Sermon and Worship Resources (2024)

Located in the biblical Negev, this city was significant for the patriarchs and continued as the recognized southern boundary of the political entity of Israel. Because the Negev receives between eight and twelve inches of rainfall per year, water is a critical issue.

Beersheba means both “well of the seven” and “well of the oath.” The encounters between Abraham and the Philistine leaders Abimelek and Phicol had to do with water rights (Gen. 21:2232). When Abimelek’s servants seized a well that Abraham had dug, he, in order to demonstrate that his own claim on the well was valid, offered seven lambs to Abimelek, and the two made a treaty. The narrative incorporates both meanings of sheba’. Although Abraham was a formidable presence in the region, it is evident that it was under Philistine control at this time (Gen. 21:33–34). Abraham remained there for a long time, returning to Beersheba after the test on Mount Moriah (Gen. 22:19). These same elements and names recur in the interactions between Isaac and the Philistine leaders (Gen. 26:12–33). Beersheba continued to be a center for the seminomadic patriarchs. Isaac lived there with his family; after Jacob tricked Esau out of Isaac’s blessing, Jacob left Beersheba and headed for Harran (Gen. 28:10). Near the end of his life, as he set out for Egypt to rejoin Joseph, Jacob stopped in Beersheba to offer sacrifices to God (Gen. 46:1–5). Much later, as Elijah fled from Jezebel and made his way back to Horeb, the source of the covenant, he stopped at Beersheba (1Kings 19:1–8).

From the period of the judges until the end of the united monarchy, the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” indicated the extent from north to south of Israel (e.g., Judg. 20:1; 1Sam. 3:23; 2Sam. 3:10). After the secession and demise of the northern kingdom, Beersheba still indicated the southern boundary (e.g., 2Chron. 19:4; 30:5). In the postexilic period the people of Judah inhabited territory from Beersheba to the Hinnom Valley (Neh. 11:27–30).

The blessings and curses of Scripture are grounded in a worldview that understands the sovereign God to be the ultimate dispenser of each. God is the giver of blessing and ultimately the final judge who determines withdrawal or ban. He is the source of every good gift (James 1:17) and the one who gives power and strength to prosper (Deut. 8:17).

Old Testament. The sovereign God sometimes employs agents of blessing in his creation. The blessing extends to the nations through Abraham (Gen. 12:3), to Jacob through Isaac (Gen. 2627), and to the people through the priests (Num. 6:24–26).

The theme of blessing/curse is used to structure Deut. 27–28 and Lev. 26 (cf. Josh. 8:34) in the overall covenant format of these books. Scholars have observed that the object of this format is not symmetry or logical unity but fullness. From this perspective, the blessing/curse structure functions to enforce obedience for the purpose of ensuring a relationship. The blessing of Deuteronomy also includes the benefits of prosperity, power, and fertility. The curse, on the other hand, is the lack or withdrawal of benefits associated with the relationship.

The creation narratives are marked with the theme and terminology of blessing (Gen. 1:22, 28; 2:3; cf. 5:2; 9:1). The objects of blessing in Gen. 1:22, 28 (cf. 5:2; 9:1) are the living creatures and human beings created in the image of God. As the revelation progresses, the blessing of God is particularized in the lives of Noah (Gen. 6–8), Abraham (Gen. 12–25) and his descendants, and the nation of Israel and its leadership (Gen. 26–50). In these contexts, the blessing is intended to engender offspring and to prosper recipients in material and physical ways (compare a similar NT emphasis in Acts 17:25; cf. Matt. 5:45; 6:25–33; Acts 14:17).

The blessing of God is also extended to inanimate objects that enhance and prosper one’s quality of life. The seventh day of creation is the object of blessing (Gen. 2:7; Exod. 20:11), perhaps giving it a sense of well-being and health. Objects and activities of life such as baskets and kneading troughs (Deut. 28:5), barns (Deut. 28:8), and work (Job 1:10; Ps. 90:17) are blessed.

God promises to bless those who fear him (Ps. 128:1). Blessing is designed for those who, out of a deep sense of awe of God’s character, love and trust him. The God-fearer confidently embraces God’s promises, obediently serves, and takes seriously God’s warnings. The blessings itemized in Ps. 128 are comparable to those detailed in Deut. 28 relating to productivity and fruitfulness (cf. Ps. 128:2 with Deut. 28:12; Ps. 128:3 with Deut. 28:4, 11). The Deuteronomic concept of blessing and curse is questioned when God-fearers undergo a period of suffering or experience God’s apparent absence (e.g., Joseph, Job; cf. Jesus).

New Testament. In the NT, blessings are not exclusively spiritual. God gives both food and joy (Acts 14:17) and provides the necessities of life (Matt. 6:25–33). The NT does connect blessing with Christ, and it focuses attention on the spiritual quality of the gift that originates from Christ himself and its intended benefit for spiritual individuals.

Regarding curse, the NT explains that Christ bore the curse of the law to free us from its deadening effect (Gal. 3:10–13). Revelation 22:3 anticipates a time when the curse associated with sin will be completely removed and the blessing associated with creation will prevail. “Anathema” is a transliteration of a Greek word that means “curse” (see NIV). Paul invokes it for those who pervert or reject the gospel of God’s free grace (1Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9).

(1)The fifth of Jacob’s twelve sons, and the namesake of one of Israel’s twelve tribes, Dan was the first son of Bilhah, servant to Rachel.

(2)The city of Dan, originally known as Laish. After attacking the people of Laish (Leshem) and destroying the city, the Danites rebuilt it, settled there, and named it “Dan” after their forefather (Judg. 18:2729; cf. Josh. 19:40–48).

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage and divorce. Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:617). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the OT (Mark 10:1–12).

Children and parenting. Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

The various Hebrew and Greek words that express the idea of fulfillment occur hundreds of times in the Bible, and the concept often is present even when the specific word is not. At the basic level, fulfillment indicates a relationship between two (or more) things in which the second is said to “fill up” the significance of the first. Frequently this takes the form of a specific promise that is said to be fulfilled when the person, object, or event referred to comes to pass. There are countless examples of this type of fulfillment, some of which even quote the specific promise that is being fulfilled. The seventy years of Babylonian captivity prophesied by Jeremiah (Jer. 29:10) are said to be fulfilled when Cyrus permits the Jews to return to the land (Ezra 1:14). Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1–6) fulfills the promise of a ruler who will shepherd Israel (Mic. 5:2).

But the concept of fulfillment goes beyond specific promises that are then said to be fulfilled in a particular person, object, or event. In the broadest sense of the term, one can say that the NT fulfills what the OT promises. After his resurrection, Jesus reminds his disciples, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). He then provides a summary of the entire OT message: “The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46–47).

Although the concepts of sin and guilt often overlap, a basic distinction between the two can be established. In the biblical sense, sin is basically violation of divine stipulations (what a person does or does not do), whereas guilt is the resulting state, or one’s “legal” status (what that person has become as a result). In essence, one commits sin and becomes guilty (Hab. 1:11).

The state of being guilty is further distinguished from the punishment that it draws, because one can be pronounced guilty and still be exempted from punishment. Nor should guilt be mistaken for the emotional response of the culprits toward themselves and their victims. No matter how sincere it may be, remorse does not eliminate the guilt.

In the biblical sense, guilt is something objective and separate from the will or intention of the culprit. One can pay back debt and render the obligation fulfilled. One cannot, however, cancel one’s own guilt. In the sacrificial system of the OT, the offender must perform restitution to the victim and also give a guilt offering to God. This reflects the notion that in committing sinful acts in violation of God’s laws, the culprit has offended not only the victim but also God. This is what David means in Ps. 51:34 (with his sin in full display before God, David realizes that he has sinned against God and God alone).

This is why those who scoff at the guilt offering are fools (Prov. 14:9). By doing this, they insult God’s being and character. Such a biblical view of guilt implies that forgiveness and restoration should come from without, from source(s) other than the culprit and victim. The Bible affirms that the only one capable of offsetting the cost of human sin is the sinless Christ, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). His life was laid on the cross and offered as the acceptable sacrifice for the totality of guilt, and as a result it freed those who believe in him from the obligation of the guilt.

Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:1617), Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete. They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves were inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with their attempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).

In the midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways that sin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blow upon the offspring of the woman, the offspring of the woman would defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adam and Eve, covering their sin.

In one sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holy God satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationship with human beings without compromising his justice? The short answer is: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), who eventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemed them from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought them to Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated on obedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant was the sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided as a means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrifices made for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year to atone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies and sprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took a second goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness.... The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinful people, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.

During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it was revealed that he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to be the obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation (Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13; Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also the Suffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. With his justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify all who are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus Christ did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).

After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers began proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus did and calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness, they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned against them (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believers continue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal. 5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23). The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the new heaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse (Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).

As even this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesis to Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’s plot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative; it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved in order for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.

Lamps were commonly found in family dwellings (2Kings 4:10; Matt. 5:15). They also played an important role in the tabernacle and temple (Exod. 25:3139; 1Kings 7:49), where they not only illuminated their interiors but also, having the shape of a tree, symbolically evoked memories of Eden. Lamps could be carried or placed on a shelf or stand. Since they could hold only enough olive oil to burn for several hours, a woman who ensured that “her lamp does not go out at night” would have been particularly diligent (Prov. 31:18).

The Bible frequently uses lamp or light metaphorically. It can symbolize life (Job 18:6; 21:17; Prov. 13:9; 20:20; 24:20) or the continuation of the Davidic line (2Sam. 21:17; 1Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2Kings 8:19). Jesus is the light of the world, who gives spiritual life (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; cf. 1:9; 3:19). John the Baptist was a lamp illuminating the way to the Messiah (John 5:35). Jesus’ followers should shine as lights so that the world can see their good works and praise God (Matt. 5:14–16). God’s word is a lamp to guide one’s way (Ps. 119:105; Prov. 6:23). God himself is a light who enables people to live in difficult times (2Sam. 22:29; Job 29:3). In one of Jesus’ parables, the foolish virgins who did not prepare enough oil to keep their lamps burning serve as a warning for people to be ready for Christ’s return (Matt. 25:1–13).

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1 17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 1:19; 1John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1John 2:2).

The Philistines inhabited the southern coastal plain of Palestine as early as the time of Abraham (Gen. 21:32, 34; 26:1, 8, 1415, 18) and of Moses (Exod. 13:17; 15:14; 23:31), and as late as the exilic (Ezek. 16:27, 57; 25:15–16) and postexilic (Zech. 9:6) periods.

The mention of Philistines in Gen. 21 and 26 refers either to early inhabitants of the territory that later would be inhabited by Philistines or to peoples who later would become part of the Philistine nation. The Philistines mentioned in the Bible may constitute diverse peoples who migrated by land or by sea to the southern coastal region of Palestine over several centuries.

Prior to the influx of at least some of the Philistines from eastern Mediterranean islands, the southern coastal region was, at various times, inhabited by Canaanites (Num. 13:29; Deut. 1:7; Josh. 5:1; cf. Josh. 13:4); Anakites, who fled to Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod after being defeated by Joshua (Josh. 11:21–22); and Avvites, who were replaced by the victorious Caphtorites (Deut. 2:23; Josh. 13:3).

The migration of Judah and other tribes of Israel into Canaan resulted in several centuries of hostility with the Philistines. Judah’s allotment of land included the cities and surrounding areas of Ekron, Ashdod, and Gaza, as well as “the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea” (Josh. 15:45–47). The soldiers of Judah subsequently conquered at least part of this area (Judg. 1:18).

During the time of the judges, Shamgar “struck down six hundred Philistines with an oxgoad” (Judg. 3:31). Samson burned the grain, vineyards, and olive groves of the Philistines when he fastened torches to the tails of foxes (15:4–5). He killed a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of a donkey (15:15) and, after they had gouged out his eyes, killed many Philistine leaders when he pushed over the pillars supporting one of their temples (16:21, 29–30).

In one of their many victories over Israel (cf. Judg. 10:7; 13:1; 15:11; 1Sam. 4:2, 10; 12:9), the Philistines captured the ark of God and placed it in the temple of Dagon in Ashdod (1 Sam. 5:1). The next day the god was found lying on his face before the ark of God.

Saul’s reign as Israel’s king was characterized by war with the Philistines (1Sam. 9:16; 14:52; cf. 7:13) and included both defeat (13:6–7; 23:27; 31:1) and victory (14:13, 22, 31, 47; 17:52–53; 24:1).

The military dominance of the Philistines over Israel during the time of Saul is attributed to their control of blacksmithing and ironwork (1Sam. 13:19–22). This superiority in weapons allowed the Philistines to extend their influence beyond the region of the five cities into Judean territory (1Sam. 4:1; 7:7; 10:5; 13:3, 16–18, 23; 17:1; 29:1, 11; 31:7–8, 10; 2Sam. 5:18, 22; 23:14).

Saul became jealous of David after his defeat of the Philistine champion Goliath (1Sam. 17:4, 50; 18:7–9). To win the hand of Saul’s daughter Michal, David and his men killed two hundred Philistines and presented their foreskins to Saul (18:27). When Saul later attempted to kill David, David sought refuge with the Philistines and lived with them for sixteen months (27:1, 7).

When the Philistines gathered to fight against Israel, David’s host, Achish, invited him to participate in the battle against his enemy Saul (1Sam. 28:1). David was spared the dilemma of fighting against his own people when, fearing his betrayal, the other Philistine rulers refused to let David accompany them (29:4). In the ensuing battle between Israel and the Philistines, Saul’s sons were killed, and Saul took his own life after being critically injured by a Philistine archer (31:2–4).

David’s early success in battle against the Philistines (1Sam. 17:50; 19:8; 23:5) continued upon his accession to kingship after the death of Saul (2Sam. 5:20, 25; 8:1, 12), though in his old age David was too tired to fight well against the Philistines (2Sam. 21:15).

Later battles between Judah and the Philistines took place during the reigns of Jehoram (2Chron. 21:16–17), Uzziah (2Chron. 26:6–7), Ahaz (2Chron. 28:18), and Hezekiah (2Kings 18:8). Jehoshaphat received tribute from the Philistines (2Chron. 17:11).

In the OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modern ways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayer does not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer to God, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray to humans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction between the sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in the OT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, such as that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. These should be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, but rather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” in recognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. In the NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.

A presupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and may indeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is not primarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of the one praying, but rather about God changing the circ*mstances of the one praying.

The depiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of the OT, but there are important developments.

Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:1920; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26).

Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

The Holy Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we are able to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is to be done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1Cor. 14:15).

Jesus encourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke 18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).

Jesus becomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions (Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points (Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offers prayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers that are (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and not give up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overly literalized “pray without ceasing” in 1Thess. 5:17 NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb. 5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and even now, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, our intercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb. 4:14–16).

Samuel oversaw the transition from the period of judges to the time of the monarchy. He was the final judge (1Sam. 7:6, 1516; cf. 8:1 NIV mg.). He also was a priest (2:18) and functioned as a prophet (3:20).

Samuel was remembered as an important and faithful spiritual leader, compared favorably even to Moses (Jer. 15:1; Acts 13:20; Heb. 11:32). He is honored as a prophet whose words anticipated the coming of Jesus Christ (Acts 3:24).

There are numerous relationships in the OT that could be characterized as following a servant-master model. These included service to the monarchy (2Sam. 9:2), within households (Gen. 16:8), in the temple (1Sam. 2:15), or to God himself (Judg. 2:8). We also see extensive slavery laws in passages such as Exod. 21:111; Lev. 25:39–55; Deut. 15:12–18. The slavery laws were concerned with the proper treatment of Hebrew slaves and included guidelines for their eventual release and freedom. For example, Hebrew slaves who had sold themselves to others were to serve for a period of six years. On the seventh year, known also as the Sabbath Year, they were to be released. Once released, they were not to be sent away empty-handed, but rather were to be supported from the owner’s “threshing floor” and “winepress.” Slaves also had certain rights that gave them special privileges and protection from their masters. Captured slaves, for example, were allowed rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10) and during special holidays (Deut. 16:11, 14). They could also be freed if their master permanently hurt or crippled them (Exod. 21:26–27). Also, severe punishment was imposed on a person who beat a slave to death (Exod. 21:20–21).

Slavery was very common in the first century AD, and there were many different kinds of slaves. For example, slaves might live in an extended household (oikos) in which they were born, or they might choose to sell themselves into this situation (1Pet. 2:18–25). Although slavery was a significant part of society in the first century AD, we never see Jesus or the apostles encourage slavery. Instead, both Paul and Peter encouraged godly character and obedience for slaves within this system (Eph. 6:5–8; Col. 3:22–25; 1Tim. 6:1–2; Philemon; 1Pet. 2:18–21). Likewise, masters were encouraged to be kind and fair to their slaves (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Later in the NT, slave trading was condemned by the apostle Paul as contrary to “sound doctrine” and “the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God” (1Tim. 1:10–11).

Jesus embodied the idea of a servant in word and deed. He fulfilled the role of the “Servant of the Lord,” the Suffering Servant predicted by the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 42:1–4; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12). He also took on the role of a servant in the Gospels, identifying himself as the Son of Man who came to serve (Mark 10:45) and washing the disciples’ feet (John 13:4–5). Paul says that in the incarnation Jesus took on “the very nature of a servant” (Phil. 2:7).

The special relationship between Jesus and his followers is captured in the servant-master language of the NT Epistles, especially in Paul’s letters (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1). This language focuses not so much on the societal status of these servants as on the allegiance and honor owed to Christ Jesus.

Protected in the hill country of Ephraim, Shiloh was a secure location for the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant in the early centuries of Israel’s presence in the land. Judges 21:19 gives a remarkably precise location for Shiloh. It was “north of Bethel, east of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.” This means that it was centrally located in the hill country just off the internal north-south ridge route.

The Israelites established their worship center at Shiloh after the conquest of the land (Josh. 18:1), and it was there that the assembly gathered in order to apportion the rest of the tribal allotments after Judah’s apportionment (18:810).

Although it is uncertain when the sanctuary at Shiloh was destroyed, it was likely by the Philistines as they later encroached well into Israelite territory (1Sam. 13). Nevertheless, Shiloh remained a significant location. As the northern kingdom broke away from the south, Ahijah from Shiloh prophesied to Jeroboam son of Nebat (1Kings 11:29–40) and later addressed Jeroboam’s wife (1Kings 14:2–4). Jeremiah reminded the inhabitants of Jerusalem that God destroyed Shiloh, the first dwelling place for his name in the land, because of the wickedness of Israel and would do the same again to the temple in Jerusalem (Jer. 7:12–14; 26:6–9). Even the psalmist noted the tragedy: “He abandoned the tabernacle of Shiloh” (Ps. 78:60).

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).

(1) Themost significant Aphek in the Bible is about seven miles east of TelAviv. The springs nearby become the head­waters ofthe Yarqon River, flowing to the Mediterranean Sea. Traffic onthe international coastal route passing through Israel was forcedbetween the foothills to the east and the river, making this astrategic location. During the transition to the monarchy, thePhilistines were at Aphek when the Israelites attacked them fromEbenezer (1 Sam. 4:1) just east in the foothills. ThePhilistines won the battle, captured the ark, and continuedPhilistine control of the international coastal highway. At the endof Saul’s life, the Philistines mustered their troops at thisnorthern “boundary” of the Philistine plain beforesetting off to challenge Israel for control of the Jezreel Valley(1 Sam. 29:1).

(2) Asher’stribal boundary, north of Mount Carmel, indicates an Aphek near theMediterranean Sea (Josh. 19:30) from which the Canaanites were notdislodged (Judg. 1:31).

(3) TheArameans attacked the northern kingdom at a third Aphek on the eastside of the Sea of Galilee (1 Kings 20:26–30; see also2 Kings 13:17). The Arabic Fiq preserves this place name. Herodrebuilt the city on the coastal plain, renaming it “Antipatris”after his father. When Paul was sent to Caesarea after the plot onhis life was uncovered, the soldiers with him went as far asAntipatris (Acts 23:31–32).

The English word “atonement” comes from anAnglo-Saxon word, “onement,” with the preposition “at”;thus “at-onement,” or “at unity.” In someways this word has more in common with the idea of reconciliationthan our modern concept of atonement, which, while having “oneness”as its result, emphasizes rather the idea of how that unity isachieved, by someone “atone-ing” for a wrong or wrongsdone. Atonement, in Christian theology, concerns how Christ achievedthis “onement” between God and sinful humanity.

Theneed for atonement comes from the separation that has come aboutbetween God and humanity because of sin. In both Testaments there isthe understanding that God has distanced himself from his creatureson account of their rebellion. Isaiah tells the people of Judah,“Your iniquities have separated you from your God”(59:2). And Paul talks about how we were “God’s enemies”(Rom. 5:10). So atonement is the means provided by God to effectreconciliation. The atonement is required on account of God’sholiness and justice.

OldTestament

Inthe OT, the sacrificial system was the means by which sins wereatoned for, ritual purity was restored, iniquities were forgiven, andan amicable relationship between God and the offerer of the sacrificewas reestablished. Moses tells the Israelites that God has given themthe blood of the sacrificial animals “to make atonement foryourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement forone’s life” (Lev. 17:11). In essence, this is the basicoperating principle for atonement in the OT—the offering of theblood of a slaughtered animal in place of the life of the offerer.However, there have been significant scholarly debates regardingwhether this accurately portrays the ancient Israelite understandingof atonement.

Themeaning of “to atone.”First, there is disagreement over the precise meaning of the Hebrewword kapar (“to atone”). Among the more popularsuggestions are these: to cover, to remove, to wipe out, to appease,to make amends, to redeem or ransom, to forgive, and to avert/divert.Of late, one very influential theory is that atonement has little ornothing to do with the individual offerer, but serves only to purifythe tabernacle or temple and the furniture within from the impuritiesthat attach to them on account of the community’s sin. Thistheory, though most probably correct in what it affirms,unnecessarily restricts the effects of atonement to the tabernacleand furniture. There are, to be sure, texts that specifically mentionatonement being made for the altar (e.g., Exod. 29:36–37; Lev.8:15). But the repeated affirmation for most of the texts inLeviticus and Numbers is that the atonement is made for the offerer(e.g., Lev. 1:4; 4:20, 26); atonement results in forgiveness of sinfor the one bringing the offering. As far as the precise meaning ofkapar is concerned, it may be that some of the suggested meaningsoverlap and that a particular concept is more prevalent in somepassages, and another one in others.

Therehas also been debate over the significance of the offerer laying ahand on the head of the sacrificial animal (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 3:2).This has traditionally been understood as an identification of theofferer with the sacrifice and a transference of the offerer’ssins to the sacrifice. Recently this has been disputed and theargument made instead that it only signifies that the animal doesindeed belong to the offerer, who therefore has the right to offerit. But again, this is unduly restrictive; it should rather be seenas complementary to what has traditionally been understood by thisgesture. Indeed, in the rite for the Day of Atonement, when thepriest lays his hands on the one goat, confesses Israel’s sinand wickedness, and in doing so is said to be putting them on thegoat’s head (Lev. 16:21), this would seem to affirm thecorrectness of the traditional understanding. The sacrifice is thusbest seen as substitutionary: it takes the place of the offerer; itdies in his stead.

Therelationship between God and the offerer. Second,granted that the word kapar has to do with the forgiveness of sins,the question arises as to the exact effect that it has on therelationship between God and the offerer. The question here iswhether the effect is expiation or propitiation. Does the offeringexpiate the sin—wipe it out, erase it, remove it? Or does itpropitiate the one to whom the sacrifice is offered? That is, does itappease and placate God, so that the threat of God’s wrath isremoved? In one respect, the distinction seems artificial; it seemslogical that expiation naturally results in propitiation. On theother hand, the modern-day tendency to deny that God could possiblybe a God of wrath makes the question relevant. In any case, there arecertainly, in both religious and nonreligious contexts, passageswhere something like “appease” or “pacify”appears to be a proper rendering of kapar (Gen. 32:20; Exod. 32:30;Num. 16:46–47; 25:1–13; 1 Sam. 3:14). The effect ofatonement is that sins are removed and forgiven, and God is appeased.

Inconjunction with this last point, it is also important to note thatthere are a number of places where it is said that God does thekapar, that God is the one who makes atonement. Deuteronomy 21:8calls upon God, literally, to “atone [NIV: “accept thisatonement”] for your people, Israel.” In Deut. 32:43 Godwill “make atonement for his land and people.” Psalm 65:3(ESV) states that God “atone[s] for our transgressions”(ESV). Hezekiah prays in 2 Chron. 30:18, “May the Lord,who is good, pardon [atone for] everyone.” In Ps. 78:38 (ESV),God is said to have “atoned” for Israel’s iniquity.Psalm 79:9 (ESV) asks God to “atone for our sins for yourname’s sake.” In Isa. 43:3 kapar is translated as“ransom,” and God says to Israel that he gave “Egyptfor your ransom.” In Ezek. 16:63 God declares that he will“make atonement” for all the sins that Israel hascommitted. It may be that in most of these passages “atone”is to be understood as a synonym of “forgive.” However,as many commentators have noted, in at least some of these passages,the thought is that God is either being called upon to take or istaking upon himself the role of high priest, atoning for the sins ofthe people. It is important to remember God’s declaration inLev. 17:11 that he has given to the Israelites the blood of thesacrificial animals to make atonement for their sins. Atonement, nomatter how it is conceived of or carried out, is a gift that Godgraciously grants to his covenant people.

Thatleads to a consideration of one particularly relevant passage, Isa.52:13–53:12. In this text a figure referred to as “my[the Lord’s] servant” (52:13) is described as one who“took up our pain and bore our suffering” (53:4). He was“pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed forour iniquities” (53:5). “The Lord has laid on him theiniquity of us all” (53:6). And then we are told, “Yet itwas the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,”and that “the Lord makes his life an offering for sin [NASB:“guilt offering”]” (53:10). There are many issueswith regard to the proper interpretation of this “Servant Song”(as it is often called), one of them being whether the termtranslated “guilt offering” should really be thought ofalong the lines of the guilt offering described in the book ofLeviticus (5:14–6:7; 7:1–10). But if the traditionalChristian understanding of this passage is correct, we have here apicture of God himself assuming the role of priest and atoning forthe sins of his people by placing their iniquities and sins on hisservant, a figure regarded by Jesus and the apostles in the NT to beGod’s very own son, Christ Jesus.

NewTestament

Therelationship between the Testaments.When we come to the NT, four very important initial points should bemade.

First,God’s wrath against sin and sinners is just as much a NTconsideration as an OT one. God still considers those who are sinfuland unrighteous to be his “enemies” (Rom. 5:10; Col.1:21). Wrath and punishment await those who do not confess JesusChrist as Lord (John 3:36; Rom. 2:5; Eph. 2:3). Atonement is themeans of averting this wrath.

Second,salvation is promised to those who come to God by faith in ChristJesus, but there is still the problem of how God can, at the sametime, be “just” himself and yet also be the one who“justifies” sinners and declares them righteous (Rom.3:26). God will not simply declare sinners to be justified unless hisown justness is also upheld. Atonement is the way by which God isboth just and justifier.

Third,as we saw in the OT that, ultimately, God is the one who atones, soalso in the NT God is the one who provides the means for atonement.It is by his gracious initiative that atonement becomes possible. IfJesus’ death is the means by which atonement is achieved, it isGod himself who “presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement”(Rom. 3:25). It was God himself who “so loved the world that hegave his one and only Son” (John 3:16). God himself “senthis Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John4:10). God “did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for usall” (Rom. 8:32). Additionally, Christ himself was not anunwilling victim; he was actively involved in the accomplishing ofatonement by his death (Luke 9:31; John 10:15–18; Heb. 9:14).

Fourth,the atoning sacrifice of the Son was necessary because, ultimately,the OT sacrifices could not really have provided the necessaryatonement: “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goatsto take away sins” (Heb. 10:4).

Portrayalsof Christ’s work of atonement.It has become common of late to refer to the different “images”or “metaphors” of atonement that appear in the NT. Thisis understandable on one level, but on another level there issomething misleading about it. So, for example, when the NT authorsspeak of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, it is not at all clear thatthey intend for the reader to take this as imagery. Rather, Christreally is a sacrifice, offered by God the Father, to take away sins,and to bear in his own body the penalty that should have been placedon the sinner. Christ’s sacrifice has an organic connection tothe OT sacrificial system, as the “full, final sacrifice.”The author of Hebrews would not have considered this to be imagery.In fact, a better case could be made that, from his perspective,Christ was the real sacrifice, and all the instances of sacrifice inthe OT were the imagery (Heb. 10:1). So as we look at the differentportrayals of Christ in his work of atonement in the NT, some ofthese may best be categorized as imagery or metaphor, while othersperhaps are better described as a “facet” of, or a“window” on, the atonement. It should also be noted thatthe individual portrayals do not exclude the others, and in somecases they overlap.

• Ransom.Some passages in the NT speak of Christ’s death as a ransompaid to set us free (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb.9:15). The same Greek word translated “ransom” in thesepassages is rendered as “redeem” or “redemption”in other passages (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Other forms of the same wordare also translated “redeem” or “redemption”in Gal. 3:13–14; 4:5; Titus 2:14; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet.1:18–19; Rev. 14:3. A near synonym of these words is used inRev. 5:9; 14:4, referring to how Christ “purchased”people by his blood. In most of these cases the picture is that ofslaves who have been ransomed, redeemed, or purchased from the slavemarket. Sometimes this is referred to as an “economic”view of atonement, though this label seems a bit crass, for thepurchase is not of a commodity but of human lives at the expense ofChrist’s own life and blood. To ask the question as to whom theransom was paid is probably taking the picture too far. But those whoare ransomed are redeemed from a life of slavery to sin and to thelaw.

• Cursebearer. In Gal. 3:13–14, noted above, there is also the pictureof Christ as one who bore the curse of the law in our place. Thelanguage is especially striking because rather than saying thatChrist bore the curse, Paul says that Christ became “a curse.”This is an especially forceful way of saying that Christ fully tookinto his own person the curse that was meant for us.

• Penaltybearer. Closely related to “curse bearer,” this portrayaldepicts Christ as one who has borne the legal consequences of oursins, consequences that we should have suffered; rather, becauseChrist has borne the penalty, we are now declared to be righteous andno longer subject to condemnation. This idea stands behind much ofthe argumentation that Paul uses in Romans and Galatians, and it alsointersects with the other portrayals. Passages representative of thispicture are Rom. 3:24–26; 4:25; 5:8–21; 8:32–34;Gal. 3:13–14; Eph. 2:15. It is also what should be understoodby Peter’s description of Christ’s death as “thejust for the unjust” in 1 Pet. 3:18 (NASB, NET), as wellas in 2 Cor. 5:21, where Paul states that Christ has become “sinfor us” so that we might become the “righteousness ofGod.”

• Propitiation.There are four passages where the NIV uses “atonement” or“atoning” in the translation to reflect either the Greekverb hilaskomai or related nouns hilastērion or hilasmos. Thisis the word group that the LXX regularly uses to translate the Hebrewverb kapar and related nouns. There has been much debate about theprecise meaning of the word in these four NT texts, in particular, asto whether it means to “expiate” (“remove guilt”)or to “propitiate” (“appease” or “avertwrath”). The better arguments have been advanced in favor of“propitiate”; at the very least, propitiation is impliedin expiation. The wrath that we should have suffered on account ofour sins has been suffered by Jesus Christ instead. Although thespecific word is not used, this is the understanding as well in thosepassages where it is said either that Christ died “for oursins” (1 Cor. 15:3), “gave himself for our sins”(Gal. 1:4), “bore our sins” (1 Pet. 2:24), or thathis blood was poured out “for the forgiveness of sins”(Matt. 26:28; cf. Eph. 1:7).

• Passover.In 1 Cor. 5:7 Paul states that “Christ, our Passover lamb,has been sacrificed.” Although the Passover has nottraditionally been thought of as a sacrifice for sin (though manyscholars would argue that it was), at the very least we shouldrecognize a substitutionary concept at play in Paul’s use ofthe Passover idea. A lamb died so that the firstborn would not. TheGospel of John seems to have the same understanding. Early in theGospel, Jesus is proclaimed as the “Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sin of the world” (John 1:29). And then in his account ofJesus’ passion, John narrates that his crucifixion wasprecisely at the same time as the slaying of the Passover lambs (John19:14).

• Sacrifice.This theme has already been touched on in the other portraits above,but it is important to recognize the significance of this concept inthe NT and especially in the book of Hebrews. There, Christ isportrayed as both sacrifice and the high priest who offers thesacrifice (2:17; 7:27; 9:11–28; 10:10–21; 12:24). Hecame, not as some have argued, to show the uselessness of thesacrificial system, but rather to be the “full, finalsacrifice” within that system, “that he might makeatonement for the sins of the people” (2:17).

Ofcourse, it is not just the death of Christ that secures ourredemption. His entire earthly life, as well as his resurrection andheavenly intercessory work, must also be recognized. But with regardto the work of atonement per se, Christ’s earthly life,his sinless “active obedience,” is what qualifies him tobe the perfect sacrifice. His resurrection is the demonstration ofGod’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice (he “wasraised to life for our justification” [Rom. 4:25]). But it wasparticularly his death that provided atonement for our sins.

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).

The Philistines inhabited the southern coastal plain ofPalestine as early as the time of Abraham (Gen. 21:32, 34; 26:1, 8,14–15, 18) and of Moses (Exod. 13:17; 15:14; 23:31), and aslate as the exilic (Ezek. 16:27, 57; 25:15–16) and postexilic(Zech. 9:6) periods.

Historyand Culture

Thegeographical origin(s) of the Philistines cannot be stated withcertainty, though it appears likely that at least some of thePhilistines came from the vicinity of the Aegean Sea. The Philistineswere descendants of the Kasluhites (Gen. 10:14; cf. 1Chron.1:12), a group whose identity is uncertain. Since the Kasluhites aredescendants of Ham listed among other peoples from Egypt (Gen. 10:6,13–14), perhaps the Philistines migrated from the Nile Delta toone of the Mediterranean islands before moving to Canaan.

Therewas apparently a close association between the Kasluhites and theCaphtorites (cf. Gen. 10:14), for Amos 9:7 suggests that thePhilistines were from Caphtor (cf. Deut. 2:23; Jer. 47:4), a regionusually identified with Crete. The connection with Crete is seen withgreater clarity in Ezek. 25:16; Zeph. 2:5–6, for both prophetsrefer to the Philistines and the Kerethites (=Cretans) inparallel phrases. Caution leads us to note that the authors of Samueland Kings, though frequently referring to the Philistines, did notclearly equate the Philistines and the Kerethites (cf. 1Sam.30:14; 2Sam. 8:18; 15:18; 20:7, 23; 1Kings 1:38, 44;1Chron. 18:17).

Thematerial culture of the Philistines between about 1150 and 1000 BCshows similarities to, and likely influence from, what is found inthe islands of the Aegean Sea, Mycenae (southern Greece), Crete,Anatolia (south-central Turkey), Cyprus (cf. Num. 24:24), Egypt, andCanaan.

Philistinepottery of this time resembles what has been found in Mycenae (bowls,jars, and cups), Crete (cups), Cyprus (bottles, vessels, and a hollowpottery ring), and Egypt (jugs and cups). The spear and defensivegear of Goliath (1Sam. 17:5–7) were similar to theequipment of Aegean warriors. The hearths found at Tel Miqne (Ekron)and Tell Qasile were designed like those in Anatolia and the Aegeanregion. Philistine mud-brick altars were likely fashioned in light ofAegean, Cyprian, and Canaanite influence. The Ashdoda (a thronerepresenting a female deity) reflects Mycenaean, Cyprian, andCanaanite inspiration. This archaeological evidence suggests that atleast some of the Philistine inhabitants of the southern coastalplain of Palestine came from Mycenae (southern Greece) and theislands of the Aegean Sea in the late thirteenth or early twelfthcenturies BC, passing through Cyprus and Crete (and perhaps Anatoliaand/or Egypt) en route.

ThePhilistines adopted Canaanite gods (cf. 1Sam. 17:43), includingDagon (Judg. 16:23; 1Sam. 5:2–7), Ashtoreth (1Sam.31:10; cf. Judg. 10:6; 1Sam. 7:3–4), and Baal-Zebub(“lord of flies,” probably a cynical distortion ofBaal-Zebul, “lord of the [heavenly] dwelling”), the godof Ekron (2Kings 1:2–6, 16).

ThePhilistine Pentapolis consisted of three cities on or near theMediterranean coast (Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Gaza) and two inlandcities (Ekron and Gath) under the authority of five rulers (cf. Josh.13:3; Judg. 3:3; 1Sam. 6:4, 16, 18).

PapyrusHarrisI describes the defeat of the Philistines and other SeaPeoples by Ram-essesIII (1198–1166 BC), while theEgyptian Onomasticon of Amenope (late twelfth or early eleventhcentury BC) refers to the Philistines as one of the ethnic groupsthat settled in Palestine.

Philistinesin the Bible

Themention of Philistines in Gen. 21 and 26 refers either to earlyinhabitants of the territory that later would be inhabited byPhilistines or to peoples who later would become part of thePhilistine nation. The Philistines mentioned in the Bible mayconstitute diverse peoples who migrated by land or by sea to thesouthern coastal region of Palestine over several centuries.

Priorto the influx of at least some of the Philistines from easternMediterranean islands, the southern coastal region was, at varioustimes, inhabited by Canaanites (Num. 13:29; Deut. 1:7; Josh. 5:1; cf.Josh. 13:4); Anakites, who fled to Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod after beingdefeated by Joshua (Josh. 11:21–22); and Avvites, who werereplaced by the victorious Caphtorites (Deut. 2:23; Josh. 13:3).

Themigration of Judah and other tribes of Israel into Canaan resulted inseveral centuries of hostility with the Philistines. Judah’sallotment of land included the cities and surrounding areas of Ekron,Ashdod, and Gaza, as well as “the coastline of theMediterranean Sea” (Josh. 15:45–47). The soldiers ofJudah subsequently conquered at least part of this area (Judg. 1:18).

Duringthe time of the judges, Shamgar “struck down six hundredPhilistines with an oxgoad” (Judg. 3:31). Samson burned thegrain, vineyards, and olive groves of the Philistines when hefastened torches to the tails of foxes (15:4–5). He killed athousand Philistines with the jawbone of a donkey (15:15) and, afterthey had gouged out his eyes, killed many Philistine leaders when hepushed over the pillars supporting one of their temples (16:21,29–30).

Inone of their many victories over Israel (cf. Judg. 10:7; 13:1; 15:11;1Sam. 4:2, 10; 12:9), the Philistines captured the ark of Godand placed it in the temple of Dagon in Ashdod (5:1). The next daythe god was found lying on his face before the ark of God.

Saul’sreign as Israel’s king was characterized by war with thePhilistines (1Sam. 9:16; 14:52; cf. 7:13) and included bothdefeat (13:6–7; 23:27; 31:1) and victory (14:13, 22, 31, 47;17:52–53; 24:1).

Themilitary dominance of the Philistines over Israel during the time ofSaul is attributed to their control of blacksmithing and ironwork(1Sam. 13:19–22). This superiority in weapons allowed thePhilistines to extend their influence beyond the region of the fivecities into Judean territory (1Sam. 4:1; 7:7; 10:5; 13:3,16–18, 23; 17:1; 29:1, 11; 31:7–8, 10; 2Sam. 5:18,22; 23:14).

Saulbecame jealous of David after his defeat of the Philistine championGoliath (1Sam. 17:4, 50; 18:7–9). To win the hand ofSaul’s daughter Michal, David and his men killed two hundredPhilistines and presented their foreskins to Saul (18:27). When Saullater attempted to kill David, David sought refuge with thePhilistines and lived with them for sixteen months (27:1, 7).

Whenthe Philistines gathered to fight against Israel, David’s host,Achish, invited him to participate in the battle against his enemySaul (1Sam. 28:1). David was spared the dilemma of fightingagainst his own people when, fearing his betrayal, the otherPhilistine rulers refused to let David accompany them (29:4). In theensuing battle between Israel and the Philistines, Saul’s sonswere killed, and Saul took his own life after being criticallyinjured by a Philistine archer (31:2–4).

David’searly success in battle against the Philistines (1Sam. 17:50;19:8; 23:5) continued upon his accession to kingship after the deathof Saul (2Sam. 5:20, 25; 8:1, 12), though in his old age Davidwas too tired to fight well against the Philistines (2Sam.21:15).

Laterbattles between Judah and the Philistines took place during thereigns of Jehoram (2Chron. 21:16–17), Uzziah (2Chron.26:6–7), Ahaz (2Chron. 28:18), and Hezekiah (2Kings18:8). Jehoshaphat received tribute from the Philistines (2Chron.17:11).

Samuel oversaw the transition from the period of judges tothe time of the monarchy. He was the final judge (1Sam. 7:6,15–16; cf. 8:1 NIV mg.). He also was a priest (2:18) andfunctioned as a prophet (3:20).

Theaccount of his life begins when his mother, Hannah, desperatelyprayed that God would open her barren womb. The situation in Israelwas not good. Eli, the high priest, was incompetent and spirituallydull. He even mistook her sincere prayers for the blabbering of adrunkard (1Sam. 1:12–16). In answer to her prayers andher vow to dedicate her future child as a Nazirite (cf. Num. 6:1–21),God opened her womb, and Samuel was born. Upon his birth, he wascommitted to the service of Yahweh at the tabernacle.

Samuelwas quite different from Eli’s wicked sons, Hophni andPhinehas. While they stole from the sacrifices and slept with thewomen who ministered at the tabernacle, Samuel “was ministeringbefore the Lord” (1Sam. 2:18). The narrative even draws acontrast between Samuel and Eli in that the latter was dull and didnot immediately recognize that God was speaking to Samuel one evening(1Sam. 3).

Sometimeafter the death of Eli, Samuel found himself in the position ofleadership as a judge in Israel (1Sam. 7). God used him toinflict a serious, but not decisive, defeat against the Philistines.Afterward Samuel set up a stone called “Ebenezer” (“stoneof help”) to commemorate the event.

Thepeople, however, felt that Israel needed a stronger central leader toexpel the Philistines from their land, so they requested that Samuelanoint a king over them (1Sam. 8:5). This worried and angeredSamuel, who took it as a personal affront, and in reality it was moreseriously an insult toward God. The people should have trusted God toprovide the victory over the Philistines. Even so, God directedSamuel to anoint a king over the people, and Saul was chosen.

Afterthis event, Samuel no longer was judge over Israel, but he was apriest and a prophet. As such, he led the people in a covenantrenewal ritual whereby they reaffirmed their allegiance to God, theheavenly king, even though they now had an earthly king (1Sam.12).

Aspart of his duties, Samuel operated as the conscience of King Saul.He confronted Saul on numerous occasions when the king chose to gohis own way rather than obey the commands of Yahweh (1Sam.13;15).

Saulgreatly disappointed God and his representative Samuel. Accordingly,God commissioned Samuel to anoint the next king, even before thedeath of Saul. In Bethlehem, God directed Samuel to anoint David asthe future king of Israel.

Samueldied and was buried at Ramah before David’s kingship became areality (1Sam. 25:1). Even with death, the story of Samuel doesnot end. Toward the end of Saul’s life, God cut offcommunication with him. Desperate to control the outcome of a battlewith the Philistines, Saul showed his spiritual perversity byconsulting a necromancer. The latter summoned Samuel from the dead(1Sam. 28), and Samuel pronounced Saul’s demise.

Samuelwas remembered as an important and faithful spiritual leader,compared favorably even to Moses (Jer. 15:1; Acts 13:20; Heb. 11:32).He is honored as a prophet whose words anticipated the coming ofJesus Christ (Acts 3:24).

Protected in the hill country of Ephraim, Shiloh was a securelocation for the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant in the earlycenturies of Israel’s presence in the land. Judges 21:19 givesa remarkably precise location for Shiloh. It was “north ofBethel, east of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem, and southof Lebonah.” This means that it was centrally located in thehill country just off the internal north-south ridge route.

TheIsraelites established their worship center at Shiloh after theconquest of the land (Josh. 18:1), and it was there that the assemblygathered in order to apportion the rest of the tribal allotmentsafter Judah’s apportionment (18:8–10). When the tribeswest of the Jordan faced the possibility of war with the two andone-half tribes that had returned to Transjordan, Shiloh was thecentral meeting place (Josh. 22:9–12). The “house of God”continued to be at Shiloh during the period of the judges (Judg.18:31), and annual festivities were celebrated there (21:19–21).

Theapparatus of the cult was in place at Shiloh when Eli was the highpriest. Elkanah brought his two wives, Hannah and Peninnah, to Shilohto worship each year. When Samuel was born to Hannah, she dedicatedhim to God at Shiloh (1Sam. 1). Because Eli’s sons abusedtheir privileges as priests (1Sam. 2:14), God told Samuel thathe would remove the priesthood from Eli’s family. That word isaffirmed in 1Kings 2:27: “So Solomon removed Abiatharfrom the priesthood of the Lord, fulfilling the word the Lord hadspoken at Shiloh about the house of Eli.” God “continuedto appear at Shiloh, and there he revealed himself to Samuel throughhis word” (1Sam. 3:21).

Whenthe Philistines were encamped at Aphek on the coastal plain, theIsraelites engaged them in battle and lost. Viewing the ark of God asa magic box, the Israelites took it from Shiloh out to the battle,abusing the sanctity of that symbol. The ark was captured, and a manof the tribe of Benjamin ran uphill from Aphek through the ruggedShiloh wadi system and arrived at Shiloh to announce the news (1Sam.4:12).

Althoughit is uncertain when the sanctuary at Shiloh was destroyed, it waslikely by the Philistines as they later encroached well intoIsraelite territory (1Sam. 13). Nevertheless, Shiloh remained asignificant location. As the northern kingdom broke away from thesouth, Ahijah from Shiloh prophesied to Jeroboam son of Nebat(1Kings 11:29–40) and later addressed Jeroboam’swife (1Kings 14:2–4). Jeremiah reminded the inhabitantsof Jerusalem that God destroyed Shiloh, the first dwelling place forhis name in the land, because of the wickedness of Israel and woulddo the same again to the temple in Jerusalem (Jer. 7:12–14;26:6–9). Even the psalmist noted the tragedy: “Heabandoned the tabernacle of Shiloh” (Ps. 78:60).

The obligations of relationships within ancient societies andbetween social groups were frequently reinforced by means of oaths,and the practice of oath making (by both God and people) is witnessedto in the pages of the Bible. The name of God was frequently invoked(Judg. 8:19; 2Kings 2:2), but oaths were not to be made usingthe names of foreign deities (Ps. 16:4). For this reason, when anoath was broken, God’s name was profaned (Lev. 19:12). To takean oath was to ask God to witness what was promised, and it invitedhim to act as avenger if the promise was broken (Gen. 31:50; 1Sam.12:3). This made oath taking a religious act, and so oaths often weremade at sanctuaries and under the supervision of cultic officials(Num. 5:11–31; Judg. 11:11; Hos. 4:15).

Thewords of an oath were accompanied by various gestures, such asputting a hand “under the thigh” (near the genitals?)(Gen. 24:2; 47:29) or raising the right hand to heaven (Gen. 14:22;Deut. 32:40; Rev. 10:5–6). Daniel 12:7 depicts a particularlysolemn oath, involving the raising of both hands. By invoking God’sname, an oath invited God to punish the oath breaker, as in Ruth1:17: “May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely”(for similar wording, see 1Sam. 3:17; 14:44; 2Sam. 3:9).Such a self-maledictory oath may have been accompanied by the gestureof a hand at the throat, signifying the death penalty forinfringement. People brought a curse upon themselves if an oath wasbroken (e.g., Num. 5:22), either for doing what was wrong (Num. 5:22;1Sam. 19:6) or for not speaking the truth (e.g., Mark 14:71).Two Hebrew words are used in respect to oaths; the stronger one canactually mean a “curse.” The more common word forswearing may relate to the number seven, due to the ceremonies thatcould accompany oath making. For example, Abraham set aside seven ewelambs (Gen. 21:22–31).

Inthe Bible, God is portrayed as binding himself by oaths, most notablyhis sworn promises to Abraham (Gen. 22:16–18; 50:24). This factis used by the author of Hebrews in an argument designed to assurereaders that God meant what he said when he made promises to hispeople (Heb. 6:13–18). The coming of Jesus fulfilled the termsof that oath (Luke 1:73). So too the Davidic covenant was supportedby a divine oath (Pss. 89:35, 49; 110:4; 132:11), and this wasfulfilled by the enthronement of Christ at his resurrection andascension (Acts 2:30–33).

Jesus’teaching on oaths (Matt. 5:33–37) does not necessarilycontradict OT legislation (cf. Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21–23)but rather brings out the true heart of God behind the legislation.Oaths are unnecessary, Jesus said, for those who habitually tell thetruth. An emphatic yes or no is all that is needed. The teaching ofJames 5:12 reflects what is found in Jesus’ teaching on thissubject. This may not outlaw all oath taking, and certainly theapostle Paul did not understand there to be a blanket prohibition ofoaths, for in his letters he is on record as making oaths (Gal. 1:20;Phil. 1:8).

A divine communication in the form of visual imagery, usuallyaccompanied by words, and often using symbols that requireexplanation and spur reflection about God’s otherwiseimperceptible presence and activity. Presumably, the recipient “sees”the vision as an event of inward perception, often within a dreamduring sleep or in a divinely induced state of ecstasy (Gen. 15; Dan.7:1; 10:1–9; 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 thescene as direct observer and active participant (Dan. 8:1–2).

Propheticvisions are meant to be retold. For example, imagery is accompaniedby 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 propheticbooks as collections of visions (2Chron. 32:32; Nah. 1:1).Vision reports join oracles and other forms of prophetic speech asessential features of these works. Visions contribute to thecommunity’s spiritual well-being (Prov. 29:18; Ezek. 7:26), butnot always (Lam. 2:14; Ezek. 13; Zech. 13:4; Col. 2:18).

Visionsdrive the narrative surrounding Jesus’ birth (Matt. 1:18–2:23;Luke 1:1–2:20). The baptism of Jesus includes a visionaryelement, the Holy Spirit’s anointing of Jesus for his ministry,accompanied by the Father’s word (Matt. 3:16–17; Mark1:10–11; 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 thenarrative of Acts (e.g., chaps. 9–11). The book of Revelationopens with a vision of the Son of Man (1:9–20) and isstructured around three vision cycles of judgment interspersed withvisions of heaven meant to bolster the readers’ faithfulness.

Also known as kherem warfare or Yahweh war. The term “holywar,” though never used in the Bible, characterizes well thewars that Israel fought at God’s command, particularly thosewithin the Promised Land. God is present with Israel in war, and thusthe battlefield becomes holy ground. God gives Israel instructionsconcerning the waging of war in Deut. 7, 20. From these passages,plus the historical accounts of Israel’s wars, we can describeholy war as follows.

Beforethe Battle

Godtells Israel when to go to war. Israel’s leaders cannot engagein battle without first hearing from God. God reveals himself toJoshua, for instance, before the battle of Jericho to give himinstructions (Josh. 5:13–15). David inquires of God through thepriest Abiathar, who presumably uses oracular devices to discoverGod’s will (1Sam. 23:1–6). Joshua makes a seriouserror in not seeking God’s will in the matter of the Gibeonites(Josh. 9:14).

Oncethe Israelites learn that God wants them to go to battle, they mustspiritually prepare themselves. Since God makes his presence known onthe battlefield, the troops must be in a state of ritual puritycomparable to those who visit the sanctuary. Before the conquest, forinstance, it is necessary for the fighting men to undergocircumcision and to observe the Passover (Josh. 5:2–12).Prebattle sacrifices are also required (1Sam.13).

Duringthe Battle

TheArk of the Covenant plays a central role in holy war, carried bypriests and accompanying the army. The ark is a powerful symbol ofGod’s presence and indicates to the army that God fights forthem. The march into battle takes the form of a religious procession.The priests carrying the ark go first, while singers praise God(2Chron. 20:20–21). The long march in the wilderness hasthe character of such a march into battle, since Moses begins theday’s journey by shouting, “Rise up, Lord! May yourenemies be scattered; may your foes flee before you” (Num.10:35). Then the ark carried by priests leads the way.

SinceGod is present with the army, the number of troops and the quality oftheir weapons are unimportant. Indeed, on occasion when Israel has anample supply of troops, God commands that the war leader reduce theirnumber, as in the famous story of Gideon paring down his troops fromthirty-two thousand to three hundred. The purpose of this reductionis to demonstrate to the people with certainty that they win thebattle only because of God’s strength. The inexperienced David,armed with a slingshot, expresses this sentiment to the mercenarygiant Goliath before he kills him: “You come against me withsword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name ofthe Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you havedefied.... All those gathered here will know thatit is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle isthe Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands”(1Sam. 17:45, 47). Although the Israelites must engage theenemy, they know for certain that it is God who provides the victory.

Afterthe Battle

SinceGod wins the battle for Israel, the proper response is praise. The OTcontains many songs that celebrate victory in warfare (Exod. 15;Judg. 5; Pss. 24; 98; 149).

Thetreatment of the plunder and prisoners of war depends on whether thebattle takes place in the promised land. If the battle takes placeoutside the land, then, while the men are killed, the women andchildren are spared. If the battle takes place in the land, thenkherem goes into effect. The Hebrew word kherem is difficult totranslate (possibilities include “complete destruction,”“things under the ban,” “things devoted to theLord”), but it is clear that it means that all the plunder goesto God (the sanctuary treasury) and that all the people (men, women,and children), and sometimes all the animals, are killed. The purposeof this is to keep the inhabitants of the land from influencingIsrael to worship other gods. Also, God uses Israel as an instrumentof his judgment against these sinful nations.

Warfareagainst Israel

Whilemost divinely ordained warfare was directed toward Israel’senemies, God also used foreign nations to judge his sinful people.The initial defeat at Ai (Josh. 7), the capture of the ark by thePhilistines at the time of Eli (1Sam. 4), and the destructionof Jerusalem and the temple by the Babylonians (Lam. 2) are examples.

NewTestament Holy War

Theprophets who ministered during the exilic and postexilic periodsannounced that God would appear again in the future. The people ofIsrael were living under the oppressive hand of Babylon and thenPersia, but they were comforted by the idea that God would come andsave them from their enemies (Dan. 7; Zech. 14; Mal.4).

Whenthe NT opens, John the Baptist proclaims that the time of judgmentannounced by these prophets has come (Matt. 3:7–12). After hebaptizes Jesus, he is put in prison and hears reports of Jesus’ministry that disturb him. He wonders why Jesus is not bringingviolent judgment against the enemies of God (Matt. 11:1–15).But Jesus has heightened and intensified the warfare so that it isdirected against the “powers and principalities,” andthis battle is won with spiritual weapons (2Cor. 10:3–6;Eph. 6:10–20). Indeed, the ultimate victory is achieved not bykilling but by dying. Paul describes the crucifixion and ascensionusing warfare language in Eph. 4:7–10; Col. 2:13–15.

John,however, was not wrong. The book of Revelation is the fulleststatement of Christ’s return, which will signal the final war.In this war, all evil, both spiritual and human, will be brought toan end (Rev. 19:11–21).

(1) Themost significant Aphek in the Bible is about seven miles east of TelAviv. The springs nearby become the head­waters ofthe Yarqon River, flowing to the Mediterranean Sea. Traffic onthe international coastal route passing through Israel was forcedbetween the foothills to the east and the river, making this astrategic location. During the transition to the monarchy, thePhilistines were at Aphek when the Israelites attacked them fromEbenezer (1 Sam. 4:1) just east in the foothills. ThePhilistines won the battle, captured the ark, and continuedPhilistine control of the international coastal highway. At the endof Saul’s life, the Philistines mustered their troops at thisnorthern “boundary” of the Philistine plain beforesetting off to challenge Israel for control of the Jezreel Valley(1 Sam. 29:1).

(2) Asher’stribal boundary, north of Mount Carmel, indicates an Aphek near theMediterranean Sea (Josh. 19:30) from which the Canaanites were notdislodged (Judg. 1:31).

(3) TheArameans attacked the northern kingdom at a third Aphek on the eastside of the Sea of Galilee (1 Kings 20:26–30; see also2 Kings 13:17). The Arabic Fiq preserves this place name. Herodrebuilt the city on the coastal plain, renaming it “Antipatris”after his father. When Paul was sent to Caesarea after the plot onhis life was uncovered, the soldiers with him went as far asAntipatris (Acts 23:31–32).

A sacred cultic object, in the shape of a box, thatrepresented the presence of God among the Israelites. The ark (Heb.’aron), constructed in wood, measured 45 inches long, 27 incheswide, and 27 inches high (Exod. 25:10), and it was transported bymeans of two poles inserted on either side of the ark. The mostimportant aspects of the ark were the cover and the cherubim attachedto the ark cover. Blood was ritually sprinkled on the cover, whichwas the designated place of atonement. In the earliest accounts, theark became the place of atonement, meeting, and revelation betweenGod and Israel.

Ina few instances the Hebrew word ’aron also denotes a collectionbox (NIV: “chest”) in the temple (2 Kings 12:9–10;2 Chron. 24:8, 10–11), and in one case it refers toJoseph’s sarcophagus, or coffin (Gen. 50:26). The Scripturesmention the ark 195 times, frequently (82 times) in association withthe Lord or God, resulting in expressions such as “the Ark ofthe Covenant of the Lord,” the “ark of the God ofIsrael,” and the “ark of God.”

TheFunction and Locations of the Ark

Theark was housed first in the portable sanctuary or tabernacle used forworship in early Israelite history, and Exodus and Deuteronomy notethat it served as a receptacle for the “testimony” or twotablets of the Ten Commandments. Consequently, the ark is oftenreferred to as the “ark of the testimony,” since theHebrew word for “testimony” is synonymous with the commonHebrew word for “covenant” (Pss. 25:10; 132:12), and thedesignations of the container as the “Ark of the Covenant”(Deut. 9:9, 15) and as “the ark of the testimony” (Exod.27:8; 31:18) seem interchangeable. The NT notes that the ark alsocontained a gold jar of manna and Aaron’s blossoming rod (Heb.9:4; cf. Exod. 16:32–34; Num. 17:8–10). The location ofthe ark became associated with the centralized place of gathering andworship by the Israelites. Moses composed what has come to be calledthe “Song of the Ark” (Num. 10:35–36), signifyingthe ark’s role in preceding the nomadic Israelites in thewilderness and indicating where they should rest.

Inthe book of Joshua, the ark led the people in conquest (3:1–5:1;6:1–25). The crossing of the Jordan (3:7–11) amid dryground, when carrying the ark into the river caused the waters to beswept in a heap, depicts the supernatural relationship between theark and the presence of God. The ark became so closely associatedwith the divine presence that the Israelites assumed that thepresence of God resided within the ark. Only the consecratedLevitical priests could carry the ark, which was covered by threelayers of cloth in order to conceal it from the people (Num. 4:5–6,15, 18–20), who had to remain at least a thousand yards away.In 2 Sam. 6:2–7 the oxen carrying the ark stumbled, andUzzah, who was not a priest, reached out and touched the ark tosteady it, resulting in his death (cf. 1 Chron. 13:7–10).Following the entry into the Promised Land, the ark abided at theGilgal sanctuary, and eventually it shifted from Bethel to Shiloh.

Thefunction of the ark as the place where the tribal confederacy soughtdivine counsel for holy war led also to employing the ark as a warsymbol, carried forth into battle to assure victory (Josh. 6:4–21).This use of the ark most likely originates from ancient Near Easternreligious concepts and practices that associated the presence of agod with an emblematic war throne useful for divination and successin battle. The expression “the Lord Almighty, who is enthronedbetween the cherubim” links God’s roles as king andwarrior, reinforcing the ark as God’s throne or his “footstool”(1 Sam. 4:4), symbolic of the invisibly enthroned deity. OtherCanaanite deities, including El, had footstools that resembledgold-plated and ornate boxes upon which to rest their feet,signifying their regal authority and military power. In 1 Chron.28 the ark is referred to as God’s “footstool,” andthe psalmist enjoins the people to gather and worship at God’sfootstool (Ps. 99:5). Similarly, Ps. 132, a liturgical poem linked tothe formal procession of the ark, refers to the “footstool of[God]” as the centralized place of worship.

TheArk of the Covenant rested in the Shiloh temple in the custody of Eliuntil it was captured by the Philistines, who possessed it in theirterritory for seven months (1 Sam. 4–6). The loss of theark was mourned as symbolizing the abandonment or departure of God’spresence, and yet its capture emphasized the Israelites’ falsepresumptions concerning the ark as a guarantor of military successand reinforced the fact that God could not be manipulated. Followinga plague inflicted by God upon the Philistines, the ark was returnedand remained at Kiriath Jearim for twenty years (6:21–7:2).

Eventually,King David transported the ark to the city of Jerusalem, reinforcingthe political and cultic importance of the location. Here it remainedin a “tent” until it was placed in Solomon’s temple(2 Sam. 6:17; 7:2). The ark disappeared sometime during the latemonarchical period; its capture is not listed in the temple assetsseized by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:13–17). The ark wasnever replaced after the return from the Babylonian exile, andJeremiah declared that the ark should not be remade (Jer. 3:16). Theark is not mentioned in Ezekiel’s description of the new temple(Ezek. 40–48).

Thebook of Hebrews mentions the ark in relation to its prominence andpurpose in the temple (9:4–5). In addition, Heb. 9:1–14contrasts the application of Christ’s own blood in the heavenlyholy place with the priestly sprinkling of blood on the “mercyseat” (NIV: “atonement cover”) of the ark.Revelation 11:19 speaks of the ark of God’s covenant beinglocated in the heavens.

TheArk and the Holiness of God

TheArk of the Covenant underscores the holiness of God and his necessaryseparation from sin. The holiness or consecration of those whoapproach God at the ark signifies the importance of cleansing fromimpurity as a prerequisite to maintaining the covenant relationshipwith God. Although the ark and the presence of God became inseparablylinked in the minds of the Israelites, God’s promise to bepresent among them did not imply a spatial or corporeal limitation.The law tablets contained in the ark are inextricably linked with theglory of God’s presence and the point of covenant accessibilitythrough the word of God. The portable nature of the ark, and the tentin which it was housed, emphasizes that God’s presence orrevelation is not limited to a specific location.

TheNT also concretizes the ark to the holiness of God and his law. Godis both merciful and just; his holiness requires propitiation forsin, and his mercy provides it through the blood atonementaccomplished through the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ’ssufficient and efficacious vicarious sacrifice on the cross replacedthe yearly ritual necessary to secure the salvation and forgivenessof God’s people, highlighting the superiority of Christ andsalvation by grace through faith in his redemptive work on the cross.The sacrificial death of Christ provides infinite atonement andreconciliation for believers, who affirm God’s immanence whileat the same time acknowledging his sovereignty and transcendence.Believers look forward to the literal and physical return of Christ,when they will realize the fulfillment of God’s promise to livewith and among them eternally.

A sacred cultic object, in the shape of a box, thatrepresented the presence of God among the Israelites. The ark (Heb.’aron), constructed in wood, measured 45 inches long, 27 incheswide, and 27 inches high (Exod. 25:10), and it was transported bymeans of two poles inserted on either side of the ark. The mostimportant aspects of the ark were the cover and the cherubim attachedto the ark cover. Blood was ritually sprinkled on the cover, whichwas the designated place of atonement. In the earliest accounts, theark became the place of atonement, meeting, and revelation betweenGod and Israel.

Ina few instances the Hebrew word ’aron also denotes a collectionbox (NIV: “chest”) in the temple (2 Kings 12:9–10;2 Chron. 24:8, 10–11), and in one case it refers toJoseph’s sarcophagus, or coffin (Gen. 50:26). The Scripturesmention the ark 195 times, frequently (82 times) in association withthe Lord or God, resulting in expressions such as “the Ark ofthe Covenant of the Lord,” the “ark of the God ofIsrael,” and the “ark of God.”

TheFunction and Locations of the Ark

Theark was housed first in the portable sanctuary or tabernacle used forworship in early Israelite history, and Exodus and Deuteronomy notethat it served as a receptacle for the “testimony” or twotablets of the Ten Commandments. Consequently, the ark is oftenreferred to as the “ark of the testimony,” since theHebrew word for “testimony” is synonymous with the commonHebrew word for “covenant” (Pss. 25:10; 132:12), and thedesignations of the container as the “Ark of the Covenant”(Deut. 9:9, 15) and as “the ark of the testimony” (Exod.27:8; 31:18) seem interchangeable. The NT notes that the ark alsocontained a gold jar of manna and Aaron’s blossoming rod (Heb.9:4; cf. Exod. 16:32–34; Num. 17:8–10). The location ofthe ark became associated with the centralized place of gathering andworship by the Israelites. Moses composed what has come to be calledthe “Song of the Ark” (Num. 10:35–36), signifyingthe ark’s role in preceding the nomadic Israelites in thewilderness and indicating where they should rest.

Inthe book of Joshua, the ark led the people in conquest (3:1–5:1;6:1–25). The crossing of the Jordan (3:7–11) amid dryground, when carrying the ark into the river caused the waters to beswept in a heap, depicts the supernatural relationship between theark and the presence of God. The ark became so closely associatedwith the divine presence that the Israelites assumed that thepresence of God resided within the ark. Only the consecratedLevitical priests could carry the ark, which was covered by threelayers of cloth in order to conceal it from the people (Num. 4:5–6,15, 18–20), who had to remain at least a thousand yards away.In 2 Sam. 6:2–7 the oxen carrying the ark stumbled, andUzzah, who was not a priest, reached out and touched the ark tosteady it, resulting in his death (cf. 1 Chron. 13:7–10).Following the entry into the Promised Land, the ark abided at theGilgal sanctuary, and eventually it shifted from Bethel to Shiloh.

Thefunction of the ark as the place where the tribal confederacy soughtdivine counsel for holy war led also to employing the ark as a warsymbol, carried forth into battle to assure victory (Josh. 6:4–21).This use of the ark most likely originates from ancient Near Easternreligious concepts and practices that associated the presence of agod with an emblematic war throne useful for divination and successin battle. The expression “the Lord Almighty, who is enthronedbetween the cherubim” links God’s roles as king andwarrior, reinforcing the ark as God’s throne or his “footstool”(1 Sam. 4:4), symbolic of the invisibly enthroned deity. OtherCanaanite deities, including El, had footstools that resembledgold-plated and ornate boxes upon which to rest their feet,signifying their regal authority and military power. In 1 Chron.28 the ark is referred to as God’s “footstool,” andthe psalmist enjoins the people to gather and worship at God’sfootstool (Ps. 99:5). Similarly, Ps. 132, a liturgical poem linked tothe formal procession of the ark, refers to the “footstool of[God]” as the centralized place of worship.

TheArk of the Covenant rested in the Shiloh temple in the custody of Eliuntil it was captured by the Philistines, who possessed it in theirterritory for seven months (1 Sam. 4–6). The loss of theark was mourned as symbolizing the abandonment or departure of God’spresence, and yet its capture emphasized the Israelites’ falsepresumptions concerning the ark as a guarantor of military successand reinforced the fact that God could not be manipulated. Followinga plague inflicted by God upon the Philistines, the ark was returnedand remained at Kiriath Jearim for twenty years (6:21–7:2).

Eventually,King David transported the ark to the city of Jerusalem, reinforcingthe political and cultic importance of the location. Here it remainedin a “tent” until it was placed in Solomon’s temple(2 Sam. 6:17; 7:2). The ark disappeared sometime during the latemonarchical period; its capture is not listed in the temple assetsseized by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:13–17). The ark wasnever replaced after the return from the Babylonian exile, andJeremiah declared that the ark should not be remade (Jer. 3:16). Theark is not mentioned in Ezekiel’s description of the new temple(Ezek. 40–48).

Thebook of Hebrews mentions the ark in relation to its prominence andpurpose in the temple (9:4–5). In addition, Heb. 9:1–14contrasts the application of Christ’s own blood in the heavenlyholy place with the priestly sprinkling of blood on the “mercyseat” (NIV: “atonement cover”) of the ark.Revelation 11:19 speaks of the ark of God’s covenant beinglocated in the heavens.

TheArk and the Holiness of God

TheArk of the Covenant underscores the holiness of God and his necessaryseparation from sin. The holiness or consecration of those whoapproach God at the ark signifies the importance of cleansing fromimpurity as a prerequisite to maintaining the covenant relationshipwith God. Although the ark and the presence of God became inseparablylinked in the minds of the Israelites, God’s promise to bepresent among them did not imply a spatial or corporeal limitation.The law tablets contained in the ark are inextricably linked with theglory of God’s presence and the point of covenant accessibilitythrough the word of God. The portable nature of the ark, and the tentin which it was housed, emphasizes that God’s presence orrevelation is not limited to a specific location.

TheNT also concretizes the ark to the holiness of God and his law. Godis both merciful and just; his holiness requires propitiation forsin, and his mercy provides it through the blood atonementaccomplished through the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ’ssufficient and efficacious vicarious sacrifice on the cross replacedthe yearly ritual necessary to secure the salvation and forgivenessof God’s people, highlighting the superiority of Christ andsalvation by grace through faith in his redemptive work on the cross.The sacrificial death of Christ provides infinite atonement andreconciliation for believers, who affirm God’s immanence whileat the same time acknowledging his sovereignty and transcendence.Believers look forward to the literal and physical return of Christ,when they will realize the fulfillment of God’s promise to livewith and among them eternally.

One of five principal cities of the Philistines (Josh. 13:3).Ashdod was situated in the coastal plane of Canaan, roughly two andone-half miles inland from the Mediterranean Sea, near the maincoastal route sometimes called the “Way of the Philistines.”The site has been identified (Tel Ashdod) and extensivelyinvestigated.

HistoricalOverview

Ashdodpredates the Philistine presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. Thefirst fortified settlement dates to the Middle Bronze Age (2200–1550BC). Records from Ugarit (Late Bronze Age [1550–1200 BC])reveal that Ashdod participated in the trading of dyed garments andwool (substantiated by the presence of murex shells in situ),and that its population was largely West Semitic. Discovery of partof a stone doorjamb bearing a partial hieroglyphic inscriptiondenoting a high-ranking Egyptian official suggests that Ashdod wasadditionally the site of an Egyptian stronghold palace. Incursion ofSea Peoples into the region began in the late thirteenth century BC.A layer of ash indicates that Ashdod was partly destroyed at thistime. This is followed by evidence of a Philistine presence at Ashdodbeginning in the early twelfth century BC.

ThePhilistines thrived at Ashdod during the Early Iron Age (1200–1000BC). Expansions of the walls about the acropolis and settlement ofthe lower city indicate a growing population. Destruction of thecity’s fortifications during the first half of the tenthcentury BC may be attributed to Pharaoh Siamon (960 BC) or possiblyto a campaign later in David’s reign.

Ashdod’sfortifications were rebuilt, although they were partly destroyed c.760 BC (perhaps by Uzziah [2 Chron. 26:6]). In 712/711 BC theAssyrian army, under orders from Sargon II, sacked Ashdod (Isa.20:1). The remains of some three thousand persons attest to thisevent, as do three fragments from a victory stela discovered at theacropolis. Ashdod was an Assyrian vassal until Assyria’scollapse, at which point Ashdod became vulnerable to Egypt, then toBabylon. Pharaoh Psamtik I sacked the city after a lengthy siege (c.640 BC), and Nebuchadnezzar II later subjugated it (c. 600 BC).Items bearing Hebrew inscriptions indicate trade with Judah duringthe latter seventh century BC.

Ashdoddeclined during the Babylonian period (626–539 BC) but regainedprominence under the Persians, becoming an administrative center forthe region. Ashdod (now called “Azotus”) furtherprospered during the Hellenistic period (post-332 BC), up to the timeit was captured by John Hyrcanus (114 BC). The town again dwindled insignificance during the Roman period relative to the nearby port,Ashdod Yam, and was destroyed during the First Jewish Revolt (AD 67),although habitation persisted into the Byzantine period.

Ashdodin the Bible

Ashdodis mentioned in relation to both the overall success of the Israeliteconquest of Canaan (Josh. 11:22; the feared Anakim remained only inPhilistine territory [see Num. 13:28]) and its unfinished nature(Josh. 13:3). Joshua 15:46–47 lists Ashdod in the territoryallotted to Judah. That this territory remained largely unconqueredby Israel features prominently in the narrative of Judges and Samuel.

Whenthe Ark of the Covenant was captured by the Philistines (1 Sam.4), it was taken to Dagon’s temple at Ashdod (5:1–2).Excavation of Tel Ashdod has yet to identify this cult site, althoughan incense stand portraying a procession of musicians may pertain toDagon’s cult (see 1 Sam. 10:5). In 1 Macc. 10:84 isreported Jonathan’s burning of Azotus (Ashdod) and destructionof Dagon’s temple during the Hellenistic period.

Amongthe prophets, oracles portend the destruction of Ashdod and the otherPhilistine cities (Amos 1:6–8; Zeph. 2:4; Zech. 9:5–6).Jeremiah 25:20 mentions “the people left at Ashdod,”possibly alluding to Psamtik I’s destruction of the city.Conspicuously absent is any mention of Gath, which by this time hadbeen subjugated or destroyed (1 Chron. 1:18; 2 Chron. 26:6;also 2 Kings 12:17).

Referenceis also made to Ashdodites. Notably, “the people of Ashdod”were among those opposed to the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s wallsduring the postexilic period (Neh. 4:7). Intermarriage with the“women from Ashdod” was common among returning Jews (Neh.13:23), and “the language of Ashdod” was spoken by theirchildren (Neh. 13:24).

Overall,the biblical testimony concerning Ashdod coheres remarkably well withthe archaeological evidence from Tel Ashdod.

These books originally formed a single book and were firstdivided into separate books in the LXX. The book of Kings recountsthe history of Israel from the time of Solomon (c. 970 BC) to thedestruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. Kings continues the narrative of2Samuel, with 1Kings 1:1–2:11 concluding the storyof David. The book has many references back to David (see thepromises to David in 2Sam. 7:1–17; 1Kings 8:14–26),and prophecy spoken in earlier books reaches its fulfillment only inKings (e.g., prophecy against Jericho [Josh. 6:26; 1Kings16:34] and against the house of Eli [1Sam. 2:27–36;3:11–14; 1Kings 2:27]), showing that it is actually partof a larger historical work beginning in Joshua and ending in2Kings.

Authorshipand Date

Thebook of Kings is anonymous. From the text itself, however, we candeduce a probable situation for its composition. The end of Kingstells the story of the destruction of Jerusalem (c.586 BC) andthe beginning of the Babylonian exile, with the last event narrated(the freeing of Jehoiachin to eat with the Babylonian king) dating toaround 560 BC. Therefore, Kings as we know it could not have beencomposed prior to these events. It is unlikely that the book waswritten after the exile; otherwise, the author would have referred tothe return to Jerusalem. This puts the date of the composition ofKings to the period when Judah was in Babylonian exile and probablybetween 560 and 539 BC.

However,parts of the book clearly were written before the exile. The authorof Kings drew on a variety of sources, three of which are explicitlyreferred to in the text (though none survive today): “the bookof the annals of Solomon” (1Kings 11:41), “the bookof the annals of the kings of Israel” (1Kings 14:19), and“the book of the annals of the kings of Judah” (1Kings14:29). These explicit references to sources direct the reader toinformation not given in Kings, leaving open the possibility thateven more sources were used. The book of Chronicles suggests thatprophets who were active in the reigns of the various kings of Judahand Israel were sources for the author of Kings (e.g., 2Chron.9:29 lists the prophets Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo as sources for thehistory of Solomon). So the Bible itself tells us that multiplesources were used to compose Kings, and that some of these sourcesstem from God’s prophets. It is no wonder that in Jewishtradition the section of the Bible in which Kings is set has beencalled the “Former Prophets.”

Somescholars believe that a first edition of Kings was written before theexile and may have come out during King Josiah’s reign (c. 609BC). Josiah is an important figure in the story: his birth isprophesied (1Kings 13:2) three hundred years in advance, and herestores true worship, living up to the ideal set by David (2Kings22:2; 23:25). Josiah’s religious reforms may have originallybeen the climax to this first edition of Kings, which hoped thatJosiah would fulfill the Davidic promises and was written to supportJosiah’s reforms. After the exile, this preexilic book wasupdated in light of the apostasy of the later kings of Judah in orderto explain that the destruction of Jerusalem resulted from the sinsof these kings (e.g., 2Kings 24:3). This second edition ofKings is what came to be the canonical book of Kings as we know it.

Genre

Thegenre of Kings is clearly that of historiography (history writing),as it presents an account of Israel’s past. Kings is anextraordinary literary achievement. Prior to its composition, therewas nothing that can properly be called “history writing”in the ancient world. Since the writing of Samuel–Kingspredates Greek historiography, many scholars view them as the firsthistory ever written.

Whentreating Kings as history, we must remember that it is not history aswe would write it today. The author had chiefly theological reasonsfor his selection of material, and at times he refers to divinecausation to the exclusion of any human factors. For example, 2Kings15:37 says that God sent the kings of Aram and Israel against Judah,but it does not comment on the political reasons for the attack (suchreasons surely would have existed). Conversely, modern historiographywould focus solely on the human reasons for an event and exclude anypossible divine causation. In this way, Kings does not live up to thestandard of history writing as practiced today, though as ancienthistory writing it is an exemplar.

Thehistory contained within Kings has been corroborated by extrabiblicalmaterial in many ways and fits well into an overall ancient NearEastern historical context. For example, the names of many of thekings referred to in the book have also been found in ancientAssyrian sources. Kings, however, does not agree perfectly with whatwe otherwise know about the history of the ancient Near East, andsome adjustment is necessary to make it fit with other evidence.However, if the partial nature of archaeological evidence and theacknowledgment of the selectivity of the author of Kings are takeninto account, radical distrust of its history is not justified, as itproves itself quite trustworthy.

Style

Kingsis brilliantly written and contains some of the most memorablestories in the Bible. Although it is a historical writing, Kings,like any good novel, contains both round (e.g., Ahab) and flat (e.g.,Omri) characters. Its plot is compelling as it tells the history ofthe kingship in Israel from its apex under Solomon in all his glorydown to the loss of the kingdom, already foreshadowed in 1Kings9:6–9. It begins as a story about one nation under God, but itbecomes the tragic story of two nations that continually turn awayfrom their God only to finally be judged by him.

ThePlan of the Book

Kingsgives an account of each of the kings of Israel and Judah, notingwhen he began to reign, his age at accession, the length of hisreign, the name of his mother, and an evaluation of his reign. Theevaluation of each king is concerned not with economics or militarysuccess; rather, the kings are judged either to have “done evilin the Lord’s sight” or to have “done what wasright in the Lord’s sight,” depending on theirfaithfulness to God and the purity of the nation’s worship. Thegauge for judging the kings is the law of Deuteronomy. According toDeuteronomy, God should be worshiped only in the “place theLord will choose” (Deut. 12:26; see also vv. 5, 11, 14, 18),making worship at other sanctuaries illegitimate. Proper worship ofGod is without the use of aids such as images (e.g., “calves”[1Kings 12:28–30] or “snakes” [2Kings18:4]) or poles, stone pillars, etc.). Deuteronomy heavily influencedKings and is quoted several times (e.g., 1Kings 11:2; 2Kings14:6). In fact, the law book found during Josiah’s reign(2Kings 22:8) appears to be a form of the book of Deuteronomy(as evidenced by the character of the reforms). Due to thisinfluence, the books of Deuteronomy through 2Kings are widelyreferred to as the Deuteronomistic History.

Themes

Wholeheartedreliance on God.Kings is primarily concerned with proper worship and faithfulness toGod. David set the standard of having a heart “fully devoted tothe Lord” (1Kings 15:3) and is the measuring stick bywhich all the southern kings are judged. Thus, Solomon is contrastedwith David when Solomon falls away from God (1Kings 11:4), andwhen Hez-e-kiah trusts in God, he is compared with David (2Kings18:3). In northern Israel Jeroboam and Ahab are the models of thedegenerate king. Jeroboam is known for setting up golden calves(1Kings 12:28) in northern Israel to be used in the worship ofYahweh, and Ahab is infamous for his promotion of Baal worship inIsrael (1Kings 16:30–33). In Kings, when kings of Israelare assessed, they are often said to partake in Jeroboam’s sins(2Kings 10:31) or judged for doing “as Ahab king ofIsrael had done” (2Kings 21:3; see also 8:18, 27; 21:3).This apostasy culminates in the destruction of the northern kingdomby Assyria in 722 BC (2Kings 17).

Exclusivecommitment to Yahweh meant that the worship of other gods was theworst sin of the Israelite kings, and their fortunes were connectedto their policies regarding the worship of Yahweh. Throughout itsstory, Kings contrasts the themes of apostasy and religious reform.Beginning with Jeroboam, most of the kings are apostates and fail toworship properly. Four Judean Kings (Asa, Jehoshaphat, Amaziah, andAzariah) undertake some religious reforms, but they fall short of theideal. Near the end of the story, two Judean kings fulfill the ideal:Hezekiah and Josiah. Yet following their reforms the next king turnsto even greater apostasy, bringing God’s judgment on thenation.

Thefulfillment of the prophetic word.Prophets are prominent in the story of Kings, with both famous(Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha) and anonymous prophets (e.g., 1Kings13) playing important roles as bearers of the prophetic word of God.Many short-term prophecies are fulfilled in the story of Kings (e.g.,1Kings 13:11–32), where the reader can perceive a patternof prophecy and fulfillment that helps to structure the story ofKings. The way a prophecy is fulfilled is often surprising (see theprophecy of 1Kings 20:42 and its fulfillment in 1Kings22:34–35). The prediction of Josiah’s birth and reformcenturies in advance ties together the beginning of Kings with one ofthe most significant events near the end of the book. This shows howhistorical events are at the mercy of the Lord of history and hisprophetic word.

NewTestament Connections

ThroughoutKings the southern kingdom of Judah has Davidic kings on the throneright up until the exile (compared to the northern kingdom of Israel,which changed dynasties ten times). However, the destruction ofJerusalem appears to end the Davidic dynasty. Will the promises toDavid ever come true? The concluding paragraph at the end of Kings,which describes Jehoiachin, the last king from David’s line,being freed from prison and allowed to eat with the Babylonian king,is messianic and holds out hope that the promises to David will befulfilled. Jehoiachin represents the hope for the future deliveranceof Israel and of the world. In 2Kings 25:28 it is told how thenew king of Babylon “spoke kindly to [Jehoiachin] and gave hima seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were withhim in Babylon.” Here, the Hebrew word for “seat ofhonor” is literally the word for “throne.” Thus,Kings ends with a son of David on the throne! The promises to Davidare still intact. The line of Judah survives, and a tiny shoot hasbegun to sprout from the stump of David, which will culminate in theMessiah himself. The promise that a son of David would rule is neveragain fulfilled, except in Jesus Christ, who is now at the right handof the throne of God and will return one day.

Outline

I.The United Monarchy: The Reign of Solomon (1Kings 1:1–11:25)

II.The Division of the Kingdom (1Kings 11:26–14:31)

III.The Divided Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (1Kings 15:1–16:22)

IV.The Dynasty of Omri and the Baal Cult in Israel and Judah (1Kings16:23–2Kings 12)

V.The Divided Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (2Kings 13–16)

VI.The Fall of Israel (2Kings 17)

VII.The Kingdom of Judah Alone (2Kings 18–23)

VIII.The Fall of Judah (2Kings 24–25)

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

Genre and Purpose

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

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

Outline

I. The Rise of Samuel (1Sam. 1–7)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. David accepts Mephibosheth (2Sam. 9)

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

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

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

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

Composition

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

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

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

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

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

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

Text

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

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

Central Themes

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament Connections

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

A sacred cultic object, in the shape of a box, thatrepresented the presence of God among the Israelites. The ark (Heb.’aron), constructed in wood, measured 45 inches long, 27 incheswide, and 27 inches high (Exod. 25:10), and it was transported bymeans of two poles inserted on either side of the ark. The mostimportant aspects of the ark were the cover and the cherubim attachedto the ark cover. Blood was ritually sprinkled on the cover, whichwas the designated place of atonement. In the earliest accounts, theark became the place of atonement, meeting, and revelation betweenGod and Israel.

Ina few instances the Hebrew word ’aron also denotes a collectionbox (NIV: “chest”) in the temple (2 Kings 12:9–10;2 Chron. 24:8, 10–11), and in one case it refers toJoseph’s sarcophagus, or coffin (Gen. 50:26). The Scripturesmention the ark 195 times, frequently (82 times) in association withthe Lord or God, resulting in expressions such as “the Ark ofthe Covenant of the Lord,” the “ark of the God ofIsrael,” and the “ark of God.”

TheFunction and Locations of the Ark

Theark was housed first in the portable sanctuary or tabernacle used forworship in early Israelite history, and Exodus and Deuteronomy notethat it served as a receptacle for the “testimony” or twotablets of the Ten Commandments. Consequently, the ark is oftenreferred to as the “ark of the testimony,” since theHebrew word for “testimony” is synonymous with the commonHebrew word for “covenant” (Pss. 25:10; 132:12), and thedesignations of the container as the “Ark of the Covenant”(Deut. 9:9, 15) and as “the ark of the testimony” (Exod.27:8; 31:18) seem interchangeable. The NT notes that the ark alsocontained a gold jar of manna and Aaron’s blossoming rod (Heb.9:4; cf. Exod. 16:32–34; Num. 17:8–10). The location ofthe ark became associated with the centralized place of gathering andworship by the Israelites. Moses composed what has come to be calledthe “Song of the Ark” (Num. 10:35–36), signifyingthe ark’s role in preceding the nomadic Israelites in thewilderness and indicating where they should rest.

Inthe book of Joshua, the ark led the people in conquest (3:1–5:1;6:1–25). The crossing of the Jordan (3:7–11) amid dryground, when carrying the ark into the river caused the waters to beswept in a heap, depicts the supernatural relationship between theark and the presence of God. The ark became so closely associatedwith the divine presence that the Israelites assumed that thepresence of God resided within the ark. Only the consecratedLevitical priests could carry the ark, which was covered by threelayers of cloth in order to conceal it from the people (Num. 4:5–6,15, 18–20), who had to remain at least a thousand yards away.In 2 Sam. 6:2–7 the oxen carrying the ark stumbled, andUzzah, who was not a priest, reached out and touched the ark tosteady it, resulting in his death (cf. 1 Chron. 13:7–10).Following the entry into the Promised Land, the ark abided at theGilgal sanctuary, and eventually it shifted from Bethel to Shiloh.

Thefunction of the ark as the place where the tribal confederacy soughtdivine counsel for holy war led also to employing the ark as a warsymbol, carried forth into battle to assure victory (Josh. 6:4–21).This use of the ark most likely originates from ancient Near Easternreligious concepts and practices that associated the presence of agod with an emblematic war throne useful for divination and successin battle. The expression “the Lord Almighty, who is enthronedbetween the cherubim” links God’s roles as king andwarrior, reinforcing the ark as God’s throne or his “footstool”(1 Sam. 4:4), symbolic of the invisibly enthroned deity. OtherCanaanite deities, including El, had footstools that resembledgold-plated and ornate boxes upon which to rest their feet,signifying their regal authority and military power. In 1 Chron.28 the ark is referred to as God’s “footstool,” andthe psalmist enjoins the people to gather and worship at God’sfootstool (Ps. 99:5). Similarly, Ps. 132, a liturgical poem linked tothe formal procession of the ark, refers to the “footstool of[God]” as the centralized place of worship.

TheArk of the Covenant rested in the Shiloh temple in the custody of Eliuntil it was captured by the Philistines, who possessed it in theirterritory for seven months (1 Sam. 4–6). The loss of theark was mourned as symbolizing the abandonment or departure of God’spresence, and yet its capture emphasized the Israelites’ falsepresumptions concerning the ark as a guarantor of military successand reinforced the fact that God could not be manipulated. Followinga plague inflicted by God upon the Philistines, the ark was returnedand remained at Kiriath Jearim for twenty years (6:21–7:2).

Eventually,King David transported the ark to the city of Jerusalem, reinforcingthe political and cultic importance of the location. Here it remainedin a “tent” until it was placed in Solomon’s temple(2 Sam. 6:17; 7:2). The ark disappeared sometime during the latemonarchical period; its capture is not listed in the temple assetsseized by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:13–17). The ark wasnever replaced after the return from the Babylonian exile, andJeremiah declared that the ark should not be remade (Jer. 3:16). Theark is not mentioned in Ezekiel’s description of the new temple(Ezek. 40–48).

Thebook of Hebrews mentions the ark in relation to its prominence andpurpose in the temple (9:4–5). In addition, Heb. 9:1–14contrasts the application of Christ’s own blood in the heavenlyholy place with the priestly sprinkling of blood on the “mercyseat” (NIV: “atonement cover”) of the ark.Revelation 11:19 speaks of the ark of God’s covenant beinglocated in the heavens.

TheArk and the Holiness of God

TheArk of the Covenant underscores the holiness of God and his necessaryseparation from sin. The holiness or consecration of those whoapproach God at the ark signifies the importance of cleansing fromimpurity as a prerequisite to maintaining the covenant relationshipwith God. Although the ark and the presence of God became inseparablylinked in the minds of the Israelites, God’s promise to bepresent among them did not imply a spatial or corporeal limitation.The law tablets contained in the ark are inextricably linked with theglory of God’s presence and the point of covenant accessibilitythrough the word of God. The portable nature of the ark, and the tentin which it was housed, emphasizes that God’s presence orrevelation is not limited to a specific location.

TheNT also concretizes the ark to the holiness of God and his law. Godis both merciful and just; his holiness requires propitiation forsin, and his mercy provides it through the blood atonementaccomplished through the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ’ssufficient and efficacious vicarious sacrifice on the cross replacedthe yearly ritual necessary to secure the salvation and forgivenessof God’s people, highlighting the superiority of Christ andsalvation by grace through faith in his redemptive work on the cross.The sacrificial death of Christ provides infinite atonement andreconciliation for believers, who affirm God’s immanence whileat the same time acknowledging his sovereignty and transcendence.Believers look forward to the literal and physical return of Christ,when they will realize the fulfillment of God’s promise to livewith and among them eternally.

The names of God given in the Bible are an important means ofrevelation about his character and works. The names come from threesources: God himself, those who encounter him in the biblical record,and the biblical writers. This article is concerned mainly with thenames that occur in the OT, though the NT will be referenced whenhelpful.

Inthe Bible the meaning of names is often significant and points to thecharacter of the person so named. As might be expected, this isespecially true for God. The names that he gives to himself alwaysare a form of revelation; the names that humans give to God often area form of testimony.

Yahweh:The Lord

Pronunciation.Unquestionably, for OT revelation the most important name is “(the)Lord.” In English Bibles this represents the name declared byGod to Moses at the burning bush (“I am who I am” [Exod.3:13–15]) and the related term used elsewhere in the OT; inHebrew this term consists of the four consonants YHWH and istherefore known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”).Hebrew does not count vowels as part of its alphabet; in biblicaltimes one simply wrote the consonants of a word and the readersupplied the correct vowels by knowing the vocabulary, grammar, andcontext. However, to avoid violating the commandment in the Decaloguethat prohibits the misuse of God’s name (Exod. 20:7; Deut.5:11), the Jews stopped pronouncing it. Consequently, no one todayknows its correct original pronunciation, but the best evidenceavailable suggests “Yahweh,” which has become theconventional pronunciation (consider the Hebrew word “hallelujah,”which actually is “hallelu-Yah,” hence “praise theLord”). In ancient Jewish tradition, “Adonai” (“myLord”) was substituted for “Yahweh.” In fact, whenHebrew eventually developed a vowel notation system, instead of thevowels for “Yahweh,” the vowels for “Adonai”were indicated whenever YHWH appeared in the biblical text, as areminder. Combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of “Adonai”yields something like “Yehowah,” which is the origin ofthe familiar (but mistaken and nonexistent) “Jehovah.”English Bibles typically use “Lord” (small capitalletters) for “Yahweh,” and “Lord” (regularletters) for “Adonai,” which distinguishes thetwo.

Meaning.More vital than the matter of the pronunciation of YHWH is thequestion of its meaning. There seem to be two main opinions. One seesYHWH as denoting eternal self-existence, partly because it issuggested by the grammar of Exod. 3:14 (the words “I am”use a form of the Hebrew verb that suggests being without beginningor end) and partly because that is the meaning Jesus apparentlyascribes to it in John 8:58. The other opinion, suggested by usage,is that YHWH indicates dynamic, active, divine presence: God’sbeing present in a special way to act on someone’s behalf(e.g., Gen. 26:28; 39:2–3; Josh. 6:27; 1Sam. 18:12–14).This idea also appears in the episode of the burning bush (Exod.3:12): when Moses protests his inadequacy to confront Pharaoh, Godassures him of his presence, a reality noted with other prophets(1Sam. 3:19; Jer. 1:8).

Perhapsthe best points of reference for understanding the meaning of YHWHare God’s own proclamations. In addition to Exod. 3:13–15,at least two other passages in Exodus give God’s commentary (asit were) about the meaning of his name. An important one is Exod.34:5–7. A key passage in the theology proper of ancient Israel,its themes echo in later OT Scripture (Num. 14:18–19; Ps.103:7–12; Jon. 4:2). What is noteworthy about the texts citedis that all of them say something remarkable about the grace of God.This fits, for the revelation of Exod. 34:5–7 is given in thecontext of covenant renewal after the incident of the golden calf.Moses invokes God’s name in the Numbers text to avoidcatastrophic judgment when the Israelites refuse to enter thepromised land. The psalm text picks up this theme and connects itwith God’s revelation of his ways to the chosen people. Jonah,remarkably, affirms that the same grace extends even toward a wickedGentile city such as Nineveh.

Anothersuch passage is Exod. 6:2–8.Here God reaffirms hisredemptive purpose for captive Israel, despite the fact that Moses’first encounter with Pharaoh has not gone well. God assures theprophet that he has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs, whomhe says did not know him as “Yahweh,” which probablymeans that the patriarchs did not experience him in the way orcharacter that their descendants would in the exodus event (though itis possible to translate the Hebrew here as a rhetorical questionwith an affirmative idea: “And indeed, by my name Yahweh did Inot make myself known to them?”). God then proceeds to outlinethe redemptive experience in its fullness: deliverance from bondage,reception into a covenant relationship, and possession of the landpromised to their ancestors (vv. 6–8). The statement isbracketed with this declaration: “I am the Lord” (vv. 2,8). One stated purpose of this redemptive work is that Israel mightcome to understand this (v.7). This is important to notebecause a central theme of Exodus as a book is the identity of theGod of Israel. This concern prompts Moses to ask for God’s nameat the burning bush (3:13), and this contempt for the God of theenslaved Hebrews causes Pharaoh to be dismissive at his first meetingwith Moses and Aaron (5:2). Moses asks with the concern of a seekerand receives one of the most profound declarations of God’sidentity in the Bible. Pharaoh asks with the contempt of a scornerand receives one of the most powerful displays of God’sidentity in the Bible (the plagues). The contrast is both strikingand instructive. The meaning of God’s name, then, is revealedin works as well as words, and his purpose is that not just hispeople but all peoples may come to understand who he is. Yet anothermajestic statement in the book of Exodus (9:13–16) makes thisabundantly clear.

Basedon this pattern of usage, the name “Yahweh” seems tosignify especially the active presence of God to bless, deliver, orotherwise aid his people. Where this presence is absent, there is nosuccess, victory, protection, or peace (Num. 14:39–45; Josh.7:10–12; Judg. 16:20; 1Sam. 16:13–14). The messagethat God not only is but also is present to save and deliver may wellbe the most important truth communicated in the OT, and it is onlynatural to see its ultimate embodiment in the person and work ofChrist (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:21–23).

Nameused in combination.The name “Yahweh” also is used in combination with otherterms. After God grants a military victory to Israel over theAmalekites, Moses names a commemorative altar “Yahweh Nissi,”meaning “the Lord is my Banner” (Exod. 17:15). InEzekiel’s temple vision Jerusalem is called “YahwehShammah,” meaning “the Lord is there” (Ezek.48:35). A familiar expression is “the Lord of hosts,”which is generally comparable to the expression “commander inchief” used in American culture (cf. 1Kings 22:19–23).

Elohim

Thisis the first term for God encountered in the Bible, right in theopening verse. It is a more generic term, denoting deity in contrastto humans or angels. “Elohim” is a plural form; thesingular terms “El” and “Eloah” are usedoccasionally, particularly in poetic texts. “El” is acommon term in the biblical world; in fact, it is the name for thefather of Baal in the Canaanite religion. This may explain why theBible commonly uses the plural form, to distinguish the one true God,the God of Israel, from his pagan rivals. Others explain the pluralform as a “plural of majesty” or “plural ofintensity,” though it is uncertain just what this would mean.Some see the foundation for NT revelation of the Trinity (Gen.1:26–27; 11:6–7; cf. John 17:20–22), but this isunlikely. The plural form also can serve simply as a common noun,referring to pagan deities (Exod. 12:12), angels (Ps. 97:7,arguably), or even human authorities (Exod. 22:28, possibly).

“El”also occurs in combination with other descriptive terms. The bestknown is “El Shaddai,” meaning “God Almighty”(Gen. 17:1). The precise meaning of “Shaddai” isuncertain, but it seems to have the notion of “great/powerfulone.” The distressed Hagar, caught, comforted, and counseled bythe mysterious personage at a well, calls God “El Roi,”which means “the God who sees me” (Gen. 16:13). One ofthe most exalted expressions to describe God is “El Elyon,”meaning “God Most High.” This title seems to haveparticular reference to God as the owner and master of creation (Gen.14:18–20).

Adonai

Asnoted above, this common word meaning simply “(my) lord/master”is used regularly in place of the personal name of God revealed toMoses in Exod. 3:14. And in the OT of most English Bibles this isindicated by printing “Lord” as opposed to “Lord”(using small capital letters). However, “Adonai” is usedof God in some noteworthy instances, such as Isaiah’s loftyvision of God exalted in Isa. 6 and the prophecy of Immanuel in Isa.7:14. In time, this became the preferred term for referring to God,and the LXX reflected this by using the Greek word kyrios (“lord”)for Yahweh. This makes the ease with which NT writers transfer theuse of the term to Jesus (e.g., 1Cor. 12:3) a strong indicationof their Christology.

Also known as kherem warfare or Yahweh war. The term “holywar,” though never used in the Bible, characterizes well thewars that Israel fought at God’s command, particularly thosewithin the Promised Land. God is present with Israel in war, and thusthe battlefield becomes holy ground. God gives Israel instructionsconcerning the waging of war in Deut. 7, 20. From these passages,plus the historical accounts of Israel’s wars, we can describeholy war as follows.

Beforethe Battle

Godtells Israel when to go to war. Israel’s leaders cannot engagein battle without first hearing from God. God reveals himself toJoshua, for instance, before the battle of Jericho to give himinstructions (Josh. 5:13–15). David inquires of God through thepriest Abiathar, who presumably uses oracular devices to discoverGod’s will (1Sam. 23:1–6). Joshua makes a seriouserror in not seeking God’s will in the matter of the Gibeonites(Josh. 9:14).

Oncethe Israelites learn that God wants them to go to battle, they mustspiritually prepare themselves. Since God makes his presence known onthe battlefield, the troops must be in a state of ritual puritycomparable to those who visit the sanctuary. Before the conquest, forinstance, it is necessary for the fighting men to undergocircumcision and to observe the Passover (Josh. 5:2–12).Prebattle sacrifices are also required (1Sam.13).

Duringthe Battle

TheArk of the Covenant plays a central role in holy war, carried bypriests and accompanying the army. The ark is a powerful symbol ofGod’s presence and indicates to the army that God fights forthem. The march into battle takes the form of a religious procession.The priests carrying the ark go first, while singers praise God(2Chron. 20:20–21). The long march in the wilderness hasthe character of such a march into battle, since Moses begins theday’s journey by shouting, “Rise up, Lord! May yourenemies be scattered; may your foes flee before you” (Num.10:35). Then the ark carried by priests leads the way.

SinceGod is present with the army, the number of troops and the quality oftheir weapons are unimportant. Indeed, on occasion when Israel has anample supply of troops, God commands that the war leader reduce theirnumber, as in the famous story of Gideon paring down his troops fromthirty-two thousand to three hundred. The purpose of this reductionis to demonstrate to the people with certainty that they win thebattle only because of God’s strength. The inexperienced David,armed with a slingshot, expresses this sentiment to the mercenarygiant Goliath before he kills him: “You come against me withsword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name ofthe Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you havedefied.... All those gathered here will know thatit is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle isthe Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands”(1Sam. 17:45, 47). Although the Israelites must engage theenemy, they know for certain that it is God who provides the victory.

Afterthe Battle

SinceGod wins the battle for Israel, the proper response is praise. The OTcontains many songs that celebrate victory in warfare (Exod. 15;Judg. 5; Pss. 24; 98; 149).

Thetreatment of the plunder and prisoners of war depends on whether thebattle takes place in the promised land. If the battle takes placeoutside the land, then, while the men are killed, the women andchildren are spared. If the battle takes place in the land, thenkherem goes into effect. The Hebrew word kherem is difficult totranslate (possibilities include “complete destruction,”“things under the ban,” “things devoted to theLord”), but it is clear that it means that all the plunder goesto God (the sanctuary treasury) and that all the people (men, women,and children), and sometimes all the animals, are killed. The purposeof this is to keep the inhabitants of the land from influencingIsrael to worship other gods. Also, God uses Israel as an instrumentof his judgment against these sinful nations.

Warfareagainst Israel

Whilemost divinely ordained warfare was directed toward Israel’senemies, God also used foreign nations to judge his sinful people.The initial defeat at Ai (Josh. 7), the capture of the ark by thePhilistines at the time of Eli (1Sam. 4), and the destructionof Jerusalem and the temple by the Babylonians (Lam. 2) are examples.

NewTestament Holy War

Theprophets who ministered during the exilic and postexilic periodsannounced that God would appear again in the future. The people ofIsrael were living under the oppressive hand of Babylon and thenPersia, but they were comforted by the idea that God would come andsave them from their enemies (Dan. 7; Zech. 14; Mal.4).

Whenthe NT opens, John the Baptist proclaims that the time of judgmentannounced by these prophets has come (Matt. 3:7–12). After hebaptizes Jesus, he is put in prison and hears reports of Jesus’ministry that disturb him. He wonders why Jesus is not bringingviolent judgment against the enemies of God (Matt. 11:1–15).But Jesus has heightened and intensified the warfare so that it isdirected against the “powers and principalities,” andthis battle is won with spiritual weapons (2Cor. 10:3–6;Eph. 6:10–20). Indeed, the ultimate victory is achieved not bykilling but by dying. Paul describes the crucifixion and ascensionusing warfare language in Eph. 4:7–10; Col. 2:13–15.

John,however, was not wrong. The book of Revelation is the fulleststatement of Christ’s return, which will signal the final war.In this war, all evil, both spiritual and human, will be brought toan end (Rev. 19:11–21).

The land of Israel is strategically located on a land bridgebetween significant geopolitical powers. About the size of NewJersey, it is geographically diverse, ranging from fertile mountainsin northern Galilee to the arid Negev steppe. It was indeed the“testing ground of faith” in which God planted hispeople.

The“Land Between”

TheMediterranean Sea to the west and the great Arabian Desert to theeast confined the flow of military and commercial traffic to thisland bridge. Throughout most of Israel’s history, Egypt and thesuccession of political entities in Mesopotamia were intent onexpanding their empires; Israel was in between. To a lesser extent,this also involved invaders coming from or through Anatolia (modernTurkey).

Thesea and the desert also affect the weather patterns as Israel isdependent on rainfall in the winter months and dew in the summer forits continued agricultural fertility. The promises regarding the“early and latter rains” (autumn and spring) indicateblessing (Deut. 11:14; Jer. 5:24; Joel 2:23). The prospects ofdrought and famine hover over the land. These vulnerabilities toenemy attack and potential lack of rainfall figure prominently inGod’s challenge to faithful obedience (Deut. 11:10–17;28:25).

GeographicalRegions

Thereare four north-south longitudinal zones that help to define thegeography of Israel. From west to east, they are the coastal plain,the hill country, the Jordan Rift Valley, and Trans-jordan. South ofthese zones lies the Negev, a marginal region between Israel properand Sinai.

Coastalplain.The coastal plain extends almost the entire length of Israel, withthe exception of Mount Carmel’s promontory, jutting out intothe Mediterranean Sea. Because of the straight coastline, there areno natural good harbors as there are farther north in Lebanon. Thisregion characteristically was controlled by more cosmopolitan andgenerally hostile non-Israelites, the most notable being thePhilistines in the south. As a result of these factors, theIsraelites generally were not a seafaring people, and in fact theyseemed to view the sea as a place of chaos and danger (e.g., Pss.42:7; 74:13–14; Jon. 2:2–7).

Muchof the coastal plain was swampy in antiquity due to calcifiedsandstone ridges along the coastline that prevented runoff from thehills from flowing unimpeded into the sea. In addition, sand dunesalong the coast were obstacles to travel. Because this region wasrelatively flat and easily traversed along the eastern edge, theInternational Coastal Highway skirted the swamps and dunes andcarried the major traffic through the land. Erosion from the hillcountry to the east brought excellent soil to the plain. Once theswamps were drained in the twentieth century, the plains becamefertile farming areas.

Thecoastal plain has significant subdivisions. To the north of MountCarmel, the Plain of Akko includes a crescent-shaped area around thecity of Akko and extends to Rosh HaNikra, a promontory at theboundary with Lebanon. Immediately south of Mount Carmel is the smallPlain of Dor, generally under the control of foreigners and notsignificant in the biblical text. The Crocodile River separates thePlain of Dor from the Sharon Plain. In the early first century AD,Herod the Great built Caesarea Maritima on the site of Strato’sTower along the coast of the Sharon Plain and constructed an immenseartificial harbor (Josephus, Ant. 15.331–41). It was Herod’sintent for Caesarea to serve as the entry point for Roman cultureinto what he considered to be the backwaters of Palestine. In God’splan, however, the process was reversed: Caesarea became a majorChristian center, and the gospel went out through the entire RomanEmpire.

TheYarqon River, with its source at Aphek, separates the Sharon and thePhilistine plains. Because this created a bottleneck for theInternational Coastal Highway, whoever controlled Aphek had amilitary and commercial advantage. It is significant that thePhilistines were at Aphek when the Israelites took the ark of thecovenant to battle (1Sam. 4). The Philistine Plain extendsfifty miles south to Besor Wadi (dry riverbed) in the western Negev(see below). Its width ranges from about ten miles in the north totwenty-five miles in the south. The five significant Philistinecities were Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron.

Hillcountry.A mountainous spine runs from the north to the south, with severalaberrations due to seismic activity in the distant geologic past. Thehill countries of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh are in thesouthern two-thirds of the country. Because the terrain is rugged,with steep V-shaped valleys, these regions are somewhat more isolatedand protected, especially in Judah and Ephraim. Travel in theinterior is along the north-south ridge, often called the “wayof the patriarchs” because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob journeyedthis route, stopping at Shechem, Bethel, Salem (Jerusalem), Hebron,and finally Beersheba at the southern end of the mountain range.Agriculture in the hill country is excellent when there is sufficientrainfall. The hard limestone bedrock means that springs are bountifuland the eroded terra rossa soil is productive. The triad of cropsthat appears in the Bible includes grain (“bread”), newwine, and oil (Deut. 11:14; Joel 1:10), noted in the order in whichthey are harvested.

Westof the Judean hill country are lower, rolling foothills known as theShephelah. Cut through by five significant east-west valleys, thisregion was a buffer zone between the people living in the hillcountry and the Philistines or other foreign forces passing throughon the International Coastal Highway. When Israel was particularlyvulnerable, these valleys served as invasion routes into theheartland of Judah. The most famous of these, the Elah Valley, wasthe site of the face-off between David and the Philistine warriorGoliath (1Sam.17).

Onthe eastern side of the hill country, especially in the tribal areasof Judah and Benjamin, lies the wilderness. Because most of theprecipitation falls on the western slopes of the mountain range,rainfall for the regions right around the Dead Sea (in the “rainshadow”) is less than four inches per year. Sparsely inhabited,the wilderness was occasionally a place of refuge, as when David wasfleeing from Saul (1Sam. 23–26). Generally, it was viewedas a place to pass through. When the Israelites conquered the land,they traversed the wilderness to get to the central Benjamin Plateau(Josh. 10:9–10). David fled through the wilderness when Absalomtook over the kingdom (2Sam. 15–16). When Jesus traveledfrom Jericho (below sea level) to Jerusalem, he climbed through thewilderness to an elevation of about twenty-five hundred feet abovesea level. Shepherds grazed their flocks in this area during thewinter wet months and then migrated farther north and west as the dryseason advanced. Some chose to withdraw into the wilderness, mostnotably the Qumran community along the northwestern shore of the DeadSea and the later monastic communities.

Themajor city in the rugged hill country of Ephraim was Shiloh, awell-protected location for the tabernacle and the ark of thecovenant early in Israel’s history (Judg. 18:31; 1Sam.1–4). In fact, the decision to take the ark out to battleagainst the Philistines at Aphek was catastrophic. The tribalterritory of Manasseh, north of Ephraim, was more open to foreigninfluence. The major cities were Shechem, lying between Mount Gerizimand Mount Ebal, locations for the renewal of the covenant (Josh.8:30–35; 24:1), and Samaria, eventually the capital of thenorthern kingdom. When Omri moved the capital west to Samaria(1Kings 16:24), it was a bid for more connection withcosmopolitan coastal communities and particularly with the nation ofPhoenicia to the northwest. Omri’s son Ahab married thePhoenician princess Jezebel, cementing the alliance and bringing Baalworship to Israel with even greater force.

MountCarmel, to the northwest of Samaria, served as the effective boundarybetween Israel and the expanding power of the Phoenicians. It was theperfect stage for the confrontation between Elijah and the prophetsof Baal and Asherah (1Kings 18). Due to its elevation (overseventeen hundred feet at its highest point), it normally receivesabout thirty-two inches of rain per year. At Elijah’s word,however, the rain had ceased for more than three years (1Kings17:1; James 5:17), and the glory of Carmel had withered (cf. Isa.33:9; Amos 1:2; Nah. 1:4). This was a direct challenge to thesupposed powers of Baal, the god of storm and rain. The contestapparently took place near the heights of the promontory overlookingthe Mediterranean Sea (1Kings 18:42–43). There are,however, three sections in the entire twenty-four-mile range, eachseparated from the next by a chalk pass, providing access through themountain range. At the southeastern end of Mount Carmel lies theDothan Valley, location of one of the routes connecting theInternational Coastal Highway with the major Transjordanian highway(see Gen. 37; 2Kings 6:8–23).

TheDothan Valley rests between Mount Carmel and Mount Gilboa to theeast. These two mountains, along with the Jezreel and Harod Valleyson their northern flanks, create a natural barrier between thecentral hill country and Galilee. Because of the strategic importanceof this region, the Israelites fought early defensive battles againstthe forces of Jabin king of Hazor (Judg. 4) and against theMidianites camped in the Jezreel Valley (Judg. 7). Later, thePhilistines swept through this valley, dividing the southern tribesfrom those in the north. Saul and his sons lost their lives on MountGilboa in this confrontation (1Sam. 31). The night before thebattle, Saul was so troubled by God’s silence that he venturedbehind enemy lines on Mount Moreh (directly north of Mount Gilboa) tothe town of Endor and requested a medium to summon the prophet Samuel(1Sam. 28). The city of Megiddo, situated on the edge of theJezreel Valley at the base of Mount Carmel, guarded the mostimportant pass through the mountain and was the site of numerousbattles. It may be the basis for the name “Armageddon,”“Har Megiddo” in Hebrew (Rev. 16).

Northof the Jezreel and Harod Valleys, Galilee can be divided into lowerand upper Galilee. The latter is called “upper” becauseit is both farther north and significantly higher in elevation. UpperGalilee is rugged and relatively isolated. As a result, few biblicalevents unfolded there. In fact, Galilee is seldom mentioned in theOT, with the exception of Isa. 9:1, the passage that Matthew quotesin speaking of the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee(Matt. 4:13–16).

Thewestern part of lower Galilee has ridges that run east to west,providing natural conduits for the winds from the Mediterranean Seaas they sweep eastward. This contributes to sudden and strong stormson the Sea of Galilee. The town of Nazareth is nestled near the topof the southernmost ridge, overlooking the Jezreel Valley from thenorth. This would have afforded Jesus a panoramic view of ahistorical stage as he was growing up. Nearby was Gath Hepher,hometown of the prophet Jonah (2Kings 14:25). As Jesus lookedeast, he would have seen Mount Tabor (Judg. 4–5) and MountMoreh (Judg. 7; 1Sam. 31). The “brow of the hill”at Nazareth (Luke 4:29) is a sharp precipice overlooking the JezreelValley. Although not mentioned in the Gospels, the Roman city ofSepphoris was only about three miles northwest of Nazareth, and itmight have been the place where Joseph was employed as a builder.Eastern lower Galilee is characterized by beautiful rolling hills andvalleys that slope down toward the Jordan Valley. Just west of theSea of Galilee are the cliffs of Arbel, past which the InternationalCoastal Highway made its way as it ran from the Jezreel Valley aroundMount Tabor and down into the Jordan Rift Valley.

JordanRift Valley.The Jordan Rift Valley, ranging in width from about four to fourteenmiles, is a remarkable geological cleft in the earth that extendswell beyond the immediate area of Israel. The Arabah, the Dead Sea,the Sea of Galilee, and the Huleh Valley north of the Sea of Galileelie in the Jordan Rift Valley. In modern times, the Arava (Arabah)refers to the wasteland between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Eilat(Aqaba), but in the OT the term also included the barren desert northof and around the Dead Sea (Josh. 8:14; 11:2; 1Sam. 23:24;2Sam. 2:29; 4:7). The Dead Sea was called the “Sea of theArabah” in texts that indicate its role as a boundary marker(Deut. 3:17; 4:49; Josh. 12:3; 2Kings 14:25).

Inthe Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea is called the “Sea of Salt.”The mineral content exceeds 30percent, compared to normal seasalinity of 3–5percent. These minerals include calcium,potassium, magnesium, and sodium chlorides. Nevertheless, some algaeand bacteria do survive in the sea. Bitumen (asphalt) also seeps fromthe sea floor, especially when there is more seismic activity in theregion. The salinity varies, depending on the level of the Dead Sea,which does fluctuate with variations in rainfall. The level iscurrently receding rapidly, at a rate of almost three feet per year.One reason for this is the increasing demand for water from theheadwaters of the Jordan River. The north end of the sea, at aboutthirteen hundred feet below sea level, is the lowest place on earth,and the depth of the water at that point is more than one thousandfeet.

TheJordan River Valley north of the Dead Sea is approximately sixty-fivemiles long, and the Jordan River winds for over 120 miles. The name“Jordan” comes from the Hebrew word yarad, which means“to descend.” The Sea of Galilee is 690 feet below sealevel, so there is a significant drop between that point and thenorth end of the Dead Sea.

Keycities in the Jordan Valley include Jericho, just north of the DeadSea, and Beth Shan, at the junction of the Harod and Jordan valleys.The first city to be conquered (Josh. 6), Jericho represented thevulnerable “underbelly” of Canaan and paved the way forthe campaigns that swept first through the south and then the north(Josh. 9–11). Beth Shan was under Philistine control in theearly Israelite period. Later, it became the one Decapolis city westof the Jordan River and was known as Scythopolis.

TheJordan Valley has three sections. The entire expanse is called the“Ghor,” an Arabic name. The river valley itself is calledthe “Zhor,” and it includes the “pride” orthickets of the Jordan, a dense tangle of lush underbrush in whichlions could be found in the biblical period (Jer. 12:5; 49:19; 50:44;Zech. 11:3). In between the Ghor and the Zhor is the Qatarra,lifeless marl terraces. In antiquity, during flood stage the JordanRiver could be a mile wide. The Israelites crossed the Jordan in thespringtime, near Passover, when the river was at flood stage (Josh.3:15; 5:10).

TheJordan River has its headwaters north of the Sea of Galilee at thebase of Mount Hermon. It provides a constant source of freshwatercoming into the seven-by-thirteen-mile body of water. In addition,there are salt springs in the northwestern corner. These contributeto the good fishing in that part of the sea. The Hebrew name is “Yam[Sea of] Kinnereth” (Num. 34:11; Josh. 12:3; 13:27). It wasalso known as the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1; 21:1) and the Lake ofGennesaret (Luke 5:1). This last name comes from the fertile plainaround the northwestern corner of the lake and the city of Gennesareton that plain.

Theministry of Jesus unfolded around the Sea of Galilee after he movedhis base of operations from Nazareth to Capernaum (Matt. 4:13), atthe northern end of the sea. Nearby were the cities of Bethsaida andChorazin, which, along with Capernaum, Jesus condemned for notbelieving even though he worked miracles in their midst (Matt.11:20–24). The city of Capernaum profited from the industriesof fishing and oil pressing. It was also a likely place for a taxcollector, as it was close to the border between Herod Antipas’sGalilee and Herod Philip’s territories to the east. Across thelake, in non-Jewish territory, was the town of Gergesa, perhaps thesite where Jesus sent the legion of demons into a herd of pigs (Mark5:1–20pars.).

Justnorth of the Sea of Galilee is an elevated sill, formed by a basaltflow across the Golan Heights and over this section of the JordanRift Valley. Hazor, a major site of some two hundred acres, satastride the sill and dominated the northern region in the Late Bronzeand Israelite periods. Hazor is mentioned in texts from both Mari inMesopotamia and El Amarna in Egypt.

TheHuleh Valley, north of the sill, is twenty miles in length andreceives about twenty-four inches of rain per year, making it amarshland swamp in antiquity that was called “LakeSemechonitis.” The International Coastal Highway made its wayalong the western edge of the valley, turned eastward past MountHermon, and continued to Damascus.

Transjordan.On the eastern side of the Jordan Rift Valley, at the very northernextent of Israel, Mount Hermon rises to nine thousand feet. Abundantprecipitation percolating through the limestone results in prolificsprings at its base. These are the headwaters of the Jordan River,the two most important of which are at Dan and Caesarea Philippi.With the abundance of water and lush surroundings, it is notsurprising that Dan was a tempting location for the tribe of Dan toresettle, given their precarious position between the tribe of Judahand the Philistines to the west. The idols set up at that point(Judg. 18:30–31) established a precedent for Jeroboam’schoice to position one of the golden calves there as an alternativeto worship in distant Jerusalem (1Kings 12:29–30).Another name for Caesarea Philippi is “Panias” (modernArabic, “Banias”), in celebration of the god Pan. Therock face from which the spring poured forth is covered with nichesfor pagan gods; Herod the Great also built a temple to Augustus. Inthis context, Peter declared that Jesus was the Christ, the Son ofthe “living” God (Matt. 16:16).

Theregion south of Mount Hermon was Bashan in the OT period. In the NTera it consisted of a number of small provinces. One of those wasGaulanitis, which is recognizable in the modern name “Golan.”With significant annual rainfall (about forty inches per year), thenatural vegetation includes trees and rich pasture that supportslarge herds (cf. the “bulls of Bashan” in Ps. 22:12;Ezek. 39:18).

Separatingthe region of Bashan from Lower Gilead is the Yarmuk River Gorge, asignificant natural boundary. There was an ongoing contest betweenthe northern kingdom of Israel and Syria to the northeast to controlthe key site of Ramoth Gilead (1Kings 22; 2Kings 9).Cutting through the elevated Dome of Gilead is the Jabbok River, thesite of Jacob’s wrestling match with God (Gen. 32).

Thearea to the east and south of the Dead Sea includes the plains ofMoab (Mishor), extending north of the Arnon River Gorge; geopoliticalMoab, between the Arnon and the Zered rivers; and Edom, reaching fromthe Zered down to the northern end of the Gulf of Eilat (Aqaba). Tothe east of the Mishor lay the kingdom of Ammon. According to Gen.19, Moab and Ammon were descendants of Lot by his daughters. Whenthey fled eastward from Sodom and Gomorrah, this was the general areathey settled.

Transjordanwas significant in the OT as the Israelites skirted Edom, conqueredthe cities of the Amorites and the king of Bashan, and encounteredMoab enroute to the promised land (Num. 20–25). Thetribes of Reuben and Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh requested theright to settle in Transjordan after the conquest of the land wascompleted (Num. 32). In the ensuing centuries these tribes sufferedthe ravages of war on the eastern front (Judg. 10:8; 1Sam.11:1; 2Kings 15:29; 1Chron. 5:23–26). In theintertestamental period most of northern and central Transjordan cameunder Hellenistic control. Decapolis cities were located in Bashan,Gilead, and as far south as Philadelphia, at the site of modernAmman.

Negev.To the south of the Judean hill country lies the Negev, whose namemeans both “dry” and “south.” The biblicalNegev is a smaller region shaped somewhat like a bowtie, withBeersheba at the center, Arad in the eastern basin, and Gerarcontrolling the western basin. The south end of the Philistine plainmerges with the western Negev. In the patriarchal period there weretensions over water rights between the herdsmen of Abraham and Isaacand those of the Philistine king Abimelek (Gen. 21:22–34;26:12–33). Although the region only receives eight to twelveinches of rainfall per year, this was sufficient to sustain smallpopulations, especially if they conserved water. The soil of theNegev is loess, a windblown powder from which the water simply runsoff unless catch basins are constructed.

Thebiblical Negev is bounded by the greater Negev to the south, whererugged limestone ridges predominate. An artificial line drawn fromGaza to Eilat, at the northern end of the Gulf of Eilat, defines thesouthwestern boundary of the greater Negev; the Jordan Rift Valley isthe eastern boundary. The Negev was historically a corridor for spicetrade coming from southwestern Arabia and India on the “ship ofthe desert” (the camel) to reach the Mediterranean markets. TheNabateans, Arab commercial nomads who knew the secrets of the desert,flourished in the spice trade from the fourth to the first centuriesBC. Once the Romans co-opted the spice trade, the Nabateans builtcities, developed water conservation techniques, and grew extensivevineyards.

TheTesting Ground of Faith

Becausethe land is marginal in terms of both sufficient rainfall andnational security, God’s covenant people faced the constantchallenge of obedience. The temptations to worship the Canaanite godsfor agricultural fertility and to form alliances with more-powerfulneighbors instead of putting their trust in God were powerful. Oftenthey succumbed and then experienced God’s chastisem*nt thatthey might return to him (Lev. 26). Even the land itself wouldexperience pollution due to the sins of its inhabitants (Lev. 18:25).In sum, the land was much more than living space; it was an integralpart of the Israelites’ identity as God’s covenantpeople. When it was flowing with “milk and honey,” thepeople experienced the shalom of God.

The names of God given in the Bible are an important means ofrevelation about his character and works. The names come from threesources: God himself, those who encounter him in the biblical record,and the biblical writers. This article is concerned mainly with thenames that occur in the OT, though the NT will be referenced whenhelpful.

Inthe Bible the meaning of names is often significant and points to thecharacter of the person so named. As might be expected, this isespecially true for God. The names that he gives to himself alwaysare a form of revelation; the names that humans give to God often area form of testimony.

Yahweh:The Lord

Pronunciation.Unquestionably, for OT revelation the most important name is “(the)Lord.” In English Bibles this represents the name declared byGod to Moses at the burning bush (“I am who I am” [Exod.3:13–15]) and the related term used elsewhere in the OT; inHebrew this term consists of the four consonants YHWH and istherefore known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”).Hebrew does not count vowels as part of its alphabet; in biblicaltimes one simply wrote the consonants of a word and the readersupplied the correct vowels by knowing the vocabulary, grammar, andcontext. However, to avoid violating the commandment in the Decaloguethat prohibits the misuse of God’s name (Exod. 20:7; Deut.5:11), the Jews stopped pronouncing it. Consequently, no one todayknows its correct original pronunciation, but the best evidenceavailable suggests “Yahweh,” which has become theconventional pronunciation (consider the Hebrew word “hallelujah,”which actually is “hallelu-Yah,” hence “praise theLord”). In ancient Jewish tradition, “Adonai” (“myLord”) was substituted for “Yahweh.” In fact, whenHebrew eventually developed a vowel notation system, instead of thevowels for “Yahweh,” the vowels for “Adonai”were indicated whenever YHWH appeared in the biblical text, as areminder. Combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of “Adonai”yields something like “Yehowah,” which is the origin ofthe familiar (but mistaken and nonexistent) “Jehovah.”English Bibles typically use “Lord” (small capitalletters) for “Yahweh,” and “Lord” (regularletters) for “Adonai,” which distinguishes thetwo.

Meaning.More vital than the matter of the pronunciation of YHWH is thequestion of its meaning. There seem to be two main opinions. One seesYHWH as denoting eternal self-existence, partly because it issuggested by the grammar of Exod. 3:14 (the words “I am”use a form of the Hebrew verb that suggests being without beginningor end) and partly because that is the meaning Jesus apparentlyascribes to it in John 8:58. The other opinion, suggested by usage,is that YHWH indicates dynamic, active, divine presence: God’sbeing present in a special way to act on someone’s behalf(e.g., Gen. 26:28; 39:2–3; Josh. 6:27; 1Sam. 18:12–14).This idea also appears in the episode of the burning bush (Exod.3:12): when Moses protests his inadequacy to confront Pharaoh, Godassures him of his presence, a reality noted with other prophets(1Sam. 3:19; Jer. 1:8).

Perhapsthe best points of reference for understanding the meaning of YHWHare God’s own proclamations. In addition to Exod. 3:13–15,at least two other passages in Exodus give God’s commentary (asit were) about the meaning of his name. An important one is Exod.34:5–7. A key passage in the theology proper of ancient Israel,its themes echo in later OT Scripture (Num. 14:18–19; Ps.103:7–12; Jon. 4:2). What is noteworthy about the texts citedis that all of them say something remarkable about the grace of God.This fits, for the revelation of Exod. 34:5–7 is given in thecontext of covenant renewal after the incident of the golden calf.Moses invokes God’s name in the Numbers text to avoidcatastrophic judgment when the Israelites refuse to enter thepromised land. The psalm text picks up this theme and connects itwith God’s revelation of his ways to the chosen people. Jonah,remarkably, affirms that the same grace extends even toward a wickedGentile city such as Nineveh.

Anothersuch passage is Exod. 6:2–8.Here God reaffirms hisredemptive purpose for captive Israel, despite the fact that Moses’first encounter with Pharaoh has not gone well. God assures theprophet that he has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs, whomhe says did not know him as “Yahweh,” which probablymeans that the patriarchs did not experience him in the way orcharacter that their descendants would in the exodus event (though itis possible to translate the Hebrew here as a rhetorical questionwith an affirmative idea: “And indeed, by my name Yahweh did Inot make myself known to them?”). God then proceeds to outlinethe redemptive experience in its fullness: deliverance from bondage,reception into a covenant relationship, and possession of the landpromised to their ancestors (vv. 6–8). The statement isbracketed with this declaration: “I am the Lord” (vv. 2,8). One stated purpose of this redemptive work is that Israel mightcome to understand this (v.7). This is important to notebecause a central theme of Exodus as a book is the identity of theGod of Israel. This concern prompts Moses to ask for God’s nameat the burning bush (3:13), and this contempt for the God of theenslaved Hebrews causes Pharaoh to be dismissive at his first meetingwith Moses and Aaron (5:2). Moses asks with the concern of a seekerand receives one of the most profound declarations of God’sidentity in the Bible. Pharaoh asks with the contempt of a scornerand receives one of the most powerful displays of God’sidentity in the Bible (the plagues). The contrast is both strikingand instructive. The meaning of God’s name, then, is revealedin works as well as words, and his purpose is that not just hispeople but all peoples may come to understand who he is. Yet anothermajestic statement in the book of Exodus (9:13–16) makes thisabundantly clear.

Basedon this pattern of usage, the name “Yahweh” seems tosignify especially the active presence of God to bless, deliver, orotherwise aid his people. Where this presence is absent, there is nosuccess, victory, protection, or peace (Num. 14:39–45; Josh.7:10–12; Judg. 16:20; 1Sam. 16:13–14). The messagethat God not only is but also is present to save and deliver may wellbe the most important truth communicated in the OT, and it is onlynatural to see its ultimate embodiment in the person and work ofChrist (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:21–23).

Nameused in combination.The name “Yahweh” also is used in combination with otherterms. After God grants a military victory to Israel over theAmalekites, Moses names a commemorative altar “Yahweh Nissi,”meaning “the Lord is my Banner” (Exod. 17:15). InEzekiel’s temple vision Jerusalem is called “YahwehShammah,” meaning “the Lord is there” (Ezek.48:35). A familiar expression is “the Lord of hosts,”which is generally comparable to the expression “commander inchief” used in American culture (cf. 1Kings 22:19–23).

Elohim

Thisis the first term for God encountered in the Bible, right in theopening verse. It is a more generic term, denoting deity in contrastto humans or angels. “Elohim” is a plural form; thesingular terms “El” and “Eloah” are usedoccasionally, particularly in poetic texts. “El” is acommon term in the biblical world; in fact, it is the name for thefather of Baal in the Canaanite religion. This may explain why theBible commonly uses the plural form, to distinguish the one true God,the God of Israel, from his pagan rivals. Others explain the pluralform as a “plural of majesty” or “plural ofintensity,” though it is uncertain just what this would mean.Some see the foundation for NT revelation of the Trinity (Gen.1:26–27; 11:6–7; cf. John 17:20–22), but this isunlikely. The plural form also can serve simply as a common noun,referring to pagan deities (Exod. 12:12), angels (Ps. 97:7,arguably), or even human authorities (Exod. 22:28, possibly).

“El”also occurs in combination with other descriptive terms. The bestknown is “El Shaddai,” meaning “God Almighty”(Gen. 17:1). The precise meaning of “Shaddai” isuncertain, but it seems to have the notion of “great/powerfulone.” The distressed Hagar, caught, comforted, and counseled bythe mysterious personage at a well, calls God “El Roi,”which means “the God who sees me” (Gen. 16:13). One ofthe most exalted expressions to describe God is “El Elyon,”meaning “God Most High.” This title seems to haveparticular reference to God as the owner and master of creation (Gen.14:18–20).

Adonai

Asnoted above, this common word meaning simply “(my) lord/master”is used regularly in place of the personal name of God revealed toMoses in Exod. 3:14. And in the OT of most English Bibles this isindicated by printing “Lord” as opposed to “Lord”(using small capital letters). However, “Adonai” is usedof God in some noteworthy instances, such as Isaiah’s loftyvision of God exalted in Isa. 6 and the prophecy of Immanuel in Isa.7:14. In time, this became the preferred term for referring to God,and the LXX reflected this by using the Greek word kyrios (“lord”)for Yahweh. This makes the ease with which NT writers transfer theuse of the term to Jesus (e.g., 1Cor. 12:3) a strong indicationof their Christology.

The names of God given in the Bible are an important means ofrevelation about his character and works. The names come from threesources: God himself, those who encounter him in the biblical record,and the biblical writers. This article is concerned mainly with thenames that occur in the OT, though the NT will be referenced whenhelpful.

Inthe Bible the meaning of names is often significant and points to thecharacter of the person so named. As might be expected, this isespecially true for God. The names that he gives to himself alwaysare a form of revelation; the names that humans give to God often area form of testimony.

Yahweh:The Lord

Pronunciation.Unquestionably, for OT revelation the most important name is “(the)Lord.” In English Bibles this represents the name declared byGod to Moses at the burning bush (“I am who I am” [Exod.3:13–15]) and the related term used elsewhere in the OT; inHebrew this term consists of the four consonants YHWH and istherefore known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”).Hebrew does not count vowels as part of its alphabet; in biblicaltimes one simply wrote the consonants of a word and the readersupplied the correct vowels by knowing the vocabulary, grammar, andcontext. However, to avoid violating the commandment in the Decaloguethat prohibits the misuse of God’s name (Exod. 20:7; Deut.5:11), the Jews stopped pronouncing it. Consequently, no one todayknows its correct original pronunciation, but the best evidenceavailable suggests “Yahweh,” which has become theconventional pronunciation (consider the Hebrew word “hallelujah,”which actually is “hallelu-Yah,” hence “praise theLord”). In ancient Jewish tradition, “Adonai” (“myLord”) was substituted for “Yahweh.” In fact, whenHebrew eventually developed a vowel notation system, instead of thevowels for “Yahweh,” the vowels for “Adonai”were indicated whenever YHWH appeared in the biblical text, as areminder. Combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of “Adonai”yields something like “Yehowah,” which is the origin ofthe familiar (but mistaken and nonexistent) “Jehovah.”English Bibles typically use “Lord” (small capitalletters) for “Yahweh,” and “Lord” (regularletters) for “Adonai,” which distinguishes thetwo.

Meaning.More vital than the matter of the pronunciation of YHWH is thequestion of its meaning. There seem to be two main opinions. One seesYHWH as denoting eternal self-existence, partly because it issuggested by the grammar of Exod. 3:14 (the words “I am”use a form of the Hebrew verb that suggests being without beginningor end) and partly because that is the meaning Jesus apparentlyascribes to it in John 8:58. The other opinion, suggested by usage,is that YHWH indicates dynamic, active, divine presence: God’sbeing present in a special way to act on someone’s behalf(e.g., Gen. 26:28; 39:2–3; Josh. 6:27; 1Sam. 18:12–14).This idea also appears in the episode of the burning bush (Exod.3:12): when Moses protests his inadequacy to confront Pharaoh, Godassures him of his presence, a reality noted with other prophets(1Sam. 3:19; Jer. 1:8).

Perhapsthe best points of reference for understanding the meaning of YHWHare God’s own proclamations. In addition to Exod. 3:13–15,at least two other passages in Exodus give God’s commentary (asit were) about the meaning of his name. An important one is Exod.34:5–7. A key passage in the theology proper of ancient Israel,its themes echo in later OT Scripture (Num. 14:18–19; Ps.103:7–12; Jon. 4:2). What is noteworthy about the texts citedis that all of them say something remarkable about the grace of God.This fits, for the revelation of Exod. 34:5–7 is given in thecontext of covenant renewal after the incident of the golden calf.Moses invokes God’s name in the Numbers text to avoidcatastrophic judgment when the Israelites refuse to enter thepromised land. The psalm text picks up this theme and connects itwith God’s revelation of his ways to the chosen people. Jonah,remarkably, affirms that the same grace extends even toward a wickedGentile city such as Nineveh.

Anothersuch passage is Exod. 6:2–8.Here God reaffirms hisredemptive purpose for captive Israel, despite the fact that Moses’first encounter with Pharaoh has not gone well. God assures theprophet that he has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs, whomhe says did not know him as “Yahweh,” which probablymeans that the patriarchs did not experience him in the way orcharacter that their descendants would in the exodus event (though itis possible to translate the Hebrew here as a rhetorical questionwith an affirmative idea: “And indeed, by my name Yahweh did Inot make myself known to them?”). God then proceeds to outlinethe redemptive experience in its fullness: deliverance from bondage,reception into a covenant relationship, and possession of the landpromised to their ancestors (vv. 6–8). The statement isbracketed with this declaration: “I am the Lord” (vv. 2,8). One stated purpose of this redemptive work is that Israel mightcome to understand this (v.7). This is important to notebecause a central theme of Exodus as a book is the identity of theGod of Israel. This concern prompts Moses to ask for God’s nameat the burning bush (3:13), and this contempt for the God of theenslaved Hebrews causes Pharaoh to be dismissive at his first meetingwith Moses and Aaron (5:2). Moses asks with the concern of a seekerand receives one of the most profound declarations of God’sidentity in the Bible. Pharaoh asks with the contempt of a scornerand receives one of the most powerful displays of God’sidentity in the Bible (the plagues). The contrast is both strikingand instructive. The meaning of God’s name, then, is revealedin works as well as words, and his purpose is that not just hispeople but all peoples may come to understand who he is. Yet anothermajestic statement in the book of Exodus (9:13–16) makes thisabundantly clear.

Basedon this pattern of usage, the name “Yahweh” seems tosignify especially the active presence of God to bless, deliver, orotherwise aid his people. Where this presence is absent, there is nosuccess, victory, protection, or peace (Num. 14:39–45; Josh.7:10–12; Judg. 16:20; 1Sam. 16:13–14). The messagethat God not only is but also is present to save and deliver may wellbe the most important truth communicated in the OT, and it is onlynatural to see its ultimate embodiment in the person and work ofChrist (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:21–23).

Nameused in combination.The name “Yahweh” also is used in combination with otherterms. After God grants a military victory to Israel over theAmalekites, Moses names a commemorative altar “Yahweh Nissi,”meaning “the Lord is my Banner” (Exod. 17:15). InEzekiel’s temple vision Jerusalem is called “YahwehShammah,” meaning “the Lord is there” (Ezek.48:35). A familiar expression is “the Lord of hosts,”which is generally comparable to the expression “commander inchief” used in American culture (cf. 1Kings 22:19–23).

Elohim

Thisis the first term for God encountered in the Bible, right in theopening verse. It is a more generic term, denoting deity in contrastto humans or angels. “Elohim” is a plural form; thesingular terms “El” and “Eloah” are usedoccasionally, particularly in poetic texts. “El” is acommon term in the biblical world; in fact, it is the name for thefather of Baal in the Canaanite religion. This may explain why theBible commonly uses the plural form, to distinguish the one true God,the God of Israel, from his pagan rivals. Others explain the pluralform as a “plural of majesty” or “plural ofintensity,” though it is uncertain just what this would mean.Some see the foundation for NT revelation of the Trinity (Gen.1:26–27; 11:6–7; cf. John 17:20–22), but this isunlikely. The plural form also can serve simply as a common noun,referring to pagan deities (Exod. 12:12), angels (Ps. 97:7,arguably), or even human authorities (Exod. 22:28, possibly).

“El”also occurs in combination with other descriptive terms. The bestknown is “El Shaddai,” meaning “God Almighty”(Gen. 17:1). The precise meaning of “Shaddai” isuncertain, but it seems to have the notion of “great/powerfulone.” The distressed Hagar, caught, comforted, and counseled bythe mysterious personage at a well, calls God “El Roi,”which means “the God who sees me” (Gen. 16:13). One ofthe most exalted expressions to describe God is “El Elyon,”meaning “God Most High.” This title seems to haveparticular reference to God as the owner and master of creation (Gen.14:18–20).

Adonai

Asnoted above, this common word meaning simply “(my) lord/master”is used regularly in place of the personal name of God revealed toMoses in Exod. 3:14. And in the OT of most English Bibles this isindicated by printing “Lord” as opposed to “Lord”(using small capital letters). However, “Adonai” is usedof God in some noteworthy instances, such as Isaiah’s loftyvision of God exalted in Isa. 6 and the prophecy of Immanuel in Isa.7:14. In time, this became the preferred term for referring to God,and the LXX reflected this by using the Greek word kyrios (“lord”)for Yahweh. This makes the ease with which NT writers transfer theuse of the term to Jesus (e.g., 1Cor. 12:3) a strong indicationof their Christology.

The names of God given in the Bible are an important means ofrevelation about his character and works. The names come from threesources: God himself, those who encounter him in the biblical record,and the biblical writers. This article is concerned mainly with thenames that occur in the OT, though the NT will be referenced whenhelpful.

Inthe Bible the meaning of names is often significant and points to thecharacter of the person so named. As might be expected, this isespecially true for God. The names that he gives to himself alwaysare a form of revelation; the names that humans give to God often area form of testimony.

Yahweh:The Lord

Pronunciation.Unquestionably, for OT revelation the most important name is “(the)Lord.” In English Bibles this represents the name declared byGod to Moses at the burning bush (“I am who I am” [Exod.3:13–15]) and the related term used elsewhere in the OT; inHebrew this term consists of the four consonants YHWH and istherefore known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”).Hebrew does not count vowels as part of its alphabet; in biblicaltimes one simply wrote the consonants of a word and the readersupplied the correct vowels by knowing the vocabulary, grammar, andcontext. However, to avoid violating the commandment in the Decaloguethat prohibits the misuse of God’s name (Exod. 20:7; Deut.5:11), the Jews stopped pronouncing it. Consequently, no one todayknows its correct original pronunciation, but the best evidenceavailable suggests “Yahweh,” which has become theconventional pronunciation (consider the Hebrew word “hallelujah,”which actually is “hallelu-Yah,” hence “praise theLord”). In ancient Jewish tradition, “Adonai” (“myLord”) was substituted for “Yahweh.” In fact, whenHebrew eventually developed a vowel notation system, instead of thevowels for “Yahweh,” the vowels for “Adonai”were indicated whenever YHWH appeared in the biblical text, as areminder. Combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of “Adonai”yields something like “Yehowah,” which is the origin ofthe familiar (but mistaken and nonexistent) “Jehovah.”English Bibles typically use “Lord” (small capitalletters) for “Yahweh,” and “Lord” (regularletters) for “Adonai,” which distinguishes thetwo.

Meaning.More vital than the matter of the pronunciation of YHWH is thequestion of its meaning. There seem to be two main opinions. One seesYHWH as denoting eternal self-existence, partly because it issuggested by the grammar of Exod. 3:14 (the words “I am”use a form of the Hebrew verb that suggests being without beginningor end) and partly because that is the meaning Jesus apparentlyascribes to it in John 8:58. The other opinion, suggested by usage,is that YHWH indicates dynamic, active, divine presence: God’sbeing present in a special way to act on someone’s behalf(e.g., Gen. 26:28; 39:2–3; Josh. 6:27; 1Sam. 18:12–14).This idea also appears in the episode of the burning bush (Exod.3:12): when Moses protests his inadequacy to confront Pharaoh, Godassures him of his presence, a reality noted with other prophets(1Sam. 3:19; Jer. 1:8).

Perhapsthe best points of reference for understanding the meaning of YHWHare God’s own proclamations. In addition to Exod. 3:13–15,at least two other passages in Exodus give God’s commentary (asit were) about the meaning of his name. An important one is Exod.34:5–7. A key passage in the theology proper of ancient Israel,its themes echo in later OT Scripture (Num. 14:18–19; Ps.103:7–12; Jon. 4:2). What is noteworthy about the texts citedis that all of them say something remarkable about the grace of God.This fits, for the revelation of Exod. 34:5–7 is given in thecontext of covenant renewal after the incident of the golden calf.Moses invokes God’s name in the Numbers text to avoidcatastrophic judgment when the Israelites refuse to enter thepromised land. The psalm text picks up this theme and connects itwith God’s revelation of his ways to the chosen people. Jonah,remarkably, affirms that the same grace extends even toward a wickedGentile city such as Nineveh.

Anothersuch passage is Exod. 6:2–8.Here God reaffirms hisredemptive purpose for captive Israel, despite the fact that Moses’first encounter with Pharaoh has not gone well. God assures theprophet that he has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs, whomhe says did not know him as “Yahweh,” which probablymeans that the patriarchs did not experience him in the way orcharacter that their descendants would in the exodus event (though itis possible to translate the Hebrew here as a rhetorical questionwith an affirmative idea: “And indeed, by my name Yahweh did Inot make myself known to them?”). God then proceeds to outlinethe redemptive experience in its fullness: deliverance from bondage,reception into a covenant relationship, and possession of the landpromised to their ancestors (vv. 6–8). The statement isbracketed with this declaration: “I am the Lord” (vv. 2,8). One stated purpose of this redemptive work is that Israel mightcome to understand this (v.7). This is important to notebecause a central theme of Exodus as a book is the identity of theGod of Israel. This concern prompts Moses to ask for God’s nameat the burning bush (3:13), and this contempt for the God of theenslaved Hebrews causes Pharaoh to be dismissive at his first meetingwith Moses and Aaron (5:2). Moses asks with the concern of a seekerand receives one of the most profound declarations of God’sidentity in the Bible. Pharaoh asks with the contempt of a scornerand receives one of the most powerful displays of God’sidentity in the Bible (the plagues). The contrast is both strikingand instructive. The meaning of God’s name, then, is revealedin works as well as words, and his purpose is that not just hispeople but all peoples may come to understand who he is. Yet anothermajestic statement in the book of Exodus (9:13–16) makes thisabundantly clear.

Basedon this pattern of usage, the name “Yahweh” seems tosignify especially the active presence of God to bless, deliver, orotherwise aid his people. Where this presence is absent, there is nosuccess, victory, protection, or peace (Num. 14:39–45; Josh.7:10–12; Judg. 16:20; 1Sam. 16:13–14). The messagethat God not only is but also is present to save and deliver may wellbe the most important truth communicated in the OT, and it is onlynatural to see its ultimate embodiment in the person and work ofChrist (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:21–23).

Nameused in combination.The name “Yahweh” also is used in combination with otherterms. After God grants a military victory to Israel over theAmalekites, Moses names a commemorative altar “Yahweh Nissi,”meaning “the Lord is my Banner” (Exod. 17:15). InEzekiel’s temple vision Jerusalem is called “YahwehShammah,” meaning “the Lord is there” (Ezek.48:35). A familiar expression is “the Lord of hosts,”which is generally comparable to the expression “commander inchief” used in American culture (cf. 1Kings 22:19–23).

Elohim

Thisis the first term for God encountered in the Bible, right in theopening verse. It is a more generic term, denoting deity in contrastto humans or angels. “Elohim” is a plural form; thesingular terms “El” and “Eloah” are usedoccasionally, particularly in poetic texts. “El” is acommon term in the biblical world; in fact, it is the name for thefather of Baal in the Canaanite religion. This may explain why theBible commonly uses the plural form, to distinguish the one true God,the God of Israel, from his pagan rivals. Others explain the pluralform as a “plural of majesty” or “plural ofintensity,” though it is uncertain just what this would mean.Some see the foundation for NT revelation of the Trinity (Gen.1:26–27; 11:6–7; cf. John 17:20–22), but this isunlikely. The plural form also can serve simply as a common noun,referring to pagan deities (Exod. 12:12), angels (Ps. 97:7,arguably), or even human authorities (Exod. 22:28, possibly).

“El”also occurs in combination with other descriptive terms. The bestknown is “El Shaddai,” meaning “God Almighty”(Gen. 17:1). The precise meaning of “Shaddai” isuncertain, but it seems to have the notion of “great/powerfulone.” The distressed Hagar, caught, comforted, and counseled bythe mysterious personage at a well, calls God “El Roi,”which means “the God who sees me” (Gen. 16:13). One ofthe most exalted expressions to describe God is “El Elyon,”meaning “God Most High.” This title seems to haveparticular reference to God as the owner and master of creation (Gen.14:18–20).

Adonai

Asnoted above, this common word meaning simply “(my) lord/master”is used regularly in place of the personal name of God revealed toMoses in Exod. 3:14. And in the OT of most English Bibles this isindicated by printing “Lord” as opposed to “Lord”(using small capital letters). However, “Adonai” is usedof God in some noteworthy instances, such as Isaiah’s loftyvision of God exalted in Isa. 6 and the prophecy of Immanuel in Isa.7:14. In time, this became the preferred term for referring to God,and the LXX reflected this by using the Greek word kyrios (“lord”)for Yahweh. This makes the ease with which NT writers transfer theuse of the term to Jesus (e.g., 1Cor. 12:3) a strong indicationof their Christology.

The obligations of relationships within ancient societies andbetween social groups were frequently reinforced by means of oaths,and the practice of oath making (by both God and people) is witnessedto in the pages of the Bible. The name of God was frequently invoked(Judg. 8:19; 2Kings 2:2), but oaths were not to be made usingthe names of foreign deities (Ps. 16:4). For this reason, when anoath was broken, God’s name was profaned (Lev. 19:12). To takean oath was to ask God to witness what was promised, and it invitedhim to act as avenger if the promise was broken (Gen. 31:50; 1Sam.12:3). This made oath taking a religious act, and so oaths often weremade at sanctuaries and under the supervision of cultic officials(Num. 5:11–31; Judg. 11:11; Hos. 4:15).

Thewords of an oath were accompanied by various gestures, such asputting a hand “under the thigh” (near the genitals?)(Gen. 24:2; 47:29) or raising the right hand to heaven (Gen. 14:22;Deut. 32:40; Rev. 10:5–6). Daniel 12:7 depicts a particularlysolemn oath, involving the raising of both hands. By invoking God’sname, an oath invited God to punish the oath breaker, as in Ruth1:17: “May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely”(for similar wording, see 1Sam. 3:17; 14:44; 2Sam. 3:9).Such a self-maledictory oath may have been accompanied by the gestureof a hand at the throat, signifying the death penalty forinfringement. People brought a curse upon themselves if an oath wasbroken (e.g., Num. 5:22), either for doing what was wrong (Num. 5:22;1Sam. 19:6) or for not speaking the truth (e.g., Mark 14:71).Two Hebrew words are used in respect to oaths; the stronger one canactually mean a “curse.” The more common word forswearing may relate to the number seven, due to the ceremonies thatcould accompany oath making. For example, Abraham set aside seven ewelambs (Gen. 21:22–31).

Inthe Bible, God is portrayed as binding himself by oaths, most notablyhis sworn promises to Abraham (Gen. 22:16–18; 50:24). This factis used by the author of Hebrews in an argument designed to assurereaders that God meant what he said when he made promises to hispeople (Heb. 6:13–18). The coming of Jesus fulfilled the termsof that oath (Luke 1:73). So too the Davidic covenant was supportedby a divine oath (Pss. 89:35, 49; 110:4; 132:11), and this wasfulfilled by the enthronement of Christ at his resurrection andascension (Acts 2:30–33).

Jesus’teaching on oaths (Matt. 5:33–37) does not necessarilycontradict OT legislation (cf. Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21–23)but rather brings out the true heart of God behind the legislation.Oaths are unnecessary, Jesus said, for those who habitually tell thetruth. An emphatic yes or no is all that is needed. The teaching ofJames 5:12 reflects what is found in Jesus’ teaching on thissubject. This may not outlaw all oath taking, and certainly theapostle Paul did not understand there to be a blanket prohibition ofoaths, for in his letters he is on record as making oaths (Gal. 1:20;Phil. 1:8).

The act of yielding or consenting to the authority ofanother, voluntarily or involuntarily; personal deference,compliance, or humility toward another; to become subject to.Submission incorporates obedience, and in certain usages the termsare synonymous. However, “obedience” indicates compliancewith directions or guidance, while “submission” describesone’s subservient posture toward another. Submission within aformalized hierarchy is subordination—for example, Jesus’relationship to the Father.

Scripturepresents submission in two ways: as the translation of a number ofspecific Hebrew and Greek terms that convey an aspect of the concept,and as a general portrait of relationships—for example,patriarchs and prophets before the Lord, or demons toward Jesus.Sometimes, the presentation is negative, as in a refusal to submit.

Inthe OT, the use of the word “submission” (or itsderivatives) in the major English versions is primarily a function oftranslator preference. In fact, Gen. 16:9, the angel’sinstructions to Hagar, is the sole instance where “submit”is broadly agreed to be the best translation of the underlyingHebrew. Elsewhere, the NIV and at least one other version use formsof “submission” to interpretively translate Hebrewexpressions meaning the following: “become a slave to”(Gen. 49:15); “serve” (2Chron. 30:8); “have arelationship with” (Job 22:21); “quickly stretch outhands” (Ps. 68:31); “give over to” (Ps. 81:11); and“give the hand to” (Lam. 5:6).

Inthe NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and,often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and theepistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.

1.Dogmatizōappears once: “Why ... do you submit to rules?”(Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something thathas been decreed.

2.Hypeikōappears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them”(Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience isspecifically distinguished from submission.

3.Hypotagēappears four times as “submission.” In Gal. 2:5; 1Tim.2:11; 3:4 it indicates the main understanding: subordinate posturingtoward superiors; in 2Cor. 9:13, however, it refers toobedience to a decree,in this case confession of the gospel.

4.Hypotassōis by far the most significant root. It appears almost forty times inthe NT; about half of these occurrences can be translated using aform of “submission” (or “to be subject to”).It is used to conveythe subordination of children to parents (Luke 2:51); demons to theseventy-two missionaries (Luke 10:17, 20); sinners to God’s lawor righteousness (Rom. 8:7; 10:3); people to governing authorities(Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1Pet. 2:13); believers to one another(1Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21); wives to husbands (1Cor. 14:34;Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1Pet. 3:1, 5); slaves tomasters (Titus 2:9; 1Pet. 2:18); angels, authorities, andpowers to Jesus (1Pet. 3:22); believers to God (Heb. 12:9;James 4:7); younger men to elders (1Pet. 5:5).

Afew additional uses of “submission” in some translationshave other primary meanings: “turn in for inspection”(Gal. 2:2 NASB); “reverence” (Heb. 5:7 NIV, NRSV); and“open-mindedness” (James 3:17 NIV).

Vividportraits of submission conveying the concept without invoking thespecific vocabulary include Abraham’s submission to God (Gen.12:1–4; 17:1–27; 21:4; 22:1–19); Moses at theburning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17); Joshua toward God (Josh. 24:29);prophets toward God (1Sam. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Hos. 1:1–3);Jesus’ submission to the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; Mark14:35–36, 39; Luke 2:49; 22:42); Paul’s submission toJesus (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1); believers doing the will of the Father(Matt. 12:50; 21:28–32); the prodigal son toward his father(Luke 15:18, 21); believers toward Jesus (John 12:26; 14:21, 23–24;15:10); husbands and wives toward each other (1Cor. 7:3–5;11:11); believers humble before one another (Rom. 12:10; Phil.2:3–4); and the bowing of every knee to Jesus (Phil. 2:10–13).

The act of yielding or consenting to the authority ofanother, voluntarily or involuntarily; personal deference,compliance, or humility toward another; to become subject to.Submission incorporates obedience, and in certain usages the termsare synonymous. However, “obedience” indicates compliancewith directions or guidance, while “submission” describesone’s subservient posture toward another. Submission within aformalized hierarchy is subordination—for example, Jesus’relationship to the Father.

Scripturepresents submission in two ways: as the translation of a number ofspecific Hebrew and Greek terms that convey an aspect of the concept,and as a general portrait of relationships—for example,patriarchs and prophets before the Lord, or demons toward Jesus.Sometimes, the presentation is negative, as in a refusal to submit.

Inthe OT, the use of the word “submission” (or itsderivatives) in the major English versions is primarily a function oftranslator preference. In fact, Gen. 16:9, the angel’sinstructions to Hagar, is the sole instance where “submit”is broadly agreed to be the best translation of the underlyingHebrew. Elsewhere, the NIV and at least one other version use formsof “submission” to interpretively translate Hebrewexpressions meaning the following: “become a slave to”(Gen. 49:15); “serve” (2Chron. 30:8); “have arelationship with” (Job 22:21); “quickly stretch outhands” (Ps. 68:31); “give over to” (Ps. 81:11); and“give the hand to” (Lam. 5:6).

Inthe NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and,often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and theepistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.

1.Dogmatizōappears once: “Why ... do you submit to rules?”(Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something thathas been decreed.

2.Hypeikōappears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them”(Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience isspecifically distinguished from submission.

3.Hypotagēappears four times as “submission.” In Gal. 2:5; 1Tim.2:11; 3:4 it indicates the main understanding: subordinate posturingtoward superiors; in 2Cor. 9:13, however, it refers toobedience to a decree,in this case confession of the gospel.

4.Hypotassōis by far the most significant root. It appears almost forty times inthe NT; about half of these occurrences can be translated using aform of “submission” (or “to be subject to”).It is used to conveythe subordination of children to parents (Luke 2:51); demons to theseventy-two missionaries (Luke 10:17, 20); sinners to God’s lawor righteousness (Rom. 8:7; 10:3); people to governing authorities(Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1Pet. 2:13); believers to one another(1Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21); wives to husbands (1Cor. 14:34;Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1Pet. 3:1, 5); slaves tomasters (Titus 2:9; 1Pet. 2:18); angels, authorities, andpowers to Jesus (1Pet. 3:22); believers to God (Heb. 12:9;James 4:7); younger men to elders (1Pet. 5:5).

Afew additional uses of “submission” in some translationshave other primary meanings: “turn in for inspection”(Gal. 2:2 NASB); “reverence” (Heb. 5:7 NIV, NRSV); and“open-mindedness” (James 3:17 NIV).

Vividportraits of submission conveying the concept without invoking thespecific vocabulary include Abraham’s submission to God (Gen.12:1–4; 17:1–27; 21:4; 22:1–19); Moses at theburning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17); Joshua toward God (Josh. 24:29);prophets toward God (1Sam. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Hos. 1:1–3);Jesus’ submission to the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; Mark14:35–36, 39; Luke 2:49; 22:42); Paul’s submission toJesus (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1); believers doing the will of the Father(Matt. 12:50; 21:28–32); the prodigal son toward his father(Luke 15:18, 21); believers toward Jesus (John 12:26; 14:21, 23–24;15:10); husbands and wives toward each other (1Cor. 7:3–5;11:11); believers humble before one another (Rom. 12:10; Phil.2:3–4); and the bowing of every knee to Jesus (Phil. 2:10–13).

One of the twelve tribes of Israel, the descendants of thefifth of Jacob’s twelve sons, Dan, whose mother was Bilhah,Rachel’s servant. Although Dan’s early history includedthe notable Oholiab, a chief craftsman of the sanctuary built underthe direction of Moses (Exod. 31:6; 35:34; 36:1, 2; 38:23), it wasotherwise unremarkable. Dan participated with the other tribes inresponsibilities shared across all Israel. For example, the camp ofDan is named as rearguard of the wilderness tabernacle (Num. 2:25,31). Other instances include sending a representative to spy out theland, being counted in the census, and being instructed by Moses toparticipate in deciding the territorial allotments (Num. 13:12;26:42; 34:22). However, the harsh nature of Jacob’s blessingfor his son Dan, in which he prophesied that Dan will be not only ajudge but also a serpent and a viper, rightly suggests that Dan’sfuture would be troubled (Gen. 49:16–17).

TheTerritory of Dan

Thepostconquest tribal allotment to Dan was a roughly U-shaped area tothe northwest of Jerusalem, between the allotments of Judah andEphraim. It included the cities along the northern border ofJudah—Zorah, Eshtaol, Timnah, Ekron—and extended to theMediterranean coast, including Joppa. However, the text immediatelynotes that Dan was unable to possess its territory. Instead, Danmoved from there to the northern city of Leshem (Laish), situated atthe foot of Mount Hermon and near the headwaters of the Jordan. Afterbrutally attacking Leshem, Dan took it over (Josh. 19:40–48).

Thebook of Judges provides additional insight into these events. Dan hadtrouble occupying its own territory because of the Amorites, who keptDan in the hills away from the coastal plain (1:34). Dan was alsopressured by the Philistines (13:1). God eventually raised Samson, aDanite, as judge of Israel against the Philistines (13:2–5; cf.Gen. 49:16). In the end, however, rather than defeating thePhilistines, Samson was ensnared by them (Judg. 14–16).

TheSamson narrative is followed by the detailed story of the Danites’move to the north (Judg. 17–18). Having concluded that theymust relocate in order to settle, the tribe sent out scouts to find anew home. They met Micah’s Levite along the way and eventuallycame to Laish, where they saw a fertile and prosperous land populatedby peaceful, unsuspecting inhabitants under the protection of theSidonians, a remote distance to the west. After the scouts’report, the Danites raised an army of six hundred, which returnednorth via Micah’s house. Taking the Levite and Micah’sidol with them, they proceeded to Laish. Encountering no opposingforces, they attacked and burned the city.

Theseevents help explain an otherwise perplexing verse incorporated intoMoses’ farewell blessing to the twelve tribes (Deut. 33:22).Moses refers to Dan as a lion’s cub “springing out ofBashan.” Although “Bashan” is a place name, it isnot otherwise associated with Dan. However, bashan also means“snake.” Dan, as a cub rather than a full-grown lion, wasnot fierce enough to claim its divine allotment and thus was leapingaway from its oppressors, the snake. But Dan, a lion nonetheless, wasindeed fierce enough to lay waste to the peaceful, isolated Laish.

Indue course, the Danites rebuilt Laish, renamed it “Dan,”and set up Micah’s idol as a shrine there. This initiated thecity’s long history as a seat of apostasy (Judg. 18:28–31),which was furthered by the sin of Jeroboam, who placed one of his twogolden calves there (1Kings 12:29–30; 2Kings10:29).

Danthroughout the Bible

Dan’sextreme northern location as compared to Beersheba in the Negevcontributed to the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” asa common description for the entire land of Israel (Judg. 20:1;1Sam. 3:20; 2Sam. 3:10; 17:11; 24:2, 15; 1Kings4:25; 1Chron. 21:2; 2Chron. 30:5; cf. Amos 8:14).

Danis mentioned by Ezekiel in his eschatological vision of Israel asreceiving its portion of the land (48:1–2, 32). However, Dan isomitted from the list of the twelve tribes in Rev. 7:5–8, whereit is replaced by Manasseh. Although lists of the twelve tribes oftencount Joseph twice (by naming his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh,instead), the omitted tribe usually is Levi because of its priestlystatus. In this case, Dan’s absence is often attributed to thetribe’s persistent apostasy.

Elsewherein Scripture, the tribe of Dan is listed as one of the tribes, alongwith Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali, standing on MountEbal, the mount from which curses on Israel were pronounced (Deut.27:13); and it is reported that Dan failed to fight alongside Deborahand Barak (Judg. 5:17), was conquered by Ben-Hadad in the context ofhis pact with King Asa of Judah (1Kings 15:20; 2Chron.16:4), and produced Huram-Abi, a craftsman for Solomon’s temple(2Chron. 2:14).