of ordinary justification is clear in Ps. 143:1–2: “Lord, hear my prayer, listen to my cry for mercy; in your faithfulness and righteousness come to my relief. Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you” (cf. Job 4:17; 25:4). The last phrase might be translated “no person will be justified before you” and is cited by the apostle Paul in Gal. 2:16 (cf. Rom. 3:20).

In the NT, there are fewer references to common justification than in the OT and a much greater development of extraordinary justification, predominantly in the Pauline letters (for similar concepts in different terms, see, e.g., “kingdom of God” in the Synoptic Gospels or “eternal life” in the Gospel of John). Common justification in the NT may be described in various contexts: (1) in a specific situation with a human or God as judge and a person’s behavior as the object of judgment (e.g., Luke 16:15; 1 Cor. 4:3–4; perhaps Luke 10:29; 18:9–14); (2) when “wisdom is proved right,” meaning vindicated by the results (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:35); (3) in the release from demands no longer binding (Rom. 6:7; cf. 1 Cor. 6:1); (4) in being proved morally right in fullness (1 Tim. 3:16; cf. Rom. 3:4).

Paul and Justification

Extraordinary justification in the NT is characteristic of the apostle Paul. Luke’s report of Paul’s synagogue sermon in Pisidian Antioch concludes with a brief overview of extraordinary justification (Acts 13:38–39). Paul proclaims that forgiveness of sins is available through Jesus. Every person trusting in Jesus is being justified “from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (NKJV). The forgiveness of sins leads to the verdict “innocent” even though sinners apart from Christ are guilty before God of their unrighteous deeds.

In Gal. 2:16 the verb “justify” is used three times: (1) “a person is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ”; (2) “we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law”; (3) “by the works of the law no one will be justified.” The statements may be paraphrased in the active voice (expressing the implied subject) as in the following: (1) God is justifying a person not by works of Mosaic law, but by trust in Jesus Christ; (2) God justified us by trust in Christ, not by works of Mosaic law; (3) God will justify no person by works of Mosaic law. In Gal. 2:16, God is the subject, the agent who justifies (cf. 3:8; Rom. 3:26, 30; 4:5; 8:30, 33). The basis of justification is faith in Christ, not works of the Mosaic law. The meaning of the verb “justify” may be discerned from the context. This justification is related to the gospel (e.g., Gal. 2:14) and to receiving the Spirit (Gal. 3:2, 14), and the verdict of “righteous” for the person trusting in Jesus (Gal. 2:21; cf. 3:6, 11; 5:5; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21).

Justification and righteousness are important themes in Paul’s letter to the Romans. At the beginning of the letter, Paul declares that he is not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God that brings salvation to all who believe. In the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith (Rom. 1:16–17). Paul argues in Rom. 1:18–3:20, a section abounding with righteousness language, that all humanity, Gentile and Jew, is under the power of sin (3:10), that no one is righteous (e.g., 3:10–18). All are subject to condemnation (i.e., the declaration of “guilty” and “unrighteous” [cf. 5:16]) rather than justification (i.e., the declaration of “innocent” and “righteous”). No human will be justified before God by works of the law; the law provides knowledge of sin (3:20).

The state resulting from this unrighteousness and sin is God’s wrath (e.g., Rom. 1:18). It is into this situation, this sad state of affairs where all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, that the righteousness of God, God’s saving activity long anticipated in the OT, is revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ (3:21; 10:3). This righteousness is from God (3:22), a righteousness not related to human fulfillment of Mosaic law or righteousness of one’s own (Rom. 3:21; 9:31–32; 10:4; Phil. 3:6, 9; cf. Eph. 2:8–9). This righteousness comes from God by trust in Christ (Rom. 3:22; 5:1; 9:30; 10:10; Phil. 3:9). By trust in Christ, God justifies each human in his freely given grace, whereby the human is redeemed from unrighteousness and sin (Rom. 3:24).

The death of Jesus is the sacrifice of atonement by which forgiveness of sins is accomplished and made effectual in the human when one trusts in Jesus’ sacrifice (Rom. 3:25). This sacrifice demonstrates God’s righteousness (3:26) because he justly judges human sin in Jesus. The one who had no sin of his own became sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21; cf. Rom. 5:6, 8; 1 Cor. 15:3). In merciful forbearance, God passes over sins previously committed, delaying the execution of his justice, that he might justify the ungodly person who trusts in Jesus’ person and work (Rom. 3:26; cf. 4:5). This justification is of a different nature than ordinary righteousness on the human level or of the kind that can be obtained by observing the Mosaic law. In this extraordinary justification, God reckons a human innocent of sin and righteous by trust and apart from works of Mosaic law (3:28). Both Jew and Gentile are reckoned righteous under the same condition: trust in Jesus (3:29–30).

Although the revelation of the person and work of Jesus the Messiah was relatively new at the time Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, Paul emphasizes in Rom. 4 that this idea of justification by trust and not by works goes back to the forefather of the Jews, Abraham. Quoting Gen. 15:6, Paul demonstrates from Scripture that trust, not works, was the basis of extraordinary justification: Abraham believes God, and it is credited to him as righteousness. God justifies Abraham (i.e., God credits righteousness to Abraham) on the basis of Abraham’s trust in God. Paul also cites most of Ps. 32:1–2, from a Davidic psalm, to further demonstrate the consistency of justification by faith with previous revelation. In this quotation the crediting of righteousness apart from works is related to the forgiveness of transgression, where the verdict of the guilty becomes “innocent.” “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). Extraordinary justification of unrighteous sinners leads to the twofold verdict: innocent and righteous.

Titus 3:3–6 expresses the same doctrine of extraordinary justification. Humanity is under sin when Jesus appears. God saves in his mercy through Jesus, not on the basis of righteous human works. This saving activity is equivalent to being justified by Jesus’ grace (3:7).

James and Justification

There are three references to justification in James 2:14–26, which appear at first glance to contradict extraordinary justification as presented by Paul. In support of the claim that faith without deeds is useless (James 2:20), two questions are asked: Was not Abraham considered righteous for what he did, and was not Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did (i.e., justified by works) (2:21, 25)? James 2:24 rephrases this as a proposition: a person is justified by what he or she does, not by faith alone. The context of 2:14–26 demonstrates that although the terms “faith,” “works,” and “justification” are the same as Paul’s, they have different meanings for James. Faith appears in this passage as mere knowledge (2:19), without any implications for living (2:14–18). For Paul, faith is a radical commitment of trust that submits one’s entire life under the lordship of Christ, something much different from the mere belief portrayed as faith by James. Deeds or works in the James passage are the concrete manifestations of what one believes (2:18). Works in the Pauline justification passages are set in opposition to trust in the person and work of the Lord Jesus. Outside of the justification context, Paul is an advocate of works properly related to faith, righteousness, and holiness (e.g., Eph. 2:10; 1 Thess. 1:3; cf. Rom. 1:5; 6:1–23; 8:4; 12:1–2). Justification is also different. Pauline justification most commonly relates to the extraordinary justification of declaring unrighteous sinners “innocent” and “righteous” based on trust in Christ. Justification in James has greater ties to common justification, focusing on the righteousness of a specific act at a specific time.

Other Views on Justification

Shortly after the age of the apostles, the doctrine of justification was deemphasized in many circles of church life in favor of a more moralistic system. One group has repeatedly argued for centuries that justification infuses righteousness into the believer, and then the believer must do good works to complete justification. This conception fails to differentiate between sanctification and justification and also misrepresents justification. In justification God declares the believer innocent and righteous, forgiving sin by means of Christ’s sacrifice and imputing Christ’s righteousness to the believer. This is not “legal fiction,” since justification has past, present, and future aspects (Rom. 3:30; 8:30–34; Gal. 2:16; 5:5). Believers have been, are being, and will be justified by faith in Christ Jesus. Recently, some have claimed that justification is related exclusively to the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God without “works of the law,” racial and national identity markers (e.g., circumcision or food laws). Among the weaknesses of this view, the key one is that both Jew and Gentile are in need of extraordinary justification (Rom. 3:9, 19–20, 23–26, 30; 9:30–10:13; Gal. 2:15–3:14).

The sister of Mary and Lazarus, who lived in Bethany (John 11:1–2). In Luke 10:38–42 and John 12:1–8, Martha is depicted as interested only in preparing and serving food to her houseguest, Jesus. As such, she is contrasted with Mary, who spends her time with Jesus. In Luke 10 Martha even enlists Jesus’ help in requesting that Mary join her in completing the necessary work. Jesus, however, declares that Martha is “worried and upset about many things” (v. 41) and Mary’s actions are more desirable. In a separate account (John 11:1–44), Mary and Martha send word to Jesus that their brother, Lazarus, is sick. Jesus delays the journey to Bethany in order to demonstrate the glory of God, which results in his raising Lazarus from the dead. Upon hearing of Jesus’ eventual arrival, Martha goes out to meet him and questions the timing of his journey. In their dialogue, Jesus confirms Martha’s faith in him (John 11:27), but before Jesus performs the miracle, she experiences doubt.

Pieces of metal stamped with a particular impression, used as a medium of exchange. From time immemorial people used animals, grain, or other commodities to barter (Hos. 3:2), pay taxes (1 Sam. 8:15), or as a measure of wealth (Job 1:3). Substituting smaller, more easily handled pieces of precious metal had obvious advantages. Gradually people used precious metal such as silver or gold along with commodities (Gen. 20:14–16) and then in place of them (37:28) as a means of payment. Such metal had been refined, but it could have been in most any form (rings, bars, ingots, dust) as long as it weighed the appropriate amount. Local and international standards developed to regulate the weights, and later the concept grew in popularity to use standard, authorized, clearly stamped pieces of precious metal—coins.

Old Testament. Minting of coins may have begun as far back as the late eighth century BC, and it gradually spread throughout the known world. The first coins apparently were made in Asia Minor using electrum, a natural alloy of gold and silver.

When the Persians took over much of the ancient Near East in the sixth century BC, the use of coins spread, and Persian coins came to the land of the Bible. At the end of the Hebrew Bible there is mention of large quantities of Persian coins called “darics” (1 Chron. 29:7; Ezra 8:27), also translated as “drachmas” (NASB) or “drams” (KJV) (Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70–72). These darics were stamped with the likeness of Darius the Great (521–486 BC) and were minted from gold and occasionally silver. At about the same time, silver tetradrachmas (four-drachma coins) from Athens made their way to the western shores of the Mediterranean. Local imitations of this coin were stamped with “YHD” to represent the province of Judah.

New Testament. Coins appear dozens of times in the NT; some have Hellenistic roots, while others come from the periods of Hasmonean or Roman rule.

For several centuries after Alexander the Great conquered the ancient Near East (fourth century BC), coins with the images of Alexander or his Seleucid or Ptolemaic successors were circulated in Judea. In particular, silver shekels from the Phoenician port cities of Tyre and Sidon enjoyed wide usage for a long time. Also called a “stater,” the shekel or four-drachma coin recovered by Peter from the fish’s mouth (Matt. 17:27) may have been such a Tyrian coin. Many or all of the thirty silver coins that the chief priests gave Judas for betraying Jesus (Matt. 26:15; 27:3) probably were Tyrian shekels as well, since this coin came to be the accepted currency at the temple in Jerusalem and the priests would have had a good supply of them.

After the Hellenistic rulers lost control of Judea during the rebellion led by the Maccabean or Hasmonean family in the second century BC, the Jews could mint their own coins for the first time. The honor of producing the first Jewish coin apparently goes to John Hyrcanus I (134–104 BC), son of Simon and nephew of Judas Maccabeus. Simon’s modest bronze lepton (pl. lepta), or prutah, has an inscription on one side and two cornucopias and a pomegranate on the other. Use of such agricultural symbols apparently fulfilled two purposes: it portrayed the fertility of the land that God had given his people, and it helped the Jews avoid depicting people on coins, as the Greeks and later the Romans would do. During this period devout Jews avoided such images in order to help fulfill the second commandment (Exod. 20:4), to avoid graven images. Hyrcanus I’s son Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BC) minted great quantities of different types of bronze lepta, still often found in excavations in Israel today. These coins remained in circulation for many years, probably through the ministry of Jesus. Thus, the two small coins for which Jesus commended the widow for donating to the temple treasury (Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2) may well have been lepta of Alexander Jannaeus. The tiny lepton, typically smaller than a dime and worth only 1/400 of a shekel, also appears in Luke 12:59.

It is also possible that the aforementioned lepta were not minted by Alexander Jannaeus, since later rulers, including the Jewish king Herod the Great (40–4 BC), also minted large numbers of similar small bronze coins. Though not known for his piety, Herod continued to avoid human representations on his coins. For the most part, so did his sons and the later Roman procurators (including Pontius Pilate [governed AD 26–36]), who ruled Judea before the revolt in AD 66.

Other Roman coins, such as the silver denarius (pl. denarii) minted outside Judea, clearly did not avoid human representation, however. Jesus’ request for a coin with Caesar’s image and inscription (Matt. 22:15–22) refers to the denarius. The denarius in Jesus’ day could have portrayed the emperor Tiberius (r. AD 14–37) or even Augustus (r. 27 BC–AD 14), whose coins were probably still in circulation. The silver denarius came to represent the daily wage of a common laborer, as clearly shown in the parable of laborers (Matt. 20:1–16). The denarius also appears in many other passages, although modern translators sometimes use a more interpretive expression (“two silver coins” for “two denarii” in Luke 10:35; “a year’s wages” for “three hundred denarii” in Mark 14:5).

Although many of the references discussed above contain specific terms that can be identified with coins known from history, others cannot. General terms meaning “coins” or “pieces of money” sometimes appear, as when Jesus scattered the coins of the money changers (John 2:15), or the rather common term for silver that appears frequently and is often translated as “money” (Matt. 28:12; Luke 9:3) or “silver” (Acts 3:6; 1 Pet. 1:18) as well as “silver coins” (Matt. 27:3 GW).

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

The word “parable” is used to speak of a particular literary form that communicates indirectly by means of comparative language, often for the purpose of challenging the listener to accept or reject a new way of thinking about a particular matter. Parables regularly incorporate concrete and accessible images from the daily life of the audience, and often they are terse and pointed, mentioning only the details relevant for an effective comparison. However, any attempt to define the term “parable” in a clear and concise way is complicated by the fact that both the Hebrew (mashal) and the Greek (parabolē) words regularly translated by the English word “parable” have much broader connotations. For instance, in the OT mashal can designate proverbs (Prov. 1:1), riddles (Ezek. 17:2), prophetic utterances (Num. 23:7, 18; 24:3, 15, 20, 21, 23), and sayings (1 Sam. 10:12); similarly, in the NT parabolē denotes proverbs (Luke 4:23), riddles (Mark 3:23), analogies (Mark 7:17), and more. Therefore, no comprehensive definition of parables is agreed upon by biblical scholars, and very little said about parables in general will apply to every parable.

Parables in the Bible

Although not designated with the Hebrew word mashal, the story of the trees (Judg. 9:7–15) and the story of the ewe lamb (2 Sam. 12:1–4) may be considered to be parables. Like many parables, the story about the ewe lamb told by Nathan prompts its audience, in this case David, to condemn the actions of a character in the parable before being confronted with the fact that the character and his conduct are symbolic of David himself. The parable is the vehicle used to bring about self-condemnation of its audience.

Although Jesus is not the only speaker of parables in the ancient world, the Gospels narrate a tremendous number of parables within his teaching. The major parables of Jesus are listed in table 4. The diversity of form represented in this list is striking. Some of the parables consist of short, relatively simple comparisons that lack the development of any significant story line. This is true, for instance, of the parables of the mustard seed, yeast, hidden treasure, and the pearl. Each of these offers a simple simile to explain some feature of the kingdom of God, a frequent topic in Jesus’ parables, and may include an additional sentence of clarification.

Table 4. Major Parables of Jesus

Wise and foolish builders (Matt. 7:24-27; Luke 6:46-49)

Sower and the soils (Matt. 13:3–8, 18–23; Mark 4:3–8, 14–20; Luke 8:5–8, 11–15)

Weeds (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43)

Mustard seed (Matt. 13:31–32; Mark 4:30–32; Luke 13:18–19)

Yeast (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:20-21)

Hidden treasure (Matt. 13:44)

Pearl (Matt. 13:45-46)

Net (Matt. 13:47-50)

Lost sheep (Matt. 18:12-14; Luke 15:4-7)

Unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23-35)

Workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16)

Two sons (Matt. 21:28-32)

Wicked tenants (Matt. 21:33–44; Mark 12:1–11; Luke 20:9–18)

Wedding banquet (Matt. 22:2-14)

Faithful and wise servant (Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-48)

Ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13)

Talents (Matt. 25:14–30; Luke 19:12–27)

Sheep and goats (Matt. 25:31-46)

Growing seeds (Mark 4:26-29)

Money lender (Luke 7:41-47)

Good Samritan (Luke 10:30-37)

Friend in need (Luke 11:5-8)

Rich fool (Luke 12:16-21)

Unfruitful fig tree (Luke 13:6-9)

Lowest seat (Luke 14:7-14)

Great banquet (Luke 14:16-24)

Cost of discipleship (Luke 14:28-33)

Lost coin (Luke 15:8-10)

Lost (prodigal) son (Luke 15:11-32)

Shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-8)

Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

Persistent widow (Luke 18:2-8)

Pharisee and tax collector (Luke 18:10-14)

Parables such as the good Samaritan and the prodigal son, on the other hand, are significantly longer, contain developed plots, and present several central characters. Stories of this sort may use the characters as examples of behavior to be either emulated or avoided, as in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Such parables may remain open-ended in an attempt to force the listeners into a decision about what should happen (the unfruitful fig tree), or they may include a clear, concluding explanation that leaves no doubt as to how the audience should change their belief or behavior as a result of the parable’s teaching (the moneylender). The degree to which each of these parables directly addresses the intended audience and the intended topic can vary greatly. For instance, although the parable of the rich fool directly addresses the subject matter of material wealth, the anonymity of the rich man in the story does not openly condemn any particular member of Jesus’ audience. Alternatively, a parable may treat a subject that differs from the intended one and expect the listener to transfer the lesson to another topic. This is the case with the parable of the weeds, which speaks explicitly about farming. Nonetheless, when the disciples seek an explanation of this parable, Jesus indicates that it is to be understood as speaking about that feature of the kingdom of heaven whereby the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one intermingle in the world until the end of the age, when the sons of the evil one will be separated to face a fiery judgment (Matt. 13:36–43).

Other parables, such as that of the lost sheep, revolve around a central question posed to the listeners. By asking “who among you” would behave in the way described, the parable anticipates a negative response that asserts that no one would act in the manner detailed in the parable. The NIV frequently inserts the phrase “suppose one of you” in places where the introductory question “who among you” appears in Greek.

Purpose of Jesus’ Teaching in Parables

It is quite clear that Jesus regularly employed parables in his teaching, but his reason for doing so is less evident. Jesus’ own somewhat perplexing statement in Mark 4:10–12 indicates that his parables have the dual purpose of both revealing and concealing the secret of the kingdom, but one may wonder how it is that parables perform both functions simultaneously. If the goal of comparative language is to make clearer a concept or idea that is difficult, then certainly Jesus’ parables function in this way. Through the simple, accessible, and concrete word pictures that are his parables, Jesus discloses many characteristics and features of the kingdom of God, which is at best something of an enigma to his audience. By speaking to the crowds, albeit at times in an exaggerated fashion, about the things that they know, such as farming, banquets, baking, and other elements of everyday life, Jesus expands their understanding of what they do not know. However, the indirect quality of parables simultaneously blocks spontaneous understanding and therefore requires the audience to engage in additional reflection to ensure that they have truly grasped what is being taught. Likewise, the ability to address an issue by slyly sneaking up on it from behind results in parables that initially conceal their true purpose of convincing the listeners of a new way of thinking or behaving such that the conviction they are meant to induce comes with a surprise kick at the end.

Interpretation of Parables

Interpretation over the centuries. Throughout church history until the nineteenth century, parables were widely interpreted by means of the allegorical method. That is, all the surface details of parables were identified as symbols of some deeper spiritual truth. A classic example of allegorizing is Augustine’s interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan, whereby he interpreted surface details of the text according to allegorical equations (see table 5). Allegorical interpretations of the same parable by other Christians, however, did not always result in the same interpretations of the symbols. For this reason, most scholars today reject the excessive allegorization of Augustine and others throughout church history. However, how many details in a parable, if any, are to be interpreted allegorically remains a central question in parable interpretation. For instance, in the parable of the mustard seed, are the mustard seed and the plant that it produces allegories for the unobtrusive beginnings yet manifest results of the kingdom? If so, what then of the man and the birds also mentioned in the parable? Are they symbols of a deeper spiritual truth such that the man is to be equated with God, or are they included only to augment the teaching of the parable such that the birds merely highlight the extreme size of the tree into which the seed has grown?

Table 5. Augustine’s Allegorical Interpretation of the Good Samaritan

Details in the Parable and its Allegorical Equivalent:

The man = Adam

Jerusalem = The heavenly city

Jericho = The moon (a symbol of mortality)

The robbers = The devil

Beating the man = Persuading him to sin

Priest and Levite = The Old Testament priesthood

Samaritan = Christ

Binding of wounds = Restraint of sin

Oil = Comfort of hope

Animal = Incarnation

Inn = Church

Innkeeper = Apostle Paul

The work of the German scholar Adolf Jülicher at the end of the nineteenth century has widely affected parable interpretation since that time. Jülicher asserted that parables are not allegories and therefore should not be interpreted allegorically at all. Instead, he argued that parables have only one main point, normally a general, religious statement. Interpreters since Jülicher continue to debate how much of a parable is significant and how many points of correspondence are intended. More-recent views have posited that Jülicher went too far in maintaining a strict distinction between parable and allegory, and many interpreters believe that allegorical elements are present in parables, with perhaps the main characters in a parable being the most likely candidates for allegorical interpretation. This renewed openness to allegorical features in parables is due in part to the recognition that the Gospels record Jesus’ own tendency to offer allegorical interpretations of his parables when his disciples inquire as to their meaning. This is most clearly seen in the parable of the sower and the soils, which includes details such as seed, birds, the sun, and thorns. Jesus reveals that the seed is to be interpreted as the message about the kingdom, the birds stand for the evil one, the sun is representative of persecution because of the gospel, and the thorns indicate worries and wealth (Matt. 13:18–23).

Guidelines for interpreting parables. It is generally best to recognize that not all parables are identical, and that one should consider several possible interpretive strategies before determining which approach best fits any given parable. Nonetheless, some broad guidelines for the interpretation of parables include the following:

1. The characters and plots within parables are literary creations and are not historical. The parable of the lost sheep is not a historical rec-ord of a certain shepherd whose sheep went missing. No actual invitation was issued for the great banquet in the parable. Rather, in a parable the listener is brought into a narrative world controlled by the storyteller and by implication has no need for details that the speaker fails to provide. Therefore, it does not matter whether the shepherd himself was at fault in the loss of the sheep, and the choice of food set before the banquet guests is inconsequential.

2. Parables often follow the principle of end stress. Interpreters should carefully consider how the parable ends when determining the meaning the parable is intended to convey. At times an explanatory conclusion to the parable is included and may be helpful in directing the reader toward the topic that is really being addressed. This is the case in the parable of the two sons, in which Jesus’ concluding explanation identifies tax collectors and prostitutes as those who are entering the kingdom ahead of those who have received John’s prophetic message but failed to accept it.

Recent studies on parables that reflect issues raised by two fields of study respectively known as form criticism and redaction criticism are likely to question the accuracy of such concluding statements as well as any introductory comments to parables that may also be presented in the Gospel text. Many scholars ask if and to what extent the Gospel writers made changes to the parables that they record. They wonder whether it is possible to discern the original context and circumstance in which Jesus relayed his parables, or whether the details of the original context had been forgotten by the time that the evangelists wrote. Could it be that any introductory and concluding comments included with some parables are not authentic to Jesus’ ministry but instead reflect issues that arose in the early church? In spite of the doubts of some, more-conservative scholars have presented arguments for the continued trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts about Jesus’ teaching including introductory or concluding statements associated with his parables.

3. Look for the use of OT symbols in Jesus’ parables. The parables of Jesus and the parables recorded in other rabbinical literature are replete with similar figures and images. Kings, banquets, weddings, farmers, debtors, and more appear with frequency; they perhaps developed into stock images to be used in stories in the ancient world. If such details appear in a parable, the interpreter should consider strongly whether some allegorical meaning is intended whereby a kingly figure represents God, a son represents the people of God, and a banquet indicates a time of coming judgment or reward.

4. Interpreters should exercise extreme caution regarding doctrinal teaching drawn from a parable, particularly if such doctrine cannot be confirmed by the theological teaching found in a nonparabolic portion of Scripture. For instance, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, is one to conclude that conversations can occur between the dead who reside in hell and those who reside in heaven? Likewise, should one learn that it is possible for the deceased human to be sent back to the living with a message from God? These doctrinal issues seem to be outside the range of teaching intended by the parable, and support for these ideas cannot be found in other biblical texts.

5. In recognition of the indirect nature of the communication in parables, some interpreters question whether a parable’s meaning can be reproduced in propositional language. In other words, can the meaning of a parable be expressed in nonparabolic language, or is some necessary component lost when one changes the form? Similarly, is it possible for people who have heard the story of the good Samaritan repeatedly to be struck by the confrontational force that was central to its initial reception? Not only are the images of Samaritans and Levites foreign to the modern listener, but also the familiarity with the story that has resulted from its retelling over time has domesticated the parable such that the details that were meant to shock and surprise are now anticipated and predictable. In this way, are parables like jokes that have been repeated too many times until one becomes inoculated against the punch line? Because of these concerns about the inability of today’s listeners to truly hear the parable as it was meant to be heard, some interpreters may wish to consider how it could be recast with images common to today’s audience and retold in such a way that the listeners experience the surprising twist that the initial audiences felt.

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses in several ways.

Family. In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing of wealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancient Israel special provisions were made for inheriting land upon the death of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; the rest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lacked sons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers, father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OT provides guidance for additional circumstances (Gen. 38:8–9; Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10; Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concern for the stability of the family and the retention of the land within a tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legal standing even while the father was still alive; his status was based on birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.

Old Testament. Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as an inheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29; Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, not something that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7). Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”) and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God will dwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14; Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance moves beyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 the anointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land of Canaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similar expansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).

God’s relationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance. On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance (Deut. 32:9; 1 Sam. 10:1; 1 Kings 8:51–53); on the other hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer. 10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’s relationship with Israel.

New Testament. Inheritance language is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways. First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,” the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their union with Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom. 8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in that inheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described in various ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14), blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1 Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enacted by the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28). Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through the Spirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heaven and awaits the consummation (1 Pet. 1:4–6).

The connection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit is especially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses a combination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. Before Christ came, God’s people were heirs under the care of guardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them from under the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sons and daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit, who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of the Spirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters rather than slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritance in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa. 44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1).

The acquisition of another’s property by force or threat. This crime was perpetrated by bandits (Hos. 7:1), often through ambush (Judg. 9:25). In Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan, the robbers’ attack leaves the victim half dead (Luke 10:30). The eighth commandment’s prohibition against stealing (Exod. 20:15; Deut. 5:19) certainly includes robbery, which is explicitly condemned in Lev. 19:13. OT law does not distinguish robbery from theft, which is done by stealth or deception, likely because the unlawful seizure of another’s goods was seen as a civil crime and the legal emphasis was on the restitution of property along with some compensation for distress, which varied according to the item stolen and served as a deterrent to thieves (Exod. 22:1, 4; Lev. 6:1–7). If unable to make restitution, the criminal could be sold into slavery to pay the debt (Exod. 22:3). Should the violence of robbery result in injury, laws concerning personal injury applied (Exod. 21:23–25; Lev. 24:19–20). In fact, under certain conditions, the law addresses an injured thief as the victim and not the perpetrator of violence (Exod. 22:2–3). The two men crucified with Jesus are traditionally described as “robbers” (Matt. 27:38; Mark 15:27), though in this case the Greek word (lēstēs) likely refers to rebels or insurrectionists (NLT: “revolutionaries”). This was the Roman authorities’ way of casting them as common criminals rather than as freedom fighters.

God declares his hatred for robbery, contrasting it with justice (Isa. 61:8). Robbery is often an example of injustice, especially when perpetrated upon the poor (Isa. 10:2; Ezek. 22:29). Rescuing a victim from a robber is enjoined as a just action (Jer. 21:12; 22:3), one for which God himself deserves praise (Ps. 35:10). God describes himself as the victim of robbery as he accuses Israel of stealing from him by withholding its tithes (Mal. 3:8–9).

Greek has two different words to distinguish a robber (lēstēs) from a thief (kleptēs). In the NT, robbery appears primarily as a metaphor. Jesus uses it to represent false prophets (John 10:1, 8), his own plunder of Satan’s house (Matt. 12:29; Mark 3:27), and, in a reference from Jer. 7:11, those seeking economic gain in the temple (Matt. 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46).

Pieces of metal stamped with a particular impression, used as a medium of exchange. From time immemorial people used animals, grain, or other commodities to barter (Hos. 3:2), pay taxes (1 Sam. 8:15), or as a measure of wealth (Job 1:3). Substituting smaller, more easily handled pieces of precious metal had obvious advantages. Gradually people used precious metal such as silver or gold along with commodities (Gen. 20:14–16) and then in place of them (37:28) as a means of payment. Such metal had been refined, but it could have been in most any form (rings, bars, ingots, dust) as long as it weighed the appropriate amount. Local and international standards developed to regulate the weights, and later the concept grew in popularity to use standard, authorized, clearly stamped pieces of precious metal—coins.

Old Testament. Minting of coins may have begun as far back as the late eighth century BC, and it gradually spread throughout the known world. The first coins apparently were made in Asia Minor using electrum, a natural alloy of gold and silver.

When the Persians took over much of the ancient Near East in the sixth century BC, the use of coins spread, and Persian coins came to the land of the Bible. At the end of the Hebrew Bible there is mention of large quantities of Persian coins called “darics” (1 Chron. 29:7; Ezra 8:27), also translated as “drachmas” (NASB) or “drams” (KJV) (Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70–72). These darics were stamped with the likeness of Darius the Great (521–486 BC) and were minted from gold and occasionally silver. At about the same time, silver tetradrachmas (four-drachma coins) from Athens made their way to the western shores of the Mediterranean. Local imitations of this coin were stamped with “YHD” to represent the province of Judah.

New Testament. Coins appear dozens of times in the NT; some have Hellenistic roots, while others come from the periods of Hasmonean or Roman rule.

For several centuries after Alexander the Great conquered the ancient Near East (fourth century BC), coins with the images of Alexander or his Seleucid or Ptolemaic successors were circulated in Judea. In particular, silver shekels from the Phoenician port cities of Tyre and Sidon enjoyed wide usage for a long time. Also called a “stater,” the shekel or four-drachma coin recovered by Peter from the fish’s mouth (Matt. 17:27) may have been such a Tyrian coin. Many or all of the thirty silver coins that the chief priests gave Judas for betraying Jesus (Matt. 26:15; 27:3) probably were Tyrian shekels as well, since this coin came to be the accepted currency at the temple in Jerusalem and the priests would have had a good supply of them.

After the Hellenistic rulers lost control of Judea during the rebellion led by the Maccabean or Hasmonean family in the second century BC, the Jews could mint their own coins for the first time. The honor of producing the first Jewish coin apparently goes to John Hyrcanus I (134–104 BC), son of Simon and nephew of Judas Maccabeus. Simon’s modest bronze lepton (pl. lepta), or prutah, has an inscription on one side and two cornucopias and a pomegranate on the other. Use of such agricultural symbols apparently fulfilled two purposes: it portrayed the fertility of the land that God had given his people, and it helped the Jews avoid depicting people on coins, as the Greeks and later the Romans would do. During this period devout Jews avoided such images in order to help fulfill the second commandment (Exod. 20:4), to avoid graven images. Hyrcanus I’s son Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BC) minted great quantities of different types of bronze lepta, still often found in excavations in Israel today. These coins remained in circulation for many years, probably through the ministry of Jesus. Thus, the two small coins for which Jesus commended the widow for donating to the temple treasury (Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2) may well have been lepta of Alexander Jannaeus. The tiny lepton, typically smaller than a dime and worth only 1/400 of a shekel, also appears in Luke 12:59.

It is also possible that the aforementioned lepta were not minted by Alexander Jannaeus, since later rulers, including the Jewish king Herod the Great (40–4 BC), also minted large numbers of similar small bronze coins. Though not known for his piety, Herod continued to avoid human representations on his coins. For the most part, so did his sons and the later Roman procurators (including Pontius Pilate [governed AD 26–36]), who ruled Judea before the revolt in AD 66.

Other Roman coins, such as the silver denarius (pl. denarii) minted outside Judea, clearly did not avoid human representation, however. Jesus’ request for a coin with Caesar’s image and inscription (Matt. 22:15–22) refers to the denarius. The denarius in Jesus’ day could have portrayed the emperor Tiberius (r. AD 14–37) or even Augustus (r. 27 BC–AD 14), whose coins were probably still in circulation. The silver denarius came to represent the daily wage of a common laborer, as clearly shown in the parable of laborers (Matt. 20:1–16). The denarius also appears in many other passages, although modern translators sometimes use a more interpretive expression (“two silver coins” for “two denarii” in Luke 10:35; “a year’s wages” for “three hundred denarii” in Mark 14:5).

Although many of the references discussed above contain specific terms that can be identified with coins known from history, others cannot. General terms meaning “coins” or “pieces of money” sometimes appear, as when Jesus scattered the coins of the money changers (John 2:15), or the rather common term for silver that appears frequently and is often translated as “money” (Matt. 28:12; Luke 9:3) or “silver” (Acts 3:6; 1 Pet. 1:18) as well as “silver coins” (Matt. 27:3 GW).

The acquisition of another’s property by force or threat. This crime was perpetrated by bandits (Hos. 7:1), often through ambush (Judg. 9:25). In Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan, the robbers’ attack leaves the victim half dead (Luke 10:30). The eighth commandment’s prohibition against stealing (Exod. 20:15; Deut. 5:19) certainly includes robbery, which is explicitly condemned in Lev. 19:13. OT law does not distinguish robbery from theft, which is done by stealth or deception, likely because the unlawful seizure of another’s goods was seen as a civil crime and the legal emphasis was on the restitution of property along with some compensation for distress, which varied according to the item stolen and served as a deterrent to thieves (Exod. 22:1, 4; Lev. 6:1–7). If unable to make restitution, the criminal could be sold into slavery to pay the debt (Exod. 22:3). Should the violence of robbery result in injury, laws concerning personal injury applied (Exod. 21:23–25; Lev. 24:19–20). In fact, under certain conditions, the law addresses an injured thief as the victim and not the perpetrator of violence (Exod. 22:2–3). The two men crucified with Jesus are traditionally described as “robbers” (Matt. 27:38; Mark 15:27), though in this case the Greek word (lēstēs) likely refers to rebels or insurrectionists (NLT: “revolutionaries”). This was the Roman authorities’ way of casting them as common criminals rather than as freedom fighters.

God declares his hatred for robbery, contrasting it with justice (Isa. 61:8). Robbery is often an example of injustice, especially when perpetrated upon the poor (Isa. 10:2; Ezek. 22:29). Rescuing a victim from a robber is enjoined as a just action (Jer. 21:12; 22:3), one for which God himself deserves praise (Ps. 35:10). God describes himself as the victim of robbery as he accuses Israel of stealing from him by withholding its tithes (Mal. 3:8–9).

Greek has two different words to distinguish a robber (lēstēs) from a thief (kleptēs). In the NT, robbery appears primarily as a metaphor. Jesus uses it to represent false prophets (John 10:1, 8), his own plunder of Satan’s house (Matt. 12:29; Mark 3:27), and, in a reference from Jer. 7:11, those seeking economic gain in the temple (Matt. 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46).

Shema is the transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning “hear” (shema’ ), the first word of Deut. 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” The text that begins with this verse is therefore referred to as the Shema. The Shema emphasizes the oneness of God and the obligation to love him and is the most important prayer in Judaism. It is recited twice daily and begins a weekly liturgical reading that includes Deut. 6:4–9; 11:13–21; Num. 15:37–41. These Torah passages emphasize monotheism and the centrality of the commandments.

Jesus called the Shema the greatest commandment (Mark 12:29–30; Matt. 22:37–38; Luke 10:27) and invoked it in teaching his oneness with the Father (John 10:30). Paul later expanded the Shema to include Jesus (1 Cor. 8:6).

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).