Sermon and Worship Resources (2024)

Generally made of grain, this staple of foods has been known to be in existence since prehistoric days, being mentioned in the oldest literatures of humanity. Though usually made of wheat, it can be made of any grain and also some kinds of beans or lentils.

To make bread, grain must be ground into flour, mixed with salt and water, kneaded into a dough, and baked. Most breads included a leaven to add substance. As a food staple, it became a symbol of hospitality (Neh. 13:12; Matt. 14:15–21) and community as people ate together (Acts 2:42). Bread was considered a gift from God, so it was treated with special deference. Unleavened bread was required during Passover feasts and in most occasions related to the worship of God. The “bread of the Presence” (KJV: “shewbread”), representing the twelve tribes of Israel in the temple, was made of unleavened bread (Exod. 25:30) with special flour and was carefully eaten by the priests.

Jesus used bread in the Lord’s Prayer to represent asking God to meet our basic needs (Matt. 5:11), and he called himself the “bread of life” to show that he is the one who “gives life to the world,” our ultimate sustenance (John 6:33–35). During this exchange with the Jews about the bread of life, Jesus foreshadows what takes place at the Last Supper with his disciples, suggesting that believers must “eat [his] flesh” (represented by bread) and “drink [his] blood” (represented by wine) (John 6:53–59; cf. Luke 22:19). Additionally, bread was used symbolically to represent those things that were present in daily life (Pss. 127:2; 80:5; Prov. 4:17; 20:17).

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:15). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.

On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.

Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.

All the Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.

During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).

The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (5:1–13), raised the dead (5:35–42), fed five thousand (6:30–44), and walked on water (6:48–49).

In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).

Passion week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

The tangible presence of God, experienced as overwhelming power and splendor. The main Hebrew word referring to glory, kabod, has the root meaning “heavy” (1Sam. 4:18), which in other contexts can mean “intense” (Exod. 9:3; NIV: “terrible”), “wealthy” (i.e., “heavy in possessions” [Gen. 13:2]), and “high reputation” (Gen. 34:19; NIV: “most honored”). When used of God, it refers to his person and his works. God reveals his glory to Israel and to Egypt at the crossing of the sea (Exod. 14:4, 1719). He carefully reveals his glory to Moses after Israel’s sin with the golden calf in order to assure him that he will not abandon them (33:12–23).

In the NT the glory of God is made real in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14; Heb. 1:3). He is, after all, the very presence of God. When he returns on the clouds, he will fully reveal God’s glory (Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27).

Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and in the Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors.

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. 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; 1Chron. 29:18; Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1Kings 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; 1Chron. 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; 1Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is the place of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role of conscience (2Sam. 24:10; 1John 3:2021).

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 (1Sam. 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.

The central city and capital of ancient Israel. Throughout its history, the city has also been referred to variously as Zion, Jebus, Mount Moriah, and the City of David.

The name “Jerusalem” occurs more than 650 times in the OT, particularly in the history of Israel, and in the NT more than 140 times. The OT prophets used the city as a symbol of God’s dealing with his people and his plan. Jerusalem is viewed collectively as God’s abode, his chosen place, and his sovereignty, while its destruction is also representative of God’s judgment on apostasy among his people (e.g., Jer. 7:115; 26:18–19; Mic. 3:12). The rebuilding of the city represents the hope and grace of God (e.g., Isa. 40:1–2; 52:1, 7–8; 60–62; Jer. 30:18–19; 31:38–39; Ezek. 5:5; Hag. 2:6–8; Zech. 8:3–8). Like the writers of the OT, the NT authors spoke of Jerusalem in metaphorical and eschatological terms. Paul used Jerusalem to contrast the old and the new covenants (Gal. 4:24–26), and the writer of Hebrews used it as the place of the new covenant, sealed through the blood of Jesus (Heb. 12:22–24). In Revelation the concept of a new Jerusalem is related to the future kingdom of God (Rev. 3:12; 21:1–22:5).

Jerusalem is located in the Judean hill country, about 2,700 feet above sea level. It borders the Judean desert to the east. The city expanded and contracted in size over various hills and valleys. There are two major ridges (Eastern and Western Hills) separated by the Tyropoeon Valley. The Eastern Hill contains a saddle, the Ophel Hill, and north of this is the traditional site of Mount Moriah, where later the temple was constructed. The Eastern Hill was always occupied, since the only water source is the Gihon spring, located in the Kidron Valley. Two other ridges were important for the city, as they were used for extramural suburbs, cemeteries, and quarries. To the east is the Mount of Olives, which is separated from the Eastern Hill by the Kidron Valley. To the west of the Western Hill is the Central Ridge Route, separated by the Hinnom Valley.

The English word “messiah” derives from the Hebrew verb mashakh, which means “to anoint.” The Greek counterpart of the Hebrew word for “messiah” (mashiakh) is christos, which in English is “Christ.”

In English translations of the Bible, the word “messiah” (“anointed one”) occurs rarely in the OT. In the OT, kings, prophets, and priests were “anointed” with oil as a means of consecrating or setting them apart for their respective offices. Prophets and priests anointed Israel’s kings (1Sam. 16:1 13; 2Sam. 2:4, 7).

The expectation for a “messiah,” or “anointed one,” arose from the promise given to David in the Davidic covenant (2Sam. 7). David was promised that from his seed God would raise up a king who would reign forever on his throne. Hopes for such an ideal king began with Solomon and developed further during the decline (cf. Isa. 9:1–7) and especially after the collapse of the Davidic kingdom.

The harsh reality of exile prompted Israel to hope that God would rule in such a manner. A number of psalms reflect the desire that an ideal son of David would come and rule, delivering Israel from its current plight of oppression. Hence, in Ps. 2 God declares that his son (v.7), who is the Lord’s anointed one (v.2), will receive “the nations [as] your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession” (v.8). God promises that “you will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery” (v.9; see NIV footnote). Jesus demonstrates great reticence in using the title “Messiah.” In the Synoptic Gospels he almost never explicitly claims it. The two key Synoptic passages where Jesus accepts the title are themselves enigmatic. In Mark’s version of Peter’s confession (8:29), Jesus does not explicitly affirm Peter’s claim, “You are the Messiah,” but instead goes on to speak of the suffering of the Son of Man. Later, Jesus is asked by the high priest Caiaphas at his trial, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:60). In Mark 14:62, Jesus answers explicitly with “I am,” while in Matt. 26:64, he uses the more enigmatic “You have said so.” Jesus then goes on to describe himself as the exalted Son of Man who will sit at Yahweh’s right hand.

Jesus no doubt avoided the title because it risked communicating an inadequate understanding of the kingdom and his messianic role. Although the Messiah was never a purely political figure in Judaism, he was widely expected to destroy Israel’s enemies and secure its physical borders. Psalms of Solomon portrays the coming “son of David” as one who will “destroy the unrighteous rulers” and “purge Jerusalem from Gentiles who trample her to destruction” (Pss. Sol. 17.21–23). To distance himself from such thinking, Jesus never refers to himself as “son of David” and “king of Israel/the Jews” as other characters do in the Gospels (Matt. 12:23; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47; 15:2; John 1:49; 12:13; 18:33). When Jesus was confronted by a group of Jews who wanted to make him into such a king, he resisted them (John 6:15).

In Mark 12:35–37, Jesus also redefines traditional understandings of the son of David in his short discussion on Ps. 110:1: he is something more than a mere human son of David. Combining Jesus’ implicit affirmation that he is the Messiah in Mark 8:30 with his teaching about the Son of Man in 8:31, we see that Jesus is a Messiah who will “suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the teachers of the law” (8:31) and through whom redemption will come (10:45). Jesus came not to defeat the Roman legions, but to bring victory over Satan, sin, and death.

Moses played a leadership role in the founding of Israel as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6). Indeed, the narrative of Exodus through Deuteronomy is the story of God using Moses to found the nation of Israel. It begins with an account of his birth (Exod. 2) and ends with an account of his death (Deut. 34). Moses’ influence and importance extend well beyond his lifetime, as later Scripture demonstrates.

Moses was born in a dangerous time, and according to Pharaoh’s decree, he should not have survived long after his birth. He was born to Amram and Jochebed (Exod. 6:20). Circumventing Pharaoh’s decree, Jochebed placed the infant Moses in a reed basket and floated him down the river. God guided the basket down the river and into the presence of none other than Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod. 2:56), who, at the urging of Moses’ sister, hired Jochebed to take care of the child.

The next major episode in the life of Moses concerns his defense of an Israelite worker who was being beaten by an Egyptian (Exod. 2:11–25). In the process of rescuing the Israelite, Moses killed the Egyptian. When it became clear that he was known to be the killer, he fled Egypt and ended up in Midian, where he became a member of the family of a Midianite priest-chief, Jethro, by marrying his daughter Zipporah.

Although Moses was not looking for a way back into Egypt, God had different plans. One day, while Moses was tending his sheep, God appeared to him in the form of a burning bush and commissioned him to go back to Egypt and lead his people to freedom. Moses expressed reluctance, and so God grudgingly enlisted his older brother, Aaron, to accompany him as his spokesperson.

Upon Moses’ return to Egypt, Pharaoh stubbornly refused to allow the Israelites to leave Egypt. God directed Moses to announce a series of plagues that ultimately induced Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to depart. After they left, Pharaoh had a change of mind and cornered them on the shores of the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds). It was at the Red Sea that God demonstrated his great power by splitting the sea and allowing the Israelites to escape before closing it again in judgment on the Egyptians. Moses signaled the presence of God by lifting his rod high in the air (Exod. 14:16). This event was long remembered as the defining moment when God released Israel from Egyptian slavery (Pss. 77; 114), and it even became the paradigm for future divine rescues (Isa. 40:3–5; Hos. 2:14–15).

After the crossing of the Red Sea, Moses led Israel back to Mount Sinai, the location of his divine commissioning. At this time, Moses went up the mountain as a prophetic mediator for the people (Deut. 18:16). He received the Ten Commandments, the rest of the law, and instructions to build the tabernacle (Exod. 19–24). All these were part of a new covenantal arrangement that today we refer to as the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant.

However, as Moses came down the mountain with the law, he saw that the people, who had grown tired of waiting, were worshiping a false god that they had created in the form of a golden calf (Exod. 32). With the aid of the Levites, who that day assured their role as Israel’s priestly helpers, he brought God’s judgment against the offenders and also interceded in prayer with God to prevent the total destruction of Israel.

Thus began Israel’s long story of rebellion against God. God was particularly upset with the lack of confidence that the Israelites had shown when the spies from the twelve tribes gave their report (Num. 13). They did not believe that God could handle the fearsome warriors who lived in the land, and so God doomed them to forty years of wandering in the wilderness, enough time for the first generation to die. Not even Moses escaped this fate, since he had shown anger against God and attributed a miracle to his own power and not to God when he struck a rock in order to get water (Num. 20:1–13).

Thus, Moses was not permitted to enter the land of promise, though he had led the Israelites to the very brink of entry on the plains of Moab. There he gave his last sermon, which we know as the book of Deuteronomy. The purpose of his sermon was to tell the second generation of Israelites who were going to enter the land that they must obey God’s law or suffer the consequences. The form of the sermon was that of a covenant renewal, and so Israel on this occasion reaffirmed its loyalty to God.

After this, Moses went up on Mount Nebo, from which he could see the promised land, and died. Deuteronomy concludes with the following statements: “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.... For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel” (Deut. 34:10, 12).

The NT honors Moses as God’s servant but also makes the point that Jesus is one who far surpasses Moses as a mediator between God and people (Acts 3:17–26; Heb. 3).

The date of Moses is a matter of controversy because the biblical text does not name the pharaohs of the story. Many date him to the thirteenth century BC and associate him with RamessesII, but others take 1Kings 6:1 at face value and date him to the end of the fifteenth century BC, perhaps during the reign of ThutmoseIII.

In the first century, Nazareth was a small village in the extreme southerly part of lower Galilee, midway between the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean Sea. It was near Gath Hepher, the birthplace of Jonah the prophet to the Gentiles (2Kings 14:25), and Sepphoris, one of the three largest cities in the region. Not far was the Via Maris, the great highway joining Mesopotamia to Egypt and ultimately the trading network that linked India, China, central Asia, the Near East, and the Mediterranean. The community, whose population may have averaged around five hundred, subsisted from agriculture. Capital resources included almonds, pomegranates, dates, oil, and wine. (Excavations have located vaulted cells for wine and oil storage, as well as wine presses and storage jar vessels.) Nazareth appears to have been uninhabited from the eighth to the second centuries BC, until it was resettled during the reign of John Hyrcanus (134104 BC), probably by a Davidic clan of army veterans. The claim that Jesus’ adoptive father, Joseph, was a descendant of David and a resident of Nazareth is therefore plausible (Matt. 1:20; Luke 2:4–5). Today, Nazareth is the largest Arab city in Israel.

Although Jesus’ ministry was unsuccessful in Nazareth, he and his followers were called “Nazarenes” (Mark 1:24; 10:47; John 18:5, 7; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 24:5). Descendants of Jesus’ family continued to live in the area for centuries. The epithet “Nazarene” probably was intended as a slur. Nathanael is unimpressed by Jesus’ origin in Nazareth (John 1:46). The village is not mentioned in the OT. Some even doubted its existence, until 1962, when the place name “Nazareth” was discovered on a synagogue inscription in Caesarea Maritima.

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

Early biblical history records clan heads offering sacrifices for their families (Gen. 12:78; 13:18; 22; 31:54; 46:1). Although the patriarchs performed these duties, they are never called “priests”; the only priests mentioned from this time are foreigners such as Melchizedek, the Egyptian priest of On, and Moses’ father-in-law Jethro (Gen. 14:18; 41:45, 50; 46:20; Exod. 3:1; 18:1). Whereas all Israelites could be called “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6), a distinctive priesthood came to light when God instructed Moses to prepare special priestly clothes for Aaron and his sons (Exod. 28). The high priest was distinguished from the others by more magnificent clothes. By failing to wear their special clothes while serving at the tabernacle, the priests would incur guilt and die (Exod. 28:43).

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

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

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

A prophet is a messenger of God, a person to whom God entrusts his message to an individual or to a nation. Indeed, the last book in the OT is named “Malachi,” which means “my messenger.” Isaiah heard God ask, “Whom shall I send?” and he cried out, “Send me!” (Isa. 6:8). A good template for understanding the phenomenon is Moses and Aaron. Moses was to tell Aaron what to say, and Aaron would say it. “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet’” (Exod. 7:1).

In the NT period there were a number of prophets. John the Baptist could point to Jesus and proclaim him to be the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Agabus the prophet predicted a famine and, later, Paul’s arrest (Acts 11:28; 21:1011).

Paul lists “gifts of the Spirit” (1Cor. 12:4–11), including prophecy and various phenomena reminiscent of the OT prophets’ ecstatic state. Paul warns the Corinthians not to overdo this sort of thing and so to be mature (1Cor. 14:19–20). Near the end of his life, in one of his last letters, he speaks of prophecy as normative in the church, particularly in establishing an authoritative body of elders to rule and especially to preach the gospel (1Tim. 1:18; 4:14). Peter draws a connection between the ministry of the OT prophets and the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ (1Pet. 1:10–12). Evangelism seems to be the normative mode for prophecy today: forthtelling by calling people to turn from their sins to Jesus, and foretelling by speaking of his return and the final judgment.

Thus, all Christians hold the office of prophet, even if they never participate in the ecstatic state experienced by the Corinthians. The greatness of a prophet is in how clearly the prophet points to Jesus. John the Baptist was the greatest of the OT prophets by that measure, but any Christian on this side of the cross and resurrection can proclaim the gospel even more clearly. Thus, the prophetic ministry of any Christian is greater than John’s (Matt. 11:11).

Five prophetesses are mentioned in the OT: Miriam (Exod. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4–5), Huldah (2Kings 22:14–20; 2Chron. 34:22–28), Isaiah’s wife (Isa. 8:3), and Noadiah (Neh. 6:14).

Similarly in the NT, Peter recognizes God’s promise through Joel being fulfilled in the gift of prophetic speech to women as well as men at Pentecost (Acts 2:18); and Paul, acknowledging that women prophesy publicly in the congregation, is concerned only with the manner of their doing so (1Cor. 11:5). The prophetess Anna proclaims the baby Jesus as the Messiah (Luke 2:36–38), Luke reports that the four unmarried daughters of Philip the evangelist also prophesy (Acts 21:8–9). The only false prophetess in the NT is the apocalyptic figure of Jezebel in Rev. 2:20.

More than a simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the grace of the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classical texts use the Greek word apolytrōsis (“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given to release a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. The group of words based on the Greek term lytron (“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. The corresponding Hebrew word padah is a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.

The experience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religious significance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included the dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:1213). Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), was redeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up to describe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continued to broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance from all Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included the whole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or the new age to come).

The NT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). When Jesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slavery of sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28// Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the cross accentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christian idea of ransom followed the accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death (Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with a ransom (Col. 1:13–14).

Although redemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future (Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions of redemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expects redemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption is universal; it restores the relationship between creation and the Creator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).

While in the OT suffering is regularly an indication of divine displeasure (Lev. 26:1636; Deut. 28:20–68; Ps. 44:10–12; Isa. 1:25; cf. Heb. 10:26–31), in the NT it becomes the means by which blessing comes to humanity.

The Bible often shows that sinfulness results in suffering (Gen. 2:17; 6:5–7; Exod. 32:33; 2Sam. 12:13–18; Rom. 1:18; 1Cor. 11:27–30). Job’s friends mistakenly assume that he has suffered because of disobedience (Job 4:7–9; 8:3–4, 20; 11:6). Job passionately defends himself (12:4; 23:10), and in the final chapter of the book God commends Job and condemns his friends for their accusations (42:7–8; cf. 1:1, 22; 2:10). The writer makes clear that suffering is not necessarily evidence of sinfulness. Like Job’s friends, Jesus’ disciples assume that blindness is an indication of sinfulness (John 9:1–2). Jesus rejects this simplistic notion of retributive suffering (John 9:3, 6–7; cf. Luke 13:1–5).

The NT writers reveal that Jesus’ suffering was prophesied in the OT (Mark 9:12; 14:21; Luke 18:31–32; 24:46; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:22–23; 1Pet. 1:11; referring to OT texts such as Ps. 22; Isa. 52:13–53:12; Zech. 13:7). The Lord Jesus is presented as the answer to human suffering: (1)Through the incarnation, God’s Son personally experienced human suffering (Phil. 2:6–8; Heb. 2:9; 5:8). (2)Through his suffering, Christ paid the price for sin (Rom. 4:25; 3:25–26), so that believers are set free from sin (Rom. 6:6, 18, 22) and helped in temptation (Heb. 2:18). (3)Christ Jesus intercedes for his suffering followers (Rom. 8:34–35). (4)Christ is the example in suffering (1Pet. 2:21; 4:1; cf. Phil. 3:10; 2Cor. 1:5; 4:10; 1Pet. 4:13), and though he died once for sins (Heb. 10:12), he continues to suffer as his church suffers (Acts 9:4–5). (5)Christ provides hope of resurrection (Rom. 6:5; 1Cor. 15:20–26; Phil. 3:10–11) and a future life without suffering or death (Rev. 21:4).

The NT writers repeatedly mention the benefits of suffering, for it has become part of God’s work of redemption. The suffering of believers accompanies the proclamation and advancement of the gospel (Acts 5:41–42; 9:15–16; 2Cor. 4:10–11; 6:2–10; Phil. 1:12, 27–29; 1Thess. 2:14–16; 2Tim. 1:8; 4:5) and results in salvation (Matt. 10:22; 2Cor. 1:6; 1Thess. 2:16; 2Tim. 2:10; Heb. 10:39), faith (Heb. 10:32–34, 38–39; 1Pet. 1:7), the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22), resurrection from the dead (Phil. 3:10–11), and the crown of life (Rev. 2:10). It is an essential part of the development toward Christian maturity (Rom. 5:3–4; 2Cor. 4:11; Heb. 12:4; James 1:3–4; 1Pet. 1:7; 4:1).

Suffering is associated with knowing Christ (Phil. 3:10); daily inward renewal (2Cor. 4:16); purity, understanding, patience, kindness, sincere love, truthful speech, the power of God (2Cor. 4:4–10); comfort and endurance (2Cor. 1:6); obedience (Heb. 5:8); blessing (1Pet. 3:14; 4:14); glory (Rom. 8:17; 2Cor. 4:17); and joy (Matt. 5:12; Acts 5:41; 2Cor. 6:10; 12:10; James 1:2; 1Pet. 1:6; 4:13). Other positive results of Christian suffering include perseverance (Rom. 5:3; James 1:3), character and hope (Rom. 5:4), strength (2Cor. 12:10), and maturity and completeness (James 1:4). Present suffering is light and momentary when compared to future glory (Matt. 5:10–12; Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:18; 2Cor. 4:17; Heb. 10:34–36; 1Pet. 1:5–7; 4:12–13).

Throughout the Bible, believers are instructed to help those who suffer. The OT law provides principles for assisting the poor, the disadvantaged, and the oppressed (Exod. 20:10; 21:2; 23:11; Lev. 19:13, 34; 25:10, 35; Deut. 14:28–29; 15:1–2; 24:19–21). Jesus regularly taught his followers to help the poor (Matt. 5:42; 6:3; 19:21; 25:34–36; Luke 4:18; 12:33; 14:13, 21). It is believers’ responsibility to show mercy (Matt. 5:7; 9:13), be generous (Rom. 12:8; 2Cor. 8:7; 1Tim. 6:18), mourn with mourners (Rom. 12:15), carry other’s burdens (Gal. 6:1–2), and visit prisoners (Matt. 25:36, 43). See also Servant of the Lord.

A divine communication in the form of visual imagery, usually accompanied by words, and often using symbols that require explanation and spur reflection about God’s otherwise imperceptible presence and activity. Presumably, the recipient “sees” the vision as an event of inward perception, often within a dream during sleep or in a divinely induced state of ecstasy (Gen. 15; Dan. 7:1; 10:19; 2Cor. 12:1–4). Characteristically, visions entail conversation with God or an angelic representative, often following a question-and-answer format (Dan. 7:15–28; Zech. 1:8–15, 18–21). The visionary is actually in the scene as direct observer and active participant (Dan. 8:1–2).

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

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

“Word” is used in the Bible to refer to the speech of God in oral, written, or incarnate form. In each of these uses, God desires to make himself known to his people. The communication of God is always personal and relational, whether he speaks to call things into existence (Gen. 1) or to address an individual directly (Gen. 2:1617; Exod. 3:14). The prophets and the apostles received the word of God (Deut. 18:14–22; John 16:13), some of which was proclaimed but not recorded. The greatest revelation in this regard is the person of Jesus Christ, who is called the “Word” of God (John 1:1, 14).

The psalmist declared God’s word to be an eternal object of hope and trust that gives light and direction (Ps. 119), and Jesus declared the word to be truth (John 17:17). The word is particularized and intimately connected with God himself by means of the key phrases “your word,” “the word of God,” “the word of the Lord,” “word about Christ,” and “the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17; Col. 3:16). Our understanding of the word is informed by a variety of terms and contexts in the canon of Scripture, a collection of which is found in Ps. 119.

The theme of the word in Ps. 119 is continued and clarified in the NT, accentuating the intimate connection between the word of God and God himself. The “Word” of God is the eternal Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; 1John 1:1–4), who took on flesh and blood so that we might see the glory of the eternal God. The sovereign glory of Christ as the Word of God is depicted in the vision of John in Rev. 19:13. As the Word of God, Jesus Christ ultimately gives us our lives (John 1:4; 6:33; 10:10), sustains our lives (John 5:24; 6:51, 54; 8:51), and ultimately renders a just judgment regarding our lives (John 5:30; 8:16, 26; 9:39; cf. Matt. 25:31–33; Heb. 4:12).

The human body has its origin in the act of creation by Goddepicted in Gen. 2:7, so that it comes under the heading of the “verygood” evaluation at the close of the six days of creation(1:31). In neither the OT nor the NT is the body viewed as evil, incontrast to the ancient Greek view that saw the human body as aprison of the soul and viewed death as a release from this bondage.This contributes to the Bible’s positive view of humansexuality when properly expressed in a committed marriagerelationship, one notable example being the mutual admiration of theman and the woman who are deeply in love in Song of Songs, where wefind a head-to-toe description of the man’s physique (5:10–16)and a corresponding description of the woman’s body (7:1–8).

OldTestament.In the OT, death is regularly described as a returning of the body tothe dust/ground from which it was made (e.g., Gen. 3:19; Ps. 90:3).The dignity of the human body is signaled by the importance of properburial (Deut. 21:22–23), which is a cultic rather than a healthregulation in the OT. The outrage committed by the Philistines on thebodies of Saul and his sons (1 Sam. 31), the deliberatedesecration of tombs (2 Kings 23:16; Amos 2:1), and leaving anenemy unburied are ways of expressing utter contempt. The ensuring ofproper burial (even of strangers) becomes a mark of Jewish piety, asexemplified in Tob. 2:1–10; 12:11–15.

TheHebrew word nepesh (often translated “soul”) can be usedof a dead body (e.g., Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6; 19:13; Hag. 2:13), thoughthis word has a wide range of meaning (sometimes it means “throat”).This usage is not to be taken as signifying that the soul/bodydistinction is not recognized. On the contrary, in OT teaching “body”(whatever the Hebrew word used) always refers to the physical body,not to the whole human person that is bipartite (body/soul) within anoverall psychophysical unity. The reference in Mic. 6:7 (NIV: “thefruit of my body”) is really to the “womb” (cf.Deut. 28:4), and the Hebrew word in question, beten, can refer to amale body insofar as it is involved in procreation (Ps. 132:11).

NewTestament.Hebrews insists on the real humanity of Jesus (2:14–18), andthe Gospels portray him as having the normal physical requirements ofdrink, food, and sleep (Mark 4:38; John 4:7–8). To deny thatJesus Christ came “in the flesh” strikes at the heart ofthe gospel and is the spirit of the antichrist (1 John 4:2–3).For atonement to take place, it was required that Jesus offer himselfbody and soul to God through death (Heb. 10:5–10, 20). At theLast Supper, when Jesus said, “This is my body” (Matt.26:26), his meaning was that the bread represented his body, whichwould be offered on the cross as the sacrifice that makes possiblethe inauguration of the new covenant (cf. Exod. 24:1–8).

Thebodily resurrection of Jesus is evidenced by the empty tomb (Mark16:4–6) and the appearance of the risen Christ to his followers(e.g., Luke 24:36–43; see the list of witnesses in 1 Cor.15:5–8). This is a fundamental point of Christian doctrine andgospel proclamation, providing assurance to believers that they toowill be physically raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:42–52),a belief found already in the OT (Dan. 12:2). Salvation in the Bibleembraces the redemption of the body and the renewal of the physicalcreation. At the time of Christ’s return, believers will beraised from their graves and meet their returning Lord (1 Thess.4:13–18).

Inwhat is acknowledged by all to be a difficult passage (2 Cor.5:1–9), Paul appears to envisage that at the point of death hewill not become a disembodied soul but instead will “be clothedwith [his] heavenly dwelling” (5:4). The expression “awayfrom the body” (5:8) is not to be taken as an indication ofbodiless existence, but rather is explained by “at home withthe Lord” and refers to the believer’s state upon leavingthis earthly life. The nature of the “spiritual body” in1 Cor. 15:35–49 is only hinted at by means of analogies(e.g., the seed) or contrasts (between the “perishable”and the “imperishable”), but its physicality (thoughgloriously transformed) is plain. Perhaps our clearest indication isprovided by what we are told of the resurrection body of Jesus, whichcould pass through grave clothes (Luke 24:12; John 20:5–7),appear and disappear in a closed room (Luke 24:31, 36), and ingestfood and be touched (Luke 24:37–43).

Paulmade use the “body” analogy for the character of thechurch as the “body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12–26),viewing it as an organism consisting of different, mutually dependentmembers or organs. This teaching was designed to rebuke and correctthe self-glorifying and self-serving use and abuse of spiritual giftsin the Corinthian church. So too, the reality of the Christiancommunity as a “body” (1 Cor. 10:17; 11:29) showedthat their uncaring attitude toward each other manifested at theirsuppers was totally inappropriate. In the same letter Paul says thatthe believer’s “body” is united to Christ, makingsexual immorality a thing to be shunned (6:12–20). Believersare to glorify God in their bodies. The analogy of the body is used alittle differently in Ephesians (1:23; 2:16) and Colossians (1:18,24), where its point is that Christ is the “head” of thebody (the church), which therefore must submit to his direction andrule. Believers are to pre­sent their “bodies” as aliving sacrifice, serving the master who redeemed them (Rom.12:1). The verse that follows gives the other side to theequation: serving God with the mind (12:2). Body and mind togethermake up the complete human being, who is a psychosomatic unity. Seealso Gestures.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

The Greek term for “disciple,” mathētēs,means “student.” Like other rabbis and religious figuresof the time, Jesus taught a group of such students (Matt. 9:14;22:16; Mark 2:16; John 1:35; 4:1). The forms of address that Jesus’disciples used for him reflect the nature of the relationship:“rabbi” (Mark 9:5), “teacher” (Mark 9:38),and “master” (Luke 5:5). In addition to receivinginstruction from Jesus, his disciples took care of his physical needs(Matt. 21:1; John 4:8), ate with him (Matt. 9:10; 26:18), performedexorcisms and healings (Matt. 10:1; Luke 10:17), baptized (John 4:2),controlled access to Jesus (Matt. 19:13; John 12:21), and traveledwith him (Luke 8:1; John 2:12). On one occasion Jesus visited thehouse of Peter and healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14),which suggests that although the Gospels do not generally depict theprivate lives of Jesus or his disciples apart from their publicministry, the relationship among these men did not prevent thedisciples from maintaining their own homes, families, and, probably,occupations.

Inthe Gospels Jesus is depicted with variously sized groups ofdisciples and followers. A prominent tradition in the Gospelsindicates that there was an inner group of twelve (Matt. 10:1; 26:20;Mark 3:14; 4:10; 6:7; John 6:70), each of whom is known by name. Thisis the group most traditionally understood as “the disciples”of Jesus. As an authority, the group of twelve persisted beyond theascension of Jesus (Acts 6:2). Following the death of Judas Iscariot,Matthias was chosen to take his place among the Twelve (Acts 1:26).Other passages specify a group of seventy or seventy-two (Luke 10:1,16), and often the number of disciples is indeterminate. Severalpassages name disciples beyond the Twelve (Matt. 27:57; Luke 24:18;Acts 9:10; 9:36; 16:1; 21:16), and some later authors attempted tolist the names of the seventy by drawing names from the book of Acts,the Epistles, and other early Christian traditions (e.g., thethirteenth-century Syriac compilation The Book of the Bee). The bookof Acts often refers to any follower of Christ as “disciple,”including those in cities throughout the Roman Empire.

TheGospels tend to present Jesus as a charismatic teacher who couldattract adherents with little overt persuasion. The calling ofseveral disciples is narrated, including that of the brothers SimonPeter and Andrew, the brothers James and John the sons of Zebedee(Mark 1:16–20; John 1:40–41), Philip and Nathanael (John1:44–45), and Matthew/Levi (Mark 2:13–17 pars.). TheGospel of John presents Andrew as a former disciple of John theBaptist.

TheTwelve

Eachof the Synoptic Gospels has a list of the Twelve (Matt. 10:1–4;Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16; cf. the list of eleven inActs 1:13), and the Gospel of John mentions “the Twelve”several times without providing a list. With some slightharmonizations, it is possible to come up with a single list oftwelve disciples based on the three Synoptic lists.

(1)Allthree Synoptic Gospels agree in placing Simon Peter first in thelist. (2)His brother Andrew is second, though Mark has placedAndrew farther down the list and does not identify him as Peter’sbrother. (3)James the son of Zebedee and (4)John thebrother of James are next. Mark adds that the two were also named“Boanerges,” meaning “sons of thunder.” Theplacement of Peter, James, and John at the head of the listcorresponds with the prominence of these three disciples in the storyof Jesus’ arrest at Gethsemane, where these three were present(Matt. 26:37// Mark 14:33). Perhaps the order of Mark’slist reflects the prestige of these three disciples, with Matthew andLuke bringing Andrew to the head of the list not because of anyparticular importance but so that he is listed with his brotherPeter.

Thelists continue with (5)Philip, (6)Bartholomew, and(7)Matthew, further identified in Matt. 10:3 as a “taxcollector.” The calling of Matthew is narrated in Matt. 9:9–13and also in Mark 2:13–17; Luke 5:27–32, where Matthew iscalled “Levi.” (8)Thomas is next (Matt. 10:3 listsThomas before Matthew; in John 20:24 he is also called “Didymus”),followed by (9)James the son of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14 also callsLevi “son of Alphaeus”), so named to avoid confusion withJames the son of Zebedee. (10)Simon the Cananaean (Matt. 10:4;Mark 3:18 NRSV) or Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13) is so designated toavoid confusion with Simon Peter. The precise meaning of the term“Cananaean” is uncertain (see Cananaean). (11)Thaddaeus(who precedes Simon the Cananaean in Matthew and Mark) probablyshould be identified with the eleventh disciple in Luke’s list,Judas the son of James. The names of Thaddaeus and Judas son of Jamesrepresent the greatest single discrepancy among the three lists, butit may be mitigated somewhat by the fact that some manuscriptsidentify “Thaddaeus” as a surname (though they give thisdisciple’s other name as “Lebbaeus,” not “Judas”).All three lists agree in listing (12)Judas Iscariot as the lastdisciple in the list, and all note that he betrayed Jesus or became atraitor. The fact that Judas Iscariot bears a second name(“Iscariot”) may suggest that there was another Judasamong the Twelve from whom it was necessary to distinguish him, as inthe case of the two Simons and the two Jameses. This observationlends some weight to the notion that Thaddaeus was also named“Judas.”

TheDisciples as Apostles

Atvarious points in his ministry Jesus sent out his disciples to preachand perform miracles, hence they are also referred to as “apostles”(i.e., emissaries). The connection between these two terms is madeclear in Luke 6:13: “When morning came, he called his disciplesto him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles.”In the NT Epistles the title “apostle” is applied toseveral individuals who were not among Jesus’ twelve disciples,most notably Paul. In sum, both “disciple” and “apostle”have narrow and broad meanings in the NT, though there is substantialcontinuity between “the Twelve” disciples or apostles ofJesus and the narrow definition of “apostle” in the earlychapters of Acts.

TheLater Careers of the Disciples

Afterhis resurrection, Jesus told his disciples (“the apostles hehad chosen” [Acts 1:2]) that they would be his witnesses “inJerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of theearth” (Acts 1:8). Stories about the subsequent careers of theTwelve exist in both the NT and other early Christian sources. Thefirst half of Acts largely focuses on the career of Simon Peter,before attention shifts to the career of Paul in the eastern RomanEmpire. Extracanonical books and local legends trace the latercareers of Jesus’ twelve disciples, placing them in Rome(Peter), Scythia (Andrew), Spain (James), Ephesus (John), Phrygia(Philip), Armenia (Bartholomew and Thaddaeus), India (Thomas),Ethiopia (Matthew), and North Africa (Simon the Cananaean). Piouslocal traditions attribute martyrdom to a number of the Twelve,though in the NT we know only of the deaths of Judas Iscariot (Matt.27:3–10; Acts 1:16–20) and James the son of Zebedee (Acts12:1–2).

The organ of visual perception. The eye is the lamp of the body, so that someone who has a sound or healthy eye can experience light, but someone with a deficient eye experiences only darkness (Matt. 6:22–23). Bright eyes signify alertness and good health (1Sam. 14:27–29; Ps. 38:10), whereas dim eyes signify poor vision, often from old age (Gen. 27:1; 48:10; 1Sam. 3:2). Blindness may be cured by opening the eyes (Isa. 35:5; John 9:14), although Paul was blind even with his eyes open (Acts 9:8). To lift or raise the eyes is to take a look around or look toward something (Gen. 13:10; 18:2; John 11:41). To turn the eyes from something is to no longer look at it (Ps. 119:37; Song 6:5; Isa. 22:4). Something hidden from the eyes is unknown (Num. 5:13; Job 28:21; Luke 19:42), but hiding the eyes from something is to ignore it (Isa. 1:15; Ezek. 22:26; cf. Lev. 20:4). The expression “before the eyes” signifies that an event has taken place in the presence of others, and they have witnessedit.

The eye is an important part of the body (1Cor. 12:16–21). A defective eye disqualified a priest from certain duties (Lev. 21:17–20). A conquering army often gouged out the eyes of the defeated enemy (Judg. 16:21; 2Kings 25:7), rendering them ineffective in battle (1Sam. 11:2). Destroying Israel’s eyes is the first among many punishments listed for breaking God’s covenant (Lev. 26:16). Paul testifies that the Galatians cared enough for him even to pluck out their eyes in order to give them to him (Gal. 4:15). The importance of the eye highlights the importance of Jesus’ demand to pluck it out if it causes one to stumble (Matt. 5:29; 18:9).

Perception and enlightenment. Opening eyes is a theme that runs through both Testaments. At times, opening the eyes simply refers to making one aware of previously unknown information. It may be in this sense that the eyes of Adam and Eve are opened, since they become aware of their nakedness (Gen. 3:7). This same kind of opening occurs when God reveals a well to Hagar (Gen. 21:19), when Balaam sees the angel of the Lord standing in his way (Num. 22:31), and when the disciples on the road to Emmaus recognize Jesus (Luke 24:31). This sense is extended into the spiritual realm, so that the eye is used figuratively as the principal organ of spiritual perception. To open or enlighten the eyes in this sense involves one of the following: (1)allowing one to understand spiritual truth in the law of God (Ps. 119:18), prophetic utterance (Num. 24:3), or by the Spirit of God (Eph. 1:18); or (2)leading someone to repentance and conversion (Acts 26:18). These spiritual eyes may also be blinded or closed, hindering the person from repenting (Isa. 6:10; Matt. 13:13; cf. 2Cor. 4:4).

The eye not only allows one to perceive the world but also helps others perceive the person. David has beautiful eyes, highlighting his handsome appearance (1Sam. 16:12). Leah has weak eyes, a characteristic that is contrasted to the beautiful appearance of her sister, Rachel (Gen. 29:17). A bountiful eye reveals a generous spirit (Prov. 22:9). Haughty eyes reveal arrogance (Ps. 18:27; Prov. 6:17), as do eyes that are exalted (Ps. 131:1; Prov. 30:13). Eyes may reveal one’s pity for another (Ezek. 16:5), but in the administration of justice, the eye is not allowed to pity or spare, meaning that the law will be executed to its fullest extent (Deut. 7:16; Ezek. 5:11). The eye that mocks a father or a mother reveals a person who holds them in contempt (Prov. 30:17).

Direction and evaluation. The eye also serves as a symbol for direction, care, and vast knowledge. Since the eye allows one to see, it helps set the proper course forward, physically (Num. 10:31) or spiritually (1John 2:11). The fact that God’s eyes are always upon the land of Israel demonstrates his care for it (Deut. 11:12). Likewise, his eyes are always upon the righteous, ready to help them (Ps. 34:15). Especially in apocalyptic literature, the many eyes of the living creatures are symbols of God’s omniscience (Ezek. 1:18; Rev. 4:6), while the eyes of God in general are symbols of his awareness (1Kings 9:3; Jer. 32:19; Amos 9:8; Heb. 4:13).

Finally, the eyes are associated with evaluation. The eyes of God often represent his favor or disfavor (Gen. 6:8; Deut. 21:9; 2Kings 10:30). Those who evaluate themselves in their own eyes are often led astray because the eyes can lead to sinful lust (Num. 15:39; Deut. 12:8; Judg. 17:6; Prov. 3:7; 1John 2:16).

Generally speaking, in Scripture the word “fool” is used to describe someone in a morally deprived state. It does not, as in contemporary American usage, refer to a person’s lack of intellectual ability or to one whose actions convey those of a buffoon. Terms for “fool” appear all through Scripture, but wisdom literature contains the highest concentration. Proverbs uses over half a dozen words to describe the fool. All of them indicate some kind of moral breach and fall on a scale from the most morally hardened to the naive.

Obstinacy, recalcitrance, and closed-mindedness characterize the morally dense fool. Such individuals have no use for advice from others because they are “wise in their own eyes” (Prov. 3:7; cf. 12:15; 16:2). Fools frequently scoff at correction and rebuke (9:7–8, 12; 13:1; 14:6; 15:12; 19:25; 20:1; 21:11, 24; 22:10; 24:9). They manifest arrogance (21:24). Fools do not learn from their own mistakes or those of others but instead often repeat them (26:11). One of the main problems is that fools “lack sense,” which ultimately implies that they lack character (see 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16; 10:13, 21; 11:12; 12:11; 15:21; 17:18; 24:30). Such a person consistently makes poor decisions and loses the appetite and passion necessary for acquiring wisdom.

According to the book of Proverbs, three qualities make up the essential nature of the fool. First, the fool is unwilling to learn by means of discipline (3:11–12; 17:10), or formal instruction (17:16), or a word of advice (12:15), or personal experience (26:11). Second, the fool lacks self-control. Both the speech (15:2) and the behavior (14:16) of fools demonstrate a lack of restraint. They take the path of least resistance to easy money (1:8–19) and easy sex (7:6–27). Third, the fool is the one who rejects the fear of the Lord (1:7).

All half a dozen terms used for “fool” indicate, to one degree or another, a moral breach. The one exception is peti, the word used to indicate the “simple” (e.g., Prov. 1:4; 19:25; 21:11). This word is at the other end of the moral spectrum from “fool” and refers to one who is young, vulnerable, and inexperienced. The simple are the gullible, impressionable persons. These individuals can be influenced for either good or ill, depending on whom they listen to. Both Woman Wisdom and Woman Folly make compelling calls to the simple (Prov. 9:6, 16). This simple youth will make moral mistakes along the way, but the peti has yet to harden into a full-fledged fool, one who is incorrigible and unteachable.

In the NT, the fool is the one who does not trust in God or in the power that God displays through the resurrection of Christ (Luke 24:25; Rom. 1:22; 1Cor. 15:36). Jesus makes references to the fool when he tells the stories of the wise and foolish builders (Matt. 7:24–27) and the wise and foolish maidens (Matt. 25:1–13). Paul uses the term “foolish” to rebuke the Galatians for their refusal to accept the gospel (Gal. 3:1). However, in his correspondence with the church in Corinth, Paul reverses the conventional understanding of folly and uses it as a rhetorical strategy to communicate his message. He speaks of the message of the cross as foolishness to the world (1Cor. 1:18). On another occasion, in order to argue against the arrogance of his opponents, Paul engages in “a little foolishness” (2Cor. 11:1) as he boasts about his ministry, which is riddled with failure (2Cor. 11–12).

Generally speaking, in Scripture the word “fool” is used to describe someone in a morally deprived state. It does not, as in contemporary American usage, refer to a person’s lack of intellectual ability or to one whose actions convey those of a buffoon. Terms for “fool” appear all through Scripture, but wisdom literature contains the highest concentration. Proverbs uses over half a dozen words to describe the fool. All of them indicate some kind of moral breach and fall on a scale from the most morally hardened to the naive.

Obstinacy, recalcitrance, and closed-mindedness characterize the morally dense fool. Such individuals have no use for advice from others because they are “wise in their own eyes” (Prov. 3:7; cf. 12:15; 16:2). Fools frequently scoff at correction and rebuke (9:7–8, 12; 13:1; 14:6; 15:12; 19:25; 20:1; 21:11, 24; 22:10; 24:9). They manifest arrogance (21:24). Fools do not learn from their own mistakes or those of others but instead often repeat them (26:11). One of the main problems is that fools “lack sense,” which ultimately implies that they lack character (see 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16; 10:13, 21; 11:12; 12:11; 15:21; 17:18; 24:30). Such a person consistently makes poor decisions and loses the appetite and passion necessary for acquiring wisdom.

According to the book of Proverbs, three qualities make up the essential nature of the fool. First, the fool is unwilling to learn by means of discipline (3:11–12; 17:10), or formal instruction (17:16), or a word of advice (12:15), or personal experience (26:11). Second, the fool lacks self-control. Both the speech (15:2) and the behavior (14:16) of fools demonstrate a lack of restraint. They take the path of least resistance to easy money (1:8–19) and easy sex (7:6–27). Third, the fool is the one who rejects the fear of the Lord (1:7).

All half a dozen terms used for “fool” indicate, to one degree or another, a moral breach. The one exception is peti, the word used to indicate the “simple” (e.g., Prov. 1:4; 19:25; 21:11). This word is at the other end of the moral spectrum from “fool” and refers to one who is young, vulnerable, and inexperienced. The simple are the gullible, impressionable persons. These individuals can be influenced for either good or ill, depending on whom they listen to. Both Woman Wisdom and Woman Folly make compelling calls to the simple (Prov. 9:6, 16). This simple youth will make moral mistakes along the way, but the peti has yet to harden into a full-fledged fool, one who is incorrigible and unteachable.

In the NT, the fool is the one who does not trust in God or in the power that God displays through the resurrection of Christ (Luke 24:25; Rom. 1:22; 1Cor. 15:36). Jesus makes references to the fool when he tells the stories of the wise and foolish builders (Matt. 7:24–27) and the wise and foolish maidens (Matt. 25:1–13). Paul uses the term “foolish” to rebuke the Galatians for their refusal to accept the gospel (Gal. 3:1). However, in his correspondence with the church in Corinth, Paul reverses the conventional understanding of folly and uses it as a rhetorical strategy to communicate his message. He speaks of the message of the cross as foolishness to the world (1Cor. 1:18). On another occasion, in order to argue against the arrogance of his opponents, Paul engages in “a little foolishness” (2Cor. 11:1) as he boasts about his ministry, which is riddled with failure (2Cor. 11–12).

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

Mindand Emotions

Metaphorically,the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or eventhe whole person. It also refers to the center of something or itsinner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importanceand location.

Mind.The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these casesdoes not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while theneurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, ithas no bearing on this use of language. We also should not confusesome modern English idioms or distinctions as being related to thebiblical viewpoint. The Bible does not make a distinction between“head knowledge” and “heart knowledge,” nordoes it employ language making the “heart” good orsuperior and the “head/mind” bad, inferior, or merelyintellectual. It does not prize the emotional over the thoughtful; ithas a more integrated viewpoint.

Deuteronomy6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul,and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occursin three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common toall three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospelwriters want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,”but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrewword for “heart” includes the mind.

Themental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heartis where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1Chron. 29:18;Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1Kings3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makesplans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1Chron.29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, andskill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is theplace of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role ofconscience (2Sam. 24:10; 1John 3:20–21).

Itis often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for“heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp themental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to loveGod with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments thatI give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6).Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes ourperspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” isclearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents totalk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. Inorder for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds needto be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him.Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation onand determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is notmerely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview inwhich the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truthrequires careful, reflective thought.

Emotionsand attitude.The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number offeelings 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 (1Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition(James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudessuch as willingness, courage, and desire.

Idioms

Theword “heart” also appears in several idioms.

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

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

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

Allthe heart.The phrase “with all [one’s] heart” in some casesmeans “wholeheartedly” or “single-mindedly,”which emphasizes unity of purpose and focus. In other cases it seemsto mean, more broadly, “with all of one’s thinking orperspective” and implies the work of adjusting our worldviewaway from common cultural assumptions and toward God’steaching.

Sayin one’s heart.This expression denotes talking to oneself (i.e., thinking) ratherthan out loud or indicates reflection or deliberation. There areseveral warnings not to lie to oneself—that is, not todeliberate, 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 ithigh priority.

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circ*mstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circ*mstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circ*mstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circ*mstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circ*mstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circ*mstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesusfollowers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christembodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in humanhistory.

Introduction

Name.Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title“Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). Thename “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was acommon male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ”is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh(“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually werenamed after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry ofJesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah(Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources.From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesusconstitute the turning point in human history. From a historicalperspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed,both Christian and non-Christian first-century and earlysecond-century literary sources are extant, but they are few innumber. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initialresistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Romanhistorian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,”since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailingworldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sourcestherefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christiansources.

TheNT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry ofJesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels),and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four SourceHypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as asource by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (fromGerman Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their ownindividual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additionalsources.

Theearly church tried to put together singular accounts, so-calledGospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionitesrepresents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Anotherharmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was producedaround AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning thelife of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, thePauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John.Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come,God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4).The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was apassion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. Thefirst extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’sletters (1Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognizedfrom the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1Cor.15:13–14).

Amongnon-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in aletter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governorof Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentionsChristians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about thehistory of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius,wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Romebecause of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Somescholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of“Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

TheJewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a storyabout the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus(Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in adifferent part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus isthe Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). Themajority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic butheavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source,the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but thesereferences are very late and of little historical value.

NoncanonicalGospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospelof Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel ofJames, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, theEgerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these maycontain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most partthey are late and unreliable.

Jesus’Life

Birthand childhood. TheGospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehemduring the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesuswas probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’sdeath (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of avirginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18;Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governorQuirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place inBethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at thetime of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars.Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to eitherconfirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must bedetermined on the basis of one’s view regarding the generalreliability of the Gospel tradition.

Onthe eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keepingwith the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus”(Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home ofhis parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel ofLuke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth instrength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke alsocontains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesuswas born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered atemple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford tosacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, ormetal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth wasnot a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground.Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently commonfirst-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Cananything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesuswas also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy weresurely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnantbefore her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only theintervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal(Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem,far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinshiphospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay withdistant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcomebecause of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Maryhad to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feedingtrough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later inNazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son”(Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming himas one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewiserejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucifyhim!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21;John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled(Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter,vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71;Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His ownsiblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamedof his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his motherinto the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27)rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism,temptation, and start of ministry.After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring tohim as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instantministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into thewilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11;Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that thetemptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Lukeidentify three specific temptations by the devil, though their orderfor the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesuswas tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine interventionafter jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’skingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation,quoting Scripture in response.

Matthewand Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum inGalilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13;Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirtyyears of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity orperhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of theLevites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning ofJesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples andthe sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’public ministry: chronology.Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28,and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple hadbeen forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as thetemple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out themoney changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding andexpansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during theeighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry ofJohn the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius(Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From thesedates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of thereign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset ofJesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

TheGospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast inJohn 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended overthree or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a halfyears. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came ona Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death wastherefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and hisJudean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry inGalilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galileanministry.The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and aroundGalilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that thekingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment ofprophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ firstteaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30);the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for hiscalling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection andsuffering.

AllGospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in hisGalilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioningof the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers isrecorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministryis the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, inparticular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synopticsfocus on healings and exorcisms.

DuringJesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with hisidentity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority(Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family(3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner ofBeelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesustold parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growingkingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humblebeginnings (4:1–32).

TheSynoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful.No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority orability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized manydemons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fedfive thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark6:48–49).

Inthe later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew andtraveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are notwritten with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns toGalilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey toJerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fearresolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee,where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ discipleswith lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed thePharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents(7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demandinga sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, whoconfessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus didprovide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesuswithdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician womanrequested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sentonly to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans hadlong resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality thatallotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere“crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Eventhe dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,”Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-muteman in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’sconfession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The citywas the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judeanministry.Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry ashe resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually ledto his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem intothree phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27).The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of thejourney. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, andthe demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem(Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45;Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journeytoward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvationand judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase ofthe journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are themain themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Socialconflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposteinteractions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel(Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomicfeathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who hadlittle value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16;Luke 18:15–17).

PassionWeek, death, and resurrection. Eachof the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with thecrowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Lukedescribes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during whichJesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

InJerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17).Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because thewhole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “beganlooking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segmentof Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions(12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation(12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s owndestruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, JudasIscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’arrest (14:10–11).

Atthe Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a newcovenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29;Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned thedisciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and laterhe prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agonyand submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42;Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial,crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15;Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18).Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission bymaking disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8)and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return(Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

TheIdentity of Jesus Christ

Variousaspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels,depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses toJesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning andexamining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70;23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritualrealm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). AtJesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved(Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus wastransfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voiceaffirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and otherguards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf.Mark 15:39).

Miracleworker.In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers werepart of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs andmiracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of Godover various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature,and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus hisidentity.

Nochallenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miraclesand signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed astorm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13;Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised thedead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16;8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculousfeedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44;8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked onwater (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

ThePharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterousgeneration asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4).The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—hisdeath and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice,taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher.Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbisor Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguishedhim was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28,32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathereddisciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to joinhim in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4;Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesusused a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables(Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35;21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18;12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15,19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33),used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons(Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Majorthemes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the costof discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, hisidentity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings,observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’skingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come tofulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. Theseconflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions inwhich the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus usedthese interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gavereplies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’swill, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels,Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. TheSynoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations ofviolating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answersto such accusations often echoed the essence of 1Sam. 15:22,“To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as“I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). Anoverall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’public teaching.

TheSermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than”ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outwardobedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equalto murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfullyamounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revengingwrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesusvalued compassion above traditions and customs, even those containedwithin the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter ofthe law.

Jesus’teachings found their authority in the reality of God’simminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9),necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence(Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—thefamily of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged,“Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness”(Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among propheticteachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his owngrounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt.10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examplesof a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include theoccasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesusused an aphorism in response to accusations about his associationswith sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor,but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners”(Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking thelaw, he pointed to an OT exception (1Sam. 21:1–6) todeclare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also appliedthe “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, sincewomen suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly becameoutcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, andeschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internaltransformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring onlove (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus tobless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesustaught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father isperfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as yourFather is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” onesin Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful,and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godlycharacter.

Somescholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic”for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end oftime. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of histeachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words willnever pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah.The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore theglories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability wascommon in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babyloniancaptivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace andprotection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer,one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice andrighteousness (2Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16;Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2;Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whosesuffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle ofexpectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianicimages in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearerscalled him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt.12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesusas the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). Inline with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesusfocused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regenerationthrough his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatologicalprophet.Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewishapocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God tointervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom ofGod. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ propheciesconcerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2,15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). Inaddition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representativeof the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30).Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images ofcoming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt.24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

SufferingSon of God.Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth wasparadigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa.61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so herevealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptlyportrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ ownteachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13,31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “TheSon of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give hislife as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly careerended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewishcomponents (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65;15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24;18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt.27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror,bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyonehanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with acrucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed asa lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referredto this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed ofthe gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

ExaltedLord.Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23;20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46).The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of JesusChrist indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday(Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) andrisen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus waswitnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples(Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on theroad to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appearedto as many as five hundred others (1Cor. 15:6). He appeared inbodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43;John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesusascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

Asmuch as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory overdeath was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost,Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises(Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31).Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through hisresurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his lifeand work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him asLord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31;Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification(Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and hisintercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascensionsignaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return inglory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt.19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom(1Cor. 15:24; 2Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’Purpose and Community

Inthe Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, whopreaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent(4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter thekingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, onemade in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

Inthe prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identityof Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidingsof salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of thegospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Lukelikewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose ofJesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is thekingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John theBaptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesusanswered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen andheard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosyare cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good newsis proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, aspresented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery ofsight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God alreadypresent in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20;8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

Inthe Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signsthroughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, hisidentity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah,the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundantlife is lived out in community.

Inthe Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community ofGod (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but theycontinued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout hisministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a callto loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38;Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50;Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock Iwill build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call tocommunity. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community wasreplaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’sfamily—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained byadopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through theinitiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16;10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

TheQuests for the Historical Jesus

Thequest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from ahistorical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary byscholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding ofthe church.

Thebeginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecturenotes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously.Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus thatrejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. Heconcluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles,prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’sconclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry ofrationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continuedthroughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “firstquest” for the historical Jesus.

In1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of theHistorical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: EineGeschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of thefirst quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-centuryresearchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming thehistorical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching aninoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’sconclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest.Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was aneschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days inJerusalem.

Withthe demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as RudolfBultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historicalJesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’sformer students launched what has come to be known as the “newquest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). Thisquest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was stilldominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels islargely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

Asthe rebuilding years of the post–World WarII era wanedand scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeologicalfinds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on towhat has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeksespecially to research and understand Jesus in his social andcultural setting.

Until the twentieth century, traveling farther than a week’sdistance from home was dangerous and expensive. We should notoverstate the difficulty or risks of travel then, but certainly itwas unlike today. Since virtually every region had its own currency,travelers carried cash and were at risk from thieves, money changers,innkeepers, slavers, and others who preyed upon travelers, as well asfrom the natural dangers of storms, floods, early snows, and soforth. Outside of cities, there was little law enforcement for thetypical traveler (Ezra 8:22). Family was often one’s onlydefender against injustice (Gen. 14:12–16; Ps. 127:3–5).

Fortravelers in the biblical world, improvement was slow and gradual.During the time of the patriarchs, travelers faced poor roads,bandits, and no security other than what they could providethemselves (Gen. 14:14). Later Assyrian documents complain ofdifficult roads. SargonII (r. 722–705 BC) boasted, “Iadvanced over inaccessible paths (in) steep and terrifying places”(ARAB 2:25–26). Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC) tells ofhaving to travel on foot because the road was too steep for hislitter (ARAB 2:122–23). Persian roads improved modestly, butHerodotus probably is exaggerating the improvements (Hist. 8.98), asXenophon seems to indicate (Anab. 1.2.25). Many sources speak ofbandits (Ezra 8:31; Hos. 6:9). Thus, safe travel or good roads becamea metaphor for peace. When ancient kings bragged, it often was aboutroads they had built or how the roads were now safe. The arrival ofthe kingdom of God was symbolized by repairing the road (Isa. 40:3–5;Luke 3:4–6).

Majorimprovements came with the Roman Empire. For the first (and last)time, a traveler could go from the Euphrates to Egypt to Britain onwell-policed roads and sea lanes under one’s own government.Enforced law and standardized, trustworthy coinage had distinctadvantages (Isa. 33:8; Matt. 22:15–22).

Runningempires required traveling. Envoys (Jer. 27:3), tax collectors (Dan.11:20), and overseers (1Kings 5:13–17), as well asarmies, moved about on imperial business. While farmers and localmerchants traveled limited distances to sell their wares (usually tothe closest large city), fortunes could be made by the moreadventuresome merchant willing to take the greater risks of travelingfarther distances (Gen. 37:28; 1Kings 10; Job 6:19; Prov.31:14; Isa. 23:8; Matt. 13:45). The ancient world also sawindividuals doing a great deal of local travel (less than sixtymiles), usually connected to business (Prov. 31:14), religiousfestivals (1Sam. 1; John 10), and family (Gen. 50:1–14;2Kings 8:29; Luke 1:39; John 2:1); often the three were woventogether.

Travelin the ancient world was by sea or land. Except for the wealthy, thismeant booking passage or walking. Sentimental images of a pregnantMary riding a donkey to Bethlehem or of the apostle Paul doingmissionary travels on horseback are likely fiction. Although there issome evidence of women traveling on donkeys (Josh. 15:18; 1Sam.25:20, 23; 2Sam. 16:1–2), the stories are of prominentwomen or unusual occasions; it should not be assumed to be normative.Obviously, the infirm rode when required to travel, but theypreferred not to travel (2Sam. 19:26–37). The wealthiestused private transport (Acts 8:27–28). We have references totravel by donkey, mule, camel, horse, cart, litter, and chariot, butordinary people walked. Typically, a good day’s walk was twentymiles; sea travel was by daylight and averaged roughly the same.Calculating how long it took someone to travel, though, is not merelya matter of math. Both sea and land travelers were fair-weathertravelers, usually between June and September. On a long journey, onehad to plan where to “winter.” Ancient travelers had tomake their travel plans around the seasons.

Travelby Land

Roads.Until the Romans, a “road” was merely a cleared path.They were ungraded and often impassable in wet weather. Nonetheless,they followed a distinct route, marked by “guideposts”(Jer. 31:21). In the ancient world, major roads ran east-west fromSyria into Mesopotamia. North-south roads connected Syria to Egypt,through Palestine. The Assyrian army invaded Israel by traveling weston the road as far as Syria and then turning south. The battlesfought in Gen. 14 were to control the north-south road (and thustrade). Solomon built wealth by controlling this trade (2Chron.9:14). Three major roads ran north-south through Israel. (1)TheKing’s Highway (Num. 20:17) ran through the eastern region,from Damascus through the eastern highlands of the Transjordan anddown to the Gulf of Aqaba, where Solomon maintained a port (2Chron.8:17). (2)The central (or Sinai) road ran from Sidon south toTyre, Akko, Shechem, Jerusalem, Hebron, Beersheba, Kadesh Barnea,into the Negev, and on to Egypt. (3)The Sea Road (Via Maris)ran from Damascus to Hazor through the Valley of Jezreel (the Plainof Esdraelon through the Megiddo Pass), down the coast of Israelthrough Gaza and into Egypt. Taking Megiddo meant controlling thisroad and the trade. The Egyptians (ThutmoseIII) defeated theCanaanites and took this road around 1468 BC. David captured it about1000 BC. Josiah died defending this road against the Egyptians(NechoII) in 609 BC.

TheGreeks extended a major road connecting through Asia Minor to theancient road running into Mesopotamia. The Romans built roads of flatstone placed upon foundations. Parts of these roads are still in usetoday. From Rome they built to the sea (Via Ostiensis, ViaPortuensis), to the south (Via Appia), to the west (Via Aurelia), tothe north (Via Flaminia), to the Adriatic (Via Salaria, Via Valeria),and to the east (Via Ignatia) connecting Rome to Greece and thus tothe rest of the biblical world.

Lodgings.Land travel necessitated lodgings. The wealthy near Rome often hadhomes along the common routes that they plied. Slaves ran ahead toannounce that the master was coming. Friends and those on themaster’s business likely used these homes as well whentraveling. When off the normal route, an aristocrat traveled with aretinue of servants, wagons, and tents to enable a well-equipped (andsecure) camp each evening. The ordinary traveler had no extra homesor entourages. Groups large enough for safety could camp near town.Individuals relied upon hospitality in town. Those individualtravelers unfortunate to lack any kinship with townsfolk often had norecourse but inns. Petronius (Sat. 94–97) tells a seamy storyof misadventures in the roadside inns of his day. Archaeology andliterature describe ill-kept dumps involving disreputableproprietors, questionable guests, and plenty of loose morals. AncientHebrews and early Christians emphasized hospitality (Gen. 19:1–2;Judg. 19:11–20; Rom. 12:13; 1Pet. 4:9; 3John 8).

Distanceand duration.Using the distances between ancient stopping places, travel records,and comments in literary sources, scholars generally agree that anormal walking traveler could expect to cover twenty miles in a day.Peter’s trip from Joppa to Caesarea (about forty miles) tooktwo days (Acts 10:23–30). Travelers using beasts of burdengenerally covered the same distance. Chariots averaged a bit better,perhaps twenty-five to thirty miles per day. Whether they actuallytraveled farther or just stopped earlier for the night is debatable.Horseback was intended for speed and could easily average fifty milesper day. Yet we must avoid the mistake of calculating travel timebetween places by simple math. While such calculations generally holdtrue for one- or two-day journeys (Acts 10), longer journeysencountered delays. Towns along main roads were commonly spaced aday’s walk apart. Yet it is unwise to assume that a traveleralways left the next morning after an overnight stay. Jesus warnedhis traveling preachers against such rudeness (Luke 10:5–7).Moreover, the host likely provided the food supplies and extra fundsfor the traveler’s next walk (3John 5–8; Did.11.5–6). Certainly, Jewish travelers were affected by Sabbathsand feasts. Not only would they not travel on those days, but alsothey likely would delay or rush to reach a particular location (Acts20:2–5, 16; 1Cor. 16:8). Ancients traveled according to adifferent tempo than modern Westerners.

Seasonscaused more serious delays. When traveling season ended, travelerswere forced to spend the winter wherever they were at that time. Ifpossible, they did not leave this to chance but rather planned whereto “winter” (Jer. 36:22; Acts 27:12; 1Cor. 16:6;Titus 3:12). Terrain was a serious consideration. Mountain passes andriver fords were obvious factors, and ancients often took the easier(or safer) though longer path. Hence, there were three roads leadingfrom Perga to Pisidian Antioch, the longest (western) being thesafest and easiest. Uphill journeys, snow-blocked passes, and flashfloods slowed ancient travelers, sometimes stranding them longer thantheir planned supplies would last (2Cor. 6:5).

Travelingin groups. Sincetravelers carried money, they avoided traveling alone or in verysmall groups. (The so-called wise men of Matt. 2:1–12 almostcertainly would have been waylaid had there been only three of them.)Commonly, travelers gathered in the agora (marketplace) early in themorning looking for fellow travelers heading their way, thus makingtraveling companions of those with whom they might not normallyassociate (Luke 9:57; 14:25). It was also common for travelers tojoin others along the road (Luke 24:13–16; Acts 8:27–30).

Travelby Sea

Ships.Almost all ancient ships were wooden. A “fast ship” wasnot necessarily a sleeker mode, but a dry one. Ideally, ships werestored out of the water during winter. Waterlogged ships werenaturally slower.

Nobiblical empire was worth its salt unless it had naval supremacy inthe Mediterranean Sea. Sailing vessels were at the mercy of the wind,so military ships meant galley ships. Rowing allowed captains to movewithout the wind. Today, we tend to imagine rowers like the “galleyslaves” of the Middle Ages. Ancient rowers, however, werehonored soldiers. Ships rammed each other in battle, and skill at theoar often meant the difference between victory and death. Once theenemy was rammed, rowers sprang up from their oars and fought hand tohand.

Piracyand commerce.No one could claim dominance of the sea without controlling piracy.The Roman navy, for the first time in history, managed to virtuallyeliminate piracy. Roman archers and slingers rained destruction asthey drew near pirate vessels. Catapults later were added for heavyartillery. Finally, firepots slung out on long poles set fire to theenemy’s ship, which the Romans then rammed and boarded.

Withthe taming of the Mediterranean, commercial shipping exploded ingrowth. Transporting cargo, passengers, and dispatches becameprofitable business. Smaller ships (like a Galilean fishing boat)depended upon oars, with a small sail as an auxiliary. Largermerchant ships depended more on sails. Sailing ships, with favorablewinds, probably averaged between two and four miles per hour, butonly half that with unfavorable winds. Ancient ships huggedcoastlines and avoided bad weather.

Commoncargo ships carried an average of about 250 tons of cargo and/orpassengers and ranged from 70 to 150 feet in length. Those carrying350 to 500 tons were considered large but not rare. It is thoughtthat the grain ships in Paul’s day (as in Acts 27) routinelywere three-decked, 180 feet long, carried 1,300 tons, and took over aweek to unload.

Travelingby ship.Although cargo ships also carried passengers, some ships wereprimarily for passengers. Josephus, on an unsuccessful attempt tosail to Rome, was on a ship with six hundred passengers (Josephus,Life 15). Sallust, a Roman historian, mentions a cohort (about 600men) traveling on one transport ship (Hist. 3.8). Paul’s shipto Rome had 276 aboard (Acts 27:37). Acts gives the impression thatthis ship left too late in the season. Aside from those compelled byRome, likely only the brave or the desperate would book such passage.Thus, we should not assume that the ship was fully booked.

Likeland travel, however, sea travel also was restricted by season. Inthe eastern half of the Mediterranean, the wind blows from thenorthwest toward the southeast persistently from June to September,marking the favorable sailing season. Vegetius (Mil. 4.39) writes,“From the 6th day before the kalends of June [May 27] until therising of Arcturus, that is until the 18th before the kalends ofOctober [Sept. 14], is believed to be the safe period ofnavigation.... From then up to the 3rd before theides of November, navigation is uncertain.... Fromthe 3rd before the ides of November to the 6th before the ides ofMarch, the seas are closed.” Many ancient writers indicatedthat sea travel in the winter was trecherous.

Aperson traveling by sea went first to the docks to inquire aboutships headed to the desired destination. Harbor managers, dockhands,sailors, or others pointed inquirers toward appropriate ships. Afternegotiating with a particular ship’s purser, whose job was tobook passengers (and guard against stowaways), a passenger was toldwhat day and time to be aboard. The lowest level of ships held theballast (usually sand or stone) and the bilgewater. Decking over itheld cargo. Some ships berthed the cheapest passengers in this area,what we now refer to as steerage (Lucian observes that suchpassengers were “not even able to stretch their legs on thebare boards alongside the bilgewater” [Jupp. trag. 48]). Largerfreighters had another deck above this that may have housed somepassengers. In general, however, travelers in Paul’s day (likeall travelers up until modern times) camped above deck (some withtents). Only the very wealthy rented cabins (P.Zen. 10). Shipwrecksand pirates were not the only dangers. A man cautioned his wife,“When you come, bring your gold ornaments, but do not wear themon the boat” (P.Mich. 3.214 [see also 8.468]). Then as now,tossing someone overboard left a clean crime scene (Jon. 1:15; cf.Acts 20:3).

Summary

Mostbiblical characters, like their peers, rarely traveled far from home.It is commonly estimated that Jesus’ ministry encompassed adistance no greater than one hundred miles from his home. Hisapostles, though, took advantage of the travel benefits of the RomanEmpire. Paul was a far more experienced traveler than most, both byland and sea (Acts 27:9–10, 30–32), although he appearsto have pushed the limits of safety on occasion. He mentions“sleepless nights and hunger” (2Cor. 6:5) as wellas being “in danger from rivers” and bandits (2Cor.11:26). In addition to what is reported in Acts 27, Paul wasshipwrecked at least three other times (2Cor. 11:25). Whetherby land or sea, travel in ancient times was not for the fainthearted.

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circ*mstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circ*mstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circ*mstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

The first of the Major Prophets in the canon, the book of Isaiah is one of the longest books in the Bible. This, coupled with the NT’s frequent use of Isaiah, has contributed to the book’s great importance in Christian tradition. Isaiah contains some of the most memorable passages in Scripture, with its majestic poetry and evocative sermons making it a literary masterpiece. Nevertheless, it has also been characterized as a difficult book to comprehend and make sense of as a whole because the connections between different paragraphs and sections appear to be haphazard at times and are difficult to understand. However, some knowledge of the way the book was formed can aid in interpretation.

Authorship

The authorship of Isaiah has been one of the most debated issues in biblical interpretation. Ancient tradition credited the eighth-century BC prophet Isaiah with the entire sixty-six chapters. However, an early Jewish tradition in the Talmud claims that “the men of Hezekiah” compiled Isaiah, showing their awareness that the book did not come entirely from Isaiah.

Literary evidence. Isaiah son of Amoz is referred to as author in three sections of the book (1:1; 2:1; 13:1) and is featured in both third-person (chaps. 7; 20; 36–39) and first-person (chaps. 6; 8) narratives. However, chapters 40–66 have no such headings and do not even mention Isaiah. While references to Isaiah as author in specific sections may suggest that he actually did write the whole book, they may also indicate that he did not write sections that are not ascribed to him. Similarly, historical narratives referring to the prophet in the third person may suggest that someone else wrote them, although the intimate information in them (e.g., 7:3) could point to Isaianic authorship.

Another possible indication of multiple authorship is the marked difference in literary style and vocabulary found in different sections of Isaiah. While such judgments are quite subjective, both sides of the authorship debate acknowledge these stylistic differences.

Historical settings. The debate regarding the authorship of Isaiah really centers on the diverse historical settings within different sections of the book. Chapters 1–39 clearly are set during the late eighth century BC, the period when Assyria is threatening Judah. Assyria is frequently mentioned (e.g., 7:17; 8:4; 10:12; 11:11; 19:23; 20:1; 27:13; 36:1), as are Judean kings (e.g., 1:1; 6:1; 7:1; 14:28; 36:1) and the prophet Isaiah himself (e.g., 1:1; 2:1; 13:1; 20:2; 37:5).

In contrast, the historical setting of chapters 40–55 is not eighth-century BC Judah. Israel is described as in captivity and Jerusalem is referred to as ruined and deserted (44:26, 28; 52:9); there is frequent allusion to the sufferings of the exile (42:22, 25; 43:28; 47:6; 51:17; 52:5); and the coming return from exile is described as close at hand (40:2; 46:13; 48:20). Furthermore, in chapters 40–55 Babylon is Israel’s enemy, even though in Isaiah’s day they were allies. Also, Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who conquered Babylon in 539 BC (ending the exile), is mentioned with no introduction or explanation (44:28; 45:1), even though he lived 150 years after Isaiah. In sum, chapters 40–55 appear to be addressed to Judeans in Babylonian exile.

Conversely, chapters 56–66 appear to come from yet another historical period. Unlike in chapters 40–55, where the temple was destroyed and out of operation, in chapters 56–66 the temple (66:6), along with sacrifices (56:7; 66:3), offerings (57:6; 65:3; 66:3), and Sabbaths (56:2; 58:13; 66:23), is referred to. Also, Jerusalem and its walls are standing (62:6), unlike in chapters 40–55, where it is predicted that Jerusalem will be rebuilt (44:26). This seems to indicate that it addresses those who have returned to Jerusalem after the exile.

This evidence suggests that the book of Isaiah was written by several authors from different time periods. Alternatively, these diverse historical settings could be explained by supposing that Isaiah spoke to audiences in the distant future through divine inspiration. While skeptical scholars holding antisupernatural worldviews have denied this possibility, those who believe in an almighty God believe that he can reveal the distant future to his prophets. However, the question is whether that is in fact the case with Isaiah. It is significant that in chapters 40–55 Babylonian oppression is not predicted as something to come in the future but rather is presupposed as the present conditions under which the writer is living—only the release from exile is predicted. Logically, it would seem that the author lived in the situation that he presupposes and before the situation that he predicts.

Arguments for the unity of Isaiah. Some scholars still hold to the unity of Isaiah on the following grounds: (1)no ancient manuscripts show that the book ever existed in another form; (2)differences in style and vocabulary can be explained by different subject matter (besides which, the title “Holy One of Israel” unites all sections of Isaiah, as it is used thirteen times in chapters 1–39, sixteen times in chapters 40–66, and only seven times in the rest of the Bible); (3)it seems unlikely that an author as great as the one who wrote chapters 40–55 should remain anonymous; and (4)although it is logical to assume that a prophet is contemporary with what he presupposes, once a prophet makes a prediction, that prediction can become a presupposition for another prediction. Therefore, Isaiah’s prediction of exile in 39:6–7 could become the basis or presupposition on which he continued to prophesy the end to the exile.

However, these arguments are not compelling. Although no manuscripts attest to earlier versions of the book, we possess so few manuscripts from before the time of Christ (and none dating to the time during which the three sections of Isaiah are thought to have been combined) that this is insignificant. Also, the differences in subject matter do not seem great enough to explain the very different style and language in the various sections. Regarding the unlikelihood that the writer of chapters 40–55 could remain anonymous, the fact is that many biblical books are indeed anonymous (e.g., Judges, 1–2Kings, 1–2Chronicles). However, most significant are the different historical settings of the major sections of Isaiah. If Isaiah was addressing an audience in the distant future, not only would it be a situation unparalleled in the biblical prophets, but also the message would have been largely unintelligible to Isaiah’s contemporaries (especially references to Cyrus). Moreover, the text does not claim to predict these situations but only presupposes them. However, the reality of prophetic inspiration is underscored, as a later author predicts not only the end of the exile but also a suffering messiah.

First, Second, and Third Isaiah. For convenience (and not to imply that each author was named “Isaiah”), the three major sections are often referred to as First Isaiah (chaps. 1–39), Second Isaiah (chaps. 40–55), and Third Isaiah (chaps. 56–66). In light of the purposeful connections between the different sections, it is probable that the book was the product of a “school” of Isaiah’s disciples (cf. 8:16) who collected and organized Isaiah’s words and added to them over a long period of time.

In the end, the involvement of multiple authors in the composition of Isaiah does not undermine its authority as Scripture. Its authority derives not from the namesake prophet but rather from God, who inspired its writing (2Tim. 3:16).

Plan of the Book

Isaiah has a literary structure similar to that of Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Joel, and the Greek translation of Jeremiah. The first section is concerned with judgment on Israel (chaps. 1–12), the second with judgment on foreign nations (chaps. 13–23), and the third records prophecies of hope and salvation (chaps. 24–27). This structure purposefully places hopeful oracles of comfort after the judgment oracles. Some view the entire book of Isaiah as following this pattern (chaps. 1–12, judgment on Israel; chaps. 13–35, judgment on other nations; chaps. 40–66, oracles of comfort). However, both of these schemes are somewhat forced, since each section is slightly mixed (there are oracles of salvation in chaps. 1–12, prophecies against Judah in chaps. 13–23, and judgment oracles in chaps. 56–66). However, in broad outline it is helpful to recognize this structure.

Outline

I. Judgment on Judah (1–12)

II. Judgment on the Nations (13–27)

III. Warnings to Trust in the Lord (28–35)

IV. The Assyrian Crisis (36–39)

V. The Second Exodus (40–48)

VI. The Restoration of Jerusalem (49–55)

VII. The Earthly and New Jerusalem (56–66)

First Isaiah (Isa. 1–39)

Key historical events. This section of Isaiah comes from the period when the nation of Assyria was aggressively expanding its territory and terrorizing weaker nations, such as Israel and Judah. Two key historical events form the background for many oracles in chapters 1–39 and are the prominent focus there: the Syro-Ephraimite war of 734 BC and the 701 BC Assyrian invasion of Judah.

The Syro-Ephraimite war. The nations of Aram (Syria) and Israel (Ephraim) allied together against Assyria and tried to coerce Judah into joining them. They planned to replace King Ahaz with a king of their choice (7:6), which would end the Davidic dynasty. In the end, Ahaz rejected Isaiah’s advice to simply trust God (7:9) and instead appealed to the king of Assyria for aid. The Assyrians conquered Aram (732 BC) and Israel (722 BC) and assimilated them into the Assyrian empire. Judah survived but had to pay tribute to Assyria from that point onward.

The Assyrian invasion of Judah. The Assyrian king Sennacherib invaded Judah when Hezekiah, Ahaz’s son, reigned in Jerusalem. The invasion devastated Judah; however, when Jerusalem was threatened, Hezekiah, in contrast to his father, trusted God to save them, and the Assyrian army suffered massive losses and failed to take Jerusalem (37:36).

Structure and themes. The structure of chapters 1–39 is quite complex. However, the prophecies and historical narratives concerned with Isaiah’s day are roughly in chronological order (e.g., prophecies and events occurring during the reign of King Ahaz [6:1–8:22] precede those during Hezekiah’s reign [36:1–39:8]). The structure of these chapters alternates between threat and promise (e.g., chap. 1= threat; 2:1–4= promise of hope; 2:5–4:1= threat; 4:2–6= promise of hope). Analogously, the main themes of these chapters alternate between threat and promise.

Holiness. A major theme of Isaiah is God’s holiness, as evidenced in its favorite title for the Lord, “Holy One of Israel.” While the original idea underlying holiness was physical separation and did not have an ethical dimension (e.g., temple prostitutes in the ancient Near East were called “holy women”), a different concept of holiness emerges in chapter 6, the account of Isaiah’s call. Since 6:1–9:7 is the only part in the book with autobiographical narration, these chapters probably come from an original memoir of Isaiah himself. The memoir is surrounded by judgment oracles with a repeated element, “Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised” (5:25; 9:12, 17, 21; 10:4), suggesting that the memoir as a whole was inserted between these oracles to explain God’s anger recorded in 1–12. God’s mandate to Israel was to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–45), but Israel failed to follow this command. In the presence of the holy God, Isaiah realized his own sinfulness and the sinfulness of his people (6:5), connecting the concepts of holiness and righteousness.

The remnant. Already in the first chapter we see the emergence of two groups within Israel: the wicked, who will be punished, and a remnant, who will be redeemed (1:27–31). This focus on the remnant was one way in which Isaiah saw hope for Israel despite the coming judgment that he predicted. The remnant theme highlights the apparent tension between God as holy and God as redeemer: God’s holiness is upheld through the judgment on Israel, but God’s character as savior is witnessed through the remnant that is redeemed.

A coming messianic king. The section 6:1–9:7 dates from the time of the Syro-Ephraimite war, and it appears that Isaiah wrote it down (8:16) when Ahaz refused his counsel. The memoir emphasizes the rejection of the Davidic king Ahaz and predicts the birth of a royal son who would replace Ahaz and bring freedom from oppression (9:1–7). This dissatisfaction with the reigning Davidic king was the seedbed for messianic expectations and is the background for the messianic trilogy of 7:14–16; 9:2–7; 11:1–9. While some of these passages may have originally referred to Hezekiah, he falls short of these messianic expectations, leaving the community of faith awaiting another anointed one (messiah). Ominously, chapter 39 describes Hezekiah’s entertaining guests from Babylon, perhaps implying an alliance between the two nations. Hezekiah’s actions prompt Isaiah to predict the Babylonian exile (39:6–7), providing a fitting segue to chapters 40–66.

Second Isaiah (Isa. 40–55)

A message to the exiles. Second Isaiah was written near the end of the exilic period for those who were deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon. Although the exiles in Babylon were settled in communities (Ezek. 3:15) and allowed to build houses and farm the land (Jer. 29:5–7), they had no temple for worship, and many of the exiles probably saw the destruction of Jerusalem and their temple as the end of God’s action on their behalf. The gods of Babylon appeared to have won the victory. The exiles’ faith was flagging, and even those who did not abandon worship of Israel’s God simply clung to the past and expected nothing new from him.

Contrary to these expectations, Second Isaiah proclaims that God is doing something new for his people and bringing an end to the exile (40:1; 55:12). The role of Cyrus in this deliverance is highlighted, with explicit and implicit reference made to the Persian king (41:2–3, 25; 44:28; 45:1–4, 13–14). However, amid the oracles of comfort there is also a challenge to Israel, which is somehow resistant to the message. To break down this resistance, the prophecy has a sustained rhetoric against idol worship, with some quite hilarious sections ridiculing idol makers (44:9–20). Israel needed to realize that only Yahweh is God and to trust that he will redeem Israel for his purposes. Chapters 1–39 allude to the redemption of Israel (1:27; 35:9), and chapters 40–66 reveal more of how this redemption will take place: the work of “the servant.”

The servant. Several poems featuring an anonymous “servant” (42:1–9; 49:1–12; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12) are often referred to as the Servant Songs. As far back as the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:34), interpreters have struggled with how to identify “the servant.” At times, Israel is explicitly identified as the servant (Isa. 41:8–9; 42:19 [2×]; 43:10), yet the servant clearly also has individual features, suggesting that a person was to fill the role. Some have suggested Cyrus because 42:1 says that the servant “will bring justice to the nations,” and Cyrus is described as conquering nations (41:2, 25; 45:1). However, despite all the talk of Cyrus, the text never explicitly applies the term “servant” to him, which can hardly be by chance. Alternatively, the servant could be the prophet who speaks in these chapters (as the Ethiopian eunuch speculated), since he was destined for his mission before his birth (49:1) and equipped for a mission involving prophetic speech (49:2) and had received divinely revealed knowledge (50:4).

Yet the Servant Songs are also messianic and look forward to a future anointed one who will fulfill the role of the servant fully. In the NT, Jesus is presented as the new Israel (cf. Matt. 2:15 with Hos. 11:1) who truly fulfills the role of the servant (John 12:38, quoting Isa. 53:1; Matt. 8:17, quoting Isa. 53:4). However, Paul appears to hold to a collective interpretation of the songs, as he sees himself as the servant in some instances (Acts 13:47; Rom. 15:21; Gal. 1:15). Both the individual and the collective interpretations are legitimated in the NT, as both Jesus (individual) and the church (collective), which is Christ’s body, fulfill the role of the servant.

Third Isaiah (Isa. 56–66)

In 539 BC Cyrus allowed the exiles to return home to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple (Ezra 1:1–4). Despite many obstacles, the temple was finished in 515 BC. Even with this success, living in the land was challenging (see Malachi), with factions among the people, economic troubles, hypocritical worship (Isa. 58:1–14), and problems with corrupt leaders (56:9–57:13). It was for this postexilic community that Third Isaiah was written (probably before the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah in 445 BC brought lasting change to the desperate situation).

Unlike in chapters 40–55, where Israel needs to be roused from its despair by the imminent actions of God, in chapters 56–66 the people are pleading with God to help them (59:11; 62:7). In chapter 59 the prophet declares that God’s delay in helping his people is due not to his inability but rather to the sins of the people, which are described, confessed, and lamented.

In many ways, Third Isaiah unites the themes of First Isaiah and Second Isaiah. Second Isaiah emphasizes the inbreaking of a new age that contrasts with the old. The former things are remembered, but the new thing that God was doing—the return from exile—is stressed. However, in Third Isaiah the deliverance from Babylon is seen as merely a foretaste of God’s promise, which is now identified as a new heaven and earth (chaps. 65–66). Third Isaiah looks forward to the new things that are still ahead.

First Isaiah predicts a Davidic messiah who would rule in righteousness (9:1–7; 11:1–9) and a faithful remnant that would respond in trust (10:20; 28:16). Second Isaiah does not continue with these themes, instead turning attention to the “servant” whose suffering and death would atone for Israel (53:4–5). However, Third Isaiah links First Isaiah’s faithful remnant with obedient “servants” who take on the mission of the Suffering Servant in Second Isaiah. This interpretation sets the direction for the NT’s identification of the royal messiah of chapters 1–39 as the servant of chapters 40–55 (Luke 24:26; Acts 8:32). Third Isaiah thus unites and reinterprets the book as a whole.

It is fitting that Jesus read the opening verses of Isa. 61 in the synagogue at the beginning of his ministry. Like Third Isaiah, he united prophecies of both the messianic Davidic ruler of First Isaiah and the Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah, taking on both roles himself. Third Isaiah ends with a glorious future pictured for the Jewish community as they function as priests in the world (61:6). Similarly, Christ’s body, the church, now functions in these same roles in the world (cf. Acts 13:47; Rev. 5:10).

A collection of 150 poems. They are the hymnbook of the OTperiod, used in public worship. Psalms contains songs of differentlengths, types, and dates. The earliest psalm (Ps. 90) is attributedto Moses (mid-second millennium BC), while the content of Ps. 126 andPs. 137 points to the latest periods of the OT (mid-first millenniumBC). They continue to be used as a source of public worship andprivate devotion.

HistoricalBackground

Mostpsalms have a title. In the Hebrew text this title comprises thefirst verse, whereas English translations set it off before the firstverse. Titles vary. Many name an author (e.g., David [Ps. 3]; Asaph[Ps. 77]; sons of Korah [Ps. 42]), while others provide informationabout genre (e.g., Psalms of Ascent [Pss. 120–134]), tune(e.g., “Do Not Destroy” [Ps. 75]), use in worship (Ps.92), and a circ*mstance that led to composition (Ps. 51). Informationin the title gives hints concerning how psalms were written andbrought into a final collection.

Composition

Asmentioned, the titles of the psalms often give indications ofauthorship and occasionally name the circ*mstance that led to thewriting of the psalm. A good example is Ps. 51, where the titlestates, “For the director of music. A psalm of David. When theprophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery withBathsheba.” The title connects the psalm with the eventsrecorded in 2Sam. 11–12 and suggests that David wrote thesong in response to his sin and Nathan’s confrontation.

Althoughonly a handful of the psalms have such a historical title, it islikely that most psalms were composed in response to some specificcirc*mstance that encouraged the author to write. Interestingly,though, the psalmists do not speak about the specific circ*mstance inthe psalm itself. Psalm 51, for instance, fits perfectly with thesituation that the title describes in that it expresses guilt towardGod and asks for forgiveness, but nowhere does it speak specificallyabout adultery. The psalmists do this intentionally because they arewriting the song not as a memorial to an event, but rather as aprayer that others who have had similar though not identicalexperiences can use after them. Thus, Ps. 51 has been used as a modelprayer for many penitents, whether they have sinned like David or inanother way.

Mostmodern hymns have a similar background. John Newton, for instance,was inspired to write “Amazing Grace” because of awe thathe felt at his conversion to Christianity from the evil of being aslave trader. However, when he wrote it, he wanted others to sing itas reflecting not on his conversion but on their own.

Collection

Thepsalms were composed over a thousand-year period. Thus, it appearsthat the book of Psalms was a growing collection until it came to aclose at an unknown time between the writing of the two Testaments.

In1Chron. 16:7–36 we may get a glimpse of how the processworked. The text describes David turning a musical composition overto the Levitical musician Asaph and his associates. It is likely thatthe priests kept an official copy of the book of Psalms in the holyplace (the temple while it stood). The psalms, after all, were thehymns of ancient Israel. Their primary function was as a corporatebook of prayer, though certainly they could be used in privatedevotions (note Hannah’s prayer in 1Sam. 2:1–10 andits relationship to Ps. 113).

Organizationand Structure

Thepsalms have no obvious organization that explains the location of allthe psalms. They are not organized in terms of genre, authorship,time of composition, or length. There is only one statement aboutorganization, found in Ps. 72:20: “This concludes the prayersof David son of Jesse.” In the light of this comment, it issurprising that a number of Davidic psalms appear in subsequentsections (Pss. 101; 103; 108–110; 122; 124; 131; 133; 138–145).The best explanation is that at one point Ps. 72 concluded theDavidic psalms, but there was a reorganization before the canonicalorder was permanently closed.

Anumber of contemporary theories try to find some deep structure tothe book, but it is best to refrain from speculation in regard to theoverall structure. Nonetheless, a few structural characteristics areobvious. First, the division of Psalms into five books seems toreflect the fivefold division of the Pentateuch:

I.Book 1 (Pss. 1–41)

II.Book 2 (Pss. 42–72)

III.Book 3 (Pss. 73–89)

IV.Book 4 (Pss. 90–106)

V.Book 5 (Pss. 107–150)

Eachbook ends with a doxology. Such an intentional association with thePentateuch would lend support to the Psalter’s claim toauthority. Although these are prayers to God, they are also God’sword.

Second,within the Psalter there are subcollections. That is, there arepsalms that came into the book not individually but as a group. Thebest-known such group are the Psalms of Ascent (Pss. 120–134),probably so named because worshipers sang them while going up(ascending) to the Temple Mount during one of the annual religiousfestivals in Jerusalem.

Third,it appears that psalms are intentionally placed at the beginning andat the end of the book to serve as an introduction and a conclusion.Psalms 1–2 serve as an introduction that alerts the reader tothe twin important themes of law and messiah. Psalm 1 pronounces ablessing on those who love God’s law. The psalms, after all,are an intimate and personal conversation with God. One must be onthe side of the godly to enter such a holy textual space, just as onemust be godly to enter the precincts of the temple. After the readerenters, Psalm 2 provides an encounter with God and his anointed one(messiah). At the end of the book, the last five psalms (Pss.146–150) constitute a tremendous doxology of praise.

Thisleads to the final observation on structure. Psalms of lamentpredominate at the beginning of the book, but they give way to hymnsof praise toward the end. It is almost as if one enters the Psaltermourning and leaves it praising. Indeed, the Psalter brings thereader into contact with God and thus transforms the reader fromsadness to joy.

LiteraryConsiderations

Genre.The individual psalms may be identified as songs, prayers, or poems.Specifically, they are lyric poems (expressing the emotions of thepoet), often addressed to God, and set to musical accompaniment.Although the categories overlap, seven different types of psalms canbe recognized, with the first three being by far the most common.

• Lament.The largest single group of psalms are the laments, characterized bythe expression of unhappy emotions: sadness, disappointment, anger,worry. The lamenters call on God to save them, even while at timescomplaining about God’s actions toward them (Ps. 42:9–10).Some laments contain petitions for forgiveness (Ps. 51), while othersassert innocence of any wrongdoing (Ps. 26). A few laments evencontain curses directed toward the enemies who are trying to harm thepsalmist (Ps. 69:19–28). Most laments end by praising God orreaffirming confidence in God (Ps. 130:7–8). Usually the reasonfor the change from mourning to rejoicing is not given, but Ps. 77pinpoints the reason as the memory of God’s great salvationevents in the past (vv. 10, 16–20). One psalm, Ps. 88, lamentsbut never makes the turn, remaining in the pit of despair. Yet evenhere we have a glimmer of hope in that the one who laments is stillspeaking to God.

• Thanksgiving.When God answers a lament, the response is thanksgiving. Psalms ofthanksgiving are very similar to hymns (see below), but they cite anearlier problem that God has addressed. Psalm 30 praises God forrestoring the psalmist’s good fortune and health after hesuffered due to his earlier arrogance that led him to forget God (vv.6–7).

• Hymn.Hymns are psalms of unalloyed praise directed toward God. Thepsalmists often call for others to join their worship of God (Ps.100).

• Remembrance.While many psalms evoke memories of God’s actions in the past(as the lament in Ps. 77 recalls the exodus), certain psalms focus onrehearsing the actions of God in the past. Psalm 136 is one of themost memorable examples. As a liturgical psalm, it recites a divineaction (“[God] swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea”[v.15]) followed by a congregational response (“His loveendures forever”).

• Confidence.These psalms are defined by their mood of quiet trust in God even inthe midst of trouble. They often present a reassuring image of God.The picture of God as a shepherd in Ps. 23 or as a mother in Ps. 131are good examples.

• Wisdom.Some psalms meditate on the law (Pss. 1; 119) or have interestssimilar to those of wisdom literature, such as Job, Proverbs, andEcclesiastes (Pss. 49; 73).

• Kingship.A number of psalms praise God as king (Ps. 47) or the human king ashis agent (Pss. 20–21) or both (Ps.2).

Style.The psalms are poems, and so their style is characterized by the useof parallelism and figurative language. Poetry is also notable forits short lines. A poet packs a lot of meaning into very few words.So it is important to slow down and reflect on a psalm in order toderive its maximum effect. Besides brevity of expression,parallelism, and figurative language, poets create interest by usingother literary tools. The psalmists use these poetic devices not onlyto inform their readers’ intellect but also to stimulate theirimagination and arouse their emotions. (See also Acrostic; Imagery;Poetry.)

TheologicalMessage

Althoughthe psalms are not theological essays, readers can learn about Godand their relationship with God from these poems. The book of Psalmsis a bit like a portrait gallery of God, using images to describe whohe is and the nature of our relationship with him. Some examplesinclude God as shepherd (Ps. 23), king (Ps. 47), warrior (Ps. 98),and mother (Ps. 131), and the list could be greatly expanded. Eachone of these picture images casts light on the nature of God and alsothe nature of our relationship with God. After all, theaforementioned psalms explicitly or implicitly describe God’speople as sheep, subjects, soldiers, and children.

Connectionto the New Testament and Today

Jesushimself draws attention to Psalms as a book that anticipated hiscoming suffering and glorification (Luke 24:25–27, 44). TheGospels recognized that Jesus’ zeal for God was well expressedby Ps. 69:9 (John 2:17). When at the apex of his suffering on thecross, Jesus uttered the words found in Ps. 22:1 (Matt. 27:46). TheNT writers also saw that Jesus was the fulfillment of the covenantthat promised that a son of David would have an everlasting throne(2Sam. 7:16). Accordingly, the royal psalms (e.g., Pss. 2; 110)often were applied to Jesus, who is the Messiah (the Christ, “theanointed one”).

Todaywe read Psalms not only as an ancient witness to the coming work ofChrist but also, as John Calvin put it, as a mirror of our souls. Thepsalms were written for worshipers who came after them with similarthough not identical joys and problems. The psalms should becomemodels of our prayers.

The biblical corpus known as the Pentateuch consists of thefirst five books of the OT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, andDeuteronomy. The word “Pentateuch” comes from two Greekwords (penta [“five”] and teuchos [“scroll case,book”]) and is a designation attested in the early churchfathers. The collection is also commonly known as the “FiveBooks of Moses,” “the Law of Moses,” or simply the“Law,” reflecting the traditional Jewish name “Torah,”meaning “law” or “instruction.” The Torah isthe first of three major sections that comprise the Hebrew Bible(Torah, Nebiim, Ketubim [Law, Prophets, Writings]); thus for bothJewish and Christian traditions it represents the introduction to theBible as a whole as well as its interpretive foundation.

TheEnglish names for the books of the Pentateuch came from the LatinVulgate, based on the Greek Septuagint. These appellations are mainlydescriptive of their content. Genesis derives from “generations”or “origin,” Exodus means “going out,”Leviticus represents priestly (Levitical) service, Numbers refers tothe censuses taken in the book, and Deuteronomy indicates “secondlaw” because of Moses’ rehearsal of God’s commands(see Deut. 17:18). The Hebrew designations derive from opening wordsin each book. Beresh*t (Genesis) means “in the beginning”;Shemot (Exodus), “[these are] the names”; Wayyiqra’(Leviticus), “and he called”; Bemidbar (Numbers), “inthe desert”; and Debarim (Deuteronomy), “[these are] thewords.”

Referringto the Pentateuch as “Torah” or the “Law”reflects the climactic reception of God’s commands at MountSinai, which were to govern Israel’s life and worship in thepromised land, including their journey to get there. However, callingthe Pentateuch the “Law” can be a bit misleading becausethere are relatively few passages that simply list a set of commands,and all law passages are set within a broad narrative. The Pentateuchis a grand story that begins on a universal scale with the creationof the cosmos and ends on the plains of Moab as the readeranticipates the fulfillment of God’s plan to redeem a fallenworld through his chosen people. The books offer distinct qualitiesand content, but they are also inherently dependent upon one another,as the narrative remains unbroken through the five volumes. Genesisends with Jacob’s family in Egypt, and, though many years havepassed, this is where Exodus begins. Leviticus outlines cultic lifeat the tabernacle (constructed at the end of Exodus) and even beginswithout a clear subject (“And he called...”),which requires the reader to supply “the Lord” from thelast verse of Exodus. Numbers begins with an account of Israel’sfighting men as the nation prepares to leave Sinai, and Deuteronomyis Moses’ farewell address to the nation on the cusp of thepromised land.

Authorshipand Composition

Althoughthe Pentateuch is technically an anonymous work, Jewish and Christiantradition attributes its authorship to Moses, the main figure of thestory from Exodus to Deuteronomy. The arguments for attributing theauthorship of the Pentateuch to Moses come from internal evidencewithin both Testaments. That Moses is responsible for at leastportions of the Pentateuch is suggested by references to his explicitliterary activity reflected within the narrative itself (Exod. 17:14;24:4; 34:28; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9, 22, 24), if not implied invarious literary formulas such as “the Lord said to Moses”(e.g., Exod. 39:1, 7, 21; Lev. 4:1; 11:1; 13:1; Num. 1:1; 2:1).Mosaic authorship receives support from the historical books, whichuse terms such as “the Book of the Law of Moses” invarious forms and references in the preexilic history (Josh. 8:30–35;23:6; 2Kings 14:6) as well as the postexilic history (e.g.,2Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1). The same titles are usedby NT authors (e.g., Mark 12:26; Luke 24:44; John 1:45), evenreferring to the Pentateuch simply by the name “Moses” atvarious points (e.g., Luke 16:29; 24:27; 2Cor. 3:15).

Evenwith these examples, nowhere does the text explicitly state thatMoses is responsible for the entire compilation of the Pentateuch orthat he penned it with his own hand. Rather, a number of factorspoint to a later hand at work: Moses’ death and burial arereferenced (Deut. 34), the conquest of Canaan is referred to as past(Deut. 2:12), and there is evidence that the names of people andplaces were updated and explained for later generations (e.g., “Dan”in Gen. 14:14; cf. Josh. 19:47; Judg. 18:28b–29). Based onthese factors, it is reasonable to believe that the Pentateuchunderwent editorial alteration as it was preserved within Jewish lifeand took its final shape after Moses’ lifetime.

Overthe last century, the Documentary Hypothesis has dominated academicdiscussion of the Pentateuch’s composition. This theory wascrystallized by Julius Wellhausen in his Prolegomena to the Historyof Israel in the late nineteenth century and posits that thePentateuch originated from a variety of ancient sources derived fromdistinct authors and time periods that have been transmitted andjoined through a long and complex process. Traditionally thesedocuments are identified as J, E, D, and P. The J source is adocument authored by the “Yahwist” (German, Jahwist) inJudah around 840 BC and is so called because the name “Yahweh”is used frequently in its text. The E source stands for “Elohist”because of its preference for the divine title “Elohim”and was composed in Israel around 700 BC. The D source stands for“Deuteronomy” because it reflects material found in thatbook; it was composed sometime around Josiah’s reform in 621BC. The P document reflects material that priests would be concernedwith in the postexilic time period, approximately 500 BC. This theoryand its related forms stem from the scholarly concern over variousliterary characteristics such as the use of divine names; doubletsand duplications in the text; observable patterns of style,terminology, and themes; and alleged discrepancies in facts,descriptions, and geographic or historical perspective.

Variousdocumentary theories of composition have flourished over the lastcentury of pentateuchal scholarship and still have many adherents.However, lack of scholarly agreement about the dating and characterof the sources and the rise of other literary approaches to the texthave many conservative and liberal scholars calling into question theaccuracy and even interpretive benefit of the source theories.Moreover, if the literary observations used to create sourcedistinctions can be explained in other ways, then the DocumentaryHypothesis is significantly undermined.

Inits canonical form, the pentateuchal narrative combines artisticprose, poetry, and law to tell a dramatic history spanning thousandsof years. One could divide the story into six major sections:primeval history (Gen. 1–11), the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50),liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18), Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num.10:10), wilderness journey (Num. 10:11–36:13), and Moses’farewell (Deuteronomy).

PrimevalHistory (Gen. 1–11)

Itis possible to divide Genesis into two parts based upon subjectmatter: the origin of creation and humankind’s call, fall, andpunishment (chaps 1–11), and the origin of a family that wouldbecome God’s conduit of salvation and blessing for the world(chaps. 12–50).

Theprimeval history comprises essentially the first eleven chapters ofGenesis, ending with the genealogy of Abraham in 11:26. Strictlyspeaking, 11:27 begins the patriarchal section with the sixthinstance of the toledot formula found in Genesis, referencingAbraham’s father, Terah. The Hebrew phrase ’elleh toledot(“these are the generations of”) occurs in eleven placesin Genesis and reflects a deliberate structural marker that one mayuse to divide the book into distinct episodes (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1;11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2).

Genesisas we know it exhibits two distinct creation accounts in its firsttwo chapters. Although critical scholars contend that the differingaccounts reflect contradictory stories and different authors, it isjust as convenient to recognize that the two stories vary in styleand some content because they attempt to accomplish different aims.The first account, 1:1–2:3, is an artistic, poetic,symmetrical, and “heavenly” view of creation by atranscendent God, who spoke creation into being. In the secondaccount, 2:4–25, God is immanently involved with creation as heis present in a garden, breathes life into Adam’s nostrils,dialogues and problem-solves, fashions Eve from Adam’s side,and bestows warnings and commands. Both perspectives are foundationalfor providing an accurate view of God’s interaction withcreation in the rest of Scripture.

Asone progresses through chapters 1–11, the story quickly changesfrom what God has established as “very good” to discord,sin, and shame. Chapter 3 reflects the “fall” of humanityas Adam and Eve sin in eating from the forbidden tree in directdisobedience to God. The serpent shrewdly deceives the first couple,and thus all three incur God’s curses, which extend tounlimited generations. Sin that breaks the vertical relationshipbetween God and humanity intrinsically leads to horizontal strifebetween humans. Sin and disunity on the earth only intensify as onemoves from the murder story of Cain and Abel in chapter 4 to theflood in chapters 5–9. Violence, evil, and disorder have sopervaded the earth that God sends a deluge to wipe out all livingthings, save one righteous man and his family, along with an ark fullof animals. God makes the first covenant recorded in the biblicalnarrative with Noah (6:18), promising to save him from the flood ashe commands Noah to build an ark and gather food for survival. Noahfulfills all that God has commanded (6:22; 7:5), and God remembershis promise (8:1). This is the prototypical salvation story for therest of Scripture.

Chapter9 reflects a new start for humanity and all living things as thecreation mandate to “be fruitful and increase in number; fillthe earth and subdue it,” first introduced in 1:28, is restatedalong with the reminder that humankind is made in God’s image(1:27). Bearing the image involves new responsibilities andstipulations in the postdiluvian era (9:2–6). There will beenmity between humans and animals, animals are now appropriate food,and yet lifeblood will be specially revered. God still requiresaccountability for just and discriminate shedding of blood andorderly relationships, as he has proved in the deluge, but now herelinquishes this responsibility to humankind. In return, Godpromises never to destroy all flesh again, and he will set therainbow in the sky as a personal reminder. Like the covenant withNoah in 6:18, the postdiluvian covenant involves humankind fulfillingcommands (9:1–7) and God remembering his covenant (9:8–17),specially termed “everlasting” (9:16).

Theprimeval commentary on humankind’s unabating sinful condition(e.g., 6:5; 8:21) proves true as Noah becomes drunk and naked and hisson Ham (father of Canaan) shames him by failing to conceal hisfather’s negligence. Instead of multiplying, filling, andsubduing the earth as God has intended, humankind collaborates tomake a name for itself by building a sort of stairway to heavenwithin a special city (11:4). God foils such haughty plans byscattering the people across the earth and confusing their language.Expressed in an orderly chiastic structure, the story of the tower ofBabel demonstrates that God condescends (11:5) to set things straightwith humanity.

Patriarchs(Gen. 12–50)

Althoughthe primeval history is foundational for understanding the rest ofthe Bible, more space in Genesis is devoted to the patriarchalfigures Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In general, the Abrahamicnarrative spans chapters 12–25, the story of Isaac serves as atransition to the Jacob cycle of chapters 25–37, and the Josephnarrative finishes the book of Genesis in chapters 37–50.

Thetransition from the primeval history to the patriarchs (11:27–32)reveals how Abraham, the father of Israel, moves from the east andsettles in Harran as the family ventures to settle in Canaan. InHarran, Abraham receives the call of God’s redemptive plan,which reverberates through Scripture. God will bless him with land,make him a great nation, grant him special favor, and use him as aconduit of blessings to the world (12:1–3). In 11:30 is theindication that the barrenness of Abraham’s wife (Sarah)relates to the essence of God’s magnificent promises. How onebecomes great in name and number, secures enemy territory, and is tobless all peoples without a descendant becomes the compellingquestion of the Abrahamic narrative. The interchange betweenAbraham’s faith in God and his attempts to contrive covenantfulfillment colors the entire narrative leading up to chapter 22. Itis there that Abraham’s faith is ultimately put to the test asGod asks him to sacrifice the promised son, Isaac. Abraham passesGod’s faith test, and a ram is provided to take Isaac’splace. This everlasting covenant that was previously sealed by thesign of circumcision is climactically procured for future generationsthrough Abraham’s exemplary obedience (22:16–18; cf.15:1–21; 17:1–27).

Thepatriarchal stories that follow show that the Abrahamic promises arerenewed with subsequent generations (see 26:3–4; 28:13–14)and survive various threats to fulfillment. The story of Isaac servesmainly as a bridge to the Jacob cycle, as he exists primarily as apassive character in relation to Abraham and Jacob.

Deception,struggle, rivalry, and favoritism characterize the Jacob narrative,as first exemplified in the jostling of twin boys in Rebekah’swomb (25:22). Jacob supplants his twin brother, Esau, for thefirstborn’s blessing and birthright. He flees to Paddan Aram(northern Mesopotamia), marries two sisters, takes their maidservantsas concubines, and has eleven children, followed by a falling-outwith his father-in-law. Jacob’s struggle for God’sblessing that began with Esau comes to a head in his wrestlingencounter with God at Peniel. Ultimately, Jacob emerges victoriousand receives God’s blessing and a name change, “Israel”(“one who struggles with God”). Throughout the Jacobstory, God demonstrates his faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenantand reiterates the promises to Jacob, most notably at Bethel (chaps.28; 35). The interpersonal strife of Jacob’s life is thusenveloped within a message of reconciliation not just with Esau(chap. 33) but ultimately with God. The reader learns from theepisodes in Jacob’s life that although God works through thelives of weak and failing people, his promises for Israel remainsecure.

AlthoughJacob and his family are already living in Canaan, God intends forthem to move to Egypt and grow into a powerful nation beforefulfilling their conquest of the promised land (see 15:13–16).The story of Joseph explains how the family ends up in Egypt at theclose of Genesis. Joseph is specially loved by his father, whichelicits significant jealousy from his brothers, who sell him off tosome nomads and fabricate the alibi that he has been killed by a wildbeast. Joseph winds up in Pharaoh’s household and eventuallybecomes his top official. When famine strikes Canaan years later,Joseph’s brothers go to Egypt to purchase food from the royalcourt, and Joseph reveals his identity to them in an emotionalreunion. Jacob’s entire family moves to Egypt to live for atime in prosperity under Joseph’s care. The Joseph storyillustrates the mysterious relationship of human decision and divinesovereignty (50:20).

Liberationfrom Egypt (Exod. 1–18)

Genesisshows how Abraham develops into a large family. Exodus shows how thisfamily becomes a nation—enslaved, freed, and then taught theways of God. Although it appears that Exodus continues a rivetingstory of God’s chosen people, it is actually the identity andpower of God that take center stage.

Manyyears have passed since Joseph’s family arrived in Egypt. TheHebrews’ good standing in Egypt has also diminished as theirmultiplication and fruitfulness during the intervening period—justas God had promised Abraham (Gen. 17:4–8)—became anational threat to the Egyptians. Abraham’s family will spendtime in Egyptian slavery before being liberated with many possessionsin hand (cf. Gen. 15:13–14).

Inthe book of Exodus the drama of suffering and salvation serves as thevehicle for God’s self-disclosure to a single man, Moses. Mosesis an Israelite of destiny even from birth, as he providentiallyavoids infant death and rises to power and influence in Pharaoh’shousehold. Moses never loses his passion for his own people, and hekills an Egyptian who was beating a fellow Hebrew. Moses flees toobscurity in the desert, where he meets God and his call to lead hispeople out of Egypt and to the promised land (3:7–8; 6:8). Likethe days of Noah’s salvation, God has remembered his covenantwith the patriarchs and responded to the groans of his people inEgypt (2:24; 6:4–5; cf. Gen. 8:1). God reveals himself, and hispersonal name “Yahweh” (“I am”), to Moses inthe great theophany of the burning bush at Mount Horeb (Sinai), thesame place where later he will receive God’s law. Moses doubtshis own ability to carry out the task of confronting Pharaoh andleading the exodus, but God foretells that many amazing signs andwonders not only will make the escape possible but also willultimately reveal the mighty nature of God to the Hebrews, Egypt, andpresumably the world (6:7; 7:5).

Thispromise of creating a nation of his people through deliverance issuccinctly conveyed in the classic covenant formula that findssignificance in the rest of the OT: “I will take you as my ownpeople, and I will be your God” (6:7). Wielding great powerover nature and at times even human decision, God “hardens”Pharaoh’s heart and sends ten plagues to demonstrate his favorfor his own people and wrath against their enemy nation. The tenthplague on the firstborn of all in Egypt provides the context for thePassover as God spares the firstborn of Israel in response to theplacement of sacrificial blood on the doorposts of their homes.Pharaoh persists in the attempt to overtake the Israelites in thedesert, where the power of God climaxes in parting the Red Sea (orSea of Reeds). The Israelites successfully pass through, buttheEgyptian army drowns in pursuit. This is the great salvationevent of the OT.

Thesong of praise for God’s deliverance (15:1–21) quicklyturns to cries of groaning in the seventy days following the exodusas the people of the nation, grumbling about their circ*mstances inthe desert, quickly demonstrate their fleeting trust in the one whohas saved them (Exod. 15:22–18:27). When a shortage of waterand food confronts the people, their faith in God’s care provesshallow, and they turn on Moses. Even though the special marks ofGod’s protection have been evident in the wilderness throughthe pillars of cloud and fire, the angel of God, the provision ofmanna and quail, water from the rock, and the leadership of Moses,the nation continually fails God’s tests of trust and obedience(16:4; cf. 17:2; 20:20). Yet God continues to endure with his peoplethrough the leadership of Moses.

Sinai(Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10)

Mostof the pentateuchal narrative takes place at Mount Sinai. It is therethat Israel receives national legislation and prescriptions for thetabernacle, the priesthood, feasts and festivals, and othercovenantal demands for living as God’s chosen people. Theeleven-month stay at Sinai takes the biblical reader through thecenter of the Pentateuch, covering approximately the last half ofExodus, all of Leviticus, and the first third of Numbers, before thenation leaves this sacred site and sojourns in the wilderness.Several key sections of the Pentateuch fall withinthe Sinaistory: the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17), the Book of the Covenant(Exod. 20:22–23:33), the tabernacle prescriptions (Exod.25–31), the tabernacle construction (Exod. 35–40), themanual on ritual worship (Lev. 1–7), and the Holiness Code(Lev. 17–27).

Theevents and instruction at Sinai are central to the Israelitereligious experience and reflect the third eternal covenant that Godestablishes in the Pentateuch—this time with Israel, wherebythe Sabbath is the sign (Exod. 31:16; cf. Noahic/rainbow covenant[Gen. 9:16] and the Abrahamic/circumcision covenant [Gen. 17:7, 13,19]). The offices of prophet and priest develop into clear view inthis portion of the Pentateuch. Moses exemplifies the dual propheticfunction of representing the people when speaking with God and, inturn, God when speaking to the people. The priesthood is bestowedupon Aaron and his descendants in Exodus and inaugurated within oneof the few narrative sections of Leviticus (Lev. 8–10). Thegiving of the law, the ark, the tabernacle, the priesthood, and theSabbath are all a part of God’s making himself “known”to Israel and the world, which is a constant theme in Exodus (see,e.g., 25:22; 29:43, 46; 31:13).

TheIsraelites’ stay at Sinai opens with one of the greatesttheophanies of the Bible: God speaks aloud to the people (Exod.19–20) and then is envisioned as a consuming fire (Exod. 24).After communicating the Ten Commandments (“ten words”)directly to the people (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4), Mosesmediates the rest of the detailed obligations that will govern thefuture life of the nation. The covenant is ratified in ceremonialfashion (Exod. 24), and the Israelites vow to fulfill all that hasbeen spoken. God expects Israel to be a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) withwhom he may dwell, but Moses descends Sinai only to find that theIsraelites have already violated the essence of the Decalogue byfashioning a golden calf to worship as that which delivered them fromEgypt (Exod. 32). This places Israel’s future and calling injeopardy, but Moses intercedes for his people, and God graciouslypromises to preserve the nation and abide with it in his mercy, evenwhile punishing the guilty. This becomes prototypical of God’srelationship with his people in the future (Exod. 34:6–7).

Exodusends with the consecration of the tabernacle and the descent of God’spresence there. With the tent of worship in order, the priesthood andits rituals can be officially established. Leviticus reflects divineinstructions for how a sinful people may live safely in closeproximity to God. Holy living involves dealing with sin andminimizing the need for atonement, purification, and restitution. Thesacrificial and worship system established in Leviticus is based on aworldview of order, perfection, and purity, which should characterizea people who are commanded, “Be holy because I, the Lord yourGod, am holy’ (Lev. 19:2; cf. 11:44–45; 20:26). Withthese rules in place, the Israelites can make final preparations todepart Sinai and move forward on their journey. Numbers 1–10spans a nineteen-day period of such activities as the Israelitesbegin to focus on dispossessing their enemies. These chapters reflecta census of fighting men, the priority of purity, the dedication ofthe tabernacle, and the observance of the Passover before commencingthe quest to Canaan.

WildernessJourney (Num. 10:11–36:13)

Therest of the book of Numbers covers the remainder of a forty-yearstretch of great peaks and valleys in the faith and future of thenation. Chapters 11–25 recount the various events that show theexodus generation’s lack of trust in God. Chapters 26–36reveal a more positive section whereby a new generation prepares forthe conquest. With the third section of Numbers framed by episodesinvolving the inheritance rights of Zelophehad’s daughters(27:1–11; 36:1–13), it is clear that the story has turnedtothe future possession of the land.

Afterthe departure from Sinai, the narrative consists of a number ofIsraelite complaints in the desert. The Israelites have grown tiredof manna and ironically crave the food of Egypt, which they recall asfree fish, fruits, and vegetables. Having forgotten the hardship oflife in slavery, about which they had cried out to God, now thenation is crying out for a lifestyle of old. Moses becomes sooverwhelmed with the complaints of the people that God providesseventy elders, who, to help shoulder the leadership burden, willreceive the same prophetic spirit given to Moses.

Inchapters 13–14 twelve spies are sent out from Kadesh Barnea toperuse Canaan, but the people’s lack of faith to procure theland from the mighty people there proves costly. This final exampleof distrust moves God to punish and purify the nation. Theunbelieving generation will die in the wilderness during a forty-yearperiod of wandering.

Thediscontent in the desert involves not only food and water but alsoleadership status. Moses’ own brother and sister resent hisspecial relationship with God and challenge his exclusive authority.Later, Aaron’s special high priesthood is threatened as anotherLevitical family (Korah) vies for preeminence. Through a sequence ofsigns and wonders, God makes it clear that Moses and Aaron haveexclusive roles in God’s economy. Due to the deaths related toKorah’s rebellion and the fruitless staffs that represent thetribes of Israel, the nation’s concern about sudden extinctionin the presence of a holy God is appeased through the eternalcovenant of priesthood granted to Aaron’s family (chap. 18). Heand the Levites, at the potential expense of their own lives and aspart of their priestly service, will be held accountable for keepingthe tabernacle pure of encroachers.

Evenafter the people’s significant rebellion and punishment, Godcontinues to prove his faithfulness to his word. Hope is restored forthe nation as the Abrahamic promises of blessing are rehearsed fromthe mouth of Balaam, a Mesopotamian seer. The Israelites will indeedone day be numerous (23:10), enjoy the presence of God (23:21), beblessed and protected (24:9), and have a kingly leader (24:17). Thiswonderful mountaintop experience of hope for the exodus generation istragically countered by an even greater event of apostasy in thesubsequent scene. Reminiscent of the incident of the golden calf,when pagan revelry in the camp had foiled Moses’ interactionwith God on Sinai, apostasy at the tabernacle undermines Balaam’soracles of covenant fulfillment. Fornication with Moabite women notonly joins the nation to a foreign god but also betrays God’sholiness at his place of dwelling. If not for the zeal of Aaron’sgrandson Phinehas, who puts an end to the sin, the ensuing plaguecould have finished the nation. For his righteous action, Phinehas isawarded an eternal priesthood and ensures a future for the nation andAaron’s priestly lineage.

Inchapter 26 a second census of fighting men indicates that the old,unbelieving exodus generation has officially died off (except forJoshua and Caleb), and God is proceeding with a new people. Goddispossesses the enemies of the new generation; reinstates the tribalboundaries of the land; reinstates rules concerning worship, service,and bloodshed; and places Joshua at the helm of leadership. Chapters26–36 mention no deaths or rebellions as the nationoptimistically ends its journey in Moab, just east of the promisedland.

Moses’Farewell (Deuteronomy)

Althoughone could reasonably move into the historical books at the end ofNumbers, much would be lost in overstepping Deuteronomy. Deuteronomypresents Moses’ farewell speeches as his final words to anation on the verge of Caanan. Moses’ speeches are best viewedas sermons motivating his people to embrace the Sinai covenant, lovetheir God, and choose life over death and blessings over cursings(30:19). Moses reviews the desert experience since Mount Horeb/Sinai(chaps. 1–4) and recapitulates God’s expectations forlawful living in the land (chaps. 5–26). The covenant code isrecorded on a scroll, is designated the “Book of the Law”(31:24–26), and is to be read and revered by the future king.Finally, Moses leads the nation in covenant renewal (chaps. 29–32)before the book finishes with an account of his death (chaps. 33–34),including tributes such as “since then, no prophet has risen inIsrael like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (34:10).

Deuteronomyreflects that true covenant faithfulness is achieved from a rightheart for God. If there were any previous doubts about the essence ofcovenant keeping, Moses eliminates such in Deuteronomy with thefrequent use of emotive terms. Loving God involves committing to himalone and spurning idols and foreign gods. The Ten Commandments(chap. 5) are not a list of stale requirements; they reflect thegreat Shema with the words “Love the Lord your God with allyour heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. Thesecommandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts”(6:5–6). God desires an unrivaled love from the nation, notcold and superficial religiosity.

Obedienceby the Israelites will incur material and spiritual blessing, whereasdisobedience ends in the loss of both. Although Moses stronglycommends covenant obedience, and the nation participates in acovenant-renewal ceremony (chap. 27), it is clear that in the futurethe Israelites will fail to uphold their covenant obligations andwill suffer the consequences (29:23; 30:1–4; 31:16–17).Yet Moses looks to a day when the command for circumcised hearts(10:16) will be fulfilled by the power of God himself (30:6). In thefuture a new king will arise from the nation (17:14–20) as wellas a prophet like Moses (18:15–22). Deuteronomy thusunderscores the extent of God’s own devotion to his patriarchalpromises despite the sinful nature of his people.

Formuch of the middle and end of the twentieth century, Deuteronomy hasreceived a significant amount of attention for its apparentresemblance in structure and content to ancient Hittite and Assyriantreaties. Scholars debate the extent of similarity, but it ispossible that Deuteronomy reflects a suzerain-vassal treaty formbetween Israel and God much like the common format between nations inthe ancient Near East. Although comparative investigation of thistype can be profitable for interpretation, it is prudent to beconservative when outlining direct parallels, since Deuteronomy isnot a legal document but rather a dramatic narrative of God’sredemptive interaction with the world.

It is difficult to imagine a world without consistentmetrological systems. Society’s basic structures, from economyto law, require a uniform and accurate method for measuring time,distances, weights, volumes, and so on. In today’s world,technological advancements allow people to measure various aspects ofthe universe with incredible accuracy—from nanometers tolight-years, milligrams to kilograms.

Themetrological systems employed in biblical times span the sameconcepts as our own modern-day systems: weight, linear distance, andvolume or capacity. However, the systems of weights and measurementsemployed during the span of biblical times were not nearly asaccurate or uniform as the modern units employed today. Preexistingweight and measurement systems existed in the contextual surroundingsof both the OT and the NT authors and thus heavily influenced thesystems employed by the Israelite nation as well as the NT writers.There was great variance between the different standards usedmerchant to merchant (Gen. 23:16), city to city, region to region,time period to time period, even despite the commands to use honestscales and honest weights (Lev. 19:35–36; Deut. 25:13–15;Prov. 11:1; 16:11; 20:23; Ezek. 45:10).

Furthermore,inconsistencies and contradictions exist within the written recordsas well as between archaeological specimens. In addition, significantdifferences are found between preexilic and postexilic measurementsin the biblical texts, and an attempt at merging dry capacity andliquid volume measurements further complicated the issue. This is tobe expected, especially when we consider modern-dayinconsistencies—for example, 1 US liquid pint= 0.473liters, while 1 US dry pint= 0.550 liters. Thus, all modernequivalents given below are approximations, and even the bestestimates have a margin of error of + 5percent or more.

Weights

Weightsin biblical times were carried in a bag or a satchel (Deut. 25:13;Prov. 16:11; Mic. 6:11) and were stones, usually carved into variousanimal shapes for easy identification. Their side or flat bottom wasinscribed with the associated weight and unit of measurement.Thousands of historical artifacts, which differ by significantamounts, have been discovered by archaeologists and thus have greatlycomplicated the work of determining accurate modern-day equivalents.

Beka.Approximately 1⁄5 ounce, or 5.6 grams. Equivalent to 10 gerahsor ½ the sanctuary shekel (Exod. 38:26). Used to measuremetals and goods such as gold (Gen. 24:22).

Gerah.1⁄50 ounce, or 0.56 grams. Equivalent to 1⁄10 beka, 1⁄20shekel (Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25).

Litra.Approximately 12 ounces, or 340 grams. A Roman measure of weight.Used only twice in the NT (John 12:3; 19:39). The precursor to themodern British pound.

Mina.Approximately 1¼ pounds, or 0.56 kilograms. Equivalent to 50shekels. Used to weigh gold (1Kings 10:17; Ezra 2:69), silver(Neh. 7:71–72), and other goods. The prophet Ezekiel redefinedthe proper weight: “Theshekel is to consist of twentygerahs. Twenty shekels plus twenty-five shekels plus fifteen shekelsequal one mina” (Ezek. 45:12). Before this redefinition, therewere arguably 50 shekels per mina. In Jesus’ parable of theservants, he describes the master entrusting to his three servantsvarying amounts—10 minas, 5 minas, 1 mina—implying amonetary value (Luke 19:11–24), probably of either silver orgold. One mina was equivalent to approximately three months’wages for a laborer.

Pim.Approximately 1⁄3 ounce, or 9.3 grams. Equivalent to 2⁄3shekel. Referenced only once in the Scriptures (1Sam. 13:21).

Shekel.Approximately 2⁄5 ounce, or 11 grams. Equivalent toapproximately 2 bekas. The shekel is the basic unit of weightmeasurement in Israelite history, though its actual weight variedsignificantly at different historical points. Examples include the“royal shekel” (2Sam. 14:26), the “commonshekel” (2Kings 7:1), and the “sanctuary shekel,”which was equivalent to 20 gerahs (e.g., Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25;Num. 3:47). Because it was used to weigh out silver or gold, theshekel also functioned as a common monetary unit in the NT world.

Talent.Approximately 75 pounds, or 34 kilograms. Equivalent to approximately60 minas. Various metals were weighed using talents: gold (Exod.25:39; 37:24; 1Chron. 20:2), silver (Exod. 38:27; 1Kings20:39; 2Kings 5:22), and bronze (Exod. 38:29). This probably isderived from the weight of a load that a man could carry.

Table12. Biblical Weights and Measures and Their Modern Equivalents:

Weights

Beka– 10 geraahs; ½ shekel = 1/5 ounce = 5.6 grams

Gerah– 1/10 beka; 1/20 shekel = 1/50 ounce = 0.56 grams

Litra– 12 ounces = 340 grams

Mina– 50 shekels = 1 ¼ pounds = 0.56 kilograms

Pim– 2/3 shekel = 1/3 ounce = 9.3 grams

Shekel– 2 bekas; 20 gerahs = 2/5 ounce = 11 grams

Talent– 60 minas = 75 pounds = 34 kilograms

Linearmeasurements

Cubit– 6 handbreadths = 18 inches = 45.7 centimeters

Day’sjourney = 20-25 miles = 32-40 kilometerse

Fingerbreadth– ¼ handbreadth = ¾ inch = 1.9 centimeterse

Handbreadth– 1/6 cubit = 3 inches = 7.6 centimeters

Milion– 1 mile = 1.6 kilometers

Orguia– 1/100 stadion = 5 feet 11 inches = 1.8 meters

Reed/rod– 108 inches = 274 centimeters

Sabbathday’s journey – 2,000 cubits = ¾ mile = 1.2kilometers

Span– 3 handbreadths = 9 inches = 22.8 centimeters

Stadion– 100 orguiai = 607 feet = 185 meters

Capacity

Cab– 1 omer = ½ gallon = 1.9 liters

Choinix– ¼ gallon = 0.9 liters

Cor– 1 homer; 10 ephahs = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Ephah– 10 omers; 1/10 homer = 3/5 bushel; 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Homer– 10 ephahs; 1 cor = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Koros– 10 bushels; 95 gallons – 360 liters

Omer– 1/10 ephah; 1/100 homer = 2 quarts = 1.9 liters

Saton– 1 seah = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

Seah– 1/3 ephah; 1 saton = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

LiquidVolume

Bath– 1 ephah = 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Batos– 8 gallons = 30.3 liters

Hin– 1/6 bath; 12 logs = 1 gallon; 4 quarts = 3.8 liters

Log– 1/72 bath; 1/12 hin = 1/3 quart = 0.3 liters

Metretes– 10 gallons = 37.8 literes

LinearMeasurements

Linearmeasurements were based upon readily available natural measurementssuch as the distance between the elbow and the hand or between thethumb and the little finger. While convenient, this method ofmeasurement gave rise to significant inconsistencies.

Cubit.Approximately 18 inches, or 45.7 centimeters. Equivalent to 6handbreadths. The standard biblical measure of linear distance, asthe shekel is the standard measurement of weight. The distance fromthe elbow to the outstretched fingertip. Used to describe height,width, length (Exod. 25:10), distance (John 21:8), and depth (Gen.7:20). Use of the cubit is ancient. For simple and approximateconversion into modern units, divide the number of cubits in half formeters, then multiply the number of meters by 3 to arrive at feet.

1cubit = 2 spans = 6 handbreadths = 24 fingerbreadths

Day’sjourney.An approximate measure of distance equivalent to about 20–25miles, or 32–40 kilometers. Several passages reference a singleor multiple days’ journey as a description of the distancetraveled or the distance between two points: “a day’sjourney” (Num. 11:31; 1Kings 19:4), “a three-dayjourney” (Gen. 30:36; Exod. 3:18; 8:27; Jon. 3:3), “sevendays” (Gen. 31:23), and “eleven days” (Deut. 1:2).After visiting Jerusalem for Passover, Jesus’ parents journeyedfor a day (Luke 2:44) before realizing that he was not with them.

Fingerbreadth.The width of the finger, or ¼ of a handbreadth, approximately¾ inch, or 1.9 centimeters. The fingerbreadth was thebeginning building block of the biblical metrological system forlinear measurements. Used only once in the Scriptures, to describethe bronze pillars (Jer. 52:21).

Handbreadth.Approximately 3 inches, or 7.6 centimeters. Equivalent to 1/6 cubit,or four fingerbreadths. Probably the width at the base of the fourfingers. A short measure of length, thus compared to a human’sbrief life (Ps. 39:5). Also the width of the rim on the bread table(Exod. 25:25) and the thickness of the bronze Sea (1Kings7:26).

Milion.Translated “mile” in Matt. 5:41. Greek transliteration ofRoman measurement mille passuum, “a thousand paces.”

Orguia.Approximately 5 feet 11 inches, or 1.8 meters. Also translated as“fathom.” A Greek unit of measurement. Probably thedistance between outstretched fingertip to fingertip. Used to measurethe depth of water (Acts 27:28).

Reed/rod.Approximately 108 inches, or 274 centimeters. This is also a generalterm for a measuring device rather than a specific linear distance(Ezek. 40:3, 5; 42:16–19; Rev. 11:1; 21:15).

Sabbathday’s journey.Approximately ¾ mile, or 1.2 kilometers (Acts 1:12). About2,000 cubits.

Span.Approximately 9 inches, or 22.8 centimeters. Equivalent to threehandbreadths, and ½ cubit. The distance from outstretchedthumb tip to little-finger tip. The length and width of the priest’sbreastpiece (Exod. 28:16).

Stadion.Approximately 607 feet, or 185 meters. Equivalent to 100 orguiai.Used in the measurement of large distances (Matt. 14:24; Luke 24:13;John 6:19; 11:18; Rev. 14:20; 21:16).

LandArea

Seed.The size of a piece of land could also be measured on the basis ofhow much seed was required to plant that field (Lev. 27:16; 1Kings18:32).

Yoke.Fields and lands were measured using logical, available means. Inbiblical times, this meant the amount of land a pair of yoked animalscould plow in one day (1Sam. 14:14; Isa. 5:10).

Capacity

Cab.Approximately ½ gallon, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1 omer.Mentioned only once in the Scriptures, during the siege of Samaria(2Kings 6:25).

Choinix.Approximately ¼ gallon, or 0.9 liters. A Greek measurement,mentioned only once in Scripture (Rev. 6:6).

Cor.Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equal to thehomer, and to 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularlyof flour and grains (1Kings 4:22; 1Kings 5:11; 2Chron.2:10; 27:5; Ezra 7:22). In the LXX, cor is also a measure of liquidvolume, particularly oil (1Kings 5:11; 2Chron. 2:10; Ezra45:14).

Ephah.Approximately 3⁄5 bushel (6 gallons, or 22.7 liters).Equivalent to 10 omers, or 1⁄10 homer. Used for measuring flourand grains (e.g., Exod. 29:40; Lev. 6:20). Isaiah prophesied a day ofreduced agricultural yield, when a homer of seed would produce onlyan ephah of grain (Isa. 5:10). The ephah was equal in size to thebath (Ezek. 45:11), which typically was used for liquid measurements.

Homer.Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equivalent to1 cor, or 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularly ofvarious grains (Lev. 27:16; Isa. 5:10; Ezek. 45:11, 13–14; Hos.3:2). This is probably a natural measure of the load that a donkeycan carry, in the range of 90 kilograms. There may have existed adirect link between capacity and monetary value, given Lev. 27:16:“fifty shekels of silver to a homer of barley seed.” Alogical deduction of capacity and cost based on known equivalencesmight look something like this:

1homer = 1 mina; 1 ephah = 5 shekels; 1 omer = 1 beka

Koros.Approximately 10 bushels (95 gallons, or 360 liters). A Greek measureof grain (Luke 16:7).

Omer.Approximately 2 quarts, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄10ephah, 1⁄100 homer (Ezek. 45:11). Used by Israel in themeasurement and collection of manna in the wilderness (Exod.16:16–36) and thus roughly equivalent to a person’s dailyfood ration.

Saton.Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1 seah. Themeasurement of flour in Jesus’ parable of the kingdom of heaven(Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:21).

Seah.Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄3 ephah,or 1 saton. Used to measure flour, grain, seed, and other various drygoods (e.g., 2Kings 7:1; 1Sam. 25:18).

LiquidVolume

Bath.Approximately 6 gallons, or 22.7 liters. Equivalent to 1 ephah, whichtypically was used for measurements of dry capacity. Used in themeasurement of water (1Kings 7:26), oil (1Kings 5:11),and wine (2Chron. 2:10; Isa. 5:10).

Batos.Approximately 8 gallons, or 30.3 liters. A Greek transliteration ofthe Hebrew word bath(see above). A measure of oil (Luke 16:6).

Hin.Approximately 4 quarts (1gallon, or 3.8 liters). Equivalent to1⁄6 bath and 12 logs. Used in the measurement of water (Ezek.4:11), oil (Ezek. 46:5), and wine (Num. 28:14).

Log.Approximately 1⁄3 quart, or 0.3 liter. Equivalent to 1⁄72bath and 1⁄12 hin. Mentioned five times in Scripture,specifically used to measure oil (Lev. 14:10–24).

Metretes.Approximately 10 gallons, or 37.8 liters. Used in the measurement ofwater at the wedding feast (John 2:6).

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circ*mstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circ*mstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circ*mstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

Generally speaking, in Scripture the word “fool” is used to describe someone in a morally deprived state. It does not, as in contemporary American usage, refer to a person’s lack of intellectual ability or to one whose actions convey those of a buffoon. Terms for “fool” appear all through Scripture, but wisdom literature contains the highest concentration. Proverbs uses over half a dozen words to describe the fool. All of them indicate some kind of moral breach and fall on a scale from the most morally hardened to the naive.

Obstinacy, recalcitrance, and closed-mindedness characterize the morally dense fool. Such individuals have no use for advice from others because they are “wise in their own eyes” (Prov. 3:7; cf. 12:15; 16:2). Fools frequently scoff at correction and rebuke (9:7–8, 12; 13:1; 14:6; 15:12; 19:25; 20:1; 21:11, 24; 22:10; 24:9). They manifest arrogance (21:24). Fools do not learn from their own mistakes or those of others but instead often repeat them (26:11). One of the main problems is that fools “lack sense,” which ultimately implies that they lack character (see 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16; 10:13, 21; 11:12; 12:11; 15:21; 17:18; 24:30). Such a person consistently makes poor decisions and loses the appetite and passion necessary for acquiring wisdom.

According to the book of Proverbs, three qualities make up the essential nature of the fool. First, the fool is unwilling to learn by means of discipline (3:11–12; 17:10), or formal instruction (17:16), or a word of advice (12:15), or personal experience (26:11). Second, the fool lacks self-control. Both the speech (15:2) and the behavior (14:16) of fools demonstrate a lack of restraint. They take the path of least resistance to easy money (1:8–19) and easy sex (7:6–27). Third, the fool is the one who rejects the fear of the Lord (1:7).

All half a dozen terms used for “fool” indicate, to one degree or another, a moral breach. The one exception is peti, the word used to indicate the “simple” (e.g., Prov. 1:4; 19:25; 21:11). This word is at the other end of the moral spectrum from “fool” and refers to one who is young, vulnerable, and inexperienced. The simple are the gullible, impressionable persons. These individuals can be influenced for either good or ill, depending on whom they listen to. Both Woman Wisdom and Woman Folly make compelling calls to the simple (Prov. 9:6, 16). This simple youth will make moral mistakes along the way, but the peti has yet to harden into a full-fledged fool, one who is incorrigible and unteachable.

In the NT, the fool is the one who does not trust in God or in the power that God displays through the resurrection of Christ (Luke 24:25; Rom. 1:22; 1Cor. 15:36). Jesus makes references to the fool when he tells the stories of the wise and foolish builders (Matt. 7:24–27) and the wise and foolish maidens (Matt. 25:1–13). Paul uses the term “foolish” to rebuke the Galatians for their refusal to accept the gospel (Gal. 3:1). However, in his correspondence with the church in Corinth, Paul reverses the conventional understanding of folly and uses it as a rhetorical strategy to communicate his message. He speaks of the message of the cross as foolishness to the world (1Cor. 1:18). On another occasion, in order to argue against the arrogance of his opponents, Paul engages in “a little foolishness” (2Cor. 11:1) as he boasts about his ministry, which is riddled with failure (2Cor. 11–12).

In the Bible, gestures are made with either parts of the bodyor items, such as clothing and rings, directly connected to the body.For this reason, it makes sense to classify biblical gestures inrelation to the different body parts that are identified with thegestures. It is, however, challenging to know where to draw a line onclassifying a gesture. For example, a devious person is described inProv. 6:13 as one “who winks maliciously with his eye, signalswith his feet and motions with his fingers.” It is unclearwhether this is a single gesture or multiple ones, and whether allsignify different things or the same thing.

Head

Gesturesthat relate to the head range from simple head motions to semiviolentacts such as hair pulling. Simple head motions include lifting ofone’s head in honor (Gen. 40:13), bowing one’s head inmourning (Ps. 35:14), tossing one’s head in mockery andderision (2Kings 19:21), and shaking one’s head as insult(Ps. 22:7; Mark 15:29).

Acommon action is the shaving of the head, which can be forpurification (Lev. 14:8–9; Num. 6:9; 8:7 [includes all bodyhair]), mourning (Deut. 21:11–13; Job 1:20; Isa. 15:2; Jer.16:6; 47:5; 48:37; Ezek. 27:31; Amos 8:10; Mic. 1:16), remorse (Jer.41:5), or shaming (Jer. 2:16). However, priests are forbidden fromshaving their heads even in mourning (Lev. 21:5; Ezek. 44:20), whilethe high priest is to wear a turban on his head during sacrificialduties (Exod. 29:6).

Anointingof the head is done when a priest or king is installed (Exod. 29:7;Ps. 23:5) or simply as a sign of God’s goodness and blessing ona person (Eccles. 9:8). Blessing may also involve placing a hand onthe head of the person being blessed (Gen. 48:14–18; Exod.29:19), while the same gesture on the head of sacrificial animals isa symbolic means of transferring sin (Lev. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24,29, 33; 8:18, 22).

Inthe OT, a woman’s head can be shaved in mourning (Deut.21:12–13; cf. Jer. 47:5), but in the NT, a shaved head can be acause for disgrace (1Cor. 11:5–6).

Face.Facial gestures range from expressions to actions such as touching orcovering the face. A face can be downcast in anger (Gen. 4:5–6)or bowed to the ground in honor (Gen. 48:12), in dejection (Josh.7:6), in humility (Ruth 2:10), in worship (2Chron. 20:18; Ps.138:2), in subjection, supplication, reverence (1Sam. 20:41;25:41; 28:14; 2Sam. 14:4, 22; 18:28; 24:20; 1Kings 1:23;1Chron. 21:20), or in dread (e.g., Moses before Yahweh [Exod.3:6]).

Theface can be covered or veiled as an indication of uncleanness (Lev.13:45), in grief/mourning (2Sam. 19:4; Ezek. 24:17), inresignation (1Kings 19:13), with intent to deceive in adultery(Job 24:15), or in horror of judgment (Esther 7:8; Ezek. 12:6, 12).It can also be buried in the dust in remorse (Lam. 3:29).

Godcan be described as hiding or turning away his face againstwickedness and evil (Deut. 31:18; 32:20; Ps. 34:16; Isa. 8:17; Jer.33:5; Ezek. 7:22; 15:7; 20:46; 21:2) or in an act of withholdingblessings (Job 13:15; Pss. 10:1; 13:1; 27:9; 30:7; 34:16; Isa. 54:8;59:2; 64:7). God can also turn his face toward a place in judgment(Ezek. 4:3, 7; 6:2). In 1Sam. 5:3–4 the idol of thePhilistine god Dagon falls facedown before the ark of the covenant,apparently overpowered by Yahweh.

Actsof humiliation or dishonor can involve spitting in the face (Num.12:14; Deut. 25:9; Job 17:6; 30:10; Isa. 50:6), slapping the face(1Kings 22:24; 2Chron. 18:23; Job 16:10; Lam. 3:30; Mic.5:1), pulling a skirt up over someone’s face in shamingjudgment (Jer. 13:26; Nah. 3:5), and hooking and dragging someone bythe nose (2Kings 19:28). Although being struck on the cheek ishumiliating, Jesus instructs his disciples to “turn the othercheek” as a sign of resistance to violence (Matt. 5:39; Luke6:29).

Onecan lift one’s face in worship (2Kings 20:2; Job 22:26;Isa. 38:2) or in confidence (Job 11:15) and can fail to lift it inshame and disgrace (Ezra 9:6). Although the shaving of beards inmourning is common practice (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5; 48:37),the forced shaving of beards is an act of shaming and insulting(2Sam. 10:4; 1Chron. 19:4–5; Isa. 7:20; 50:6).

Eyes.Winking the eye is perceived as an evil, deceptive, or malicious act(Ps. 35:19; Prov. 6:13; 16:30). Eyes can be lifted up in worship andexpectation (Pss. 121:1; 123:1).

Mouth.Pursed lips can characterize an evil person (Prov. 16:30), while ahand can be clapped over the mouth in awe and submission (Job 21:5;40:4). Psalm 72:9 looks to the righteous king before whom the deserttribes will bow and whose “enemies lick the dust” indefeat.

Ears.An Israelite slave for life is to have a hole punched through his orher earlobe, held against a doorpost, with an awl (Exod. 21:6; Deut.15:17). Blood is sprinkled on the lobe of the right ear forpurification (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17), whilesupplication can be described as asking for the turning of an ear(2Kings 19:16; Ps. 31:2). Turning one’s ear signifiespaying attention or taking something to heart (Ps. 49:4; Prov. 4:20;5:13).

Neck.The neck can be adorned (Song 1:10) as a sign of pride and honor(Gen. 41:42; Judg. 5:30; Prov. 1:9; Ezek. 16:11) or outstretched inarrogance (Ps. 75:5 TNIV: “Do not lift your horns againstheaven; do not speak with outstretched neck”). Jeremiah put ayoke on his neck as a prophetic sign of the approaching Babylonianconquest (Jer. 27–28). While putting someone’s neck in ayoke is an act of triumphal conquest (Ps. 105:18), stepping on theneck of a subdued enemy is an act of subjugation and humiliation(Josh. 10:24).

Body

Nakednessin public is considered shameful (Gen. 9:22–23; Nah. 3:5; Rev.3:18), so that it is sometimes pictured as part of divine judgment(Deut. 28:48; Isa. 47:2–3; Lam. 1:8; Mic. 1:11) or as a sign ofpromiscuity (Isa. 57:8; Ezek. 16:36). An unkempt body can be a signof mourning, as it is for Mephibosheth (2Sam. 19:24). A certainkind of body covering is a sign of marriage proposal or protection(Ezek. 16:8; 23:18; Hos. 2:9). Body dismembering, even in war, is anact of humiliation (2Sam. 4:12).

Chest.In self-mortification, one can pound one’s chest in mourning(Ezek. 21:12) or in remorse (Jer. 31:19; Luke 18:13). The breasts ofsacrificial animals are waved before God as a “wave offering”before being eaten (Exod. 29:26; Lev. 7:30; Num. 6:20).

Hand,arm.Hand gestures include motions such as lifting hands in worship,clapping hands in joy, and clapping a hand over one’s mouth inawe. The expression “outstretched arm” (Exod. 6:6; Deut.4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 26:8; 1Kings 8:42; 2Kings17:36; 2Chron. 6:32; Ps. 136:12; Jer. 21:5; 27:5; 32:17, 21;Ezek. 20:33–34) indicates power, might, strength. It is oftenused of God to indicate his ability to defeat powerful armies andenemies. God is implored by the psalmist to lift his hand and act forthe sake of the righteous (Ps. 10:12).

Sincethe right hand is the hand of power, the act of sitting at the righthand indicates being favored (1Kings 2:19; Ps. 110:1; Matt.22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2;1Pet. 3:22). When taking an oath, one places a hand under thethigh/crotch (Gen. 24:2; 47:29), most likely the right hand (see Gen.48:14, 17–18; Lev. 8:23; 14:14).

Clappingthe hands can be a sign of awe (Ezek. 6:11), malice, or remorse(25:6), while a bared arm can be a sign of judgment (4:7). Job clapshis hand over his mouth in awe of God and in submission andrepentance (Job 40:4–5).

Handscan be lifted in worship (1Kings 8:22; 1Tim. 2:8), tobeseech (Ps. 28:2), to protect and bless (Ps. 10:12), in an oath(Deut. 32:40), or to harm (Exod. 24:11; 1Sam. 24:6, 10;2Sam.1:14; 18:12).

Pilatewashes his hands to proclaim his innocence over the death of Jesus(Matt. 27:24), while 1Pet. 5:6 urges believers to humblethemselves “under God’s mighty hand,” so that indue time they will be lifted up.

Buttocks.Exposure of the buttocks can serve as a humiliating insult andprovocation, as happens to David’s men (2Sam. 10:4;1Chron. 19:4) and Egyptian and Cush*te captives (Isa. 20:4).

Leg.The leg or thigh is often a euphemism for the male reproductiveorgans, so that putting one’s hand under a thigh in oath (Gen.24:2; 47:29) may involve actually grabbing the genitalia. Animalthighs are waved to God in offering before being consumed (Lev. 9:21;10:14; Num. 6:20), while oaths administered to uncover adultery causea guilty woman’s thighs to waste (Num. 5:2–27).

Themost common gesture involving the knee is bowing, in worship orreverence (Deut. 33:3; Isa. 45:23; Rom. 11:4; 14:11; Phil. 2:10), indefeat (2Sam. 22:40; Ps. 18:38; Isa. 60:14), in distress (Ps.57:6), or in respect (1Kings 1:31). In what seems to be asomewhat awkward position, Elijah puts his face between his knees inprayer (1Kings 18:42).

Feet.Gestures involving the feet are probably the most common gestures inthe Bible. Feet can be washed in hospitality (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32;43:24; 1Sam. 25:41), in ablution (Exod. 30:19, 21; 40:31), orin supplication (1Sam. 25:41). Feet can be bathed in oil as ablessing (Deut. 33:24), uncovered in marriage proposals (Ezek. 16:8;cf. Ruth 3:4, 7), and stamped in remorse (Ezek. 25:6), and sandalscan be removed from them in honor (Exod. 3:1–10) or disgrace(Deut. 25:9). The heavenly seraphs cover their feet in supplicationbefore the throne of God (Isa. 6:2), while the feet of humans cansignal deception (Prov. 6:13).

Enemiescan be placed under one’s feet in subjugation (1Kings5:3; Pss. 8:6; 18:39; 45:5; 47:3; 110:1; Mal. 4:3; Rom. 16:20), havetheir feet shackled or ensnared (Job 13:27; 33:11; Pss. 25:15;105:18), and be forced to lick the feet of victors in humiliation anddefeat (Isa. 49:23). The righteous will bathe their feet in the bloodof their enemies in revenge (Pss. 58:10; 68:23).

Thoseoverwhelmed can grovel at the feet of the powerful (2Kings4:27, 37; Esther 8:3; Matt. 28:9; Mark 5:33; 7:25; Acts 10:25), whilethose emboldened can rise to their feet in confidence (Ezek. 2:1–2;3:24; Dan. 8:18).

Inthe NT, dust can be shaken off one’s feet as an indication ofdivine judgment (Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5), even as lying ata person’s feet is a recognition of authority/submission (Matt.15:30; Mark 5:33; Luke 8:28, 35, 41, 47; 10:39; 17:16; Acts 4:37;5:2). A woman publicly washes Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipesthem with her hair, and kisses and perfumes them in what seems an actof love and repentance; but Jesus indicates that she has prepared hisbody for burial (Luke 7:38–46; John 11:2; 12:3). Jesus washeshis disciples’ feet as instruction on servanthood anddiscipleship (John 13:5–14).

Fingers,Toes.Different fingers seem to have different roles assigned them. Afinger sprinkles blood in cleansing (Lev. 4:6, 17, 25, 30, 34; 8:15;9:9; 14:16; 16:14, 19; Num. 19:4), while blood on the tip of theright thumb and on the right big toe is for cleansing (Exod. 29:20;Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17, 25, 28).

Onewears a signet ring as a sign of power (Esther 3:10) or a gesture ofrestoration and forgiveness (Luke 15:22). But fingers can also motionin deception (Prov. 6:13) or point in blame (Isa. 58:9). Jesus writeswith his finger on the ground, apparently as a gesture ofindifference to those pointing accusing fingers (John 8:6).

Clothesand Shoes

Garments.Garments attain significance as they are related to specificemotions. Wearing sackcloth and ashes in mourning is common (Gen.37:34; Ezek. 7:18; 2Sam. 3:31), while ripping garments inmourning is also frequently attested (Gen. 37:34; 44:13; Lev. 10:6;21:10; Josh. 7:6; 2Sam. 1:11; 3:31; 13:31; 1Kings 21:27;2Kings 2:12; 19:1; Esther 4:1; Isa. 32:11; 37:1; Jer. 41:5).

Rippingsomeone’s clothing to expose nakedness (Ezek. 16:39; 2Sam.10:4) or pulling a person’s skirts up over the face (Jer.13:26) is an act of shaming or insulting. But tearing one’sclothes off can be a sign of fury (Matt. 26:65). Persons withdefiling diseases are expected to warn off others by wearing tornclothes and shouting, “Unclean! Unclean!” (Lev. 13:45).

Bylaying their clothes at Saul’s feet, the crowd may beacknowledging his authority in the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58).

Sandals.A woman can remove a man’s sandal in contempt (Deut. 25:5–10),while a sandal can be removed by a kinsman-redeemer to indicategiving up a right or as a transfer of property (Ruth 4:7–8). Asandal can also be removed in mourning (Ezek. 24:17) or be cast overa piece of land to claim ownership (Pss. 60:8; 108:9).

PropheticGestures

Propheticgestures in the OT are mostly concerned with the call to repentanceand approaching judgments upon failure to heed the warning. Jeremiahputs a yoke on his neck (Jer. 27–28; cf. Deut. 28:48), Ezekielcooks with dung (Ezek. 4:12) and sleeps on his left side for 390 daysand then on his right side for 40 days (4:5–6), Isaiah stripsoff his clothing (Isa. 20:2–3; 32:11), and Hosea marries anunfaithful wife (Hos. 1:1–3).

Inthe NT, Jesus cleanses the temple as an act of symbolic judgment(Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15). He also breaks bread and drinkswine (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30, 35; Acts 2:46;20:11; 27:35; 1Cor. 11:24–25) and washes his disciples’feet (John 13:1–13), thereby establishing symbolic Christianpractices.

It is difficult to imagine a world without consistentmetrological systems. Society’s basic structures, from economyto law, require a uniform and accurate method for measuring time,distances, weights, volumes, and so on. In today’s world,technological advancements allow people to measure various aspects ofthe universe with incredible accuracy—from nanometers tolight-years, milligrams to kilograms.

Themetrological systems employed in biblical times span the sameconcepts as our own modern-day systems: weight, linear distance, andvolume or capacity. However, the systems of weights and measurementsemployed during the span of biblical times were not nearly asaccurate or uniform as the modern units employed today. Preexistingweight and measurement systems existed in the contextual surroundingsof both the OT and the NT authors and thus heavily influenced thesystems employed by the Israelite nation as well as the NT writers.There was great variance between the different standards usedmerchant to merchant (Gen. 23:16), city to city, region to region,time period to time period, even despite the commands to use honestscales and honest weights (Lev. 19:35–36; Deut. 25:13–15;Prov. 11:1; 16:11; 20:23; Ezek. 45:10).

Furthermore,inconsistencies and contradictions exist within the written recordsas well as between archaeological specimens. In addition, significantdifferences are found between preexilic and postexilic measurementsin the biblical texts, and an attempt at merging dry capacity andliquid volume measurements further complicated the issue. This is tobe expected, especially when we consider modern-dayinconsistencies—for example, 1 US liquid pint= 0.473liters, while 1 US dry pint= 0.550 liters. Thus, all modernequivalents given below are approximations, and even the bestestimates have a margin of error of + 5percent or more.

Weights

Weightsin biblical times were carried in a bag or a satchel (Deut. 25:13;Prov. 16:11; Mic. 6:11) and were stones, usually carved into variousanimal shapes for easy identification. Their side or flat bottom wasinscribed with the associated weight and unit of measurement.Thousands of historical artifacts, which differ by significantamounts, have been discovered by archaeologists and thus have greatlycomplicated the work of determining accurate modern-day equivalents.

Beka.Approximately 1⁄5 ounce, or 5.6 grams. Equivalent to 10 gerahsor ½ the sanctuary shekel (Exod. 38:26). Used to measuremetals and goods such as gold (Gen. 24:22).

Gerah.1⁄50 ounce, or 0.56 grams. Equivalent to 1⁄10 beka, 1⁄20shekel (Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25).

Litra.Approximately 12 ounces, or 340 grams. A Roman measure of weight.Used only twice in the NT (John 12:3; 19:39). The precursor to themodern British pound.

Mina.Approximately 1¼ pounds, or 0.56 kilograms. Equivalent to 50shekels. Used to weigh gold (1Kings 10:17; Ezra 2:69), silver(Neh. 7:71–72), and other goods. The prophet Ezekiel redefinedthe proper weight: “Theshekel is to consist of twentygerahs. Twenty shekels plus twenty-five shekels plus fifteen shekelsequal one mina” (Ezek. 45:12). Before this redefinition, therewere arguably 50 shekels per mina. In Jesus’ parable of theservants, he describes the master entrusting to his three servantsvarying amounts—10 minas, 5 minas, 1 mina—implying amonetary value (Luke 19:11–24), probably of either silver orgold. One mina was equivalent to approximately three months’wages for a laborer.

Pim.Approximately 1⁄3 ounce, or 9.3 grams. Equivalent to 2⁄3shekel. Referenced only once in the Scriptures (1Sam. 13:21).

Shekel.Approximately 2⁄5 ounce, or 11 grams. Equivalent toapproximately 2 bekas. The shekel is the basic unit of weightmeasurement in Israelite history, though its actual weight variedsignificantly at different historical points. Examples include the“royal shekel” (2Sam. 14:26), the “commonshekel” (2Kings 7:1), and the “sanctuary shekel,”which was equivalent to 20 gerahs (e.g., Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25;Num. 3:47). Because it was used to weigh out silver or gold, theshekel also functioned as a common monetary unit in the NT world.

Talent.Approximately 75 pounds, or 34 kilograms. Equivalent to approximately60 minas. Various metals were weighed using talents: gold (Exod.25:39; 37:24; 1Chron. 20:2), silver (Exod. 38:27; 1Kings20:39; 2Kings 5:22), and bronze (Exod. 38:29). This probably isderived from the weight of a load that a man could carry.

Table12. Biblical Weights and Measures and Their Modern Equivalents:

Weights

Beka– 10 geraahs; ½ shekel = 1/5 ounce = 5.6 grams

Gerah– 1/10 beka; 1/20 shekel = 1/50 ounce = 0.56 grams

Litra– 12 ounces = 340 grams

Mina– 50 shekels = 1 ¼ pounds = 0.56 kilograms

Pim– 2/3 shekel = 1/3 ounce = 9.3 grams

Shekel– 2 bekas; 20 gerahs = 2/5 ounce = 11 grams

Talent– 60 minas = 75 pounds = 34 kilograms

Linearmeasurements

Cubit– 6 handbreadths = 18 inches = 45.7 centimeters

Day’sjourney = 20-25 miles = 32-40 kilometerse

Fingerbreadth– ¼ handbreadth = ¾ inch = 1.9 centimeterse

Handbreadth– 1/6 cubit = 3 inches = 7.6 centimeters

Milion– 1 mile = 1.6 kilometers

Orguia– 1/100 stadion = 5 feet 11 inches = 1.8 meters

Reed/rod– 108 inches = 274 centimeters

Sabbathday’s journey – 2,000 cubits = ¾ mile = 1.2kilometers

Span– 3 handbreadths = 9 inches = 22.8 centimeters

Stadion– 100 orguiai = 607 feet = 185 meters

Capacity

Cab– 1 omer = ½ gallon = 1.9 liters

Choinix– ¼ gallon = 0.9 liters

Cor– 1 homer; 10 ephahs = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Ephah– 10 omers; 1/10 homer = 3/5 bushel; 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Homer– 10 ephahs; 1 cor = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Koros– 10 bushels; 95 gallons – 360 liters

Omer– 1/10 ephah; 1/100 homer = 2 quarts = 1.9 liters

Saton– 1 seah = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

Seah– 1/3 ephah; 1 saton = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

LiquidVolume

Bath– 1 ephah = 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Batos– 8 gallons = 30.3 liters

Hin– 1/6 bath; 12 logs = 1 gallon; 4 quarts = 3.8 liters

Log– 1/72 bath; 1/12 hin = 1/3 quart = 0.3 liters

Metretes– 10 gallons = 37.8 literes

LinearMeasurements

Linearmeasurements were based upon readily available natural measurementssuch as the distance between the elbow and the hand or between thethumb and the little finger. While convenient, this method ofmeasurement gave rise to significant inconsistencies.

Cubit.Approximately 18 inches, or 45.7 centimeters. Equivalent to 6handbreadths. The standard biblical measure of linear distance, asthe shekel is the standard measurement of weight. The distance fromthe elbow to the outstretched fingertip. Used to describe height,width, length (Exod. 25:10), distance (John 21:8), and depth (Gen.7:20). Use of the cubit is ancient. For simple and approximateconversion into modern units, divide the number of cubits in half formeters, then multiply the number of meters by 3 to arrive at feet.

1cubit = 2 spans = 6 handbreadths = 24 fingerbreadths

Day’sjourney.An approximate measure of distance equivalent to about 20–25miles, or 32–40 kilometers. Several passages reference a singleor multiple days’ journey as a description of the distancetraveled or the distance between two points: “a day’sjourney” (Num. 11:31; 1Kings 19:4), “a three-dayjourney” (Gen. 30:36; Exod. 3:18; 8:27; Jon. 3:3), “sevendays” (Gen. 31:23), and “eleven days” (Deut. 1:2).After visiting Jerusalem for Passover, Jesus’ parents journeyedfor a day (Luke 2:44) before realizing that he was not with them.

Fingerbreadth.The width of the finger, or ¼ of a handbreadth, approximately¾ inch, or 1.9 centimeters. The fingerbreadth was thebeginning building block of the biblical metrological system forlinear measurements. Used only once in the Scriptures, to describethe bronze pillars (Jer. 52:21).

Handbreadth.Approximately 3 inches, or 7.6 centimeters. Equivalent to 1/6 cubit,or four fingerbreadths. Probably the width at the base of the fourfingers. A short measure of length, thus compared to a human’sbrief life (Ps. 39:5). Also the width of the rim on the bread table(Exod. 25:25) and the thickness of the bronze Sea (1Kings7:26).

Milion.Translated “mile” in Matt. 5:41. Greek transliteration ofRoman measurement mille passuum, “a thousand paces.”

Orguia.Approximately 5 feet 11 inches, or 1.8 meters. Also translated as“fathom.” A Greek unit of measurement. Probably thedistance between outstretched fingertip to fingertip. Used to measurethe depth of water (Acts 27:28).

Reed/rod.Approximately 108 inches, or 274 centimeters. This is also a generalterm for a measuring device rather than a specific linear distance(Ezek. 40:3, 5; 42:16–19; Rev. 11:1; 21:15).

Sabbathday’s journey.Approximately ¾ mile, or 1.2 kilometers (Acts 1:12). About2,000 cubits.

Span.Approximately 9 inches, or 22.8 centimeters. Equivalent to threehandbreadths, and ½ cubit. The distance from outstretchedthumb tip to little-finger tip. The length and width of the priest’sbreastpiece (Exod. 28:16).

Stadion.Approximately 607 feet, or 185 meters. Equivalent to 100 orguiai.Used in the measurement of large distances (Matt. 14:24; Luke 24:13;John 6:19; 11:18; Rev. 14:20; 21:16).

LandArea

Seed.The size of a piece of land could also be measured on the basis ofhow much seed was required to plant that field (Lev. 27:16; 1Kings18:32).

Yoke.Fields and lands were measured using logical, available means. Inbiblical times, this meant the amount of land a pair of yoked animalscould plow in one day (1Sam. 14:14; Isa. 5:10).

Capacity

Cab.Approximately ½ gallon, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1 omer.Mentioned only once in the Scriptures, during the siege of Samaria(2Kings 6:25).

Choinix.Approximately ¼ gallon, or 0.9 liters. A Greek measurement,mentioned only once in Scripture (Rev. 6:6).

Cor.Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equal to thehomer, and to 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularlyof flour and grains (1Kings 4:22; 1Kings 5:11; 2Chron.2:10; 27:5; Ezra 7:22). In the LXX, cor is also a measure of liquidvolume, particularly oil (1Kings 5:11; 2Chron. 2:10; Ezra45:14).

Ephah.Approximately 3⁄5 bushel (6 gallons, or 22.7 liters).Equivalent to 10 omers, or 1⁄10 homer. Used for measuring flourand grains (e.g., Exod. 29:40; Lev. 6:20). Isaiah prophesied a day ofreduced agricultural yield, when a homer of seed would produce onlyan ephah of grain (Isa. 5:10). The ephah was equal in size to thebath (Ezek. 45:11), which typically was used for liquid measurements.

Homer.Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equivalent to1 cor, or 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularly ofvarious grains (Lev. 27:16; Isa. 5:10; Ezek. 45:11, 13–14; Hos.3:2). This is probably a natural measure of the load that a donkeycan carry, in the range of 90 kilograms. There may have existed adirect link between capacity and monetary value, given Lev. 27:16:“fifty shekels of silver to a homer of barley seed.” Alogical deduction of capacity and cost based on known equivalencesmight look something like this:

1homer = 1 mina; 1 ephah = 5 shekels; 1 omer = 1 beka

Koros.Approximately 10 bushels (95 gallons, or 360 liters). A Greek measureof grain (Luke 16:7).

Omer.Approximately 2 quarts, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄10ephah, 1⁄100 homer (Ezek. 45:11). Used by Israel in themeasurement and collection of manna in the wilderness (Exod.16:16–36) and thus roughly equivalent to a person’s dailyfood ration.

Saton.Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1 seah. Themeasurement of flour in Jesus’ parable of the kingdom of heaven(Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:21).

Seah.Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄3 ephah,or 1 saton. Used to measure flour, grain, seed, and other various drygoods (e.g., 2Kings 7:1; 1Sam. 25:18).

LiquidVolume

Bath.Approximately 6 gallons, or 22.7 liters. Equivalent to 1 ephah, whichtypically was used for measurements of dry capacity. Used in themeasurement of water (1Kings 7:26), oil (1Kings 5:11),and wine (2Chron. 2:10; Isa. 5:10).

Batos.Approximately 8 gallons, or 30.3 liters. A Greek transliteration ofthe Hebrew word bath(see above). A measure of oil (Luke 16:6).

Hin.Approximately 4 quarts (1gallon, or 3.8 liters). Equivalent to1⁄6 bath and 12 logs. Used in the measurement of water (Ezek.4:11), oil (Ezek. 46:5), and wine (Num. 28:14).

Log.Approximately 1⁄3 quart, or 0.3 liter. Equivalent to 1⁄72bath and 1⁄12 hin. Mentioned five times in Scripture,specifically used to measure oil (Lev. 14:10–24).

Metretes.Approximately 10 gallons, or 37.8 liters. Used in the measurement ofwater at the wedding feast (John 2:6).

It is difficult to imagine a world without consistentmetrological systems. Society’s basic structures, from economyto law, require a uniform and accurate method for measuring time,distances, weights, volumes, and so on. In today’s world,technological advancements allow people to measure various aspects ofthe universe with incredible accuracy—from nanometers tolight-years, milligrams to kilograms.

Themetrological systems employed in biblical times span the sameconcepts as our own modern-day systems: weight, linear distance, andvolume or capacity. However, the systems of weights and measurementsemployed during the span of biblical times were not nearly asaccurate or uniform as the modern units employed today. Preexistingweight and measurement systems existed in the contextual surroundingsof both the OT and the NT authors and thus heavily influenced thesystems employed by the Israelite nation as well as the NT writers.There was great variance between the different standards usedmerchant to merchant (Gen. 23:16), city to city, region to region,time period to time period, even despite the commands to use honestscales and honest weights (Lev. 19:35–36; Deut. 25:13–15;Prov. 11:1; 16:11; 20:23; Ezek. 45:10).

Furthermore,inconsistencies and contradictions exist within the written recordsas well as between archaeological specimens. In addition, significantdifferences are found between preexilic and postexilic measurementsin the biblical texts, and an attempt at merging dry capacity andliquid volume measurements further complicated the issue. This is tobe expected, especially when we consider modern-dayinconsistencies—for example, 1 US liquid pint= 0.473liters, while 1 US dry pint= 0.550 liters. Thus, all modernequivalents given below are approximations, and even the bestestimates have a margin of error of + 5percent or more.

Weights

Weightsin biblical times were carried in a bag or a satchel (Deut. 25:13;Prov. 16:11; Mic. 6:11) and were stones, usually carved into variousanimal shapes for easy identification. Their side or flat bottom wasinscribed with the associated weight and unit of measurement.Thousands of historical artifacts, which differ by significantamounts, have been discovered by archaeologists and thus have greatlycomplicated the work of determining accurate modern-day equivalents.

Beka.Approximately 1⁄5 ounce, or 5.6 grams. Equivalent to 10 gerahsor ½ the sanctuary shekel (Exod. 38:26). Used to measuremetals and goods such as gold (Gen. 24:22).

Gerah.1⁄50 ounce, or 0.56 grams. Equivalent to 1⁄10 beka, 1⁄20shekel (Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25).

Litra.Approximately 12 ounces, or 340 grams. A Roman measure of weight.Used only twice in the NT (John 12:3; 19:39). The precursor to themodern British pound.

Mina.Approximately 1¼ pounds, or 0.56 kilograms. Equivalent to 50shekels. Used to weigh gold (1Kings 10:17; Ezra 2:69), silver(Neh. 7:71–72), and other goods. The prophet Ezekiel redefinedthe proper weight: “Theshekel is to consist of twentygerahs. Twenty shekels plus twenty-five shekels plus fifteen shekelsequal one mina” (Ezek. 45:12). Before this redefinition, therewere arguably 50 shekels per mina. In Jesus’ parable of theservants, he describes the master entrusting to his three servantsvarying amounts—10 minas, 5 minas, 1 mina—implying amonetary value (Luke 19:11–24), probably of either silver orgold. One mina was equivalent to approximately three months’wages for a laborer.

Pim.Approximately 1⁄3 ounce, or 9.3 grams. Equivalent to 2⁄3shekel. Referenced only once in the Scriptures (1Sam. 13:21).

Shekel.Approximately 2⁄5 ounce, or 11 grams. Equivalent toapproximately 2 bekas. The shekel is the basic unit of weightmeasurement in Israelite history, though its actual weight variedsignificantly at different historical points. Examples include the“royal shekel” (2Sam. 14:26), the “commonshekel” (2Kings 7:1), and the “sanctuary shekel,”which was equivalent to 20 gerahs (e.g., Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25;Num. 3:47). Because it was used to weigh out silver or gold, theshekel also functioned as a common monetary unit in the NT world.

Talent.Approximately 75 pounds, or 34 kilograms. Equivalent to approximately60 minas. Various metals were weighed using talents: gold (Exod.25:39; 37:24; 1Chron. 20:2), silver (Exod. 38:27; 1Kings20:39; 2Kings 5:22), and bronze (Exod. 38:29). This probably isderived from the weight of a load that a man could carry.

Table12. Biblical Weights and Measures and Their Modern Equivalents:

Weights

Beka– 10 geraahs; ½ shekel = 1/5 ounce = 5.6 grams

Gerah– 1/10 beka; 1/20 shekel = 1/50 ounce = 0.56 grams

Litra– 12 ounces = 340 grams

Mina– 50 shekels = 1 ¼ pounds = 0.56 kilograms

Pim– 2/3 shekel = 1/3 ounce = 9.3 grams

Shekel– 2 bekas; 20 gerahs = 2/5 ounce = 11 grams

Talent– 60 minas = 75 pounds = 34 kilograms

Linearmeasurements

Cubit– 6 handbreadths = 18 inches = 45.7 centimeters

Day’sjourney = 20-25 miles = 32-40 kilometerse

Fingerbreadth– ¼ handbreadth = ¾ inch = 1.9 centimeterse

Handbreadth– 1/6 cubit = 3 inches = 7.6 centimeters

Milion– 1 mile = 1.6 kilometers

Orguia– 1/100 stadion = 5 feet 11 inches = 1.8 meters

Reed/rod– 108 inches = 274 centimeters

Sabbathday’s journey – 2,000 cubits = ¾ mile = 1.2kilometers

Span– 3 handbreadths = 9 inches = 22.8 centimeters

Stadion– 100 orguiai = 607 feet = 185 meters

Capacity

Cab– 1 omer = ½ gallon = 1.9 liters

Choinix– ¼ gallon = 0.9 liters

Cor– 1 homer; 10 ephahs = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Ephah– 10 omers; 1/10 homer = 3/5 bushel; 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Homer– 10 ephahs; 1 cor = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Koros– 10 bushels; 95 gallons – 360 liters

Omer– 1/10 ephah; 1/100 homer = 2 quarts = 1.9 liters

Saton– 1 seah = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

Seah– 1/3 ephah; 1 saton = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

LiquidVolume

Bath– 1 ephah = 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Batos– 8 gallons = 30.3 liters

Hin– 1/6 bath; 12 logs = 1 gallon; 4 quarts = 3.8 liters

Log– 1/72 bath; 1/12 hin = 1/3 quart = 0.3 liters

Metretes– 10 gallons = 37.8 literes

LinearMeasurements

Linearmeasurements were based upon readily available natural measurementssuch as the distance between the elbow and the hand or between thethumb and the little finger. While convenient, this method ofmeasurement gave rise to significant inconsistencies.

Cubit.Approximately 18 inches, or 45.7 centimeters. Equivalent to 6handbreadths. The standard biblical measure of linear distance, asthe shekel is the standard measurement of weight. The distance fromthe elbow to the outstretched fingertip. Used to describe height,width, length (Exod. 25:10), distance (John 21:8), and depth (Gen.7:20). Use of the cubit is ancient. For simple and approximateconversion into modern units, divide the number of cubits in half formeters, then multiply the number of meters by 3 to arrive at feet.

1cubit = 2 spans = 6 handbreadths = 24 fingerbreadths

Day’sjourney.An approximate measure of distance equivalent to about 20–25miles, or 32–40 kilometers. Several passages reference a singleor multiple days’ journey as a description of the distancetraveled or the distance between two points: “a day’sjourney” (Num. 11:31; 1Kings 19:4), “a three-dayjourney” (Gen. 30:36; Exod. 3:18; 8:27; Jon. 3:3), “sevendays” (Gen. 31:23), and “eleven days” (Deut. 1:2).After visiting Jerusalem for Passover, Jesus’ parents journeyedfor a day (Luke 2:44) before realizing that he was not with them.

Fingerbreadth.The width of the finger, or ¼ of a handbreadth, approximately¾ inch, or 1.9 centimeters. The fingerbreadth was thebeginning building block of the biblical metrological system forlinear measurements. Used only once in the Scriptures, to describethe bronze pillars (Jer. 52:21).

Handbreadth.Approximately 3 inches, or 7.6 centimeters. Equivalent to 1/6 cubit,or four fingerbreadths. Probably the width at the base of the fourfingers. A short measure of length, thus compared to a human’sbrief life (Ps. 39:5). Also the width of the rim on the bread table(Exod. 25:25) and the thickness of the bronze Sea (1Kings7:26).

Milion.Translated “mile” in Matt. 5:41. Greek transliteration ofRoman measurement mille passuum, “a thousand paces.”

Orguia.Approximately 5 feet 11 inches, or 1.8 meters. Also translated as“fathom.” A Greek unit of measurement. Probably thedistance between outstretched fingertip to fingertip. Used to measurethe depth of water (Acts 27:28).

Reed/rod.Approximately 108 inches, or 274 centimeters. This is also a generalterm for a measuring device rather than a specific linear distance(Ezek. 40:3, 5; 42:16–19; Rev. 11:1; 21:15).

Sabbathday’s journey.Approximately ¾ mile, or 1.2 kilometers (Acts 1:12). About2,000 cubits.

Span.Approximately 9 inches, or 22.8 centimeters. Equivalent to threehandbreadths, and ½ cubit. The distance from outstretchedthumb tip to little-finger tip. The length and width of the priest’sbreastpiece (Exod. 28:16).

Stadion.Approximately 607 feet, or 185 meters. Equivalent to 100 orguiai.Used in the measurement of large distances (Matt. 14:24; Luke 24:13;John 6:19; 11:18; Rev. 14:20; 21:16).

LandArea

Seed.The size of a piece of land could also be measured on the basis ofhow much seed was required to plant that field (Lev. 27:16; 1Kings18:32).

Yoke.Fields and lands were measured using logical, available means. Inbiblical times, this meant the amount of land a pair of yoked animalscould plow in one day (1Sam. 14:14; Isa. 5:10).

Capacity

Cab.Approximately ½ gallon, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1 omer.Mentioned only once in the Scriptures, during the siege of Samaria(2Kings 6:25).

Choinix.Approximately ¼ gallon, or 0.9 liters. A Greek measurement,mentioned only once in Scripture (Rev. 6:6).

Cor.Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equal to thehomer, and to 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularlyof flour and grains (1Kings 4:22; 1Kings 5:11; 2Chron.2:10; 27:5; Ezra 7:22). In the LXX, cor is also a measure of liquidvolume, particularly oil (1Kings 5:11; 2Chron. 2:10; Ezra45:14).

Ephah.Approximately 3⁄5 bushel (6 gallons, or 22.7 liters).Equivalent to 10 omers, or 1⁄10 homer. Used for measuring flourand grains (e.g., Exod. 29:40; Lev. 6:20). Isaiah prophesied a day ofreduced agricultural yield, when a homer of seed would produce onlyan ephah of grain (Isa. 5:10). The ephah was equal in size to thebath (Ezek. 45:11), which typically was used for liquid measurements.

Homer.Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equivalent to1 cor, or 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularly ofvarious grains (Lev. 27:16; Isa. 5:10; Ezek. 45:11, 13–14; Hos.3:2). This is probably a natural measure of the load that a donkeycan carry, in the range of 90 kilograms. There may have existed adirect link between capacity and monetary value, given Lev. 27:16:“fifty shekels of silver to a homer of barley seed.” Alogical deduction of capacity and cost based on known equivalencesmight look something like this:

1homer = 1 mina; 1 ephah = 5 shekels; 1 omer = 1 beka

Koros.Approximately 10 bushels (95 gallons, or 360 liters). A Greek measureof grain (Luke 16:7).

Omer.Approximately 2 quarts, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄10ephah, 1⁄100 homer (Ezek. 45:11). Used by Israel in themeasurement and collection of manna in the wilderness (Exod.16:16–36) and thus roughly equivalent to a person’s dailyfood ration.

Saton.Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1 seah. Themeasurement of flour in Jesus’ parable of the kingdom of heaven(Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:21).

Seah.Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄3 ephah,or 1 saton. Used to measure flour, grain, seed, and other various drygoods (e.g., 2Kings 7:1; 1Sam. 25:18).

LiquidVolume

Bath.Approximately 6 gallons, or 22.7 liters. Equivalent to 1 ephah, whichtypically was used for measurements of dry capacity. Used in themeasurement of water (1Kings 7:26), oil (1Kings 5:11),and wine (2Chron. 2:10; Isa. 5:10).

Batos.Approximately 8 gallons, or 30.3 liters. A Greek transliteration ofthe Hebrew word bath(see above). A measure of oil (Luke 16:6).

Hin.Approximately 4 quarts (1gallon, or 3.8 liters). Equivalent to1⁄6 bath and 12 logs. Used in the measurement of water (Ezek.4:11), oil (Ezek. 46:5), and wine (Num. 28:14).

Log.Approximately 1⁄3 quart, or 0.3 liter. Equivalent to 1⁄72bath and 1⁄12 hin. Mentioned five times in Scripture,specifically used to measure oil (Lev. 14:10–24).

Metretes.Approximately 10 gallons, or 37.8 liters. Used in the measurement ofwater at the wedding feast (John 2:6).

It is difficult to imagine a world without consistentmetrological systems. Society’s basic structures, from economyto law, require a uniform and accurate method for measuring time,distances, weights, volumes, and so on. In today’s world,technological advancements allow people to measure various aspects ofthe universe with incredible accuracy—from nanometers tolight-years, milligrams to kilograms.

Themetrological systems employed in biblical times span the sameconcepts as our own modern-day systems: weight, linear distance, andvolume or capacity. However, the systems of weights and measurementsemployed during the span of biblical times were not nearly asaccurate or uniform as the modern units employed today. Preexistingweight and measurement systems existed in the contextual surroundingsof both the OT and the NT authors and thus heavily influenced thesystems employed by the Israelite nation as well as the NT writers.There was great variance between the different standards usedmerchant to merchant (Gen. 23:16), city to city, region to region,time period to time period, even despite the commands to use honestscales and honest weights (Lev. 19:35–36; Deut. 25:13–15;Prov. 11:1; 16:11; 20:23; Ezek. 45:10).

Furthermore,inconsistencies and contradictions exist within the written recordsas well as between archaeological specimens. In addition, significantdifferences are found between preexilic and postexilic measurementsin the biblical texts, and an attempt at merging dry capacity andliquid volume measurements further complicated the issue. This is tobe expected, especially when we consider modern-dayinconsistencies—for example, 1 US liquid pint= 0.473liters, while 1 US dry pint= 0.550 liters. Thus, all modernequivalents given below are approximations, and even the bestestimates have a margin of error of + 5percent or more.

Weights

Weightsin biblical times were carried in a bag or a satchel (Deut. 25:13;Prov. 16:11; Mic. 6:11) and were stones, usually carved into variousanimal shapes for easy identification. Their side or flat bottom wasinscribed with the associated weight and unit of measurement.Thousands of historical artifacts, which differ by significantamounts, have been discovered by archaeologists and thus have greatlycomplicated the work of determining accurate modern-day equivalents.

Beka.Approximately 1⁄5 ounce, or 5.6 grams. Equivalent to 10 gerahsor ½ the sanctuary shekel (Exod. 38:26). Used to measuremetals and goods such as gold (Gen. 24:22).

Gerah.1⁄50 ounce, or 0.56 grams. Equivalent to 1⁄10 beka, 1⁄20shekel (Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25).

Litra.Approximately 12 ounces, or 340 grams. A Roman measure of weight.Used only twice in the NT (John 12:3; 19:39). The precursor to themodern British pound.

Mina.Approximately 1¼ pounds, or 0.56 kilograms. Equivalent to 50shekels. Used to weigh gold (1Kings 10:17; Ezra 2:69), silver(Neh. 7:71–72), and other goods. The prophet Ezekiel redefinedthe proper weight: “Theshekel is to consist of twentygerahs. Twenty shekels plus twenty-five shekels plus fifteen shekelsequal one mina” (Ezek. 45:12). Before this redefinition, therewere arguably 50 shekels per mina. In Jesus’ parable of theservants, he describes the master entrusting to his three servantsvarying amounts—10 minas, 5 minas, 1 mina—implying amonetary value (Luke 19:11–24), probably of either silver orgold. One mina was equivalent to approximately three months’wages for a laborer.

Pim.Approximately 1⁄3 ounce, or 9.3 grams. Equivalent to 2⁄3shekel. Referenced only once in the Scriptures (1Sam. 13:21).

Shekel.Approximately 2⁄5 ounce, or 11 grams. Equivalent toapproximately 2 bekas. The shekel is the basic unit of weightmeasurement in Israelite history, though its actual weight variedsignificantly at different historical points. Examples include the“royal shekel” (2Sam. 14:26), the “commonshekel” (2Kings 7:1), and the “sanctuary shekel,”which was equivalent to 20 gerahs (e.g., Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25;Num. 3:47). Because it was used to weigh out silver or gold, theshekel also functioned as a common monetary unit in the NT world.

Talent.Approximately 75 pounds, or 34 kilograms. Equivalent to approximately60 minas. Various metals were weighed using talents: gold (Exod.25:39; 37:24; 1Chron. 20:2), silver (Exod. 38:27; 1Kings20:39; 2Kings 5:22), and bronze (Exod. 38:29). This probably isderived from the weight of a load that a man could carry.

Table12. Biblical Weights and Measures and Their Modern Equivalents:

Weights

Beka– 10 geraahs; ½ shekel = 1/5 ounce = 5.6 grams

Gerah– 1/10 beka; 1/20 shekel = 1/50 ounce = 0.56 grams

Litra– 12 ounces = 340 grams

Mina– 50 shekels = 1 ¼ pounds = 0.56 kilograms

Pim– 2/3 shekel = 1/3 ounce = 9.3 grams

Shekel– 2 bekas; 20 gerahs = 2/5 ounce = 11 grams

Talent– 60 minas = 75 pounds = 34 kilograms

Linearmeasurements

Cubit– 6 handbreadths = 18 inches = 45.7 centimeters

Day’sjourney = 20-25 miles = 32-40 kilometerse

Fingerbreadth– ¼ handbreadth = ¾ inch = 1.9 centimeterse

Handbreadth– 1/6 cubit = 3 inches = 7.6 centimeters

Milion– 1 mile = 1.6 kilometers

Orguia– 1/100 stadion = 5 feet 11 inches = 1.8 meters

Reed/rod– 108 inches = 274 centimeters

Sabbathday’s journey – 2,000 cubits = ¾ mile = 1.2kilometers

Span– 3 handbreadths = 9 inches = 22.8 centimeters

Stadion– 100 orguiai = 607 feet = 185 meters

Capacity

Cab– 1 omer = ½ gallon = 1.9 liters

Choinix– ¼ gallon = 0.9 liters

Cor– 1 homer; 10 ephahs = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Ephah– 10 omers; 1/10 homer = 3/5 bushel; 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Homer– 10 ephahs; 1 cor = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Koros– 10 bushels; 95 gallons – 360 liters

Omer– 1/10 ephah; 1/100 homer = 2 quarts = 1.9 liters

Saton– 1 seah = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

Seah– 1/3 ephah; 1 saton = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

LiquidVolume

Bath– 1 ephah = 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Batos– 8 gallons = 30.3 liters

Hin– 1/6 bath; 12 logs = 1 gallon; 4 quarts = 3.8 liters

Log– 1/72 bath; 1/12 hin = 1/3 quart = 0.3 liters

Metretes– 10 gallons = 37.8 literes

LinearMeasurements

Linearmeasurements were based upon readily available natural measurementssuch as the distance between the elbow and the hand or between thethumb and the little finger. While convenient, this method ofmeasurement gave rise to significant inconsistencies.

Cubit.Approximately 18 inches, or 45.7 centimeters. Equivalent to 6handbreadths. The standard biblical measure of linear distance, asthe shekel is the standard measurement of weight. The distance fromthe elbow to the outstretched fingertip. Used to describe height,width, length (Exod. 25:10), distance (John 21:8), and depth (Gen.7:20). Use of the cubit is ancient. For simple and approximateconversion into modern units, divide the number of cubits in half formeters, then multiply the number of meters by 3 to arrive at feet.

1cubit = 2 spans = 6 handbreadths = 24 fingerbreadths

Day’sjourney.An approximate measure of distance equivalent to about 20–25miles, or 32–40 kilometers. Several passages reference a singleor multiple days’ journey as a description of the distancetraveled or the distance between two points: “a day’sjourney” (Num. 11:31; 1Kings 19:4), “a three-dayjourney” (Gen. 30:36; Exod. 3:18; 8:27; Jon. 3:3), “sevendays” (Gen. 31:23), and “eleven days” (Deut. 1:2).After visiting Jerusalem for Passover, Jesus’ parents journeyedfor a day (Luke 2:44) before realizing that he was not with them.

Fingerbreadth.The width of the finger, or ¼ of a handbreadth, approximately¾ inch, or 1.9 centimeters. The fingerbreadth was thebeginning building block of the biblical metrological system forlinear measurements. Used only once in the Scriptures, to describethe bronze pillars (Jer. 52:21).

Handbreadth.Approximately 3 inches, or 7.6 centimeters. Equivalent to 1/6 cubit,or four fingerbreadths. Probably the width at the base of the fourfingers. A short measure of length, thus compared to a human’sbrief life (Ps. 39:5). Also the width of the rim on the bread table(Exod. 25:25) and the thickness of the bronze Sea (1Kings7:26).

Milion.Translated “mile” in Matt. 5:41. Greek transliteration ofRoman measurement mille passuum, “a thousand paces.”

Orguia.Approximately 5 feet 11 inches, or 1.8 meters. Also translated as“fathom.” A Greek unit of measurement. Probably thedistance between outstretched fingertip to fingertip. Used to measurethe depth of water (Acts 27:28).

Reed/rod.Approximately 108 inches, or 274 centimeters. This is also a generalterm for a measuring device rather than a specific linear distance(Ezek. 40:3, 5; 42:16–19; Rev. 11:1; 21:15).

Sabbathday’s journey.Approximately ¾ mile, or 1.2 kilometers (Acts 1:12). About2,000 cubits.

Span.Approximately 9 inches, or 22.8 centimeters. Equivalent to threehandbreadths, and ½ cubit. The distance from outstretchedthumb tip to little-finger tip. The length and width of the priest’sbreastpiece (Exod. 28:16).

Stadion.Approximately 607 feet, or 185 meters. Equivalent to 100 orguiai.Used in the measurement of large distances (Matt. 14:24; Luke 24:13;John 6:19; 11:18; Rev. 14:20; 21:16).

LandArea

Seed.The size of a piece of land could also be measured on the basis ofhow much seed was required to plant that field (Lev. 27:16; 1Kings18:32).

Yoke.Fields and lands were measured using logical, available means. Inbiblical times, this meant the amount of land a pair of yoked animalscould plow in one day (1Sam. 14:14; Isa. 5:10).

Capacity

Cab.Approximately ½ gallon, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1 omer.Mentioned only once in the Scriptures, during the siege of Samaria(2Kings 6:25).

Choinix.Approximately ¼ gallon, or 0.9 liters. A Greek measurement,mentioned only once in Scripture (Rev. 6:6).

Cor.Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equal to thehomer, and to 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularlyof flour and grains (1Kings 4:22; 1Kings 5:11; 2Chron.2:10; 27:5; Ezra 7:22). In the LXX, cor is also a measure of liquidvolume, particularly oil (1Kings 5:11; 2Chron. 2:10; Ezra45:14).

Ephah.Approximately 3⁄5 bushel (6 gallons, or 22.7 liters).Equivalent to 10 omers, or 1⁄10 homer. Used for measuring flourand grains (e.g., Exod. 29:40; Lev. 6:20). Isaiah prophesied a day ofreduced agricultural yield, when a homer of seed would produce onlyan ephah of grain (Isa. 5:10). The ephah was equal in size to thebath (Ezek. 45:11), which typically was used for liquid measurements.

Homer.Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equivalent to1 cor, or 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularly ofvarious grains (Lev. 27:16; Isa. 5:10; Ezek. 45:11, 13–14; Hos.3:2). This is probably a natural measure of the load that a donkeycan carry, in the range of 90 kilograms. There may have existed adirect link between capacity and monetary value, given Lev. 27:16:“fifty shekels of silver to a homer of barley seed.” Alogical deduction of capacity and cost based on known equivalencesmight look something like this:

1homer = 1 mina; 1 ephah = 5 shekels; 1 omer = 1 beka

Koros.Approximately 10 bushels (95 gallons, or 360 liters). A Greek measureof grain (Luke 16:7).

Omer.Approximately 2 quarts, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄10ephah, 1⁄100 homer (Ezek. 45:11). Used by Israel in themeasurement and collection of manna in the wilderness (Exod.16:16–36) and thus roughly equivalent to a person’s dailyfood ration.

Saton.Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1 seah. Themeasurement of flour in Jesus’ parable of the kingdom of heaven(Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:21).

Seah.Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄3 ephah,or 1 saton. Used to measure flour, grain, seed, and other various drygoods (e.g., 2Kings 7:1; 1Sam. 25:18).

LiquidVolume

Bath.Approximately 6 gallons, or 22.7 liters. Equivalent to 1 ephah, whichtypically was used for measurements of dry capacity. Used in themeasurement of water (1Kings 7:26), oil (1Kings 5:11),and wine (2Chron. 2:10; Isa. 5:10).

Batos.Approximately 8 gallons, or 30.3 liters. A Greek transliteration ofthe Hebrew word bath(see above). A measure of oil (Luke 16:6).

Hin.Approximately 4 quarts (1gallon, or 3.8 liters). Equivalent to1⁄6 bath and 12 logs. Used in the measurement of water (Ezek.4:11), oil (Ezek. 46:5), and wine (Num. 28:14).

Log.Approximately 1⁄3 quart, or 0.3 liter. Equivalent to 1⁄72bath and 1⁄12 hin. Mentioned five times in Scripture,specifically used to measure oil (Lev. 14:10–24).

Metretes.Approximately 10 gallons, or 37.8 liters. Used in the measurement ofwater at the wedding feast (John 2:6).

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesusfollowers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christembodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in humanhistory.

Introduction

Name.Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title“Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). Thename “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was acommon male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ”is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh(“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually werenamed after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry ofJesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah(Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources.From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesusconstitute the turning point in human history. From a historicalperspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed,both Christian and non-Christian first-century and earlysecond-century literary sources are extant, but they are few innumber. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initialresistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Romanhistorian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,”since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailingworldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sourcestherefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christiansources.

TheNT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry ofJesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels),and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four SourceHypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as asource by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (fromGerman Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their ownindividual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additionalsources.

Theearly church tried to put together singular accounts, so-calledGospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionitesrepresents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Anotherharmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was producedaround AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning thelife of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, thePauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John.Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come,God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4).The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was apassion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. Thefirst extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’sletters (1Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognizedfrom the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1Cor.15:13–14).

Amongnon-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in aletter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governorof Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentionsChristians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about thehistory of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius,wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Romebecause of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Somescholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of“Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

TheJewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a storyabout the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus(Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in adifferent part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus isthe Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). Themajority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic butheavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source,the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but thesereferences are very late and of little historical value.

NoncanonicalGospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospelof Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel ofJames, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, theEgerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these maycontain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most partthey are late and unreliable.

Jesus’Life

Birthand childhood. TheGospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehemduring the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesuswas probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’sdeath (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of avirginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18;Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governorQuirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place inBethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at thetime of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars.Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to eitherconfirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must bedetermined on the basis of one’s view regarding the generalreliability of the Gospel tradition.

Onthe eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keepingwith the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus”(Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home ofhis parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel ofLuke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth instrength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke alsocontains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesuswas born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered atemple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford tosacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, ormetal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth wasnot a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground.Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently commonfirst-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Cananything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesuswas also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy weresurely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnantbefore her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only theintervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal(Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem,far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinshiphospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay withdistant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcomebecause of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Maryhad to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feedingtrough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later inNazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son”(Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming himas one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewiserejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucifyhim!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21;John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled(Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter,vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71;Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His ownsiblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamedof his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his motherinto the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27)rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism,temptation, and start of ministry.After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring tohim as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instantministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into thewilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11;Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that thetemptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Lukeidentify three specific temptations by the devil, though their orderfor the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesuswas tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine interventionafter jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’skingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation,quoting Scripture in response.

Matthewand Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum inGalilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13;Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirtyyears of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity orperhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of theLevites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning ofJesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples andthe sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’public ministry: chronology.Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28,and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple hadbeen forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as thetemple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out themoney changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding andexpansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during theeighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry ofJohn the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius(Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From thesedates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of thereign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset ofJesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

TheGospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast inJohn 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended overthree or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a halfyears. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came ona Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death wastherefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and hisJudean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry inGalilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galileanministry.The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and aroundGalilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that thekingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment ofprophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ firstteaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30);the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for hiscalling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection andsuffering.

AllGospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in hisGalilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioningof the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers isrecorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministryis the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, inparticular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synopticsfocus on healings and exorcisms.

DuringJesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with hisidentity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority(Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family(3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner ofBeelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesustold parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growingkingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humblebeginnings (4:1–32).

TheSynoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful.No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority orability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized manydemons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fedfive thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark6:48–49).

Inthe later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew andtraveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are notwritten with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns toGalilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey toJerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fearresolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee,where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ discipleswith lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed thePharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents(7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demandinga sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, whoconfessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus didprovide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesuswithdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician womanrequested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sentonly to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans hadlong resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality thatallotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere“crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Eventhe dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,”Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-muteman in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’sconfession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The citywas the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judeanministry.Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry ashe resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually ledto his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem intothree phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27).The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of thejourney. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, andthe demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem(Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45;Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journeytoward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvationand judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase ofthe journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are themain themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Socialconflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposteinteractions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel(Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomicfeathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who hadlittle value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16;Luke 18:15–17).

PassionWeek, death, and resurrection. Eachof the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with thecrowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Lukedescribes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during whichJesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

InJerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17).Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because thewhole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “beganlooking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segmentof Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions(12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation(12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s owndestruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, JudasIscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’arrest (14:10–11).

Atthe Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a newcovenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29;Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned thedisciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and laterhe prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agonyand submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42;Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial,crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15;Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18).Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission bymaking disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8)and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return(Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

TheIdentity of Jesus Christ

Variousaspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels,depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses toJesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning andexamining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70;23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritualrealm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). AtJesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved(Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus wastransfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voiceaffirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and otherguards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf.Mark 15:39).

Miracleworker.In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers werepart of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs andmiracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of Godover various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature,and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus hisidentity.

Nochallenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miraclesand signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed astorm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13;Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised thedead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16;8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculousfeedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44;8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked onwater (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

ThePharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterousgeneration asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4).The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—hisdeath and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice,taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher.Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbisor Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguishedhim was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28,32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathereddisciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to joinhim in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4;Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesusused a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables(Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35;21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18;12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15,19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33),used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons(Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Majorthemes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the costof discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, hisidentity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings,observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’skingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come tofulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. Theseconflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions inwhich the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus usedthese interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gavereplies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’swill, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels,Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. TheSynoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations ofviolating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answersto such accusations often echoed the essence of 1Sam. 15:22,“To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as“I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). Anoverall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’public teaching.

TheSermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than”ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outwardobedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equalto murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfullyamounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revengingwrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesusvalued compassion above traditions and customs, even those containedwithin the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter ofthe law.

Jesus’teachings found their authority in the reality of God’simminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9),necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence(Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—thefamily of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged,“Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness”(Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among propheticteachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his owngrounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt.10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examplesof a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include theoccasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesusused an aphorism in response to accusations about his associationswith sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor,but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners”(Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking thelaw, he pointed to an OT exception (1Sam. 21:1–6) todeclare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also appliedthe “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, sincewomen suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly becameoutcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, andeschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internaltransformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring onlove (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus tobless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesustaught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father isperfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as yourFather is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” onesin Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful,and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godlycharacter.

Somescholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic”for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end oftime. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of histeachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words willnever pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah.The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore theglories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability wascommon in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babyloniancaptivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace andprotection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer,one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice andrighteousness (2Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16;Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2;Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whosesuffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle ofexpectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianicimages in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearerscalled him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt.12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesusas the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). Inline with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesusfocused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regenerationthrough his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatologicalprophet.Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewishapocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God tointervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom ofGod. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ propheciesconcerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2,15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). Inaddition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representativeof the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30).Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images ofcoming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt.24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

SufferingSon of God.Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth wasparadigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa.61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so herevealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptlyportrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ ownteachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13,31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “TheSon of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give hislife as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly careerended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewishcomponents (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65;15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24;18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt.27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror,bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyonehanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with acrucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed asa lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referredto this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed ofthe gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

ExaltedLord.Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23;20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46).The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of JesusChrist indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday(Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) andrisen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus waswitnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples(Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on theroad to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appearedto as many as five hundred others (1Cor. 15:6). He appeared inbodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43;John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesusascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

Asmuch as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory overdeath was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost,Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises(Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31).Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through hisresurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his lifeand work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him asLord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31;Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification(Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and hisintercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascensionsignaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return inglory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt.19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom(1Cor. 15:24; 2Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’Purpose and Community

Inthe Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, whopreaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent(4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter thekingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, onemade in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

Inthe prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identityof Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidingsof salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of thegospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Lukelikewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose ofJesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is thekingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John theBaptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesusanswered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen andheard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosyare cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good newsis proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, aspresented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery ofsight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God alreadypresent in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20;8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

Inthe Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signsthroughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, hisidentity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah,the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundantlife is lived out in community.

Inthe Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community ofGod (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but theycontinued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout hisministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a callto loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38;Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50;Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock Iwill build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call tocommunity. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community wasreplaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’sfamily—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained byadopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through theinitiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16;10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

TheQuests for the Historical Jesus

Thequest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from ahistorical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary byscholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding ofthe church.

Thebeginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecturenotes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously.Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus thatrejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. Heconcluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles,prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’sconclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry ofrationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continuedthroughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “firstquest” for the historical Jesus.

In1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of theHistorical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: EineGeschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of thefirst quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-centuryresearchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming thehistorical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching aninoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’sconclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest.Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was aneschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days inJerusalem.

Withthe demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as RudolfBultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historicalJesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’sformer students launched what has come to be known as the “newquest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). Thisquest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was stilldominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels islargely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

Asthe rebuilding years of the post–World WarII era wanedand scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeologicalfinds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on towhat has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeksespecially to research and understand Jesus in his social andcultural setting.

The biblical corpus known as the Pentateuch consists of thefirst five books of the OT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, andDeuteronomy. The word “Pentateuch” comes from two Greekwords (penta [“five”] and teuchos [“scroll case,book”]) and is a designation attested in the early churchfathers. The collection is also commonly known as the “FiveBooks of Moses,” “the Law of Moses,” or simply the“Law,” reflecting the traditional Jewish name “Torah,”meaning “law” or “instruction.” The Torah isthe first of three major sections that comprise the Hebrew Bible(Torah, Nebiim, Ketubim [Law, Prophets, Writings]); thus for bothJewish and Christian traditions it represents the introduction to theBible as a whole as well as its interpretive foundation.

TheEnglish names for the books of the Pentateuch came from the LatinVulgate, based on the Greek Septuagint. These appellations are mainlydescriptive of their content. Genesis derives from “generations”or “origin,” Exodus means “going out,”Leviticus represents priestly (Levitical) service, Numbers refers tothe censuses taken in the book, and Deuteronomy indicates “secondlaw” because of Moses’ rehearsal of God’s commands(see Deut. 17:18). The Hebrew designations derive from opening wordsin each book. Beresh*t (Genesis) means “in the beginning”;Shemot (Exodus), “[these are] the names”; Wayyiqra’(Leviticus), “and he called”; Bemidbar (Numbers), “inthe desert”; and Debarim (Deuteronomy), “[these are] thewords.”

Referringto the Pentateuch as “Torah” or the “Law”reflects the climactic reception of God’s commands at MountSinai, which were to govern Israel’s life and worship in thepromised land, including their journey to get there. However, callingthe Pentateuch the “Law” can be a bit misleading becausethere are relatively few passages that simply list a set of commands,and all law passages are set within a broad narrative. The Pentateuchis a grand story that begins on a universal scale with the creationof the cosmos and ends on the plains of Moab as the readeranticipates the fulfillment of God’s plan to redeem a fallenworld through his chosen people. The books offer distinct qualitiesand content, but they are also inherently dependent upon one another,as the narrative remains unbroken through the five volumes. Genesisends with Jacob’s family in Egypt, and, though many years havepassed, this is where Exodus begins. Leviticus outlines cultic lifeat the tabernacle (constructed at the end of Exodus) and even beginswithout a clear subject (“And he called...”),which requires the reader to supply “the Lord” from thelast verse of Exodus. Numbers begins with an account of Israel’sfighting men as the nation prepares to leave Sinai, and Deuteronomyis Moses’ farewell address to the nation on the cusp of thepromised land.

Authorshipand Composition

Althoughthe Pentateuch is technically an anonymous work, Jewish and Christiantradition attributes its authorship to Moses, the main figure of thestory from Exodus to Deuteronomy. The arguments for attributing theauthorship of the Pentateuch to Moses come from internal evidencewithin both Testaments. That Moses is responsible for at leastportions of the Pentateuch is suggested by references to his explicitliterary activity reflected within the narrative itself (Exod. 17:14;24:4; 34:28; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9, 22, 24), if not implied invarious literary formulas such as “the Lord said to Moses”(e.g., Exod. 39:1, 7, 21; Lev. 4:1; 11:1; 13:1; Num. 1:1; 2:1).Mosaic authorship receives support from the historical books, whichuse terms such as “the Book of the Law of Moses” invarious forms and references in the preexilic history (Josh. 8:30–35;23:6; 2Kings 14:6) as well as the postexilic history (e.g.,2Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1). The same titles are usedby NT authors (e.g., Mark 12:26; Luke 24:44; John 1:45), evenreferring to the Pentateuch simply by the name “Moses” atvarious points (e.g., Luke 16:29; 24:27; 2Cor. 3:15).

Evenwith these examples, nowhere does the text explicitly state thatMoses is responsible for the entire compilation of the Pentateuch orthat he penned it with his own hand. Rather, a number of factorspoint to a later hand at work: Moses’ death and burial arereferenced (Deut. 34), the conquest of Canaan is referred to as past(Deut. 2:12), and there is evidence that the names of people andplaces were updated and explained for later generations (e.g., “Dan”in Gen. 14:14; cf. Josh. 19:47; Judg. 18:28b–29). Based onthese factors, it is reasonable to believe that the Pentateuchunderwent editorial alteration as it was preserved within Jewish lifeand took its final shape after Moses’ lifetime.

Overthe last century, the Documentary Hypothesis has dominated academicdiscussion of the Pentateuch’s composition. This theory wascrystallized by Julius Wellhausen in his Prolegomena to the Historyof Israel in the late nineteenth century and posits that thePentateuch originated from a variety of ancient sources derived fromdistinct authors and time periods that have been transmitted andjoined through a long and complex process. Traditionally thesedocuments are identified as J, E, D, and P. The J source is adocument authored by the “Yahwist” (German, Jahwist) inJudah around 840 BC and is so called because the name “Yahweh”is used frequently in its text. The E source stands for “Elohist”because of its preference for the divine title “Elohim”and was composed in Israel around 700 BC. The D source stands for“Deuteronomy” because it reflects material found in thatbook; it was composed sometime around Josiah’s reform in 621BC. The P document reflects material that priests would be concernedwith in the postexilic time period, approximately 500 BC. This theoryand its related forms stem from the scholarly concern over variousliterary characteristics such as the use of divine names; doubletsand duplications in the text; observable patterns of style,terminology, and themes; and alleged discrepancies in facts,descriptions, and geographic or historical perspective.

Variousdocumentary theories of composition have flourished over the lastcentury of pentateuchal scholarship and still have many adherents.However, lack of scholarly agreement about the dating and characterof the sources and the rise of other literary approaches to the texthave many conservative and liberal scholars calling into question theaccuracy and even interpretive benefit of the source theories.Moreover, if the literary observations used to create sourcedistinctions can be explained in other ways, then the DocumentaryHypothesis is significantly undermined.

Inits canonical form, the pentateuchal narrative combines artisticprose, poetry, and law to tell a dramatic history spanning thousandsof years. One could divide the story into six major sections:primeval history (Gen. 1–11), the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50),liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18), Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num.10:10), wilderness journey (Num. 10:11–36:13), and Moses’farewell (Deuteronomy).

PrimevalHistory (Gen. 1–11)

Itis possible to divide Genesis into two parts based upon subjectmatter: the origin of creation and humankind’s call, fall, andpunishment (chaps 1–11), and the origin of a family that wouldbecome God’s conduit of salvation and blessing for the world(chaps. 12–50).

Theprimeval history comprises essentially the first eleven chapters ofGenesis, ending with the genealogy of Abraham in 11:26. Strictlyspeaking, 11:27 begins the patriarchal section with the sixthinstance of the toledot formula found in Genesis, referencingAbraham’s father, Terah. The Hebrew phrase ’elleh toledot(“these are the generations of”) occurs in eleven placesin Genesis and reflects a deliberate structural marker that one mayuse to divide the book into distinct episodes (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1;11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2).

Genesisas we know it exhibits two distinct creation accounts in its firsttwo chapters. Although critical scholars contend that the differingaccounts reflect contradictory stories and different authors, it isjust as convenient to recognize that the two stories vary in styleand some content because they attempt to accomplish different aims.The first account, 1:1–2:3, is an artistic, poetic,symmetrical, and “heavenly” view of creation by atranscendent God, who spoke creation into being. In the secondaccount, 2:4–25, God is immanently involved with creation as heis present in a garden, breathes life into Adam’s nostrils,dialogues and problem-solves, fashions Eve from Adam’s side,and bestows warnings and commands. Both perspectives are foundationalfor providing an accurate view of God’s interaction withcreation in the rest of Scripture.

Asone progresses through chapters 1–11, the story quickly changesfrom what God has established as “very good” to discord,sin, and shame. Chapter 3 reflects the “fall” of humanityas Adam and Eve sin in eating from the forbidden tree in directdisobedience to God. The serpent shrewdly deceives the first couple,and thus all three incur God’s curses, which extend tounlimited generations. Sin that breaks the vertical relationshipbetween God and humanity intrinsically leads to horizontal strifebetween humans. Sin and disunity on the earth only intensify as onemoves from the murder story of Cain and Abel in chapter 4 to theflood in chapters 5–9. Violence, evil, and disorder have sopervaded the earth that God sends a deluge to wipe out all livingthings, save one righteous man and his family, along with an ark fullof animals. God makes the first covenant recorded in the biblicalnarrative with Noah (6:18), promising to save him from the flood ashe commands Noah to build an ark and gather food for survival. Noahfulfills all that God has commanded (6:22; 7:5), and God remembershis promise (8:1). This is the prototypical salvation story for therest of Scripture.

Chapter9 reflects a new start for humanity and all living things as thecreation mandate to “be fruitful and increase in number; fillthe earth and subdue it,” first introduced in 1:28, is restatedalong with the reminder that humankind is made in God’s image(1:27). Bearing the image involves new responsibilities andstipulations in the postdiluvian era (9:2–6). There will beenmity between humans and animals, animals are now appropriate food,and yet lifeblood will be specially revered. God still requiresaccountability for just and discriminate shedding of blood andorderly relationships, as he has proved in the deluge, but now herelinquishes this responsibility to humankind. In return, Godpromises never to destroy all flesh again, and he will set therainbow in the sky as a personal reminder. Like the covenant withNoah in 6:18, the postdiluvian covenant involves humankind fulfillingcommands (9:1–7) and God remembering his covenant (9:8–17),specially termed “everlasting” (9:16).

Theprimeval commentary on humankind’s unabating sinful condition(e.g., 6:5; 8:21) proves true as Noah becomes drunk and naked and hisson Ham (father of Canaan) shames him by failing to conceal hisfather’s negligence. Instead of multiplying, filling, andsubduing the earth as God has intended, humankind collaborates tomake a name for itself by building a sort of stairway to heavenwithin a special city (11:4). God foils such haughty plans byscattering the people across the earth and confusing their language.Expressed in an orderly chiastic structure, the story of the tower ofBabel demonstrates that God condescends (11:5) to set things straightwith humanity.

Patriarchs(Gen. 12–50)

Althoughthe primeval history is foundational for understanding the rest ofthe Bible, more space in Genesis is devoted to the patriarchalfigures Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In general, the Abrahamicnarrative spans chapters 12–25, the story of Isaac serves as atransition to the Jacob cycle of chapters 25–37, and the Josephnarrative finishes the book of Genesis in chapters 37–50.

Thetransition from the primeval history to the patriarchs (11:27–32)reveals how Abraham, the father of Israel, moves from the east andsettles in Harran as the family ventures to settle in Canaan. InHarran, Abraham receives the call of God’s redemptive plan,which reverberates through Scripture. God will bless him with land,make him a great nation, grant him special favor, and use him as aconduit of blessings to the world (12:1–3). In 11:30 is theindication that the barrenness of Abraham’s wife (Sarah)relates to the essence of God’s magnificent promises. How onebecomes great in name and number, secures enemy territory, and is tobless all peoples without a descendant becomes the compellingquestion of the Abrahamic narrative. The interchange betweenAbraham’s faith in God and his attempts to contrive covenantfulfillment colors the entire narrative leading up to chapter 22. Itis there that Abraham’s faith is ultimately put to the test asGod asks him to sacrifice the promised son, Isaac. Abraham passesGod’s faith test, and a ram is provided to take Isaac’splace. This everlasting covenant that was previously sealed by thesign of circumcision is climactically procured for future generationsthrough Abraham’s exemplary obedience (22:16–18; cf.15:1–21; 17:1–27).

Thepatriarchal stories that follow show that the Abrahamic promises arerenewed with subsequent generations (see 26:3–4; 28:13–14)and survive various threats to fulfillment. The story of Isaac servesmainly as a bridge to the Jacob cycle, as he exists primarily as apassive character in relation to Abraham and Jacob.

Deception,struggle, rivalry, and favoritism characterize the Jacob narrative,as first exemplified in the jostling of twin boys in Rebekah’swomb (25:22). Jacob supplants his twin brother, Esau, for thefirstborn’s blessing and birthright. He flees to Paddan Aram(northern Mesopotamia), marries two sisters, takes their maidservantsas concubines, and has eleven children, followed by a falling-outwith his father-in-law. Jacob’s struggle for God’sblessing that began with Esau comes to a head in his wrestlingencounter with God at Peniel. Ultimately, Jacob emerges victoriousand receives God’s blessing and a name change, “Israel”(“one who struggles with God”). Throughout the Jacobstory, God demonstrates his faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenantand reiterates the promises to Jacob, most notably at Bethel (chaps.28; 35). The interpersonal strife of Jacob’s life is thusenveloped within a message of reconciliation not just with Esau(chap. 33) but ultimately with God. The reader learns from theepisodes in Jacob’s life that although God works through thelives of weak and failing people, his promises for Israel remainsecure.

AlthoughJacob and his family are already living in Canaan, God intends forthem to move to Egypt and grow into a powerful nation beforefulfilling their conquest of the promised land (see 15:13–16).The story of Joseph explains how the family ends up in Egypt at theclose of Genesis. Joseph is specially loved by his father, whichelicits significant jealousy from his brothers, who sell him off tosome nomads and fabricate the alibi that he has been killed by a wildbeast. Joseph winds up in Pharaoh’s household and eventuallybecomes his top official. When famine strikes Canaan years later,Joseph’s brothers go to Egypt to purchase food from the royalcourt, and Joseph reveals his identity to them in an emotionalreunion. Jacob’s entire family moves to Egypt to live for atime in prosperity under Joseph’s care. The Joseph storyillustrates the mysterious relationship of human decision and divinesovereignty (50:20).

Liberationfrom Egypt (Exod. 1–18)

Genesisshows how Abraham develops into a large family. Exodus shows how thisfamily becomes a nation—enslaved, freed, and then taught theways of God. Although it appears that Exodus continues a rivetingstory of God’s chosen people, it is actually the identity andpower of God that take center stage.

Manyyears have passed since Joseph’s family arrived in Egypt. TheHebrews’ good standing in Egypt has also diminished as theirmultiplication and fruitfulness during the intervening period—justas God had promised Abraham (Gen. 17:4–8)—became anational threat to the Egyptians. Abraham’s family will spendtime in Egyptian slavery before being liberated with many possessionsin hand (cf. Gen. 15:13–14).

Inthe book of Exodus the drama of suffering and salvation serves as thevehicle for God’s self-disclosure to a single man, Moses. Mosesis an Israelite of destiny even from birth, as he providentiallyavoids infant death and rises to power and influence in Pharaoh’shousehold. Moses never loses his passion for his own people, and hekills an Egyptian who was beating a fellow Hebrew. Moses flees toobscurity in the desert, where he meets God and his call to lead hispeople out of Egypt and to the promised land (3:7–8; 6:8). Likethe days of Noah’s salvation, God has remembered his covenantwith the patriarchs and responded to the groans of his people inEgypt (2:24; 6:4–5; cf. Gen. 8:1). God reveals himself, and hispersonal name “Yahweh” (“I am”), to Moses inthe great theophany of the burning bush at Mount Horeb (Sinai), thesame place where later he will receive God’s law. Moses doubtshis own ability to carry out the task of confronting Pharaoh andleading the exodus, but God foretells that many amazing signs andwonders not only will make the escape possible but also willultimately reveal the mighty nature of God to the Hebrews, Egypt, andpresumably the world (6:7; 7:5).

Thispromise of creating a nation of his people through deliverance issuccinctly conveyed in the classic covenant formula that findssignificance in the rest of the OT: “I will take you as my ownpeople, and I will be your God” (6:7). Wielding great powerover nature and at times even human decision, God “hardens”Pharaoh’s heart and sends ten plagues to demonstrate his favorfor his own people and wrath against their enemy nation. The tenthplague on the firstborn of all in Egypt provides the context for thePassover as God spares the firstborn of Israel in response to theplacement of sacrificial blood on the doorposts of their homes.Pharaoh persists in the attempt to overtake the Israelites in thedesert, where the power of God climaxes in parting the Red Sea (orSea of Reeds). The Israelites successfully pass through, buttheEgyptian army drowns in pursuit. This is the great salvationevent of the OT.

Thesong of praise for God’s deliverance (15:1–21) quicklyturns to cries of groaning in the seventy days following the exodusas the people of the nation, grumbling about their circ*mstances inthe desert, quickly demonstrate their fleeting trust in the one whohas saved them (Exod. 15:22–18:27). When a shortage of waterand food confronts the people, their faith in God’s care provesshallow, and they turn on Moses. Even though the special marks ofGod’s protection have been evident in the wilderness throughthe pillars of cloud and fire, the angel of God, the provision ofmanna and quail, water from the rock, and the leadership of Moses,the nation continually fails God’s tests of trust and obedience(16:4; cf. 17:2; 20:20). Yet God continues to endure with his peoplethrough the leadership of Moses.

Sinai(Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10)

Mostof the pentateuchal narrative takes place at Mount Sinai. It is therethat Israel receives national legislation and prescriptions for thetabernacle, the priesthood, feasts and festivals, and othercovenantal demands for living as God’s chosen people. Theeleven-month stay at Sinai takes the biblical reader through thecenter of the Pentateuch, covering approximately the last half ofExodus, all of Leviticus, and the first third of Numbers, before thenation leaves this sacred site and sojourns in the wilderness.Several key sections of the Pentateuch fall withinthe Sinaistory: the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17), the Book of the Covenant(Exod. 20:22–23:33), the tabernacle prescriptions (Exod.25–31), the tabernacle construction (Exod. 35–40), themanual on ritual worship (Lev. 1–7), and the Holiness Code(Lev. 17–27).

Theevents and instruction at Sinai are central to the Israelitereligious experience and reflect the third eternal covenant that Godestablishes in the Pentateuch—this time with Israel, wherebythe Sabbath is the sign (Exod. 31:16; cf. Noahic/rainbow covenant[Gen. 9:16] and the Abrahamic/circumcision covenant [Gen. 17:7, 13,19]). The offices of prophet and priest develop into clear view inthis portion of the Pentateuch. Moses exemplifies the dual propheticfunction of representing the people when speaking with God and, inturn, God when speaking to the people. The priesthood is bestowedupon Aaron and his descendants in Exodus and inaugurated within oneof the few narrative sections of Leviticus (Lev. 8–10). Thegiving of the law, the ark, the tabernacle, the priesthood, and theSabbath are all a part of God’s making himself “known”to Israel and the world, which is a constant theme in Exodus (see,e.g., 25:22; 29:43, 46; 31:13).

TheIsraelites’ stay at Sinai opens with one of the greatesttheophanies of the Bible: God speaks aloud to the people (Exod.19–20) and then is envisioned as a consuming fire (Exod. 24).After communicating the Ten Commandments (“ten words”)directly to the people (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4), Mosesmediates the rest of the detailed obligations that will govern thefuture life of the nation. The covenant is ratified in ceremonialfashion (Exod. 24), and the Israelites vow to fulfill all that hasbeen spoken. God expects Israel to be a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) withwhom he may dwell, but Moses descends Sinai only to find that theIsraelites have already violated the essence of the Decalogue byfashioning a golden calf to worship as that which delivered them fromEgypt (Exod. 32). This places Israel’s future and calling injeopardy, but Moses intercedes for his people, and God graciouslypromises to preserve the nation and abide with it in his mercy, evenwhile punishing the guilty. This becomes prototypical of God’srelationship with his people in the future (Exod. 34:6–7).

Exodusends with the consecration of the tabernacle and the descent of God’spresence there. With the tent of worship in order, the priesthood andits rituals can be officially established. Leviticus reflects divineinstructions for how a sinful people may live safely in closeproximity to God. Holy living involves dealing with sin andminimizing the need for atonement, purification, and restitution. Thesacrificial and worship system established in Leviticus is based on aworldview of order, perfection, and purity, which should characterizea people who are commanded, “Be holy because I, the Lord yourGod, am holy’ (Lev. 19:2; cf. 11:44–45; 20:26). Withthese rules in place, the Israelites can make final preparations todepart Sinai and move forward on their journey. Numbers 1–10spans a nineteen-day period of such activities as the Israelitesbegin to focus on dispossessing their enemies. These chapters reflecta census of fighting men, the priority of purity, the dedication ofthe tabernacle, and the observance of the Passover before commencingthe quest to Canaan.

WildernessJourney (Num. 10:11–36:13)

Therest of the book of Numbers covers the remainder of a forty-yearstretch of great peaks and valleys in the faith and future of thenation. Chapters 11–25 recount the various events that show theexodus generation’s lack of trust in God. Chapters 26–36reveal a more positive section whereby a new generation prepares forthe conquest. With the third section of Numbers framed by episodesinvolving the inheritance rights of Zelophehad’s daughters(27:1–11; 36:1–13), it is clear that the story has turnedtothe future possession of the land.

Afterthe departure from Sinai, the narrative consists of a number ofIsraelite complaints in the desert. The Israelites have grown tiredof manna and ironically crave the food of Egypt, which they recall asfree fish, fruits, and vegetables. Having forgotten the hardship oflife in slavery, about which they had cried out to God, now thenation is crying out for a lifestyle of old. Moses becomes sooverwhelmed with the complaints of the people that God providesseventy elders, who, to help shoulder the leadership burden, willreceive the same prophetic spirit given to Moses.

Inchapters 13–14 twelve spies are sent out from Kadesh Barnea toperuse Canaan, but the people’s lack of faith to procure theland from the mighty people there proves costly. This final exampleof distrust moves God to punish and purify the nation. Theunbelieving generation will die in the wilderness during a forty-yearperiod of wandering.

Thediscontent in the desert involves not only food and water but alsoleadership status. Moses’ own brother and sister resent hisspecial relationship with God and challenge his exclusive authority.Later, Aaron’s special high priesthood is threatened as anotherLevitical family (Korah) vies for preeminence. Through a sequence ofsigns and wonders, God makes it clear that Moses and Aaron haveexclusive roles in God’s economy. Due to the deaths related toKorah’s rebellion and the fruitless staffs that represent thetribes of Israel, the nation’s concern about sudden extinctionin the presence of a holy God is appeased through the eternalcovenant of priesthood granted to Aaron’s family (chap. 18). Heand the Levites, at the potential expense of their own lives and aspart of their priestly service, will be held accountable for keepingthe tabernacle pure of encroachers.

Evenafter the people’s significant rebellion and punishment, Godcontinues to prove his faithfulness to his word. Hope is restored forthe nation as the Abrahamic promises of blessing are rehearsed fromthe mouth of Balaam, a Mesopotamian seer. The Israelites will indeedone day be numerous (23:10), enjoy the presence of God (23:21), beblessed and protected (24:9), and have a kingly leader (24:17). Thiswonderful mountaintop experience of hope for the exodus generation istragically countered by an even greater event of apostasy in thesubsequent scene. Reminiscent of the incident of the golden calf,when pagan revelry in the camp had foiled Moses’ interactionwith God on Sinai, apostasy at the tabernacle undermines Balaam’soracles of covenant fulfillment. Fornication with Moabite women notonly joins the nation to a foreign god but also betrays God’sholiness at his place of dwelling. If not for the zeal of Aaron’sgrandson Phinehas, who puts an end to the sin, the ensuing plaguecould have finished the nation. For his righteous action, Phinehas isawarded an eternal priesthood and ensures a future for the nation andAaron’s priestly lineage.

Inchapter 26 a second census of fighting men indicates that the old,unbelieving exodus generation has officially died off (except forJoshua and Caleb), and God is proceeding with a new people. Goddispossesses the enemies of the new generation; reinstates the tribalboundaries of the land; reinstates rules concerning worship, service,and bloodshed; and places Joshua at the helm of leadership. Chapters26–36 mention no deaths or rebellions as the nationoptimistically ends its journey in Moab, just east of the promisedland.

Moses’Farewell (Deuteronomy)

Althoughone could reasonably move into the historical books at the end ofNumbers, much would be lost in overstepping Deuteronomy. Deuteronomypresents Moses’ farewell speeches as his final words to anation on the verge of Caanan. Moses’ speeches are best viewedas sermons motivating his people to embrace the Sinai covenant, lovetheir God, and choose life over death and blessings over cursings(30:19). Moses reviews the desert experience since Mount Horeb/Sinai(chaps. 1–4) and recapitulates God’s expectations forlawful living in the land (chaps. 5–26). The covenant code isrecorded on a scroll, is designated the “Book of the Law”(31:24–26), and is to be read and revered by the future king.Finally, Moses leads the nation in covenant renewal (chaps. 29–32)before the book finishes with an account of his death (chaps. 33–34),including tributes such as “since then, no prophet has risen inIsrael like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (34:10).

Deuteronomyreflects that true covenant faithfulness is achieved from a rightheart for God. If there were any previous doubts about the essence ofcovenant keeping, Moses eliminates such in Deuteronomy with thefrequent use of emotive terms. Loving God involves committing to himalone and spurning idols and foreign gods. The Ten Commandments(chap. 5) are not a list of stale requirements; they reflect thegreat Shema with the words “Love the Lord your God with allyour heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. Thesecommandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts”(6:5–6). God desires an unrivaled love from the nation, notcold and superficial religiosity.

Obedienceby the Israelites will incur material and spiritual blessing, whereasdisobedience ends in the loss of both. Although Moses stronglycommends covenant obedience, and the nation participates in acovenant-renewal ceremony (chap. 27), it is clear that in the futurethe Israelites will fail to uphold their covenant obligations andwill suffer the consequences (29:23; 30:1–4; 31:16–17).Yet Moses looks to a day when the command for circumcised hearts(10:16) will be fulfilled by the power of God himself (30:6). In thefuture a new king will arise from the nation (17:14–20) as wellas a prophet like Moses (18:15–22). Deuteronomy thusunderscores the extent of God’s own devotion to his patriarchalpromises despite the sinful nature of his people.

Formuch of the middle and end of the twentieth century, Deuteronomy hasreceived a significant amount of attention for its apparentresemblance in structure and content to ancient Hittite and Assyriantreaties. Scholars debate the extent of similarity, but it ispossible that Deuteronomy reflects a suzerain-vassal treaty formbetween Israel and God much like the common format between nations inthe ancient Near East. Although comparative investigation of thistype can be profitable for interpretation, it is prudent to beconservative when outlining direct parallels, since Deuteronomy isnot a legal document but rather a dramatic narrative of God’sredemptive interaction with the world.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

It is difficult to imagine a world without consistentmetrological systems. Society’s basic structures, from economyto law, require a uniform and accurate method for measuring time,distances, weights, volumes, and so on. In today’s world,technological advancements allow people to measure various aspects ofthe universe with incredible accuracy—from nanometers tolight-years, milligrams to kilograms.

Themetrological systems employed in biblical times span the sameconcepts as our own modern-day systems: weight, linear distance, andvolume or capacity. However, the systems of weights and measurementsemployed during the span of biblical times were not nearly asaccurate or uniform as the modern units employed today. Preexistingweight and measurement systems existed in the contextual surroundingsof both the OT and the NT authors and thus heavily influenced thesystems employed by the Israelite nation as well as the NT writers.There was great variance between the different standards usedmerchant to merchant (Gen. 23:16), city to city, region to region,time period to time period, even despite the commands to use honestscales and honest weights (Lev. 19:35–36; Deut. 25:13–15;Prov. 11:1; 16:11; 20:23; Ezek. 45:10).

Furthermore,inconsistencies and contradictions exist within the written recordsas well as between archaeological specimens. In addition, significantdifferences are found between preexilic and postexilic measurementsin the biblical texts, and an attempt at merging dry capacity andliquid volume measurements further complicated the issue. This is tobe expected, especially when we consider modern-dayinconsistencies—for example, 1 US liquid pint= 0.473liters, while 1 US dry pint= 0.550 liters. Thus, all modernequivalents given below are approximations, and even the bestestimates have a margin of error of + 5percent or more.

Weights

Weightsin biblical times were carried in a bag or a satchel (Deut. 25:13;Prov. 16:11; Mic. 6:11) and were stones, usually carved into variousanimal shapes for easy identification. Their side or flat bottom wasinscribed with the associated weight and unit of measurement.Thousands of historical artifacts, which differ by significantamounts, have been discovered by archaeologists and thus have greatlycomplicated the work of determining accurate modern-day equivalents.

Beka.Approximately 1⁄5 ounce, or 5.6 grams. Equivalent to 10 gerahsor ½ the sanctuary shekel (Exod. 38:26). Used to measuremetals and goods such as gold (Gen. 24:22).

Gerah.1⁄50 ounce, or 0.56 grams. Equivalent to 1⁄10 beka, 1⁄20shekel (Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25).

Litra.Approximately 12 ounces, or 340 grams. A Roman measure of weight.Used only twice in the NT (John 12:3; 19:39). The precursor to themodern British pound.

Mina.Approximately 1¼ pounds, or 0.56 kilograms. Equivalent to 50shekels. Used to weigh gold (1Kings 10:17; Ezra 2:69), silver(Neh. 7:71–72), and other goods. The prophet Ezekiel redefinedthe proper weight: “Theshekel is to consist of twentygerahs. Twenty shekels plus twenty-five shekels plus fifteen shekelsequal one mina” (Ezek. 45:12). Before this redefinition, therewere arguably 50 shekels per mina. In Jesus’ parable of theservants, he describes the master entrusting to his three servantsvarying amounts—10 minas, 5 minas, 1 mina—implying amonetary value (Luke 19:11–24), probably of either silver orgold. One mina was equivalent to approximately three months’wages for a laborer.

Pim.Approximately 1⁄3 ounce, or 9.3 grams. Equivalent to 2⁄3shekel. Referenced only once in the Scriptures (1Sam. 13:21).

Shekel.Approximately 2⁄5 ounce, or 11 grams. Equivalent toapproximately 2 bekas. The shekel is the basic unit of weightmeasurement in Israelite history, though its actual weight variedsignificantly at different historical points. Examples include the“royal shekel” (2Sam. 14:26), the “commonshekel” (2Kings 7:1), and the “sanctuary shekel,”which was equivalent to 20 gerahs (e.g., Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25;Num. 3:47). Because it was used to weigh out silver or gold, theshekel also functioned as a common monetary unit in the NT world.

Talent.Approximately 75 pounds, or 34 kilograms. Equivalent to approximately60 minas. Various metals were weighed using talents: gold (Exod.25:39; 37:24; 1Chron. 20:2), silver (Exod. 38:27; 1Kings20:39; 2Kings 5:22), and bronze (Exod. 38:29). This probably isderived from the weight of a load that a man could carry.

Table12. Biblical Weights and Measures and Their Modern Equivalents:

Weights

Beka– 10 geraahs; ½ shekel = 1/5 ounce = 5.6 grams

Gerah– 1/10 beka; 1/20 shekel = 1/50 ounce = 0.56 grams

Litra– 12 ounces = 340 grams

Mina– 50 shekels = 1 ¼ pounds = 0.56 kilograms

Pim– 2/3 shekel = 1/3 ounce = 9.3 grams

Shekel– 2 bekas; 20 gerahs = 2/5 ounce = 11 grams

Talent– 60 minas = 75 pounds = 34 kilograms

Linearmeasurements

Cubit– 6 handbreadths = 18 inches = 45.7 centimeters

Day’sjourney = 20-25 miles = 32-40 kilometerse

Fingerbreadth– ¼ handbreadth = ¾ inch = 1.9 centimeterse

Handbreadth– 1/6 cubit = 3 inches = 7.6 centimeters

Milion– 1 mile = 1.6 kilometers

Orguia– 1/100 stadion = 5 feet 11 inches = 1.8 meters

Reed/rod– 108 inches = 274 centimeters

Sabbathday’s journey – 2,000 cubits = ¾ mile = 1.2kilometers

Span– 3 handbreadths = 9 inches = 22.8 centimeters

Stadion– 100 orguiai = 607 feet = 185 meters

Capacity

Cab– 1 omer = ½ gallon = 1.9 liters

Choinix– ¼ gallon = 0.9 liters

Cor– 1 homer; 10 ephahs = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Ephah– 10 omers; 1/10 homer = 3/5 bushel; 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Homer– 10 ephahs; 1 cor = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Koros– 10 bushels; 95 gallons – 360 liters

Omer– 1/10 ephah; 1/100 homer = 2 quarts = 1.9 liters

Saton– 1 seah = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

Seah– 1/3 ephah; 1 saton = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

LiquidVolume

Bath– 1 ephah = 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Batos– 8 gallons = 30.3 liters

Hin– 1/6 bath; 12 logs = 1 gallon; 4 quarts = 3.8 liters

Log– 1/72 bath; 1/12 hin = 1/3 quart = 0.3 liters

Metretes– 10 gallons = 37.8 literes

LinearMeasurements

Linearmeasurements were based upon readily available natural measurementssuch as the distance between the elbow and the hand or between thethumb and the little finger. While convenient, this method ofmeasurement gave rise to significant inconsistencies.

Cubit.Approximately 18 inches, or 45.7 centimeters. Equivalent to 6handbreadths. The standard biblical measure of linear distance, asthe shekel is the standard measurement of weight. The distance fromthe elbow to the outstretched fingertip. Used to describe height,width, length (Exod. 25:10), distance (John 21:8), and depth (Gen.7:20). Use of the cubit is ancient. For simple and approximateconversion into modern units, divide the number of cubits in half formeters, then multiply the number of meters by 3 to arrive at feet.

1cubit = 2 spans = 6 handbreadths = 24 fingerbreadths

Day’sjourney.An approximate measure of distance equivalent to about 20–25miles, or 32–40 kilometers. Several passages reference a singleor multiple days’ journey as a description of the distancetraveled or the distance between two points: “a day’sjourney” (Num. 11:31; 1Kings 19:4), “a three-dayjourney” (Gen. 30:36; Exod. 3:18; 8:27; Jon. 3:3), “sevendays” (Gen. 31:23), and “eleven days” (Deut. 1:2).After visiting Jerusalem for Passover, Jesus’ parents journeyedfor a day (Luke 2:44) before realizing that he was not with them.

Fingerbreadth.The width of the finger, or ¼ of a handbreadth, approximately¾ inch, or 1.9 centimeters. The fingerbreadth was thebeginning building block of the biblical metrological system forlinear measurements. Used only once in the Scriptures, to describethe bronze pillars (Jer. 52:21).

Handbreadth.Approximately 3 inches, or 7.6 centimeters. Equivalent to 1/6 cubit,or four fingerbreadths. Probably the width at the base of the fourfingers. A short measure of length, thus compared to a human’sbrief life (Ps. 39:5). Also the width of the rim on the bread table(Exod. 25:25) and the thickness of the bronze Sea (1Kings7:26).

Milion.Translated “mile” in Matt. 5:41. Greek transliteration ofRoman measurement mille passuum, “a thousand paces.”

Orguia.Approximately 5 feet 11 inches, or 1.8 meters. Also translated as“fathom.” A Greek unit of measurement. Probably thedistance between outstretched fingertip to fingertip. Used to measurethe depth of water (Acts 27:28).

Reed/rod.Approximately 108 inches, or 274 centimeters. This is also a generalterm for a measuring device rather than a specific linear distance(Ezek. 40:3, 5; 42:16–19; Rev. 11:1; 21:15).

Sabbathday’s journey.Approximately ¾ mile, or 1.2 kilometers (Acts 1:12). About2,000 cubits.

Span.Approximately 9 inches, or 22.8 centimeters. Equivalent to threehandbreadths, and ½ cubit. The distance from outstretchedthumb tip to little-finger tip. The length and width of the priest’sbreastpiece (Exod. 28:16).

Stadion.Approximately 607 feet, or 185 meters. Equivalent to 100 orguiai.Used in the measurement of large distances (Matt. 14:24; Luke 24:13;John 6:19; 11:18; Rev. 14:20; 21:16).

LandArea

Seed.The size of a piece of land could also be measured on the basis ofhow much seed was required to plant that field (Lev. 27:16; 1Kings18:32).

Yoke.Fields and lands were measured using logical, available means. Inbiblical times, this meant the amount of land a pair of yoked animalscould plow in one day (1Sam. 14:14; Isa. 5:10).

Capacity

Cab.Approximately ½ gallon, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1 omer.Mentioned only once in the Scriptures, during the siege of Samaria(2Kings 6:25).

Choinix.Approximately ¼ gallon, or 0.9 liters. A Greek measurement,mentioned only once in Scripture (Rev. 6:6).

Cor.Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equal to thehomer, and to 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularlyof flour and grains (1Kings 4:22; 1Kings 5:11; 2Chron.2:10; 27:5; Ezra 7:22). In the LXX, cor is also a measure of liquidvolume, particularly oil (1Kings 5:11; 2Chron. 2:10; Ezra45:14).

Ephah.Approximately 3⁄5 bushel (6 gallons, or 22.7 liters).Equivalent to 10 omers, or 1⁄10 homer. Used for measuring flourand grains (e.g., Exod. 29:40; Lev. 6:20). Isaiah prophesied a day ofreduced agricultural yield, when a homer of seed would produce onlyan ephah of grain (Isa. 5:10). The ephah was equal in size to thebath (Ezek. 45:11), which typically was used for liquid measurements.

Homer.Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equivalent to1 cor, or 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularly ofvarious grains (Lev. 27:16; Isa. 5:10; Ezek. 45:11, 13–14; Hos.3:2). This is probably a natural measure of the load that a donkeycan carry, in the range of 90 kilograms. There may have existed adirect link between capacity and monetary value, given Lev. 27:16:“fifty shekels of silver to a homer of barley seed.” Alogical deduction of capacity and cost based on known equivalencesmight look something like this:

1homer = 1 mina; 1 ephah = 5 shekels; 1 omer = 1 beka

Koros.Approximately 10 bushels (95 gallons, or 360 liters). A Greek measureof grain (Luke 16:7).

Omer.Approximately 2 quarts, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄10ephah, 1⁄100 homer (Ezek. 45:11). Used by Israel in themeasurement and collection of manna in the wilderness (Exod.16:16–36) and thus roughly equivalent to a person’s dailyfood ration.

Saton.Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1 seah. Themeasurement of flour in Jesus’ parable of the kingdom of heaven(Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:21).

Seah.Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄3 ephah,or 1 saton. Used to measure flour, grain, seed, and other various drygoods (e.g., 2Kings 7:1; 1Sam. 25:18).

LiquidVolume

Bath.Approximately 6 gallons, or 22.7 liters. Equivalent to 1 ephah, whichtypically was used for measurements of dry capacity. Used in themeasurement of water (1Kings 7:26), oil (1Kings 5:11),and wine (2Chron. 2:10; Isa. 5:10).

Batos.Approximately 8 gallons, or 30.3 liters. A Greek transliteration ofthe Hebrew word bath(see above). A measure of oil (Luke 16:6).

Hin.Approximately 4 quarts (1gallon, or 3.8 liters). Equivalent to1⁄6 bath and 12 logs. Used in the measurement of water (Ezek.4:11), oil (Ezek. 46:5), and wine (Num. 28:14).

Log.Approximately 1⁄3 quart, or 0.3 liter. Equivalent to 1⁄72bath and 1⁄12 hin. Mentioned five times in Scripture,specifically used to measure oil (Lev. 14:10–24).

Metretes.Approximately 10 gallons, or 37.8 liters. Used in the measurement ofwater at the wedding feast (John 2:6).

A collection of 150 poems. They are the hymnbook of the OTperiod, used in public worship. Psalms contains songs of differentlengths, types, and dates. The earliest psalm (Ps. 90) is attributedto Moses (mid-second millennium BC), while the content of Ps. 126 andPs. 137 points to the latest periods of the OT (mid-first millenniumBC). They continue to be used as a source of public worship andprivate devotion.

HistoricalBackground

Mostpsalms have a title. In the Hebrew text this title comprises thefirst verse, whereas English translations set it off before the firstverse. Titles vary. Many name an author (e.g., David [Ps. 3]; Asaph[Ps. 77]; sons of Korah [Ps. 42]), while others provide informationabout genre (e.g., Psalms of Ascent [Pss. 120–134]), tune(e.g., “Do Not Destroy” [Ps. 75]), use in worship (Ps.92), and a circ*mstance that led to composition (Ps. 51). Informationin the title gives hints concerning how psalms were written andbrought into a final collection.

Composition

Asmentioned, the titles of the psalms often give indications ofauthorship and occasionally name the circ*mstance that led to thewriting of the psalm. A good example is Ps. 51, where the titlestates, “For the director of music. A psalm of David. When theprophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery withBathsheba.” The title connects the psalm with the eventsrecorded in 2Sam. 11–12 and suggests that David wrote thesong in response to his sin and Nathan’s confrontation.

Althoughonly a handful of the psalms have such a historical title, it islikely that most psalms were composed in response to some specificcirc*mstance that encouraged the author to write. Interestingly,though, the psalmists do not speak about the specific circ*mstance inthe psalm itself. Psalm 51, for instance, fits perfectly with thesituation that the title describes in that it expresses guilt towardGod and asks for forgiveness, but nowhere does it speak specificallyabout adultery. The psalmists do this intentionally because they arewriting the song not as a memorial to an event, but rather as aprayer that others who have had similar though not identicalexperiences can use after them. Thus, Ps. 51 has been used as a modelprayer for many penitents, whether they have sinned like David or inanother way.

Mostmodern hymns have a similar background. John Newton, for instance,was inspired to write “Amazing Grace” because of awe thathe felt at his conversion to Christianity from the evil of being aslave trader. However, when he wrote it, he wanted others to sing itas reflecting not on his conversion but on their own.

Collection

Thepsalms were composed over a thousand-year period. Thus, it appearsthat the book of Psalms was a growing collection until it came to aclose at an unknown time between the writing of the two Testaments.

In1Chron. 16:7–36 we may get a glimpse of how the processworked. The text describes David turning a musical composition overto the Levitical musician Asaph and his associates. It is likely thatthe priests kept an official copy of the book of Psalms in the holyplace (the temple while it stood). The psalms, after all, were thehymns of ancient Israel. Their primary function was as a corporatebook of prayer, though certainly they could be used in privatedevotions (note Hannah’s prayer in 1Sam. 2:1–10 andits relationship to Ps. 113).

Organizationand Structure

Thepsalms have no obvious organization that explains the location of allthe psalms. They are not organized in terms of genre, authorship,time of composition, or length. There is only one statement aboutorganization, found in Ps. 72:20: “This concludes the prayersof David son of Jesse.” In the light of this comment, it issurprising that a number of Davidic psalms appear in subsequentsections (Pss. 101; 103; 108–110; 122; 124; 131; 133; 138–145).The best explanation is that at one point Ps. 72 concluded theDavidic psalms, but there was a reorganization before the canonicalorder was permanently closed.

Anumber of contemporary theories try to find some deep structure tothe book, but it is best to refrain from speculation in regard to theoverall structure. Nonetheless, a few structural characteristics areobvious. First, the division of Psalms into five books seems toreflect the fivefold division of the Pentateuch:

I.Book 1 (Pss. 1–41)

II.Book 2 (Pss. 42–72)

III.Book 3 (Pss. 73–89)

IV.Book 4 (Pss. 90–106)

V.Book 5 (Pss. 107–150)

Eachbook ends with a doxology. Such an intentional association with thePentateuch would lend support to the Psalter’s claim toauthority. Although these are prayers to God, they are also God’sword.

Second,within the Psalter there are subcollections. That is, there arepsalms that came into the book not individually but as a group. Thebest-known such group are the Psalms of Ascent (Pss. 120–134),probably so named because worshipers sang them while going up(ascending) to the Temple Mount during one of the annual religiousfestivals in Jerusalem.

Third,it appears that psalms are intentionally placed at the beginning andat the end of the book to serve as an introduction and a conclusion.Psalms 1–2 serve as an introduction that alerts the reader tothe twin important themes of law and messiah. Psalm 1 pronounces ablessing on those who love God’s law. The psalms, after all,are an intimate and personal conversation with God. One must be onthe side of the godly to enter such a holy textual space, just as onemust be godly to enter the precincts of the temple. After the readerenters, Psalm 2 provides an encounter with God and his anointed one(messiah). At the end of the book, the last five psalms (Pss.146–150) constitute a tremendous doxology of praise.

Thisleads to the final observation on structure. Psalms of lamentpredominate at the beginning of the book, but they give way to hymnsof praise toward the end. It is almost as if one enters the Psaltermourning and leaves it praising. Indeed, the Psalter brings thereader into contact with God and thus transforms the reader fromsadness to joy.

LiteraryConsiderations

Genre.The individual psalms may be identified as songs, prayers, or poems.Specifically, they are lyric poems (expressing the emotions of thepoet), often addressed to God, and set to musical accompaniment.Although the categories overlap, seven different types of psalms canbe recognized, with the first three being by far the most common.

• Lament.The largest single group of psalms are the laments, characterized bythe expression of unhappy emotions: sadness, disappointment, anger,worry. The lamenters call on God to save them, even while at timescomplaining about God’s actions toward them (Ps. 42:9–10).Some laments contain petitions for forgiveness (Ps. 51), while othersassert innocence of any wrongdoing (Ps. 26). A few laments evencontain curses directed toward the enemies who are trying to harm thepsalmist (Ps. 69:19–28). Most laments end by praising God orreaffirming confidence in God (Ps. 130:7–8). Usually the reasonfor the change from mourning to rejoicing is not given, but Ps. 77pinpoints the reason as the memory of God’s great salvationevents in the past (vv. 10, 16–20). One psalm, Ps. 88, lamentsbut never makes the turn, remaining in the pit of despair. Yet evenhere we have a glimmer of hope in that the one who laments is stillspeaking to God.

• Thanksgiving.When God answers a lament, the response is thanksgiving. Psalms ofthanksgiving are very similar to hymns (see below), but they cite anearlier problem that God has addressed. Psalm 30 praises God forrestoring the psalmist’s good fortune and health after hesuffered due to his earlier arrogance that led him to forget God (vv.6–7).

• Hymn.Hymns are psalms of unalloyed praise directed toward God. Thepsalmists often call for others to join their worship of God (Ps.100).

• Remembrance.While many psalms evoke memories of God’s actions in the past(as the lament in Ps. 77 recalls the exodus), certain psalms focus onrehearsing the actions of God in the past. Psalm 136 is one of themost memorable examples. As a liturgical psalm, it recites a divineaction (“[God] swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea”[v.15]) followed by a congregational response (“His loveendures forever”).

• Confidence.These psalms are defined by their mood of quiet trust in God even inthe midst of trouble. They often present a reassuring image of God.The picture of God as a shepherd in Ps. 23 or as a mother in Ps. 131are good examples.

• Wisdom.Some psalms meditate on the law (Pss. 1; 119) or have interestssimilar to those of wisdom literature, such as Job, Proverbs, andEcclesiastes (Pss. 49; 73).

• Kingship.A number of psalms praise God as king (Ps. 47) or the human king ashis agent (Pss. 20–21) or both (Ps.2).

Style.The psalms are poems, and so their style is characterized by the useof parallelism and figurative language. Poetry is also notable forits short lines. A poet packs a lot of meaning into very few words.So it is important to slow down and reflect on a psalm in order toderive its maximum effect. Besides brevity of expression,parallelism, and figurative language, poets create interest by usingother literary tools. The psalmists use these poetic devices not onlyto inform their readers’ intellect but also to stimulate theirimagination and arouse their emotions. (See also Acrostic; Imagery;Poetry.)

TheologicalMessage

Althoughthe psalms are not theological essays, readers can learn about Godand their relationship with God from these poems. The book of Psalmsis a bit like a portrait gallery of God, using images to describe whohe is and the nature of our relationship with him. Some examplesinclude God as shepherd (Ps. 23), king (Ps. 47), warrior (Ps. 98),and mother (Ps. 131), and the list could be greatly expanded. Eachone of these picture images casts light on the nature of God and alsothe nature of our relationship with God. After all, theaforementioned psalms explicitly or implicitly describe God’speople as sheep, subjects, soldiers, and children.

Connectionto the New Testament and Today

Jesushimself draws attention to Psalms as a book that anticipated hiscoming suffering and glorification (Luke 24:25–27, 44). TheGospels recognized that Jesus’ zeal for God was well expressedby Ps. 69:9 (John 2:17). When at the apex of his suffering on thecross, Jesus uttered the words found in Ps. 22:1 (Matt. 27:46). TheNT writers also saw that Jesus was the fulfillment of the covenantthat promised that a son of David would have an everlasting throne(2Sam. 7:16). Accordingly, the royal psalms (e.g., Pss. 2; 110)often were applied to Jesus, who is the Messiah (the Christ, “theanointed one”).

Todaywe read Psalms not only as an ancient witness to the coming work ofChrist but also, as John Calvin put it, as a mirror of our souls. Thepsalms were written for worshipers who came after them with similarthough not identical joys and problems. The psalms should becomemodels of our prayers.

It is difficult to imagine a world without consistentmetrological systems. Society’s basic structures, from economyto law, require a uniform and accurate method for measuring time,distances, weights, volumes, and so on. In today’s world,technological advancements allow people to measure various aspects ofthe universe with incredible accuracy—from nanometers tolight-years, milligrams to kilograms.

Themetrological systems employed in biblical times span the sameconcepts as our own modern-day systems: weight, linear distance, andvolume or capacity. However, the systems of weights and measurementsemployed during the span of biblical times were not nearly asaccurate or uniform as the modern units employed today. Preexistingweight and measurement systems existed in the contextual surroundingsof both the OT and the NT authors and thus heavily influenced thesystems employed by the Israelite nation as well as the NT writers.There was great variance between the different standards usedmerchant to merchant (Gen. 23:16), city to city, region to region,time period to time period, even despite the commands to use honestscales and honest weights (Lev. 19:35–36; Deut. 25:13–15;Prov. 11:1; 16:11; 20:23; Ezek. 45:10).

Furthermore,inconsistencies and contradictions exist within the written recordsas well as between archaeological specimens. In addition, significantdifferences are found between preexilic and postexilic measurementsin the biblical texts, and an attempt at merging dry capacity andliquid volume measurements further complicated the issue. This is tobe expected, especially when we consider modern-dayinconsistencies—for example, 1 US liquid pint= 0.473liters, while 1 US dry pint= 0.550 liters. Thus, all modernequivalents given below are approximations, and even the bestestimates have a margin of error of + 5percent or more.

Weights

Weightsin biblical times were carried in a bag or a satchel (Deut. 25:13;Prov. 16:11; Mic. 6:11) and were stones, usually carved into variousanimal shapes for easy identification. Their side or flat bottom wasinscribed with the associated weight and unit of measurement.Thousands of historical artifacts, which differ by significantamounts, have been discovered by archaeologists and thus have greatlycomplicated the work of determining accurate modern-day equivalents.

Beka.Approximately 1⁄5 ounce, or 5.6 grams. Equivalent to 10 gerahsor ½ the sanctuary shekel (Exod. 38:26). Used to measuremetals and goods such as gold (Gen. 24:22).

Gerah.1⁄50 ounce, or 0.56 grams. Equivalent to 1⁄10 beka, 1⁄20shekel (Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25).

Litra.Approximately 12 ounces, or 340 grams. A Roman measure of weight.Used only twice in the NT (John 12:3; 19:39). The precursor to themodern British pound.

Mina.Approximately 1¼ pounds, or 0.56 kilograms. Equivalent to 50shekels. Used to weigh gold (1Kings 10:17; Ezra 2:69), silver(Neh. 7:71–72), and other goods. The prophet Ezekiel redefinedthe proper weight: “Theshekel is to consist of twentygerahs. Twenty shekels plus twenty-five shekels plus fifteen shekelsequal one mina” (Ezek. 45:12). Before this redefinition, therewere arguably 50 shekels per mina. In Jesus’ parable of theservants, he describes the master entrusting to his three servantsvarying amounts—10 minas, 5 minas, 1 mina—implying amonetary value (Luke 19:11–24), probably of either silver orgold. One mina was equivalent to approximately three months’wages for a laborer.

Pim.Approximately 1⁄3 ounce, or 9.3 grams. Equivalent to 2⁄3shekel. Referenced only once in the Scriptures (1Sam. 13:21).

Shekel.Approximately 2⁄5 ounce, or 11 grams. Equivalent toapproximately 2 bekas. The shekel is the basic unit of weightmeasurement in Israelite history, though its actual weight variedsignificantly at different historical points. Examples include the“royal shekel” (2Sam. 14:26), the “commonshekel” (2Kings 7:1), and the “sanctuary shekel,”which was equivalent to 20 gerahs (e.g., Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25;Num. 3:47). Because it was used to weigh out silver or gold, theshekel also functioned as a common monetary unit in the NT world.

Talent.Approximately 75 pounds, or 34 kilograms. Equivalent to approximately60 minas. Various metals were weighed using talents: gold (Exod.25:39; 37:24; 1Chron. 20:2), silver (Exod. 38:27; 1Kings20:39; 2Kings 5:22), and bronze (Exod. 38:29). This probably isderived from the weight of a load that a man could carry.

Table12. Biblical Weights and Measures and Their Modern Equivalents:

Weights

Beka– 10 geraahs; ½ shekel = 1/5 ounce = 5.6 grams

Gerah– 1/10 beka; 1/20 shekel = 1/50 ounce = 0.56 grams

Litra– 12 ounces = 340 grams

Mina– 50 shekels = 1 ¼ pounds = 0.56 kilograms

Pim– 2/3 shekel = 1/3 ounce = 9.3 grams

Shekel– 2 bekas; 20 gerahs = 2/5 ounce = 11 grams

Talent– 60 minas = 75 pounds = 34 kilograms

Linearmeasurements

Cubit– 6 handbreadths = 18 inches = 45.7 centimeters

Day’sjourney = 20-25 miles = 32-40 kilometerse

Fingerbreadth– ¼ handbreadth = ¾ inch = 1.9 centimeterse

Handbreadth– 1/6 cubit = 3 inches = 7.6 centimeters

Milion– 1 mile = 1.6 kilometers

Orguia– 1/100 stadion = 5 feet 11 inches = 1.8 meters

Reed/rod– 108 inches = 274 centimeters

Sabbathday’s journey – 2,000 cubits = ¾ mile = 1.2kilometers

Span– 3 handbreadths = 9 inches = 22.8 centimeters

Stadion– 100 orguiai = 607 feet = 185 meters

Capacity

Cab– 1 omer = ½ gallon = 1.9 liters

Choinix– ¼ gallon = 0.9 liters

Cor– 1 homer; 10 ephahs = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Ephah– 10 omers; 1/10 homer = 3/5 bushel; 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Homer– 10 ephahs; 1 cor = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Koros– 10 bushels; 95 gallons – 360 liters

Omer– 1/10 ephah; 1/100 homer = 2 quarts = 1.9 liters

Saton– 1 seah = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

Seah– 1/3 ephah; 1 saton = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

LiquidVolume

Bath– 1 ephah = 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Batos– 8 gallons = 30.3 liters

Hin– 1/6 bath; 12 logs = 1 gallon; 4 quarts = 3.8 liters

Log– 1/72 bath; 1/12 hin = 1/3 quart = 0.3 liters

Metretes– 10 gallons = 37.8 literes

LinearMeasurements

Linearmeasurements were based upon readily available natural measurementssuch as the distance between the elbow and the hand or between thethumb and the little finger. While convenient, this method ofmeasurement gave rise to significant inconsistencies.

Cubit.Approximately 18 inches, or 45.7 centimeters. Equivalent to 6handbreadths. The standard biblical measure of linear distance, asthe shekel is the standard measurement of weight. The distance fromthe elbow to the outstretched fingertip. Used to describe height,width, length (Exod. 25:10), distance (John 21:8), and depth (Gen.7:20). Use of the cubit is ancient. For simple and approximateconversion into modern units, divide the number of cubits in half formeters, then multiply the number of meters by 3 to arrive at feet.

1cubit = 2 spans = 6 handbreadths = 24 fingerbreadths

Day’sjourney.An approximate measure of distance equivalent to about 20–25miles, or 32–40 kilometers. Several passages reference a singleor multiple days’ journey as a description of the distancetraveled or the distance between two points: “a day’sjourney” (Num. 11:31; 1Kings 19:4), “a three-dayjourney” (Gen. 30:36; Exod. 3:18; 8:27; Jon. 3:3), “sevendays” (Gen. 31:23), and “eleven days” (Deut. 1:2).After visiting Jerusalem for Passover, Jesus’ parents journeyedfor a day (Luke 2:44) before realizing that he was not with them.

Fingerbreadth.The width of the finger, or ¼ of a handbreadth, approximately¾ inch, or 1.9 centimeters. The fingerbreadth was thebeginning building block of the biblical metrological system forlinear measurements. Used only once in the Scriptures, to describethe bronze pillars (Jer. 52:21).

Handbreadth.Approximately 3 inches, or 7.6 centimeters. Equivalent to 1/6 cubit,or four fingerbreadths. Probably the width at the base of the fourfingers. A short measure of length, thus compared to a human’sbrief life (Ps. 39:5). Also the width of the rim on the bread table(Exod. 25:25) and the thickness of the bronze Sea (1Kings7:26).

Milion.Translated “mile” in Matt. 5:41. Greek transliteration ofRoman measurement mille passuum, “a thousand paces.”

Orguia.Approximately 5 feet 11 inches, or 1.8 meters. Also translated as“fathom.” A Greek unit of measurement. Probably thedistance between outstretched fingertip to fingertip. Used to measurethe depth of water (Acts 27:28).

Reed/rod.Approximately 108 inches, or 274 centimeters. This is also a generalterm for a measuring device rather than a specific linear distance(Ezek. 40:3, 5; 42:16–19; Rev. 11:1; 21:15).

Sabbathday’s journey.Approximately ¾ mile, or 1.2 kilometers (Acts 1:12). About2,000 cubits.

Span.Approximately 9 inches, or 22.8 centimeters. Equivalent to threehandbreadths, and ½ cubit. The distance from outstretchedthumb tip to little-finger tip. The length and width of the priest’sbreastpiece (Exod. 28:16).

Stadion.Approximately 607 feet, or 185 meters. Equivalent to 100 orguiai.Used in the measurement of large distances (Matt. 14:24; Luke 24:13;John 6:19; 11:18; Rev. 14:20; 21:16).

LandArea

Seed.The size of a piece of land could also be measured on the basis ofhow much seed was required to plant that field (Lev. 27:16; 1Kings18:32).

Yoke.Fields and lands were measured using logical, available means. Inbiblical times, this meant the amount of land a pair of yoked animalscould plow in one day (1Sam. 14:14; Isa. 5:10).

Capacity

Cab.Approximately ½ gallon, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1 omer.Mentioned only once in the Scriptures, during the siege of Samaria(2Kings 6:25).

Choinix.Approximately ¼ gallon, or 0.9 liters. A Greek measurement,mentioned only once in Scripture (Rev. 6:6).

Cor.Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equal to thehomer, and to 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularlyof flour and grains (1Kings 4:22; 1Kings 5:11; 2Chron.2:10; 27:5; Ezra 7:22). In the LXX, cor is also a measure of liquidvolume, particularly oil (1Kings 5:11; 2Chron. 2:10; Ezra45:14).

Ephah.Approximately 3⁄5 bushel (6 gallons, or 22.7 liters).Equivalent to 10 omers, or 1⁄10 homer. Used for measuring flourand grains (e.g., Exod. 29:40; Lev. 6:20). Isaiah prophesied a day ofreduced agricultural yield, when a homer of seed would produce onlyan ephah of grain (Isa. 5:10). The ephah was equal in size to thebath (Ezek. 45:11), which typically was used for liquid measurements.

Homer.Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equivalent to1 cor, or 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularly ofvarious grains (Lev. 27:16; Isa. 5:10; Ezek. 45:11, 13–14; Hos.3:2). This is probably a natural measure of the load that a donkeycan carry, in the range of 90 kilograms. There may have existed adirect link between capacity and monetary value, given Lev. 27:16:“fifty shekels of silver to a homer of barley seed.” Alogical deduction of capacity and cost based on known equivalencesmight look something like this:

1homer = 1 mina; 1 ephah = 5 shekels; 1 omer = 1 beka

Koros.Approximately 10 bushels (95 gallons, or 360 liters). A Greek measureof grain (Luke 16:7).

Omer.Approximately 2 quarts, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄10ephah, 1⁄100 homer (Ezek. 45:11). Used by Israel in themeasurement and collection of manna in the wilderness (Exod.16:16–36) and thus roughly equivalent to a person’s dailyfood ration.

Saton.Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1 seah. Themeasurement of flour in Jesus’ parable of the kingdom of heaven(Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:21).

Seah.Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄3 ephah,or 1 saton. Used to measure flour, grain, seed, and other various drygoods (e.g., 2Kings 7:1; 1Sam. 25:18).

LiquidVolume

Bath.Approximately 6 gallons, or 22.7 liters. Equivalent to 1 ephah, whichtypically was used for measurements of dry capacity. Used in themeasurement of water (1Kings 7:26), oil (1Kings 5:11),and wine (2Chron. 2:10; Isa. 5:10).

Batos.Approximately 8 gallons, or 30.3 liters. A Greek transliteration ofthe Hebrew word bath(see above). A measure of oil (Luke 16:6).

Hin.Approximately 4 quarts (1gallon, or 3.8 liters). Equivalent to1⁄6 bath and 12 logs. Used in the measurement of water (Ezek.4:11), oil (Ezek. 46:5), and wine (Num. 28:14).

Log.Approximately 1⁄3 quart, or 0.3 liter. Equivalent to 1⁄72bath and 1⁄12 hin. Mentioned five times in Scripture,specifically used to measure oil (Lev. 14:10–24).

Metretes.Approximately 10 gallons, or 37.8 liters. Used in the measurement ofwater at the wedding feast (John 2:6).

Until the twentieth century, traveling farther than a week’sdistance from home was dangerous and expensive. We should notoverstate the difficulty or risks of travel then, but certainly itwas unlike today. Since virtually every region had its own currency,travelers carried cash and were at risk from thieves, money changers,innkeepers, slavers, and others who preyed upon travelers, as well asfrom the natural dangers of storms, floods, early snows, and soforth. Outside of cities, there was little law enforcement for thetypical traveler (Ezra 8:22). Family was often one’s onlydefender against injustice (Gen. 14:12–16; Ps. 127:3–5).

Fortravelers in the biblical world, improvement was slow and gradual.During the time of the patriarchs, travelers faced poor roads,bandits, and no security other than what they could providethemselves (Gen. 14:14). Later Assyrian documents complain ofdifficult roads. SargonII (r. 722–705 BC) boasted, “Iadvanced over inaccessible paths (in) steep and terrifying places”(ARAB 2:25–26). Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC) tells ofhaving to travel on foot because the road was too steep for hislitter (ARAB 2:122–23). Persian roads improved modestly, butHerodotus probably is exaggerating the improvements (Hist. 8.98), asXenophon seems to indicate (Anab. 1.2.25). Many sources speak ofbandits (Ezra 8:31; Hos. 6:9). Thus, safe travel or good roads becamea metaphor for peace. When ancient kings bragged, it often was aboutroads they had built or how the roads were now safe. The arrival ofthe kingdom of God was symbolized by repairing the road (Isa. 40:3–5;Luke 3:4–6).

Majorimprovements came with the Roman Empire. For the first (and last)time, a traveler could go from the Euphrates to Egypt to Britain onwell-policed roads and sea lanes under one’s own government.Enforced law and standardized, trustworthy coinage had distinctadvantages (Isa. 33:8; Matt. 22:15–22).

Runningempires required traveling. Envoys (Jer. 27:3), tax collectors (Dan.11:20), and overseers (1Kings 5:13–17), as well asarmies, moved about on imperial business. While farmers and localmerchants traveled limited distances to sell their wares (usually tothe closest large city), fortunes could be made by the moreadventuresome merchant willing to take the greater risks of travelingfarther distances (Gen. 37:28; 1Kings 10; Job 6:19; Prov.31:14; Isa. 23:8; Matt. 13:45). The ancient world also sawindividuals doing a great deal of local travel (less than sixtymiles), usually connected to business (Prov. 31:14), religiousfestivals (1Sam. 1; John 10), and family (Gen. 50:1–14;2Kings 8:29; Luke 1:39; John 2:1); often the three were woventogether.

Travelin the ancient world was by sea or land. Except for the wealthy, thismeant booking passage or walking. Sentimental images of a pregnantMary riding a donkey to Bethlehem or of the apostle Paul doingmissionary travels on horseback are likely fiction. Although there issome evidence of women traveling on donkeys (Josh. 15:18; 1Sam.25:20, 23; 2Sam. 16:1–2), the stories are of prominentwomen or unusual occasions; it should not be assumed to be normative.Obviously, the infirm rode when required to travel, but theypreferred not to travel (2Sam. 19:26–37). The wealthiestused private transport (Acts 8:27–28). We have references totravel by donkey, mule, camel, horse, cart, litter, and chariot, butordinary people walked. Typically, a good day’s walk was twentymiles; sea travel was by daylight and averaged roughly the same.Calculating how long it took someone to travel, though, is not merelya matter of math. Both sea and land travelers were fair-weathertravelers, usually between June and September. On a long journey, onehad to plan where to “winter.” Ancient travelers had tomake their travel plans around the seasons.

Travelby Land

Roads.Until the Romans, a “road” was merely a cleared path.They were ungraded and often impassable in wet weather. Nonetheless,they followed a distinct route, marked by “guideposts”(Jer. 31:21). In the ancient world, major roads ran east-west fromSyria into Mesopotamia. North-south roads connected Syria to Egypt,through Palestine. The Assyrian army invaded Israel by traveling weston the road as far as Syria and then turning south. The battlesfought in Gen. 14 were to control the north-south road (and thustrade). Solomon built wealth by controlling this trade (2Chron.9:14). Three major roads ran north-south through Israel. (1)TheKing’s Highway (Num. 20:17) ran through the eastern region,from Damascus through the eastern highlands of the Transjordan anddown to the Gulf of Aqaba, where Solomon maintained a port (2Chron.8:17). (2)The central (or Sinai) road ran from Sidon south toTyre, Akko, Shechem, Jerusalem, Hebron, Beersheba, Kadesh Barnea,into the Negev, and on to Egypt. (3)The Sea Road (Via Maris)ran from Damascus to Hazor through the Valley of Jezreel (the Plainof Esdraelon through the Megiddo Pass), down the coast of Israelthrough Gaza and into Egypt. Taking Megiddo meant controlling thisroad and the trade. The Egyptians (ThutmoseIII) defeated theCanaanites and took this road around 1468 BC. David captured it about1000 BC. Josiah died defending this road against the Egyptians(NechoII) in 609 BC.

TheGreeks extended a major road connecting through Asia Minor to theancient road running into Mesopotamia. The Romans built roads of flatstone placed upon foundations. Parts of these roads are still in usetoday. From Rome they built to the sea (Via Ostiensis, ViaPortuensis), to the south (Via Appia), to the west (Via Aurelia), tothe north (Via Flaminia), to the Adriatic (Via Salaria, Via Valeria),and to the east (Via Ignatia) connecting Rome to Greece and thus tothe rest of the biblical world.

Lodgings.Land travel necessitated lodgings. The wealthy near Rome often hadhomes along the common routes that they plied. Slaves ran ahead toannounce that the master was coming. Friends and those on themaster’s business likely used these homes as well whentraveling. When off the normal route, an aristocrat traveled with aretinue of servants, wagons, and tents to enable a well-equipped (andsecure) camp each evening. The ordinary traveler had no extra homesor entourages. Groups large enough for safety could camp near town.Individuals relied upon hospitality in town. Those individualtravelers unfortunate to lack any kinship with townsfolk often had norecourse but inns. Petronius (Sat. 94–97) tells a seamy storyof misadventures in the roadside inns of his day. Archaeology andliterature describe ill-kept dumps involving disreputableproprietors, questionable guests, and plenty of loose morals. AncientHebrews and early Christians emphasized hospitality (Gen. 19:1–2;Judg. 19:11–20; Rom. 12:13; 1Pet. 4:9; 3John 8).

Distanceand duration.Using the distances between ancient stopping places, travel records,and comments in literary sources, scholars generally agree that anormal walking traveler could expect to cover twenty miles in a day.Peter’s trip from Joppa to Caesarea (about forty miles) tooktwo days (Acts 10:23–30). Travelers using beasts of burdengenerally covered the same distance. Chariots averaged a bit better,perhaps twenty-five to thirty miles per day. Whether they actuallytraveled farther or just stopped earlier for the night is debatable.Horseback was intended for speed and could easily average fifty milesper day. Yet we must avoid the mistake of calculating travel timebetween places by simple math. While such calculations generally holdtrue for one- or two-day journeys (Acts 10), longer journeysencountered delays. Towns along main roads were commonly spaced aday’s walk apart. Yet it is unwise to assume that a traveleralways left the next morning after an overnight stay. Jesus warnedhis traveling preachers against such rudeness (Luke 10:5–7).Moreover, the host likely provided the food supplies and extra fundsfor the traveler’s next walk (3John 5–8; Did.11.5–6). Certainly, Jewish travelers were affected by Sabbathsand feasts. Not only would they not travel on those days, but alsothey likely would delay or rush to reach a particular location (Acts20:2–5, 16; 1Cor. 16:8). Ancients traveled according to adifferent tempo than modern Westerners.

Seasonscaused more serious delays. When traveling season ended, travelerswere forced to spend the winter wherever they were at that time. Ifpossible, they did not leave this to chance but rather planned whereto “winter” (Jer. 36:22; Acts 27:12; 1Cor. 16:6;Titus 3:12). Terrain was a serious consideration. Mountain passes andriver fords were obvious factors, and ancients often took the easier(or safer) though longer path. Hence, there were three roads leadingfrom Perga to Pisidian Antioch, the longest (western) being thesafest and easiest. Uphill journeys, snow-blocked passes, and flashfloods slowed ancient travelers, sometimes stranding them longer thantheir planned supplies would last (2Cor. 6:5).

Travelingin groups. Sincetravelers carried money, they avoided traveling alone or in verysmall groups. (The so-called wise men of Matt. 2:1–12 almostcertainly would have been waylaid had there been only three of them.)Commonly, travelers gathered in the agora (marketplace) early in themorning looking for fellow travelers heading their way, thus makingtraveling companions of those with whom they might not normallyassociate (Luke 9:57; 14:25). It was also common for travelers tojoin others along the road (Luke 24:13–16; Acts 8:27–30).

Travelby Sea

Ships.Almost all ancient ships were wooden. A “fast ship” wasnot necessarily a sleeker mode, but a dry one. Ideally, ships werestored out of the water during winter. Waterlogged ships werenaturally slower.

Nobiblical empire was worth its salt unless it had naval supremacy inthe Mediterranean Sea. Sailing vessels were at the mercy of the wind,so military ships meant galley ships. Rowing allowed captains to movewithout the wind. Today, we tend to imagine rowers like the “galleyslaves” of the Middle Ages. Ancient rowers, however, werehonored soldiers. Ships rammed each other in battle, and skill at theoar often meant the difference between victory and death. Once theenemy was rammed, rowers sprang up from their oars and fought hand tohand.

Piracyand commerce.No one could claim dominance of the sea without controlling piracy.The Roman navy, for the first time in history, managed to virtuallyeliminate piracy. Roman archers and slingers rained destruction asthey drew near pirate vessels. Catapults later were added for heavyartillery. Finally, firepots slung out on long poles set fire to theenemy’s ship, which the Romans then rammed and boarded.

Withthe taming of the Mediterranean, commercial shipping exploded ingrowth. Transporting cargo, passengers, and dispatches becameprofitable business. Smaller ships (like a Galilean fishing boat)depended upon oars, with a small sail as an auxiliary. Largermerchant ships depended more on sails. Sailing ships, with favorablewinds, probably averaged between two and four miles per hour, butonly half that with unfavorable winds. Ancient ships huggedcoastlines and avoided bad weather.

Commoncargo ships carried an average of about 250 tons of cargo and/orpassengers and ranged from 70 to 150 feet in length. Those carrying350 to 500 tons were considered large but not rare. It is thoughtthat the grain ships in Paul’s day (as in Acts 27) routinelywere three-decked, 180 feet long, carried 1,300 tons, and took over aweek to unload.

Travelingby ship.Although cargo ships also carried passengers, some ships wereprimarily for passengers. Josephus, on an unsuccessful attempt tosail to Rome, was on a ship with six hundred passengers (Josephus,Life 15). Sallust, a Roman historian, mentions a cohort (about 600men) traveling on one transport ship (Hist. 3.8). Paul’s shipto Rome had 276 aboard (Acts 27:37). Acts gives the impression thatthis ship left too late in the season. Aside from those compelled byRome, likely only the brave or the desperate would book such passage.Thus, we should not assume that the ship was fully booked.

Likeland travel, however, sea travel also was restricted by season. Inthe eastern half of the Mediterranean, the wind blows from thenorthwest toward the southeast persistently from June to September,marking the favorable sailing season. Vegetius (Mil. 4.39) writes,“From the 6th day before the kalends of June [May 27] until therising of Arcturus, that is until the 18th before the kalends ofOctober [Sept. 14], is believed to be the safe period ofnavigation.... From then up to the 3rd before theides of November, navigation is uncertain.... Fromthe 3rd before the ides of November to the 6th before the ides ofMarch, the seas are closed.” Many ancient writers indicatedthat sea travel in the winter was trecherous.

Aperson traveling by sea went first to the docks to inquire aboutships headed to the desired destination. Harbor managers, dockhands,sailors, or others pointed inquirers toward appropriate ships. Afternegotiating with a particular ship’s purser, whose job was tobook passengers (and guard against stowaways), a passenger was toldwhat day and time to be aboard. The lowest level of ships held theballast (usually sand or stone) and the bilgewater. Decking over itheld cargo. Some ships berthed the cheapest passengers in this area,what we now refer to as steerage (Lucian observes that suchpassengers were “not even able to stretch their legs on thebare boards alongside the bilgewater” [Jupp. trag. 48]). Largerfreighters had another deck above this that may have housed somepassengers. In general, however, travelers in Paul’s day (likeall travelers up until modern times) camped above deck (some withtents). Only the very wealthy rented cabins (P.Zen. 10). Shipwrecksand pirates were not the only dangers. A man cautioned his wife,“When you come, bring your gold ornaments, but do not wear themon the boat” (P.Mich. 3.214 [see also 8.468]). Then as now,tossing someone overboard left a clean crime scene (Jon. 1:15; cf.Acts 20:3).

Summary

Mostbiblical characters, like their peers, rarely traveled far from home.It is commonly estimated that Jesus’ ministry encompassed adistance no greater than one hundred miles from his home. Hisapostles, though, took advantage of the travel benefits of the RomanEmpire. Paul was a far more experienced traveler than most, both byland and sea (Acts 27:9–10, 30–32), although he appearsto have pushed the limits of safety on occasion. He mentions“sleepless nights and hunger” (2Cor. 6:5) as wellas being “in danger from rivers” and bandits (2Cor.11:26). In addition to what is reported in Acts 27, Paul wasshipwrecked at least three other times (2Cor. 11:25). Whetherby land or sea, travel in ancient times was not for the fainthearted.

It is difficult to imagine a world without consistentmetrological systems. Society’s basic structures, from economyto law, require a uniform and accurate method for measuring time,distances, weights, volumes, and so on. In today’s world,technological advancements allow people to measure various aspects ofthe universe with incredible accuracy—from nanometers tolight-years, milligrams to kilograms.

Themetrological systems employed in biblical times span the sameconcepts as our own modern-day systems: weight, linear distance, andvolume or capacity. However, the systems of weights and measurementsemployed during the span of biblical times were not nearly asaccurate or uniform as the modern units employed today. Preexistingweight and measurement systems existed in the contextual surroundingsof both the OT and the NT authors and thus heavily influenced thesystems employed by the Israelite nation as well as the NT writers.There was great variance between the different standards usedmerchant to merchant (Gen. 23:16), city to city, region to region,time period to time period, even despite the commands to use honestscales and honest weights (Lev. 19:35–36; Deut. 25:13–15;Prov. 11:1; 16:11; 20:23; Ezek. 45:10).

Furthermore,inconsistencies and contradictions exist within the written recordsas well as between archaeological specimens. In addition, significantdifferences are found between preexilic and postexilic measurementsin the biblical texts, and an attempt at merging dry capacity andliquid volume measurements further complicated the issue. This is tobe expected, especially when we consider modern-dayinconsistencies—for example, 1 US liquid pint= 0.473liters, while 1 US dry pint= 0.550 liters. Thus, all modernequivalents given below are approximations, and even the bestestimates have a margin of error of + 5percent or more.

Weights

Weightsin biblical times were carried in a bag or a satchel (Deut. 25:13;Prov. 16:11; Mic. 6:11) and were stones, usually carved into variousanimal shapes for easy identification. Their side or flat bottom wasinscribed with the associated weight and unit of measurement.Thousands of historical artifacts, which differ by significantamounts, have been discovered by archaeologists and thus have greatlycomplicated the work of determining accurate modern-day equivalents.

Beka.Approximately 1⁄5 ounce, or 5.6 grams. Equivalent to 10 gerahsor ½ the sanctuary shekel (Exod. 38:26). Used to measuremetals and goods such as gold (Gen. 24:22).

Gerah.1⁄50 ounce, or 0.56 grams. Equivalent to 1⁄10 beka, 1⁄20shekel (Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25).

Litra.Approximately 12 ounces, or 340 grams. A Roman measure of weight.Used only twice in the NT (John 12:3; 19:39). The precursor to themodern British pound.

Mina.Approximately 1¼ pounds, or 0.56 kilograms. Equivalent to 50shekels. Used to weigh gold (1Kings 10:17; Ezra 2:69), silver(Neh. 7:71–72), and other goods. The prophet Ezekiel redefinedthe proper weight: “Theshekel is to consist of twentygerahs. Twenty shekels plus twenty-five shekels plus fifteen shekelsequal one mina” (Ezek. 45:12). Before this redefinition, therewere arguably 50 shekels per mina. In Jesus’ parable of theservants, he describes the master entrusting to his three servantsvarying amounts—10 minas, 5 minas, 1 mina—implying amonetary value (Luke 19:11–24), probably of either silver orgold. One mina was equivalent to approximately three months’wages for a laborer.

Pim.Approximately 1⁄3 ounce, or 9.3 grams. Equivalent to 2⁄3shekel. Referenced only once in the Scriptures (1Sam. 13:21).

Shekel.Approximately 2⁄5 ounce, or 11 grams. Equivalent toapproximately 2 bekas. The shekel is the basic unit of weightmeasurement in Israelite history, though its actual weight variedsignificantly at different historical points. Examples include the“royal shekel” (2Sam. 14:26), the “commonshekel” (2Kings 7:1), and the “sanctuary shekel,”which was equivalent to 20 gerahs (e.g., Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25;Num. 3:47). Because it was used to weigh out silver or gold, theshekel also functioned as a common monetary unit in the NT world.

Talent.Approximately 75 pounds, or 34 kilograms. Equivalent to approximately60 minas. Various metals were weighed using talents: gold (Exod.25:39; 37:24; 1Chron. 20:2), silver (Exod. 38:27; 1Kings20:39; 2Kings 5:22), and bronze (Exod. 38:29). This probably isderived from the weight of a load that a man could carry.

Table12. Biblical Weights and Measures and Their Modern Equivalents:

Weights

Beka– 10 geraahs; ½ shekel = 1/5 ounce = 5.6 grams

Gerah– 1/10 beka; 1/20 shekel = 1/50 ounce = 0.56 grams

Litra– 12 ounces = 340 grams

Mina– 50 shekels = 1 ¼ pounds = 0.56 kilograms

Pim– 2/3 shekel = 1/3 ounce = 9.3 grams

Shekel– 2 bekas; 20 gerahs = 2/5 ounce = 11 grams

Talent– 60 minas = 75 pounds = 34 kilograms

Linearmeasurements

Cubit– 6 handbreadths = 18 inches = 45.7 centimeters

Day’sjourney = 20-25 miles = 32-40 kilometerse

Fingerbreadth– ¼ handbreadth = ¾ inch = 1.9 centimeterse

Handbreadth– 1/6 cubit = 3 inches = 7.6 centimeters

Milion– 1 mile = 1.6 kilometers

Orguia– 1/100 stadion = 5 feet 11 inches = 1.8 meters

Reed/rod– 108 inches = 274 centimeters

Sabbathday’s journey – 2,000 cubits = ¾ mile = 1.2kilometers

Span– 3 handbreadths = 9 inches = 22.8 centimeters

Stadion– 100 orguiai = 607 feet = 185 meters

Capacity

Cab– 1 omer = ½ gallon = 1.9 liters

Choinix– ¼ gallon = 0.9 liters

Cor– 1 homer; 10 ephahs = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Ephah– 10 omers; 1/10 homer = 3/5 bushel; 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Homer– 10 ephahs; 1 cor = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Koros– 10 bushels; 95 gallons – 360 liters

Omer– 1/10 ephah; 1/100 homer = 2 quarts = 1.9 liters

Saton– 1 seah = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

Seah– 1/3 ephah; 1 saton = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

LiquidVolume

Bath– 1 ephah = 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Batos– 8 gallons = 30.3 liters

Hin– 1/6 bath; 12 logs = 1 gallon; 4 quarts = 3.8 liters

Log– 1/72 bath; 1/12 hin = 1/3 quart = 0.3 liters

Metretes– 10 gallons = 37.8 literes

LinearMeasurements

Linearmeasurements were based upon readily available natural measurementssuch as the distance between the elbow and the hand or between thethumb and the little finger. While convenient, this method ofmeasurement gave rise to significant inconsistencies.

Cubit.Approximately 18 inches, or 45.7 centimeters. Equivalent to 6handbreadths. The standard biblical measure of linear distance, asthe shekel is the standard measurement of weight. The distance fromthe elbow to the outstretched fingertip. Used to describe height,width, length (Exod. 25:10), distance (John 21:8), and depth (Gen.7:20). Use of the cubit is ancient. For simple and approximateconversion into modern units, divide the number of cubits in half formeters, then multiply the number of meters by 3 to arrive at feet.

1cubit = 2 spans = 6 handbreadths = 24 fingerbreadths

Day’sjourney.An approximate measure of distance equivalent to about 20–25miles, or 32–40 kilometers. Several passages reference a singleor multiple days’ journey as a description of the distancetraveled or the distance between two points: “a day’sjourney” (Num. 11:31; 1Kings 19:4), “a three-dayjourney” (Gen. 30:36; Exod. 3:18; 8:27; Jon. 3:3), “sevendays” (Gen. 31:23), and “eleven days” (Deut. 1:2).After visiting Jerusalem for Passover, Jesus’ parents journeyedfor a day (Luke 2:44) before realizing that he was not with them.

Fingerbreadth.The width of the finger, or ¼ of a handbreadth, approximately¾ inch, or 1.9 centimeters. The fingerbreadth was thebeginning building block of the biblical metrological system forlinear measurements. Used only once in the Scriptures, to describethe bronze pillars (Jer. 52:21).

Handbreadth.Approximately 3 inches, or 7.6 centimeters. Equivalent to 1/6 cubit,or four fingerbreadths. Probably the width at the base of the fourfingers. A short measure of length, thus compared to a human’sbrief life (Ps. 39:5). Also the width of the rim on the bread table(Exod. 25:25) and the thickness of the bronze Sea (1Kings7:26).

Milion.Translated “mile” in Matt. 5:41. Greek transliteration ofRoman measurement mille passuum, “a thousand paces.”

Orguia.Approximately 5 feet 11 inches, or 1.8 meters. Also translated as“fathom.” A Greek unit of measurement. Probably thedistance between outstretched fingertip to fingertip. Used to measurethe depth of water (Acts 27:28).

Reed/rod.Approximately 108 inches, or 274 centimeters. This is also a generalterm for a measuring device rather than a specific linear distance(Ezek. 40:3, 5; 42:16–19; Rev. 11:1; 21:15).

Sabbathday’s journey.Approximately ¾ mile, or 1.2 kilometers (Acts 1:12). About2,000 cubits.

Span.Approximately 9 inches, or 22.8 centimeters. Equivalent to threehandbreadths, and ½ cubit. The distance from outstretchedthumb tip to little-finger tip. The length and width of the priest’sbreastpiece (Exod. 28:16).

Stadion.Approximately 607 feet, or 185 meters. Equivalent to 100 orguiai.Used in the measurement of large distances (Matt. 14:24; Luke 24:13;John 6:19; 11:18; Rev. 14:20; 21:16).

LandArea

Seed.The size of a piece of land could also be measured on the basis ofhow much seed was required to plant that field (Lev. 27:16; 1Kings18:32).

Yoke.Fields and lands were measured using logical, available means. Inbiblical times, this meant the amount of land a pair of yoked animalscould plow in one day (1Sam. 14:14; Isa. 5:10).

Capacity

Cab.Approximately ½ gallon, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1 omer.Mentioned only once in the Scriptures, during the siege of Samaria(2Kings 6:25).

Choinix.Approximately ¼ gallon, or 0.9 liters. A Greek measurement,mentioned only once in Scripture (Rev. 6:6).

Cor.Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equal to thehomer, and to 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularlyof flour and grains (1Kings 4:22; 1Kings 5:11; 2Chron.2:10; 27:5; Ezra 7:22). In the LXX, cor is also a measure of liquidvolume, particularly oil (1Kings 5:11; 2Chron. 2:10; Ezra45:14).

Ephah.Approximately 3⁄5 bushel (6 gallons, or 22.7 liters).Equivalent to 10 omers, or 1⁄10 homer. Used for measuring flourand grains (e.g., Exod. 29:40; Lev. 6:20). Isaiah prophesied a day ofreduced agricultural yield, when a homer of seed would produce onlyan ephah of grain (Isa. 5:10). The ephah was equal in size to thebath (Ezek. 45:11), which typically was used for liquid measurements.

Homer.Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equivalent to1 cor, or 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularly ofvarious grains (Lev. 27:16; Isa. 5:10; Ezek. 45:11, 13–14; Hos.3:2). This is probably a natural measure of the load that a donkeycan carry, in the range of 90 kilograms. There may have existed adirect link between capacity and monetary value, given Lev. 27:16:“fifty shekels of silver to a homer of barley seed.” Alogical deduction of capacity and cost based on known equivalencesmight look something like this:

1homer = 1 mina; 1 ephah = 5 shekels; 1 omer = 1 beka

Koros.Approximately 10 bushels (95 gallons, or 360 liters). A Greek measureof grain (Luke 16:7).

Omer.Approximately 2 quarts, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄10ephah, 1⁄100 homer (Ezek. 45:11). Used by Israel in themeasurement and collection of manna in the wilderness (Exod.16:16–36) and thus roughly equivalent to a person’s dailyfood ration.

Saton.Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1 seah. Themeasurement of flour in Jesus’ parable of the kingdom of heaven(Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:21).

Seah.Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄3 ephah,or 1 saton. Used to measure flour, grain, seed, and other various drygoods (e.g., 2Kings 7:1; 1Sam. 25:18).

LiquidVolume

Bath.Approximately 6 gallons, or 22.7 liters. Equivalent to 1 ephah, whichtypically was used for measurements of dry capacity. Used in themeasurement of water (1Kings 7:26), oil (1Kings 5:11),and wine (2Chron. 2:10; Isa. 5:10).

Batos.Approximately 8 gallons, or 30.3 liters. A Greek transliteration ofthe Hebrew word bath(see above). A measure of oil (Luke 16:6).

Hin.Approximately 4 quarts (1gallon, or 3.8 liters). Equivalent to1⁄6 bath and 12 logs. Used in the measurement of water (Ezek.4:11), oil (Ezek. 46:5), and wine (Num. 28:14).

Log.Approximately 1⁄3 quart, or 0.3 liter. Equivalent to 1⁄72bath and 1⁄12 hin. Mentioned five times in Scripture,specifically used to measure oil (Lev. 14:10–24).

Metretes.Approximately 10 gallons, or 37.8 liters. Used in the measurement ofwater at the wedding feast (John 2:6).