Ji-Ju

     

JIDLAPH (ידלף, shedding tears) Seventh son born to Nahor and Mileah 

        (Genesis 22).

JOAB (יואב, Yahweh is father)  1. The eldest son of Zeruiah, the sister of Da-

        vid. His military adroitness as commander of the army of David and royal 

        confidant earned for Joab an importance among his contemporaries se-

        cond only to David.

                   The military record of Joab commences with the defeat of Abner at

        Gibeon.  Ishbaal was placed upon the throne of Israel by Abner; Judah, 

        however, anointed David as its king.   At the pool of Gibeon, Abner chal-

        lenged Joab to choose twelve warriors as champions. In the ensuing com-

        bat, after all the participants had fallen, the opposing forces joined the me-

        lee.   Abner fled and was pursued by Asahel, who was slain.   Joab and 

        Abishai were dissuaded from further bloodshed only by the urgent plea-

        ding of Abner.
                   The end of friendly relations between Ishbaal and Abner prompted 

        the commander of Israel’s forces to open negotiations with David to unite 

        Israel under his rule. Abner then proceeded to Hebron. Joab also returned

        to Hebron and learned to his amazement that David had quite forgotten 

        the unrequited blood of his nephew Asahel. Joab recalled Abner, and he 

        and Abishai treacherously slew him in the gate of Hebron; David cursed 

        Joab for his actions. The deed was dictated as much by jealousy of Abner 

        and fear for his army command as by desire for blood revenge for his bro-

        ther Asahel.

                   The military service of Joab seems to have started at the same 

        time as all the important conquests of David. Joab’s daring assault on the 

        Jebusite stronghold of Zion (Jerusalem) through the water shaft won him 

        permanent command of the army. Joab participated in the campaign of 

        David against the Edomites; the country was occupied and the male popu-

        lation was exterminated. Joab attacked the Syrians while his brother Abi-

        shai routed the Ammonites, whom Joab later besieged at its capital of Rab-

        bah. It is most probable that he played an important role in the subjugation 

        of the Philistines.

                  Joab was successful in obtaining the recall of Absalom from Geshur, 

        although Absalom was still debarred from court. After two years Joab was 

        summoned by Absalom to intercede again. It was only after Absalom set

        fire to the barley field of Joab that the commander got Absalom reinstated 

        at court. In the rebellion of Absalom, Joab maintained his loyalty to David. 

        When Absalom became ensnared in the branches of an oak Joab slew the 

        prince forthwith, in direct violation of the express orders of David.  When 

        David broke out in unrestrained grief and cast a pall over the brilliant vic-

        tory of his followers, Joab had to rebuke the king for his behavior. David re-

        placed Joab with Amasa, the rebel commander.

                   The rebellion of Sheba threatened the very existence of the United 

        Kingdom and evoked from the king the urgent order for Amasa to gather 

        the Judean forces. Amasa was late, so David placed Abishai in command 

        of the royal guards and ordered him to quell the uprising; Joab joined 

        David’s forces, murdered Amasa, and regained his former position. The 

        census of the people which David ordered caused Joab to protest strongly; 

        it took him nine months to take the census.

                   It was the dispute of Adonijah and Solomon over dynastic succes-

        sion that ultimately led to the downfall of Joab, who supported Adonijah. 

        When word came that David had nominated Solomon, support for Adoni-

        jah melted away, and Joab rushed for sanctuary to the horns of the altar, 

        but even this plea for asylum did not mollify Solomon, who had Benaiah

        dispatch him. Joab possessed all the virtues and vices of an ancient war-

        rior, but his loyalty and shrewd tactics were offset by self-will and trucu-

        lence. Although he was not without religious feeling, it was devoid of any 

        real ethical content.

                   2. Son of the Judahite Seraiah, descendent of Kenaz, the ancestor 

        who established the Geharashim.

                   3. The ancestor and origin of the name of a Judean family who re-

        turned from Babylonian exile to Judah.

JOAH (יואה, Yahweh is friend)  1. A Levite; son of Obed-edom (I Chronicles 

        26).      2. A Levite; son Zimnah; perhaps the same as the Joah who assis-

        ted in the reforms of King Hezekiah (II Chronicles 29).     3. A court official,

        and a member of the deputation from King Hezekiah to the Assyrian ar-

        mies.      4. Recorder under King Josiah; one of those deputized to see to 

        the repair of the temple.

JOANAN (Iwanan) An ancestor of Jesus (Luke 3).

JOANNA (Iwana) “Wife of Herod’s steward,” who was healed by Jesus and 

        who provided for him and the 12.

J-57

JOASH (יואש, Yahweh gives)     1. A man of Manasseh, of the clan of Abiezer; 

        father of Gideon. Joash had apparently built an altar to Baal, and an Ashe-

        rah. These Gideon was commanded to destroy. Joash took his son’s part 

        when the men of the town remonstrated him (Judges 6).      2. A man of 

        Judah; one of the sons of Shelah (I Chronicles 4).

                   3. A Benjaminite of the clan of Becher (I Chronicles 7).      4. A Ben-

        jaminite, son of Shemaah of Gibeah; a Mighty Man, ambidextrous in shoo-

        ting arrows and slinging stones. Joash was second in command to Ahiezer

        (I Chronicles 12).      5. One of David’s officers in charge of the stores of oil

        (I Chronicles 27).      6. A son of Ahab associated with Amon the governor 

        of Samaria (I Kings 22; II Chronicles 18).

                   7. King of Judah (837-800 B.C.); son of Ahaziah. With the murder 

        of King Ahaziah of Judah by Jehu, who seized the throne of the northern 

        kingdom, Judah was seized by the queen mother, Athaliah, who destroyed

        the royal family, except for Joash. His aunt Jehosheba, the wife of Jehoia-

        da the high priest, kept him hidden in the temple precincts for 6 years 

        along with his nurse.

                   In the 7th year a revolution broke out in Judah. One can assume 

        that Athaliah ruled as a despot and alienated the people. Athaliah was a 

        devotee of Baal, and under her royal patronage Baalism flourished in the 

        land. This particular Baal was Melcarth, the worship of which had gained a

        stronghold in the north and the south. The leader of the revolution was Je- 

        hoiada; he organized the mercenaries, the temple guards, and the people.

        He brought the temple guards & the young king into the temple, crowned 

        and anointed him, and those present shouted: “Long live the King!” Atha-

        liah went to the temple when she heard the shouting. On the orders of Je-

        hoiada she was taken outside the temple and slain.

                   There followed a covenant-making ceremony in which king and 

        people alike pledged themselves to be the people of Yahweh. The people 

        pledged anew their loyalty to the Davidic dynasty. The phrase “the people 

        of the land” used here means more than “the populace.” After the queen’s

        death the people destroyed the house of Baal, with its altars and images, 

        and murdered Mattan the Baal priest. The Chronicler’s representation of 

        these events differs from it in several points. From the historical point of 

        view Kings gives a more accurate picture of what actually happened.

                   Joash was 7 years old when he had began to reign, with Jehoiada 

        acted as regent of the kingdom; he reigned for forty years, which is pro-

        bably a round number.  During the reign of Joash, repairs were made to 

        the temple, and the system of temple revenue was improved. The king 

        put a collection box at the entrance of the temple. When the box was full,

        the king’s secretary and the high priest came and counted the money, 

        which was then given to the overseers. The Chronicler’s account of this 

        incident differs considerably from Kings, with an extra story about a break 

        between the king and the priesthood after the death of Jehoiada.

                   In the reign of Joash, Judah suffered a bitter humiliation at the 

        hands of Hazael of Aram, who captured Gath. He then planned to attack 

        Jerusalem, but Joash bought him off by paying a heavy tribute. Joash 

        was assassinated in a palace conspiracy led by some of his servants. It 

        seems best to follow the account in Kings, and leave unanswered the 

        question of motive.

                   8. King of Israel (801-786 B.C.) for 16 years. During the last illness 

        of Elisha, King Joash went to see him. Elisha promised him victory three 

        times over Syria. The annual invasion (raids) by the Moabites each spring 

        mentioned in II Kings 13 may be a historical fact. The background of II 

        Kings 13 can now be filled out from Assyrian records. Adad-nirari III claims

        to have subjected the western countries, including Palestine to his rule. 

        Then he marched against Damascus, where he “shut up Mari, king of 

        Damascus, in Damascus.” Damascus had to pay a tribute of 100 hundred 

        talents of gold.

                   This is the background against which Joash’s successful campaign 

        against Ben-hadad of Syria, who had succeeded his father, Hazael, as 

        king. Not only was Joash successful against Aram; he was also victorious 

        against Judah. Amaziah’s army was routed at Beth-shemesh of Judah. 

        Joash came to Jerusalem, broke down part of the wall, and took hostages 

        back to Samaria.  Judah was reduced to the status of a vassal.   Under 

        Joash’s son Jeroboam II she reached her greatest heights.

J-58

JOB, BOOK OF (איוב (ee yob), persecuted) The 18th book in the Old Testa-    

        ment (OT) canon in the English versions. The book belongs to the last of 

        the three divisions of the Hebrew scriptures, the Kethubhim, or Writings.   

        Throughout time its position has varied within this section. The English 

        form of the hero’s name gives a rather inaccurate rendering of the Hebrew 

        form of the name. The derivation and meaning of the name are uncertain. 

        The apparent root of the name means “enmity, hostility.” If the name does 

        mean “enemy, foe,” it may have been intended as symbolic of the hero’s 

        attitude toward God, of his adverse reaction to the seemingly senseless     

        suffering. The name has also been related to the Arabic root meaning “re-

        turn, repent.”

                   The notion that the name may have been artificially constructed is 

        now seen to be without basis, as it is seen outside of the Bible in historical 

        documents, borne by a number of Western Semites.   It is an ordinary 

        name and may been chosen for this reason, or possibly some worthy an-

        cient with that name actually experienced a fate such as described in the 

        biblical story.

                    List of Topics—1.  Text and Versions;      2.  Original 

        language;      3.  Date;     4.  Author;     5.  Background and 

        Parallels/ Content;      6.  Prologue/ Dialogue;       7.  Elihu’s & 

        Yahweh's speeches/  Epilogue;     8.  Literary form/ Unity and 

        Integrity;     9.  Purpose and teaching

                  1.  Text and Versions—Comparison of the Masoretic Text with the 

        primary Greek OT in a few cases leads to the correction of the Hebrew, 

        but for the most part the Hebrew has to be given precedence. Many ver-

        ses of the received Hebrew text were missing from the oldest Greek text. 

        Origen supplied the missing lines from the ancient translator Theodotion. 

        Some scholars have supposed that the shorter Greek text of Job is the 

        more primitive form. The weight of the evidence, however, is against this 

        view. It appears that the Greek translator simply gave up trying to trans-

        late Job as futile. In many cases the primary Greek OT must be regarded 

        as more of a paraphrase than a translation; in some cases the Greek is a 

        radical reinterpretation. 

                   The other versions, the Syrian Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate, are 

        no more helpful than the Greek version. The Vulgate’s translator, Jerome 

        translated sometimes literally and sometimes freely, according to the 

        sense. The Masoretic Text remains our primary source, although it is cor-

        rupt and needs changes in many places in order to avoid rendering non-

        sense. Research into Semitic languages has answered old questions and 

        raised new ones. With the exception of Hosea, Job remains textually the 

        most difficult book of the OT to translate.

                2.  Original language —The language of Job, while ostensibly He-

        brew, presents many difficulties. It has been suggested that the poem is 

        an echo of Edom’s famed wisdom.   We need to know more about the 

        Edomite language before this can be proved.  The suggestion was first 

        made by Ibn Ezra that the difficulties of the book of Job derive from the 

        fact that it is a translation. A considerable number of words found in Job 

        have been explained from Arabic. But the most striking linguistic feature 

        of Job is its strong Aramaic coloring. It is recognized that even classical 

        Hebrew has some features and inconsistencies that seem best explained

        as due to Aramaic influence, so much so that some Semitists have classi-

        fied Hebrew as a hybrid speech.

                   It has been argued that in Job we have a halfway translation from 

        an Aramaic original.   The translator wished to make the Aramaic poetry 

        accessible to Hebrew-speaking readers and made only such alterations 

        as he deemed necessary.   In many cases this translator failed to recog-

        nize the proper sense of the Aramaic, and the confusion was compoun-

        ded by Masoretic translators assuming a Hebrew pronunciation of conso-

        nants in what was actually an Aramaic word. The alleged original Aramaic

        of Job is Babylonian and not later than the 500s B.C. The presence of nu-

        merous Aramaic elements in the book of Job can't be denied, but a satis-

        factory explanation of this fact has not been given. It seems best to ope-

        rate with the Hebrew as we have it.

                   3.  Date—The patriarchal background of the prose narrative gave

        rise to an ancient view that the author was Moses. The patriarchal colo-

        ring appears to be quite authentic in detail. There is no priesthood or cen-

        tral shrine.    The patriarch offers sacrifices himself to turn away divine 

        wrath. Job’s exceptional longevity is matched or surpassed only in the 

        patriarchal period. These features and others comprise a sort of epic sub-

        stratum from an older Job epic which served as the basis of the present 

        Prologue and Epilogue.

                   There are indications in Ugaritic, Keret, and Sumerian epics, from 

        2000-1500 B.C., of similar stories.   The Keret epic especially, tells of a 

        king who lost his entire family and suffered a seemingly fatal illness, yet 

        both health and family were restored. These parallels to the Job story go

        back at least to 1000-2000 B.C. and enhance the probability that a very 

        ancient legend and epic lies behind the prose narrative. The concept of 

        Satan, from the 500s-400s B.C may have been introduced into the an-

        cient narrative.

                   While the introduction of the Satan into the narrative may be as 

        late as the 500s or 400s B.C., the core of the story featuring an Edomite 

        hero and an Edomite supporting cast would hardly have come into exis-

        tence in the exilic or early postexilic period, since Judeans and Edomites 

        became bitter enemies during that period. While it is impossible to fix the 

        date of the prose narrative exactly, there is no reason to place it later than

        the 600s B.C., and its sources may go back more than 1,000 years.

J-59

                   The opinions of the rabbis as to the date of the book of Job varied 

        from pre-Mosaic times to the times of Cyrus and Ahasuerus.   In more 

        recent times the tendency has been to date the book between the 500s 

        and 300s B.C. Opinion is divided as to whether Job is earlier or later than 

        the second part of Isaiah.   The fact remains that there is nothing in the 

        book itself to suggest an exilic setting. The majority of critics assign the 

        book to the postexilic period. Within this period, however, there is no firm

        consensus, and the suggestions range from the 400s to the 200s B.C. 

        The book certainly reached its final form by 200 B.C. The reason for the 

        considerable spread in the dating of the book is simply that the evidence 

        is inconclusive.

                   4.  Author—Despite the evidence that the book is a composite, 

        there must have been one person who gave to the work the high literary 

        quality which characterizes it.  The author of the Dialogue was a deeply     

        religious soul, sensitive to human suffering in general and especially to 

        that of particular and exceptional individuals. The depth and earnestness

        of the author’s thought and feeling, the keenness of his insight into hu-

        man nature, as well as the universal human concern with the problem of 

        pain, gives the work a quality of realism and a power to stir the human 

        soul in all times and places. Even the theory that the author was an Israe-

        lite is not entirely certain. Some of the figures and metaphors fit with a    

        Palestinian background but there is little that is definite or distinctive to fix

        the location. It is certain that he belonged to the intellectual elite of his time.

                   5.  Background and Parallels/ Content—Wisdom literature of the 

        OT in particular has so much in common with similar literature of Egypt &

        Mesopotamia that international influences on the book of Job appear likely.

        The problem faced by the book of Job especially concerned the Egyptian 

        and Mesopotamian sages and scribes, who wrote several pieces on suffe-

        ring and justice. The Babylonian poem “I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom” 

        has many contacts with Job. The attitudes of the sufferers differ somewhat.

        Job stresses his integrity, and Yahweh vouches for his innocence. The 

        Babylonian sufferer emphasizes his ritual acts, but is prepared to entertain 

        the idea that he may have committed some sin unwittingly.

                   There is also the text some call the Babylonian Ecclesiastes; the 

        poem consisted originally of 27 stanzas of eleven lines each. There is an 

        acrostic spelled out by the first word of each stanza when they are com-

        bined.   The pious sentiment of the acrostic does not agrees with the suffe-

        rer’s attitude in the dialogue. The sufferer argues with a friend and defends

        his own behavior for 26 stanzas, until finally he addresses a plea for mercy 

        to the god Ninurta, the goddess Ishtar, and the king; the conclusion of the 

        poem is not known.

                  There is also “A pessimistic Dialogue Between Master and Servant,” 

        which addresses the seeming meaninglessness of life.   The parallel be-

        tween these documents and the biblical books of Job and Ecclesiastes are 

        numerous. All aspects of human activity—the pursuit of pleasure, political 

        power, wealth, the love of women, charity, etc.—are shown to be futile. 

        The servant suggests that to break one’s neck and plunge into the river is 

        (the only) good.   It is possible that the author of Job was familiar with 

        these Akkadian poems.

                  A Sumerian poem which bears an even closer relation to Job has 

        been recovered from fragments excavated at Nippur. The poem deals with

        a healthy, wealthy, and wise man who was suddenly seized with severe ill-

        ness & pain. The sufferer laments his bitter fate, then confesses his guilt, 

        and the god answers the man’s prayer and delivers him from affliction. In 

        the Sumerian world view, human affliction results from sin. In all cases of 

        human suffering, man is to blame and never the gods. 

                   This view is virtually identical with that espoused by Job’s friend. 

        One difference between the Sumerian poem and the book of Job is that     

        the Sumerian sufferer assumes and admits his guilt all the way, while Job 

        is declared guiltless from the beginning.   As early as 2000 B.C., both in 

        Egypt and in Mesopotamia, there were literary compositions which dealt 

        with the same concern as the book of Job. Even if the author of Job did 

        not know these works at first hand, they created a literary, poetic, and reli-

        gious background to his work. Indian lore has a similar story.

                  In Greek literature the mystery of suffering is a prominent theme. Fa-

        talism seems to develop inevitably among peoples inured to war.   Man’s 

        share in life is like his ration of food or booty.   He must take what he gets, 

        without grumbling. Good fortune a man does not question, but misfortune 

        sets one to thinking. The Greeks, however, had little to offer by way of a so-

        lution.   The safest thing for man is to keep his place in all humility and 

        never risk the ire of the gods.

                   Of all the Greek tragedies, Aeschylus’ Promethus Bound bears clo-

        sest resemblance to Job. Chained to a rock by Zeus as punishment for 

        having brought mortals the gift of fire, he protests the injustice in terms re-

        miniscent of Job. There is no mystery in his suffering, for he knows Zeus 

        to be unjust, vengeful, savage, relentless, and unpredictable. In the end, 

        Job is vindicated by God, whom he finds to be the source of all power and 

        wisdom, and even justice. The Greeks’ logic and sense of justice forced 

        them ultimately to the conclusion that since wrongs are not always righted 

        in this life, they must be in the afterlife. The punishments of the afterlife are

        not entirely for retaliation or revenge, but for the purpose of purifying the     

        sinner.

J-60

                  The author of Job could have derived much of his material and lite-

        rary forms from other portions of the OT, or from the sources on which 

        these other portions were based. Job bears little resemblance to the patri-

        archal narratives of Genesis, but has more affinity with Judges and Ruth. 

        About half of the book consists of poetry which belongs to the genre of 

        hymns and individual lamentations. The hymns are part of the speeches 

        of Job (e.g. in chapters 9, 12, and 26) and the speeches of his friends (in 

        chapters 5, 11, 25, and 34).

                   A considerable part of Job’s discourses are classed as laments 

        (chapters 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 23, and 29-31). This literary 

        genre had its prototype in Mesopotamia, where the sufferer’s woes are de-

        scribed with stark realism and in gruesome detail to excite divine pity and 

        to attain healing or deliverance. The victim expects to convince the offen-

        ded god of his innocence or penitence. The author of Job exploited this 

        literary genre to the full. His intercession with Yahweh resembles the pro-

        phetic intercessions of Amos, but the author of Job went far beyond any-

        thing else in the OT in developing a poetic dialogue around a single theme.

                  Here and there in the book are obscure sayings which seem to have 

        little or no connection with the context and may be misplaced or mangled 

        proverbs. Although there are many proverbs and wise sayings in Job, the 

        work as a whole can scarcely be classed as wisdom literature. In fact, 

        Job’s vehement protest against his friend’s “wisdom” makes the book, if 

        anything, anti-wisdom literature.

                   The book of Job consists of five parts: a prologue in prose (chapters

        1-2); the Dialogue (chapters 3-31); the Elihu speeches (chapters 32-37); 

        the appearance and speeches of Yahweh (chapters 38-42); and an epi-

        logue in prose (the last part of chapter 42).

                  6.  Prologue/ Dialogue—The Prologue presents a man named Job, 

        famous for his integrity, piety, wealth, and a large, happy family. Yahweh 

        asks the Satan specifically about his observation of Job; the Satan doubts 

        that Job’s piety and rectitude are purely disinterested. He suggests that if 

        Job were bereft of his possessions, he would curse Yahweh to his face. 

        The Satan proceeds to have Job robbed of all his wealth, even his children,

        but Job accepts the blow with resignation & blesses the name of Yahweh. 

                   Then the Satan is given permission to do anything short of taking 

        Job’s life. His wife urges him to curse God and die, but he rebukes her and 

        accepts his evil state as also coming from God. Three friends come to con-

        sole him. After sitting seven days with them in silent grief, Job speaks out 

        in bitter complaint, curses his life, and wishes he had died at birth.

                  The Dialogue consists of 3 cycles, with 6 speeches in each cycle, 

        one by each friend, and a response by Job; the third cycle is incomplete 

        and garbled. Eliphaz leads off cautiously, but quickly turns to criticism of 

        Job for faltering in the face of adversity, and asserts that mortals cannot be 

        just before God. Job replies that the intensity of his suffering is ample justi-

        fication for the bitterness of his complaint.   He charges his friends have 

        failed to give him moral support. Why will not God simply leave him alone, 

        give him a moment’s respite before he lies down in the dust.

J-61

                   Bildad characterizes Job’s speech as so much wind. He hints that 

        Job’s children got what they deserved, and appeals to history to prove that

        the wicked get short shrift.  In reply Job admits that humans cannot be just 

        before God, and they cannot argue with him, but that God mocks the inno-

        cent and gives the world to the wicked. Why struggle in vain, when one 

        can hope only for condemnation? Why give him life at all? Why not leave 

        him to live out his brief span in peace before he descends to the dismal 

        nether world?

                   Zophar accuses Job of boasting of his innocence to silence people,

        but God could show him his guilt. Job ought to change his attitude and ap-

        peal to God. Job answers with sarcastic praise of his friend’s wisdom. He

        is not inferior to them; he knows of God’s power as well as they do. He 

        asks only that God give him a hearing.   Human life is short and trouble-

        some. There is no hope of afterlife. If only there were, he would be content

        to wait. There is nothing to look for but extinction.

                   Eliphaz begins the second cycle by characterizing Job’s speech as

        hot air, vain and impious talk. Job’s own mouth convicts him. What right 

        has he to berate God? No one is clean before God.   The wisdom of the 

        ages is that the wicked always suffer. Job answers that he has heard all 

        this flatulent nonsense before. He turns again to God, and cries out for     

        vindication. There must be a witness in heaven who will serve as an arbi- 

        ter for him. His life is coming to an end in mockery, with no support from 

        God.

                   Bildad objects to being called stupid, and then paints a dark picture 

        of the woes of the wicked. Job rebukes his “friends” for their harsh judg-

        ment of him.   It is God who has afflicted him unjustly. He appeals to the fu-

        ture and asserts faith in ultimate vindication before God.   He warns his 

        friends against persecuting him.

                   Zophar is deeply agitated. The seeming triumph of the wicked, he 

        declares, is only momentary. Job requests close attention to his words. He

        feels he has some ground for impatience. He invites them just to look at 

        him and be horrified. He points to the continued prosperity of the wicked. 

        The “comfort” of the friends is vain and their arguments groundless.

                   Eliphaz, in his third speech, asserts that God receives no benefit 

        from human virtue. Hence it must be that Job’s wickedness is very great. 

        Return to God, however, will bring restoration of good fortune. Job conti-

        nues in his extremity to search for God, so that he may come into court 

        with him.   God knows Job is innocent, but God does as he pleases and 

        uses terror against him.

                   The rest of the third cycle (chapters 24-27) is thoroughly scram-

        bled. Bildad’s third speech is short and totally different from his previous

        utterances.   Job’s reply consists of the very ideas he has been so vigor-

        ously opposing. Zophar’s third speech is missing altogether. The following 

        rearrangement makes fairly good sense:

                  Bildad’s third speech (25:1; 27:7-10, 16-23) declares that wealth will

        not save the wicked from punishment; Job’s reply (26:1-4; 27:11-12; 25:2-

        6; 26:5-14) consists mainly of description of God’s power. Zophar’s mis-

        sing speech (27:13; 24:21-24, 18-20; 27:14-15) reaffirms that the wicked 

        will be punished. Chapter 28 is an entirely extraneous poem on wisdom’s 

        value and its complete inaccessibility to man, except through piety.

                   Job’s final speech in the Dialogue reaffirms his innocence & gives

        a nostalgic review of his former blessed estate. Job then makes a series 

        of negative confessions with horrible self-imprecations if ever he commit-

        ted such wrongs as lust, wealth by injustice, adultery, and slave mistreat-

        ment. He then rests his case and challenges God to answer him.

                   7.  Elihu’s and Yahweh's speeches/ Epilogue—A young man 

        named Elihu, angry at Job and the 3 friends, picks up the argument. He 

        first apologizes for his youth, but since wisdom is a divine gift and not a 

        function of old age, and since his elders have failed to answer Job, he will

        now speak his piece. He summarizes Job’s argument: that he is innocent

        and yet God persecutes and refuses to answer his complaint.   Elihu ar-

        gues that God answers in various ways, by dreams, or illness, to warn

        or chasten him.

                   Elihu launches into a second discourse, in which he charges Job   

        with blasphemy for questioning God’s justice and maintaining that piety is

        of no consequence.   God is too high to be affected by what someone 

        does, but the person is affected for good or ill. If God ignores Job’s plea, 

        it is because of insincerity.   In a final speech Elihu continues to defend 

        God’s justice. Affliction may be the means of deliverance, and this could 

        be so in Job’s case. God is supreme and eternal, & his ways are beyond 

        human comprehension.

                   In Yahweh's speeches, Yahweh now answers from the whirlwind. 

        “Why does Job speak in ignorance?” is one of the questions, and Yahweh

        ask several more rhetorical questions about Job’s knowledge of & power 

        over nature. If Job has such knowledge and power then Yahweh will admit

        that Job’s own hand can save him.   Now that Job has seen God, he re-

        pents in dust and ashes.

                   In the epilogue, Yahweh rebukes Eliphaz and his two friends for not 

        having spoken rightly of him, as Job has done.   He orders them to offer  

        sacrifice & have Job pray for them.  Yahweh now restores Job’s fortunes, 

        giving him twice as much property as he had lost; Job also begins a new 

        family. After this he lives 140 years & sees grandchildren to the 4th gene-    

        ration. He dies in contented old age.

                   8.  Literary form/ Unity and Integrity—Until modern times, it was 

        commonly taken as sober history.  While it can't be taken as history, there 

        may have been a historical personage behind the story. It is, in a sense, a 

        parable of any and every man who suffers without cause or without kno-

        wing the cause. Some suggest that Job symbolizes Israel, but there is not

        the slightest hint of national concern in the work. It is hardly likely that the 

        narrator would have chosen a descendant of Esau as the symbol of Jacob.

        No general classification suits the book. It has features that partake from 

        Greek dramas, tragedies, and epics.

                   A mere summary of the book’s contents inevitably raises the ques-

        tion of its unity and integrity. The major problem is posed by the incongrui-

        ties between the prose introduction and conclusion & the poetic Dialogue, 

        as shown by comparing the prose and the poetry below.

J-62

           The Prologue presents the tra-               The Dialogue confronts us 

        ditional pious and patient Job.                with a Job whose bitter com-

        The Epilogue brings divine re-                plaints & accusations against 

        buke on the friends for having                God shock the pious friends.

        spoken falsely, and commenda-

        tion of Job for having spoken the

        truth about Yahweh.

           The Prologue has a detached,                 The Dialogue is charged 

        impersonal, and ironical attitude             with the anguish of the tormen-

        toward the ghastly wager or ex-             ted victim, and states further 

        periment to see just how much               that one cannot count on the 

        Job will endure. The Epilogue                very vindication and compen-

        offers vindication and a 100%                sation that appears in the 

        “profit” to Job as a result of his               Epilogue.

        suffering.

            Job is scrupulous in obser-                     The Dialogue has no mention
        vance of the cult of sacrifice. The           of concerns with sacrifice. It 

        prose uses Yahweh for God.                  uses El, Eloah, Elohim, and

                                                                        Shaddai for God.

                   For these & other reasons, critics very early cast suspicions on the 

        Prologue and Epilogue as editorial additions.   The episodes featuring the 

        Satan has been particularly suspect, because the Satan is absent in the 

        rest of the book. The view now generally held is that the poet adapted an 

        ancient folk tale as the frame for his work. The legendary Job had become

        a type of the ideal righteous man, the innocent sufferer. 

                   What modifications were made in the ancient story we do not know. 

        Perhaps the poet introduced the visit of the 3 friends to connect the Dia-

        logue with the prose story. The divine censure of the friends’ is hardly com-

        patible with the blasphemous tirades of the Job. It may be that the older 

        prose tale, which included an episode in which the friends urged Job to 

        curse God and die.   In spite of the modifications to the folk tale, it pre-

        serves the flavor and the charm of an oft-told classic.

                  In spite of textual and exegetical problems, there is an organic cohe-

        sion, a unity of style and language, which bears the mark of a single mind. 

        This is not to say that the Dialogue has not been subjected to alterations 

        by well-meaning meddlers, such as the attempts to tone down the shoc-

        king charges against God. The most serious tampering has been in chap-

        ters 24-27, which have been thoroughly rearranged and some passages 

        have been doctored. Some see it as an accident in the transmission, but 

        others see it as a deliberate juggling of the text. Few scholars have accep-

        ted the present order and state of these chapters as original.

                  The poem on wisdom (chapter 28) is seen as being out of place by 

        nearly all critics; some regard it as a composition of the author/editor of the 

        Dialogue. Elihu’s speeches are regarded by most as later additions of 

        scant value. They could be dropped from the book without loss of either     

        content or literary structure. The argument in them merely echoes those of 

        the 3 “friends.” It seems likely that the author of the Elihu speeches wanted

        to inject himself into the dispute; in the process he anticipates the divine 

        discourse. 

                   They seem an unworthy interruption between Job’s demand: “. . . 

        let the Almighty answer me!,” and Yahweh’s answer. Perhaps the most tel-

        ling reason for regarding the Elihu speeches as additions is that, in the     

        Epilogue, Elihu is completely ignored. If they were additions, the process 

        was performed with considerable skill.

                  The first speech of Yahweh is widely hailed as a composition unsur-

        passed in world literature, an effort of the highest genius, transcending all 

        other descriptions of the greatness of the Creator & the wonders of God’s 

        creation; at the end of it Job is silenced. The second speech is commonly 

        considered spurious and inferior. After it, Job becomes submissive and 

        repentant.

                   The Epilogue has been rejected by some critics. The fact that Job is 

        condemned in the divine speech and praised and rewarded in the Epilogue

        is used as evidence of diverse authorship. It must be considered, however, 

        that the author was working here with prefabricated materials which he 

        could not radically alter. The condemnation of the friends may indicate that 

        they, like Job’s wife, urged him to curse God and die. Or it could be argued 

        that they merited divine rebuke for asserting a lie in order to defend God.

                   9.  Purpose and teaching—The purpose of the book of Job has  

        commonly been supposed to give an answer to the problem of evil, especi-

        ally of undeserved suffering. If the purpose of the book is to “solve” this pro-

        blem, it must be admitted to be a conspicuous failure. The Prologue expla-

        nation is fanciful, a “wager” between God & the Satan as cause; the friends

        opinions rationalize & assume that Job must have done something wrong; 

        Elihu assumes that the suffering is somehow instructive. Yahweh ignores

        the question entirely. None of these answers or attitudes are adequate, if 

        the purpose is to justify the ways of God to humans.

J-63

                  The intent of the book has been taken by a number of scholars to be 

        the refutation of the doctrine that righteousness brings prosperity and wick-

        edness misfortune in this life.  The doctrine may be quite comforting as 

        long as one is healthy and prosperous. The downside of this argument is 

        that suffering is always a punishment for sin. That there is a measure of 

        truth in the doctrine is obvious. Righteousness ought to be, and frequently 

        is, rewarded with success; wickedness often overreaches and brings its 

        own destruction.   But the attempt to make this an absolute rule goes 

        against the hard facts of life. It ought to be so, but it certainly is not. This is 

        one point that the Book of Job is trying to make.

                   Some scholars have found the problem of good and evil resolved in 

        advance in the Prologue. The Satan is a mere agent of Yahweh, and it is 

        God’s will that is carried out.  The victory is seen in Job’s confession of un-

        shakable trust: “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be 

        the name of the Lord.”   This is seen as moving toward the profoundest in-

        sight of the New Testament: innocent suffering serves some larger pur-

        pose of God. In Job’s case it was the vindication of God’s faith in humans,

        as well as human faith in God.

                  The Dialogue offers no answer to the question of good and evil. The 

        speeches are more like the speeches found in a legal proceeding than a 

        dialogue.   There is no real progress in the discussion, although Job ap-

        pears to grow calmer toward the end. He wants to argue with God rather 

        than humans, but he can't find God or bring him into court. Job also grasps

        at the hope of an afterlife, which may be of some consolation to one in 

        agony, but it doesn't help to understand or bear the present's suffering.

                   Job returns to the mediator's theme as he appeals to a heavenly 

        witness who would argue his case with God, and for a fair trial. The climax 

        of Job’s questing is commonly seen in the famous passage in chapter 19. 

        Unfortunately, this is one of the most difficult passages in the book. Either 

        Job counts on vindication before his death, or hopes for it after death. 

                   Many critics have thought that Job speaks of vindication before 

       his death. Stricken by God, denied even the pity and support of his friends, 

       Job wishes to leave behind a lasting memorial and protestation of his inno-

        cence, a document or an inscribed stela.  Here too, he seeks an advocate,

        but to see here a messianic figure is to press the metaphor too hard. His 

        acquittal must come, even if he dies, and he either sees it in his mind, or 

        hopes to be aware of it when it comes, even though it be too late.

                   The answer as to the purpose of the book is to be found, if any-

        where, in the appearance of God, and in the speeches of Yahweh from the 

        whirlwind. Job’s challenge to God brings a direct response, but Yahweh 

        ignores the issue as Job had posed it. No explanation is given of Job’s suf-

        fering; instead he is convinced of his ignorance and presumption. Job con-

        fesses his error and recants.   In the Epilogue, Job is commended for ha-

        ving spoken correctly about Yahweh and the friends are rebuked.   By its 

        position in the book, as well as by its literary power, it is obvious that the 

        theophany was intended as the climax.

                  Yahweh answers Job’s challenge to appear, but Yahweh declines to 

        submit to cross-examination and puts questions to Job. Here it may be that

        the poet reveals his purpose: to put man in his proper place in relation to 

        God.   No amount or degree of suffering could give mere finite humans 

        license to question God’s justice as Job has done. Job makes no conces-

        sion, and Yahweh says nothing to imply that Job has merited his misery; 

        Yahweh brings no bill of indictment against Job. Job gets no apology and 

        no explanation from God for having wrongfully afflicted him, but the ab-

        sence of any charge of guilt is tantamount to vindication.

                   Not that he actually gets a glimpse of God, he realizes that he has 

        spoken rashly, for God moves on a level beyond human comprehension. 

        The answer which God gives from the whirlwind is as much of an answer 

        as humankind has ever received, one which in Job’s case was accompa-

        nied by a beautiful vision.

JOBAB (יובב, desire of the father)  1. The youngest son of Joktan, and hence

        the name of an Arabian group. It was probably connected with the town of 

        Juhaibab, near Mecca (Genesis 10; I Chronicles 1).       2. The 2nd king of 

        Edom, who came from the northern capital, Bozrah (Genesis 36).      3. A 

        king of the town of Madon, located somewhere in northern Palestine; he 

        was defeated by Joshua (Joshua 11, 12).     4. A  Benjaminite; son of Sha-

        haraim (I Chronicles 8).       5. A Benjaminite; son of Elpaal (I Chronicle 8).

J-64

JOCHEBED (יוכבד, the Lord is her glory) A daughter of Levi; the wife of Am-

        ram; and the mother of Aaron, Moses, and Miriam; only the Priestly Writer 

        uses her name in his part of the Exodus and Numbers narrative.

JOD (י (yode)) The 10th letter of the Hebrew Alphabet as it is placed in the 

        King James Version at the head of the tenth section of Psalm 119, where 

        each verse of this section of psalm begins with this letter.

JODA (Iwda) An ancestor of Jesus (Luke 3).

JOED (יועד, Yahweh is witness) A Benjaminite listed as resident in Jerusalem

        under Nehemiah. The name is absent from the parallel (I Chronicles 9).

JOEL (יואל, Yahweh is God)   1. A prince in the tribe of Simeon (I Chronicles 4).             2. A man of the tribe of Reuben. (I Chronicles 5).     3. A chief of the tribe 

        of Gad in Bashan (I Chronicles 5).       4. A Kohathite Levite and ancestor 

        of the prophet Samuel (I Chronicles 6)      5. The elder son of Samuel the 

        prophet, a Kohathite Levite and father or ancestor of Heman the singer 

        (I Chronicles 6).       6. A man of the tribe of Issachar (I Chronicles 7).      

        7. One of David’s “Mighty Men” (I Chronicles 11).

                  8. A chief of the Levite “sons of Gershom,” who with 130 of his bre-  

        thren took part in the ceremonies connected with bringing the ark of the 

        Lord up to Jerusalem in the reign of David (I Chronicles 15).       9. Son of 

        Pedaiah; chief officer over the half-tribe of Manasseh in the reign of David 

        (I Chronicles 27).       10. A Kohathite Levite who took part in the cleansing 

        and re-consecration of the temple during King Hezekiah's reign (II Chroni-

        cles 29).       11. The prophet Joel, son of Pethuel. See Joel, Book of.       

        12.  One of the post-exilic Jews among Ezra’s contemporaries who are lis-

        ted as having married foreign wives (Ezra 10).      13. An overseer, or chief 

        representative of the laity (Nehemiah 11).

JOEL, BOOK OF (יואל) The second of the twelve short prophetic books which 

        together make up the concluding section of the Old Testament (OT). 

        The Masoretic Text has 4 chapters. The other versions have combined 

        chapters 2 and 3.

                   Nothing is known of the author apart from his name. The oracles 

        suggest Jerusalem as their place of origin, & the date has been variously 

        given as pre-exilic or postexilic.   Majority opinion now favors a date of 

        about 400 B.C. The occasion of the prophecies appears to have been an 

        unusually severe plague of locusts. The main interest of the oracles lies in 

        the connection between the prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit and 

        the Pentecostal experience of the early church.

                   The prophet is described as Pethuel’s or Bethuel’s son, but nothing

        is known apart from this of either father or son. The prophet describes a lo-

        cust swarm of unprecedented intensity; the farmers and priests are in de-

        spair. Joel calls upon the priesthood to summon the people to fasting and 

        penitential prayer that the plague might cease. The prophet sees this cala-

        mity as more than a natural phenomenon; it is a warning, a sign of the im-

        pending Day of Yahweh. Locusts along with forest fires and drought have 

        emptied the granaries.

                  Yet there is still hope. If only the people will repent and turn to Yah-

        weh in sincerity of heart, they will find Yahweh ready to forgive their past 

        offenses & to rid them of this plague. From the next words it appears that 

        Joel’s appeal has been heeded and that the people have repented. Now 

        the prophet predicts the sequel, which is a reversal of present conditions.

                   After this prospect of material abundance has been confidently pre-

        dicted the prophet goes on to envisage even greater blessings. Yahweh 

        will send down Yahweh’s Spirit upon all Israel, and everyone will be a pro-

        phet in their own right. Then convulsions on earth and portents in the hea-

        vens will herald the approach of the Day of the Lord, with all its terrors. 

        Those whom Yahweh has called to be Yahweh’s faithful servants will sur-

        vive the horrors that mark the coming of the judgment.

                   These will be the days when the Lord will summon the heathen na-

        tions to meet the Lord in the Vale of Judgment.   The Lord will call to ac-

        count the Phoenicians & the Philistines for plundering the territories of the 

        Lord’s people, and Yahweh's scattered people will be brought back from 

        their places of exile to take vengeance. The earth's nations ally for a final 

        battle against Jerusalem, in preparation for which they forge every peace-

        ful tool into a weapon of war. Cut down like grain at harvest time, crushed 

        like grapes in a winepress, the heathen will perish in the Valley of Decision.

        In the midst of this terrible judgment Israel will be protected by her God. 

        Never again will Jerusalem, the holy city, be violated by the heathen.

J-65

                   The book of Joel is generally recognized as falling naturally into two

        distinct parts.  The first part appears to deal with a recent historical event 

        in the plague of locusts. The people responded to Joel’s call, whereupon 

        he predicted the destruction of the locusts and the restorations of fertility to

        the land. The second part appears to be wholly about the final days of this 

        age.   Joel depicts the final conflict between the hosts of Yahweh and the 

        armies of the heathen nations.

                   Yet while the 1st part is predominantly historical and the 2nd part 

        most apocalyptic, the division is not as radical as is at first apparent. The 

        Day of Yahweh occurs in both sections. Are the locusts real locusts, or are 

        they merely symbols of heathen armies?   The view generally held now is 

        that the locusts are historically real.  Modern research shows that the pro-

        phet’s description presents an accurate picture of the fearful onslaught, 

        which resembled nothing so much as the terrible havoc wrought by inva-

        ding armies.

                   In accepting this view, there is no reason to suppose that Joel was

        not responsible for the whole work.   Many other suggestions have, how-

        ever, been advanced. One is that the first two chapters were additions to 

        the original work, taken from liturgical poems that were part of the New 

        Year Festival ritual. This and other suggestions of additions do not ap-

        pear to be based on incontrovertible evidence.

                  In dating this work, Critics range from the 800s B.C. to the 100s B.C. 

        The modern consensus, however, regards them as postexilic and narrows

        the range of time to around 400 B.C. The evidence which dates this work 

        is that Israel and Judah have ceased to exist as separate nations; the mo-

        narchy has disappeared, and many of the people are in exile. But the tem-

        ple is standing and is in full operation. 

                   The prophet drew a sharp distinction between Israel and the rest of

        the world in his view of the Day of the Lord. Joel speaks of the punishment

        of Israel’s enemies and the triumph of the Jews, which is different from ear-

        lier prophets. All this points to the period after the Exile, when the worship 

        of the restored temple had become the lifeblood of the people, and when 

        there was a growth of nationalism and exclusiveness, which saw the Jews

        as the victims of a world too corrupt to be redeemed, and which placed its 

        only hope in the divine annihilation of their enemies.

                   This fascinating little book has many intriguing features, and these 

        are not only theological. There is the accuracy of the description of the lo-

        custs, and the vividness of the imagery and the poetic style. The author’s 

        artistic skill in weaving backward and forward between the historical phe-

        nomenon of the locusts and the supra-historical events of the Day of Yah-

        weh is considerable.

                   By far the most important theological aspect of the book of Joel is 

        his role as a herald of the apocalyptic school. He vividly describes a sign 

        of Yahweh’s wrath.  Repentance of the whole community is therefore re-

        quired. Given repentance, divine favor will be manifested in the restora-

        tion of the means of preserving the covenant relationship. It is on this con-

        ventional basis of rewards and punishments that Joel builds his apocalyp-

        tic structure.   The locusts become a symbol of the powers of evil that op-

        press Yahweh’s people.

                   There are three main aspects of God’s dramatic actions at the end

        of this age which take place side by side in this short book. The first is the

        hope that revolves around the conception of paradise regained. And this 

        aspect was no longer conceived of as a state of purely material well-be-

        ing, as evidenced by the reference to the miraculous fountain which 

        comes from the dwelling place of God; the essence of the hope which is 

        expressed here became part of the Christian heritage.
                   The second main type of expectation springs from the increasingly 

        nationalistic outlook of the Jews. God’s good purposes were seen as res-

        ting solely in God’s chosen people; the harrying of Israel was seen to be a 

        frontal assault on God.   Seers of Israel regarded every attack on the peo-

        ple of the law and the promises as a violation of the law and the promises 

        themselves. In his vision of the cosmic battle between the nations of the 

        world and the hosts of heaven, Joel assumes the total extermination of the 

        heathen.

                   The third main tendency of apocalyptic thought, the mystical or spi-

        ritual emphasis, is expressed by Joel in a passage which was regarded as 

        deeply significant by the early church. Moses’ wish that all the people of 

        Yahweh may be visited by Yahweh’s spirit is foreseen by Joel as one of 

        the supernatural manifestations of the end.   In his sermon on the day of 

        Pentecost, Peter quoted in full from the book of Joel (Joel 2:28-29) in ex-

        planation of the miracle that many witnessed. The presence of the Spirit 

        was held to be evidenced, not only by ecstatic frenzy, but also by the wit-

        ness of lives lived in a new dimension through the coming of the Messiah.

        Nor did the gift of the Spirit remain for very long the sole prerogative of the 

        Jews, for it was soon seen to be available for all, both Jew and Gentile.

J-66

JOELAH (יועאלה) One of the sons of Jeroham of Gedor who are named 

        among the famed Benjaminite warriors that joined David at Ziklag 

        (I Chronicles 12).

JOEZER (יועזר, the Lord is his helper) One of the famed warriors of the tribe 

        of Benjamin who joined David.

JOGBEHAH (יגבהה, height) A fortified city of Gad. Gideon made a circuit 

        about Nobah and Jogbehah in order to attack his enemies from the rear 

        (Judges 8).

JOGLI (יגלי, exiled) The father of the Danite leader Bukki who was selected      

        to help superintend the distribution of Canaan west of the Jordan 

        (Numbers 34).

JOHA (יוהא, perhaps “the Lord is his friend)    1. A Tizite who, with his brother 

        Jediael, is mentioned among the Mighty Men of David known as the “30” 

        (I Chronicles 11).    2. One of the sons of Beriah included in genealogies 

        of the tribe of Benjamin (I Chronicles 8).

JOHANAN (יוהנן, the Lord has graciously bestowed him)   1. One of the Ben-

        jaminites who joined David at Ziklag (I Chronicles 12).      2. One of the Ga-

        dites who joined David (I Chronicles 12).       3. A priest, and a son or more 

        distant descendant of the priest Azariah, who was a contemporary of King 

        Solomon (I Chronicles 6).      4. An Ephraimite (II Chronicles 28).   In this 

        passage the name should be “Jehohanan.”      5. A son of King Josiah 

        (640-609 B.C.). Although the eldest, for some reason he did not succeed

        to the throne (I Chronicles 3).

                   6. Son of Kareah, and a contemporary of the prophet Jeremiah; 

        Jewish military leader for Gedaliah, governor of Judah. He warned Geda-

        liah of a plot to assassinate him, but the latter disbelieved him. Jeremiah 

        the prophet counseled him and the others to remain in Judah, trusting in 

        God, but they fled anyway, taking Jeremiah with them.      7. Son of a cer-

        tain Elioenai, a descendant of David (I Chronicles 3).      8. One of those 

        who returned from Babylon with Ezra (Ezra 8).

                   9. Grandson of the high priest Eliashib, and himself a high priest. 

        This Johanan is the high priest referred to in the Elephantine Papyri, which

        have him as a contemporary of the Persian king Darius II (423-404 B.C.). 

        The Jewish historian Josephus writes that Johanan, while high priest, mur-

        dered his brother Jeshua.

JOHN (יוחנן (Jokh an an), the Lord has graciously bestowed him)      1. The 

        father of Peter used in John 1.  Matthew 16 uses “Jonah.”  In Hebrew the 

        two names are quite distinct from one another. This seems to indicate that 

        perhaps there were two different traditions existing about the name of Pe-

        ter’s father.      2. See John, the Baptist (Page J-69).  3. See John, Apostle 

        (Bottom of this Page).      4. See Mark, John.      5. A member of a priestly 

        family, mentioned in Acts 4 and otherwise unknown.

JOHN MARK. See Mark.

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE. See John the Apostle (Next Entry).

JOHN THE APOSTLE. Son of Zebedee and brother of James. The clearest in-

        formation concerning the apostle John is found in the Synoptic gospels 

        and in Acts and Galatians. 

                   It is clear that John, like his father, Zebedee, and his brother James, 

        was a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee. A comparison of Matthew 27 with 

        Mark 15 suggests that their mother was Salome. Mark implies that the fa-

        mily was well-to-do and that their residence was in or near Capernaum. 

        Jesus called John and James early in his ministry in Galilee. John was 

        chosen as one of the 12, and was one of the three apostles who were clo-

        sest to Jesus. Jesus gave John and James the surname Boanerges, or 

        “sons of thunder” because they tended to be severe and aggressive; twice 

        Jesus rebuked John for his narrow zeal. The sons of Zebedee, asked Je-

        sus for the highest rank among his followers in the final kingdom; Jesus 

        predicted their martyrdom.

J-67

       

                   The apostle John is mentioned in 3 passages in Acts; in all 3 he is 

        associated with Peter. The list of the 11 names John second after Peter; 

        Peter and John went up together to the temple; and they were arrested 

        imprisoned overnight, examined and threatened by the Jewish leaders, 

        and released.   In both stories Peter is the spokesman and leader of the 

        two; no word or act of John alone is mentioned. 

                   James the brother of John was executed by Herod Agrippa I, but 

        Acts gives no indication that this persecution affected John directly. Paul 

        mentions John once in Galatians 3. Here again John is associated with 

        Peter. He is an outstanding leader at Jerusalem but not as influential as 

        James or Cephas. The explicit New Testament references to John end 

        with him residing at Jerusalem and being concerned with preaching to his 

        fellow Jews.

                  According to church tradition, the apostle John wrote the Gospel of 

        John, I, II, and III John, and Revelation. In the last book mentioned, the 

        author calls himself Christ’s “servant John,” gives his name when he ad-

        dresses the seven churches, calls himself the brother of Christians, and 

        states that he was on the island of Patmos. He does not call himself an 

        apostle or give any clear statement concerning his exact identity.

                   In the opening words or II and III John the writer calls himself “the 

        presbyter” or “elder,” but doesn't give his name or call himself an apostle.

        It is possible that the “we” in the first 4 verses of I John is a reference to 

        all Christians, but the more natural interpretation of these verses is that 

        which takes the “we” to refer to all the actual witnesses of Jesus’ ministry. 

                  The Gospel of John also never mentions the apostle John by name. 

        That the gospel rests on the witness of a Palestinian Jew whose Greek re-

        flects an Aramaic background is widely recognized.   Andrew and Peter 

        were apparently the first 2 hearers of Jesus; the other hearer then brought 

        his brother.   Since James and John were the only other pair of brothers, 

        this could mean that John was the unnamed other hearer of Jesus.

                   Whether the apostle John who appears in this gospel was the wit-

        ness and writer depends mainly upon the identity of the Beloved Disciple. 

        Jesus committed his mother to the Beloved Disciple, and the risen Jesus 

        said that it was no concern of Peter’s whether this Beloved Disciple sur-

        vived until the Lord’s return. If we assume that the Gospel of John was 

        written to be intelligible when read as an independent document, we can 

        only conclude that the Beloved Disciple was Lazarus of Bethany. More-

        over, Lazarus of Bethany would fit well as the source for this Judea-cen-

        tered gospel. And it is fitting that he, having been raised from the dead, 

        should first realize that Jesus was risen and first recognized the risen 

        Jesus by the Sea of Tiberias.

                   The challenge to this conclusion comes from other writings. In the 

        Synoptic gospels and Acts, Peter and John appear closely related; this 

        recalls that Peter and the Beloved Disciple are related in a similar way in

        the Gospel of John, a parallel which suggests that John is the Beloved 

        Disciple.   It seems a bit strange to identify the Beloved Disciple and 

        author of the Gospel of John as one of the aggressive “sons of thunder,”

        but it has been argued that John was transformed by his association with 

        Christ.

                   The dominant church tradition states that the apostle John moved 

        to Ephesus, and there wrote the five writings known as Johannine. There 

        is an early tradition that he once was banished to the island of Patmos. 

        The key witness for the Ephesian residence of John is Irenaeus; his testi-

        mony became the church’s accepted tradition; the ancient tradition, how-

        ever is more complex than this. Tertullian says that John went to Rome 

        and then was exiled on an island.   In the writing of George the Sinner 

        (800s A.D.) and Philip of Side (400s A.D.) the statement is made that both 

        sons of Zebedee were martyred. The balance of evidence is against this 

        tradition which may be due to a confusion of the apostle John with John 

        the Baptist, who was martyred.  

                   An added difficulty is that all five Johannine books are ascribed to 

        one John, and such common authorship is highly improbable. There was 

        also a dispute about the authorship of the Gospel of John in the 100s A.D.

        The testimony of Papias, as understood by Eusebius seems to refer to 2 

        Johns. If Irenaeus was wrong in reporting that Papias heard the apostle, 

        the force of his testimony is considerably weakened. There is a tendency 

        for the early church fathers to identify as one of the apostles another per- 

        son of the same name.

                   Such data do not disprove the Ephesian residence of the apostle 

        John. There is considerable strength to the tradition for that residence. 

        The tradition for apostolic authorship of the book of Revelation is earliest,

        and the author of this book, whether apostle or not, was certainly named 

        John. The apostle John could have been the source of the witness recor-

        ded in the Gospel of John.   The apostle John’s Ephesian residence and 

        the apostolic authorship of part of the 5 Johannine writings are traditions 

        with strength, but they are confronted by opposing traditions that cannot 

        be ignored, and no final conclusion on these questions is now attainable.

J-68

JOHN THE BAPTIST (‘iwannhV o baptizon (yo an nes  oh  bap ti zone)) A 

        prophet of priestly descent, whose mother, Elizabeth was related to Mary

        the mother of Jesus.  John lived in Judea and had close contacts with the 

        wilderness, where he began his public ministry by proclaiming a baptism 

        of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Multitudes came to be baptized 

        by John in the River Jordan, among them Jesus himself. Later John was 

        arrested, imprisoned, and finally executed by Herod Antipas.

                  List of of Topics—   1.   Baptist Sources in the Synoptic 

       (First 3) Gospels)    2.  Christian Sources in the Gospels

       3.  Acts of the Apostles and Jewish Sources     4.  Historical  

       Background    5.  John’s Teaching, Baptism,  and Death

       6.  John the Baptist and Jesus

                  1.   Baptist Sources in the Synoptic (First 3) Gospels)—John the 

        Baptist is mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus and certain New 

        Testament (NT) writers.   The information in the first three gospels comes 

        from either Baptist or Christian sources.   Most of Luke 1 was originally a 

        Baptist document.   Verses 5-25, 46b-55, and 57-80 make up the Baptist 

        document; the rest is Christian additions.   

                   From the verses mentioned above we may glean the following histo-

        rically reliable information: John was of priestly descent; Zechariah and Eli-

        zabeth were his father and mother; he was born in Judea and had close     

        contacts with the wilderness. The document indicates that John’s influence 

        did not perish with his death, but rather that he was remembered and ho-

        nored by a community which regarded him as a messianic forerunner, if not

        the Messiah.

                   It is probably doubtful that the Christian additions to the Baptist tradi-

        tion have any reliable information concerning John. A comparative study of 

        the relevant passages in the first 3 gospels should give us the most pro-

        bable form of this Baptist tradition.   John began his ministry in the wilder-

        ness. He proclaimed the judgment of God and called for Israel to repent of 

        its sins.   Great numbers of people responded to his message, and were 

        baptized. The judgment of God was imminent, & the need for repentance 

        was urgent.

                   John’s baptism was accompanied by ethical exhortation for tax col-

        lectors, soldiers and the general public. In their present form these ethical 

        teachings no doubt reflect the need of the primitive Baptist community to 

        find basic necessities while they waited for the end of this age; they under-

        line John’s concern for the righteous. John promised that he would be fol-

        lowed by one “mightier” than he.

                   In Mark 6:17-29 we may be once again in touch with material which 

        originated in Baptist circles. According to this source of information, John 

        had charged that it was unlawful for Herod to live with the wife of his bro-

        ther Philip. While the arrest, imprisonment, and execution of John are pro-

        bably historical, the dance of Herodias’ daughter and “the head of John the 

        Baptist on a platter,” were probably legendary additions to the facts.   Why 

        then would it picture Herod as reluctant to execute John?   The answer is 

        that there was apparently, among the disciples of John, a reluctance to ac-

        knowledge the fact that their teacher had been executed because he was 

        seen by the authorities as a threat to the state in the form of a leader of in-

        surrection.

                   From this passage in Mark we may gather the following: John was 

        arrested, imprisoned for a period, and finally executed by Herod Antipas; 

        that John’s disciples took his body and gave it proper burial; that they re-

        membered and passed on what they had seen and done; and that it most

        likely would have been within the Baptist community that these traditions 

        were woven together with other traditions, some of them legendary.

                  2.  Christian Sources in the Gospels—Traditions about John the 

        Baptist originating in Christian circles are found in all three Synoptic gos-

        pels.  Q stands for a hypothetical source of Christian tradition about Jesus, 

        found in Matthew and Luke.  This source had at least one valuable pas-

        sage about John and Jesus’ attitude toward him. In Matthew 11, John’s dis-

        ciples inquire: Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” At 

        least part of Jesus’ reply (“Blessed is he who takes no offense at me,”) 

        may well be an authentic saying of Jesus. From this we may assume that: 

        while in prison, John continued to exert influence; these disciples are sepa-

        rate from the disciples of Jesus; and there was a connection between 

        Jesus and John.

                   In Matthew 11 and Luke 7), John says: “What did you go out into 

        the wilderness to behold? A reed shaken by the wind? . . . to see a man 

        clothed in soft raiment? To see a prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than

        a prophet”; this saying may be regarded as an authentic saying of Jesus. 

        The ironical questions imply that John was not a man to break under pres-

        sure, and that he was a man of austere dress. After a loose quotation from 

        Malachi 3, Jesus says, “I say to you, among those born of women there 

        has risen no one greater than John the Baptist. “Yet he who is the least in 

        the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” Rather than depreciating John 

        in particular, it depreciates all men in general in relation to those who enter

        the kingdom.

J-69

                  The next passage about Jesus and John has to do with their being 

        rejected by the nation, John, for having a demon, and Jesus for being a 

        glutton, drunkard, and friends to the “wrong kind of people.” The charge 

        that John had a demon is, no doubt, an authentic tradition.  Unlike Jesus

        “John came neither eating or drinking” (i.e. with tax collectors & sinners.). 

                   In between the last 2 passages mentioned, there is an additional 

        passage which comes from Q. Jesus says “From the days of John the 

        Baptist until now the King of heaven has suffered violence, and men of 

        violence take it by force.” Jesus goes on to name John as the “Elijah who

        is to come.” It is clear that John marked the end of one era and the begin-

        ning of a new one.  But in what way the kingdom has suffered violence is 

        one of the unsolved mysteries of gospel criticism.

                   In source material peculiar to Matthew Jesus says to chief priests 

        and elders, “Truly I say to you, the tax collectors and prostitutes go into 

        the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righte-

        ousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and prostitutes 

        believed him.” Material only in Luke has a tradition that all the people and 

        the tax collectors justified God when they heard that Jesus speak about 

        John (Luke 7). In Luke 11 the disciples requested “Lord, teach us to pray 

        as John taught his disciples.” Jesus’ response (the shortened version of 

        the Lord’s Prayer) may even preserve a Baptist teaching on prayer.

                  Mark 1 preserves the tradition that John was clothed with camel’s 

        hair and wore a leather girdle around his waist, and ate locusts and wild     

        honey. The food he ate was both ceremonially clean and available in the 

        wilderness. There is no reason to doubt its historical authenticity. Mark 1 

        also suggests that the arrest of John was the occasion for Jesus to go to 

        Galilee. It is possible that the imprisonment of John and his subsequent 

        execution had more of an effect on Jesus’ ministry than is suggested by 

        the gospels.
                   Mark 2 informs us that the religious practice of John’s disciples was 

        similar to the Pharisees’ practice.   Mark also says that some believed 

        Jesus was John raised from the dead.   Mark 11 says that when Jesus

        asked the chief priests and elders whether John’s baptism was from hea-

        ven or men, they hesitated to answer, because they were afraid of the 

        people (i.e former supporters of John who now looked to Jesus for leader-

        ship).

                  In the 1st chapter of the Gospel of John, John the Baptist functions 

        as spokesman for the early church about Christ. John baptized at Bethany

        in Perea, east of the Jordan, and at Aenon near Jacob’s well.   John 10 

        says that Jesus returned to east of the Jordan where John first baptized. If

        historical, this incident may reflect an early attempt to attract disciples of 

        John still living near John’s first headquarters into the church.

                   3.  Acts of the Apostles and Jewish Sources—Acts 11 may be 

        an original saying of Jesus: “John baptized with water, but you shall be 

        baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 19 gives an account of an incident in 

        Ephesus when Paul found 12 men who had only been baptized by John. 

        Apparently there was a competing community base on John’s martyrdom 

        and ministry. This would account for the rigorous subordination of John to 

        Jesus in some New Testament passages. To what extent this rivalry can 

        be connected to a rivalry between Jesus and John or their first disciples is 

        hard to decide. After Jesus’ death the disciples of John couldn't see Jesus

        as the bearer of John’s message and work. Those who became Christians 

         adopted the view that John was the forerunner.  Those who did not resen-

        ted their founder being put in a secondary role.

                   The Jewish historian Josephus writes this:   “Some of the Jews be-

        lieved that Herod’s Army was destroyed by God, God punishing him very 

        justly for John called the Baptist, whom Herod had put to death.   When 

        everybody turned to John—for they were profoundly stirred by what he 

        said—Herod thought it much better, under the circumstances, to get John

        out of the way in advance, before an insurrection might develop. John was 

        sent as a prisoner to Macherus [near the Dead Sea], and there put to 

        death.”   Since his death was long before the army’s destruction, John’s 

        memory was honored by some Jews long after his death.

                   4.  Historical Background—John the Baptist appears on the scene

        of history as a prophet proclaiming the Lord’s ending of this age.   “Abra-

        ham’s sons” had been disinherited. But God had promised Israel the land 

        and sovereignty, so God’s divine promises and sacred writing made up the 

        basis upon which were raised the people’s hopes for the coming of God’s

        kingdom.   This would mean deliverance from the Gentiles.   The apostate

        Jews were seen as having sold their inheritance for a mess of pottage. 

        The alternatives for the righteous, on the other hand, were limited.  Some

        escaped into the wilderness; others came together and maintained purity 

        by ritual washing. The vast majority of Jews, either voluntarily or by virtue

        of their occupation, could not get away from the impurity which was part

        of political, economic, and social life.

                   The wilderness of Judea served as a refuge from impurity and as 

        the center of religious hope. A few miles from the Jerusalem-Jericho road 

        in the Judean wilderness lived the militant Dead Sea Scroll Community. 

        The community served as a house of holiness for the priests and as a com-

        munity for Israelites who were obedient to the law until the coming of the 

        Day of the Lord. Given these circumstances, one can understand the ex-

        citement that was caused by news of a young priest, an Elijah, who was 

        baptizing in the wilderness.

J-70

                  5.  John’s Teaching, Baptism, & Death—As the multitudes flocked

        to him, John cried out: “You brood of vipers! . . . Bear fruit that befits repen-

        tance.”   His injunction to share directly challenges an acquisitive society 

        and indicates that John advocated a kind of brotherhood for the end of this

        age.   It is known that some Essene communities adopted boys, and it is 

        quite likely that John spent time with some such strict religious group. John,

        like the Essenes, refused to eat with those who failed to observe Mosaic 

        laws. 

                   The tax collector was the most obvious agent of collaboration at the 

        local level. He was not a despised social outcast, but the greed and unfair-

        ness of some tax collectors damaged the reputations of all tax collectors. 

        The requirement that tax collectors refrain from collecting more than was 

        appointed to them would have resulted in a radical reduction in their stan-

        dard of living and would have required a complete reorientation of their 

        motivation in accepting the responsibilities of their office.

                   At the opposite extreme from the tax collectors were the fiery Zea-

        lots.   The soldiers who came to hear John are usually assumed to have 

        been Herod’s, but some may have been part of an organized Jewish re-

        sistance. Unlike the Dead Sea Scroll Community, who prohibited unwar-

        ranted, privately initiated pillaging, they took property by force so often 

        that Jesus could be sure that his audience could identify with the “Good 

        Samaritan parable.   So, to require that a member of a resistance force 

        voluntarily be content with his military rations, when it was within his po-

        wer to take what he wanted, was to make a very radical ethical demand.

                  John doing baptisms is to be seen more particularly in the light of 

        contemporary Jewish ritual bathing. Ceremonial washing was widespread 

        in the ancient world, and the Jewish ritual bathing of this time was the pro-

        duct of ancient Jewish practices dating from the postexilic period. Gentiles,

        on the other hand, were seen by strict Jews as being in virtually a continu-

        ous state of uncleanness.

                   In the Dead Sea Scroll entitled “The War of the Sons of Light and 

        the Sons of Darkness,” the Sons of Light are obedient to Mosaic law; 

        those of Darkness are the Romans and apostate Jews.   The angelic allies

        of Light would not abide in their camps unless these camps were free of all 

        impurity. John may be seen as a prophet declaring the advent of this great 

        conflict, and his baptism as a cleansing of the individual from ritual defile-

        ment at the end of this age. The effectiveness of Johns’ baptism was con-

        ditional upon repentance.

                  Herod Antipas and the authorities of Judea were aware of the danger

        to their security. Those who said, “He has a demon” would give tacit appro-

        val to John’s imprisonment. John’s execution as recorded in the gospels 

        & by Josephus is perfectly intelligible in the light of conditions in Palestine

        at that time.

                   6.  John the Baptist and Jesus—Following his baptism, Jesus re-

        mained in the wilderness. The 40-day period of the gospels is to be taken 

        figuratively to represent a period of waiting upon the Lord. John was at one 

        time east of the Jordan, near the main highway from Jericho to Transjor-

        dan.   At another time, he penetrated northwestward into Samaria.   Some 

        baptized by John were active in other parts of the wilderness. John had in-

        itiated a movement, therefore, which was widespread and growing at an 

        alarming rate.  So, his imprisonment was seen as a prudent step in stop-

        ping a movement by removing its instigator.  John's arrest must have had

        a profound effect upon those who had been baptized by him; some stayed

        in touch with him.

                   Meanwhile, Jesus returned to Galilee and began to preach.   Many 

        who had been baptized by John heard Jesus gladly. Through his disciples, 

        John maintained contact with Jesus and followed his activities. John was 

        no “reed shaken by the wind,” for his imprisonment failed to thwart his ex-

        ercising continuing influence.   And his execution, which was designed to 

        achieve John’s political end became martyrdom.   Jesus’ decision that he 

        too must suffer and die at the hands of wicked men, and his determination

        to set his face steadfast toward Jerusalem, may have been a response to 

        the news of John’s death; some even thought that Jesus was John risen 

        from the dead. At the end as at the beginning of his ministry Jesus publicly 

        identified himself with John.

                   Clearly, John’s influence didn’t cease with his death. Herod Antipas 

        suffered defeat by the Nabateans, and this defeat was regarded by some

        as divine punishment.  There is even a small Baptist sect alive in Mesopo-

        tamia today known as the Mandeans which claims to perpetuate John the 

        Baptist’s movement. Within the Christian church, John was as “the forerun-

        ner,” and the historical solidarity between John and Jesus was never lost. 

        In fact, this solidarity has become an essential first step toward an under-

        standing Jesus’ mission.

J-71

JOHN, GOSPEL OF. The last of the 4 canonical gospels in the New Testament

        (NT); according to tradition it was written by John the son of Zebedee.

                   John was highly valued in ancient times as the “spiritual gospel. 

        There has been much controversy about its authorship, place of origin, the-

        ological affiliations and background, and historical value. Even if it could be 

        proved that it was not the work of an apostle, it would not follow that it was 

        inferior the other gospels. This article’s aim is to give as fairly and fully as 

        possible the data about John.

                   John falls into four main sections of unequal length: Prologue (first 

        18 verses); testimony (chapters 1-11); passion and resurrection (12-20); 

        and postscript (21). The Prologue deals with the nature and incarnation of 

        the divine Word or Logos, the agent of God in creation and revelation.

        List of Topics—1. Sections  a:  Testimony;     b: Passion and 

       Resurrection;    c:  Postscript;    2. Existing Texts and Place 

       in the Canon;    3. Relationship to Other NT Writings;  

       4. John’s Theology;    5. John’s Theology & Other Religious

       Literature;   6. Authorship, Origin, Purpose, and Value

                   1. Sections  a:  Testimony—The testimony may be described 

        briefly as follows: John the Baptist’s testimony that Jesus is the Lamb of  

        God (1); the testimony of Andrew & Nathanael as to various Messianic

        titles given to Jesus (1); Jesus changes water into wine (2); many, see-

        ing his signs, believe in him (2); Jesus expounds to Nicodemus the new 

        birth by water and the Spirit (3); Jesus exercises a ministry of baptism in 

        Judea parallel with John the Baptist’s (3).

                   Jesus leaves Judea for Galilee,and goes through Samaria.   His 

        conversation with a Samaritan woman culminates in his claiming to be 

        the Messiah (4); Jesus is welcomed in Galilee (4); Jesus heals a man at

        the pool Bethzatha (5); Jesus feeds 5,000 men with 5 loaves and 2 fish 

        (6); a discourse of Jesus about his bread and the manna of Moses (6).

        Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles, challenging the Jews’ unbelief and 

        facing a mounting hostility from them (7).

                   The testimony continues with: Jesus proclaims himself the light of

        the world and hints at his passion (8); Jesus condemns the Jews for thin-

        king they see when in fact they’re blind (9); parables of the sheepfold, the 

        sheep, and the shepherds (10); Jesus at the Feast of the Dedication is 

        challenged to say if he is the Christ, and his responses provoke further 

        attempts against him (10); Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead (11).

                  1.  b: Passion and Resurrection—The third section may be de-

        scribed as follows: some Greeks attending the feast wish to see Jesus 

        (12); Jesus proclaims that he has come as light into the world, and points

        out the consequences of belief and unbelief (12); the Last Supper (13); 

        the conversation of Jesus with the disciples, except for Judas (13-16); the 

        prayer of Jesus for the disciples, and for those who are to believe in 

        Jesus through their word, “that they may be one” (17); Jesus is arrested

        in Gethsemane and Peter denies that he is a disciple of Jesus (18); 

        Pilate’s dealings with Jesus (19); the Crucifixion of Jesus between two 

        others (19); appearances of the risen Jesus (20).       

                   1.  c:  Postscript—In the Postscript (21) Jesus appears to his dis-

        ciples by the sea of Galilee. His words about the disciple whom he loved 

        are found here; the author adds that the church misunderstood them. The 

        author is identified as the disciple whom Jesus loved. The themes running

        in this gospel are as follows, with Christ as: Logos; source of Life; source 

        of light; source of truth.   There is also the theme of witness to and faith in 

        Christ.

                   Many critics, impressed both by the occasional abruptness of tran-

        sitions in John’s text and by the difference in the order between John and 

        the other gospels, infer that the text of John has been dislocated either by 

        accident or by design.  These critics recommended some combination in-

        volving the rearrangement and/or relocation of chapters 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 

        13-14. The preferred opinion today is that, if dislocation has occurred, it 

        was not accidental.  The gospel as it stands may reflect the activity of 

        more than one mind.

                   2.  Existing Texts and Place in the Canon—John isn't only found 

        in all the most important ancient versions of the NT, but is also well repre-

        sented among the earliest papyrus fragments that have come to light. The 

        earliest of all NT manuscript fragments is a few lines from John 18 which  

        have been dated to 100-150 A.D.   Next is nearly all of John 1-14 from 

        around 200 A.D. The text is well represented, and on the whole also very

        well preserved, with only minor variations among existing manuscripts.

                   It is not known when the four gospels as we now have them were 

        collected into one and accepted as authoritative, but it was probably some-

        time between Marcion’s revision of Luke (140 A.D.) and Tatian (170 A.D.). 

        The choice of the 4 may well have been meant as a counterblast to Mar-

        cion.   By the end of the 100s A.D. the place of John as part of the NT 

        canon was assured.

                   3.  Relationship to Other NT Writings—John contains many inci-

        dents to which the others have no parallel—e.g. the wedding at Cana, bap-

        tism by Jesus and his disciples, conversations with Nicodemus and the 

        Samaritan woman, and his frequent visits to Jerusalem.  The author’s view

        is Judean rather than Galilean & the order of those events common to the 

        other gospels are in a different order.

                   He also has alternative versions of what look like the same events 

        (Jesus’ encounters with John the Baptist and with Simon Peter; the Last 

        Supper, the events surrounding and including the crucifixion and resurrec-

        tion). He does not mention events to which the other evangelists appear

        to attach considerable importance.   John gives Jesus’ teachings in long 

        meditative discourses, and they are about Jesus and his relationship to 

        the Father, in contrast to the parables and epigrams that are used in the 

        other gospels. It is generally agreed that points of contact between John 

        and Matthew are too slight to suggest that John knew Matthew.

J-72

                  It is more probable that John knew Mark, but he did not necessarily 

        use Mark as a source. An examination of John 1-12 suggests that Mark 

        can hardly have been a source of John, though John may occasionally 

        have expected his readers to compare his own account with Mark’s.   If 

        John and Mark used substantially independent sources, this adds consi-

        derably to the force of their testimony where their traditions overlap. Such 

        points of contact as there are between John and Luke all occur in material 

        peculiar to Luke—i.e. the parts of his gospel which he did not get from 

        Mark or the source he may have shared with Matthew.

                   The independence of John is sufficiently obvious. We should not 

        make the mistake of ascribing the difference between John and the other

        gospels to the fact that the others are historical and John is theological. It 

        is a fact that all four are gospels, and that the intent, at least, of John is 

        that his was to be historical.

                   The similarity of thought and language between the gospel and the 

        letters of John is at first sight so close that believing the same author 

        wrote them is often taken as self-evident. But the thought of the letters is 

        more conventional than that of the gospel, and the concern of the gospel 

        for Israel’s apostasy finds no echo in the letters.   There are also differen- 

        ces in matter of detail. What weight should be attached to these facts is 

        hard to estimate. The facts may best be accounted for by the theory that 

        the author of the letters edited the gospel.

                   Tradition eventually believed that Revelation as well as the letters 

        of John was written by the author of the gospel, but few scholars today 

        would maintain this view. John and Revelation are the only books of the 

        NT to use Logos and Lamb as a title of Christ, but the Logos of Revelation

        is different from the Logos of the gospel, and Revelation uses a different 

        word for “lamb” than the gospel does.

                   Their theology also is different, at least in emphasis. Revelation is 

        pre-dominantly futurist, and its Holy Spirit is impersonal, while the gos-

        pel’s Holy Spirit is clearly personal. They both see a symbolic significance

        in numbers, and both emphasize the true humanity of Christ. They also re-

        semble one another in the simplicity of their syntax. The language of Reve-

        lation is not simply bad Greek, but a deliberately constructed language, 

        that is most effective in conveying an unearthly atmosphere.   There is 

        some interrelation among the gospel, the letters and the Revelation of 

        John.   It is not beyond the bound of possibility that Revelation is the work 

        of the letters' author (the editor, perhaps, of the gospel).

                   4.  John’s Theology—The theological ideas which underlie the 

        gospel impart to it a distinctive quality and flavor. John’s thought has to do 

        with the end of this age, but in John the contrast is made between 2 orders

        of existence, the temporal and the eternal. In John, eternal life is often spo-

        ken of as a present possession of the believer, while elsewhere it is the life

        of the [coming] age.”   Similarly, while judgment is elsewhere thought of as 

        future, in John judgment is in the present.

                   John’s theology tends to deal in contrasts—light and darkness, life 

        and death, spirit and flesh, God and the world. But though it sounds dualis-

        tic, it is not; light and darkness are not two equal and opposed powers. It is

        not simply a matter of certain elect souls being saved from the world, for 

        Christ is the Savior of the world. In the end, John’s cardinal principle of in-

        carnation is quite incompatible with dualism.

                    For John, God is unknowable unless and until God reveals God’s 

        self through God’s Logos or Son. The reason for God’s revelation of God’s 

        self through God’s Son is God’s love for the world, of which, again through 

        God’s Son, God is creator.   The agent of God in God’s dealings with the 

        world, both in creation and in salvation, is God’s Logos, which John uses 

        for the last time in “The Word became flesh.” Afterwards he uses “Son” 

        and “Father.” Being divine, the Son can reveal the Father. He is in perfect 

        union with the Father.

                   If the Son is to reveal the Father, he must share both God’s divine 

        nature, and our human nature.   John is concerned to establish Jesus’ hu-

        manity, and uses his human name at the first opportunity.   The incarnate 

        Christ is also given the title Son of God far more freely in John than in the 

        other gospels. The “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” is a 

        complex concept, weaving together various Old Testament types.

                   John also uses the title Son of Man, found in the other gospels. But

        he tends to use it in a way which suggests its implication for him is that of 

        the “heavenly man,” an idea which Paul also uses.   John stresses that

        Jesus is King, much more explicitly than do other evangelists, and that the

        purpose of Jesus’ ministry is to reveal the Father by his words & actions. 

                    Jesus had united “flesh” and “Spirit” in himself, and so had brought 

        within humankind’s reach the possibility of union with, and knowledge of, 

        God.  Jesus was able to devise a means whereby Spirit could be communi-

        cated to humankind and enable them to share the divine life.   To guard

        against any magical conceptions of the sacrament, John emphasizes else-

        where that the flesh, apart from the spirit, is valueless; it is the spirit which 

        is the life-giving principle.

J-73

                   John attaches to the feeding of the multitude the significance of the  

        action of Jesus giving bread to the faithful, which the other evangelists as-

        sociate with the Last Supper.  He likewise interprets the water of baptism 

        as a vehicle of the Spirit.   Only after his death does he breathe on his dis-

        ciples, as a sign that the Spirit can now be received.   John also stresses 

        the necessity of faith if men are to receive the Spirit. He avoids using the 

        noun “faith”; instead he uses “believe.”

                   The result of Jesus’ ministry was to create a body of believers who 

        were destined to be united through the Son to the Father. The bond which 

        unites them to one another, to Christ, and the Father is love. His death is 

        his victory over the world, of which his resurrection is the evidence. Those

        who respond in love and faith to the love of Christ shown in his death will 

        enjoy the gift of the Spirit. 

                   John’s concern is to establish that the withdrawal of Christ’s visible 

        presence does not leave the faithful destitute of his help, for they have the 

        Spirit, Christ’s second self.   This indwelling Spirit is called paracletos, or    

        Counselor.   It is a kind of counsel for the defense of the disciples.   The 

        Counselor will teach the disciples and remind them of Christ’s words, bea-

        ring a testimony to Christ concurrent with that of his disciples.   The Spirit 

        is to inspire Christian prophecy.

                   5.  John’s Theology & Other Religious Literature—The question

        of the origin of John’s distinctive teaching receives a large variety of an-

        swers. It is widely recognized that the teaching attributed by John to Jesus 

        contains elements which do not come from Jesus. Some would limit the 

        part played by Jesus to giving initial impulse for these teachings. If John 

        was himself a prophet, he would no doubt reject the modern critic’s distinc-

        tion between the words spoken by Jesus and those spoken by his Spirit 

        through his prophets.   The other possible sources of John’s teachings in-

        clude: Paul; the Jewish philosopher Philo; the Corpicus Hermeticum; the 

        early Gnostics; and the Qumran sect.

                   The period from the conquest of Alexander to the early Christian 

        centuries was one of great importance in the history of religion. Judaism 

        had undergone the influence of Iranian religion.   Out of the cross-fertiliza-

        tion of Greek and oriental religions arose a great variety of cult and theolo-

        gies. It was in this environment that Christianity arose. If it was to be under-

        stood in the Greek world, it had to be put into language which could be un-

        derstood. It may well be that John only did this more thoroughly than other 

        Christian writers.

                   It is clear that John stands within the Christian tradition. He presup- 

        poses the church, the leadership, the sacraments of baptism and Eucha-

        rist, and the tradition of Jesus’ teaching. He shares with other evangelists 

        a belief in the importance of Jesus’ acts of healing.   But even if parallels 

        are found, there remains much peculiar to John.    It seems likely that in 

        John love is something which operates within the Christian community.

                  The feature of John most difficult to reconcile with Jesus’ teaching 

        in the other gospels is the controversy about Jesus’ status and function. 

        The total impression made by John is different from that of the other gos-

        pels.   A lot of material in John represents long meditation upon Jesus’ life 

        and teaching by the evangelist, based, indeed, upon actions and sayings 

        of Jesus, but modifying them considerably in the process.

                   The thought of John is closest to that of Paul in the Letter to Colos-

        sians. If Colossians is indeed the work of Paul, it is by consent one of the 

        latest. He wrote it to refute certain heretical notions which had gained cur-

        rency at Colossae.   When John’s gospel was placed at a much later date 

        than now seems possible, it was easy to see Colossians as a source of 

        John’s theology.   Now, it is perhaps more reasonable to see Colossians 

        and John as similar responses to the same challenge.

                   In order to assess the value of the material found in John, it is very 

        important to understand the author’s background. Was it primarily Jewish,

        or primarily Greek? The distinction of Jewish and Greek is, within limits, 

        valid one. If John is primarily Jewish, we can accept the possibility that the 

        tradition John preserves is early and primitive more easily than if he is pri-

        marily Greek. If the latter is true, it is easier to regard his gospel as a work

        of imagination not unlike other Greek literature. Critics who see John as a 

        work of imagination stress its Greek features, while the more conservative 

        maintain its essentially Jewish character. The view which best accounts for

        all the evidence is perhaps that John was written by a man of Jewish ori-

        gin, who was also anxious to make his message intelligible to a predomi-

        nantly Gentile audience.

J-74

                   The familiarity of John with the Jewish scriptures does not of itself 

        decide the issue of origin, as Jewish scriptures were studied and valued by

        Gentile and as well as by Jewish Christians. Features of John which sug-

        gest a Jewish and even Palestinian background are in its language, its 

        echoes of rabbinic ideas and methods of argument, and its parallels with 

        the documents of the Qumran community.  That the language of John has

        a Semitic flavor is fairly generally recognized.   Sometimes John’s Semitic 

        characteristics are rather attributed to the use of original, Aramaic sources. 

        Although its precise explanation may be in dispute, the Semitic character

        of John's language seems to be in favor of a Jewish background.

                   Parallels to rabbinic ideas, phraseology and methods of argument 

        have also been found in John. The grace and truth which the rabbis see as 

        coming through the Torah, for John came through Jesus Christ. In rabbinic 

        literature the Torah is frequently likened to water, wine, bread, and light. 

                   In John 2 there is the contrast between the “good wine” given by 

        Jesus and the inferior wine. In John 4 there is the water that Jesus gives 

        and that of Jacob’s well.   In John 6 the bread which Moses gave is contra-

        sted with the true bread from heaven.  In John 8 Jesus proclaims himself 

        the light of the world, which rabbinically is the function of the Torah to be.

        In John the word nomos, “law,” is used only in the same senses as the He-

        brew Torah.  In the many allusions to the law there are indications of the 

        author’s acquaintance with rabbinic usage.

                   The documents of the Qumran community, the Dead Sea Scrolls, 

        show both many differences and some striking affinities in outlook and ter-

        minology to John. They share the same ethical dualism, the same termino-

        logy, and both believe that this world lies in the power of a rebellious spirit. 

        There is an irreconcilable opposition between light and darkness, truth and 

        falsehood, life and death. 

                   Thus, it's no longer necessary to look beyond Palestine and the first 

        century A.D. for the environment in which the ideas of John could have ori-

        ginated.   Whether early Christians borrowed from the Qumran commu-

        nity's ideas or reacted against them, the Qumran documents provide valua-

        ble evidence for the moral and religious climate in which early Christianity

        developed and in which the tradition found in John was formulated.

                   Philo of Alexandria also resembles John. Philo was entirely loyal to 

        Judaism, but his strongly Greek philosophy has little distinctively Jewish 

        about it.   For both Philo and John, to know God is the principal aim of hu-

        man existence; God can be known only through God’s Logos. When John 

        was dated later and was seen as more Greek in character, it was natural 

        that Philo was seen as a major influence upon John.

                  John is undoubtedly interested in symbolism, but symbolism is not 

        the same thing as allegory, which ignores the literal meaning. John is also 

        less philosophical and more obviously religious in his interests than Philo. 

        John’s affirmation is that the Logos “became flesh,” which goes far beyond 

        anything in Philo. We should regard Philo as evidence for the beliefs of 

        some of the readers to whom John was designed to appeal.

                  The conclusion suggested about Philo and John is probably also 

        appropriate to the non-Jewish literature, such as the Corpus Hermeticum. 

        It is a collection of the tracts of “Hermes Trismegistus,” a deified Egyptian 

        sage, and is Egyptian in origin and written in Greek.   The chief sacred 

        books of the Mandeans are the Ginza, and the Book of John, put into their 

        present form not earlier than 700 A.D. The Gnostics, properly speaking, 

        were Christian heretics, whose writings survive mainly in fragments.

                  None of this literature can certainly be dated earlier than John, but it

        is dependent on earlier writings, and these earlier writings could have influ-

        enced John. These writings appear to owe their ultimate origin to the fer-

        ment of religious and philosophical ideas which marked the spread of 

        Greek culture. 

                   The resultant systems of belief all have a strong family likeness. 

        They are concerned primarily with the salvation of the individual, and are 

        pessimistic about the world as it is. They are dualist and preach a supreme 

        deity unknowable save for what he chooses to reveal. They all use more or 

        less the same basic terminology, which they share with John: “light,” “life,”  

        “truth,” “Logos,” “knowing,” and “believing.”   The best use of this literature 

        is to illustrate the beliefs of Greek culture to which John was addressed 

        rather than those which actually influenced its thought.

                   (See also the entry in the New Testament Apocrypha section of the 

        Appendix.)
                   6.  Authorship, Origin, Purpose, and Value—John 21 identifies 

        the author as the disciple next to Jesus at supper.   It had been expected

        that this disciple would not die, but presumably he had done so. The Be-

        loved Disciple is the witness in chapter 19. It is unlikely that a son of Zebe-

        dee would be known as a high priest (chapter 18), and the standpoint from 

        which the gospel is written is Judean rather than Galilean. 

                   Some scholars, impressed by the difficulty of identifying the Belo-

        ved Disciple, dismiss him as an “ideal figure.” The other possibilities are: 

        that the Beloved Disciple is the John whose mother’s house in Jerusalem 

        was a meeting place for the church; that he is Lazarus and that John of 

        Ephesus published his gospel. Admittedly, authorship is not of primary im-

        portance, though it would be very desirable to have the solution to it.

J-75

                   Whoever it was who put John in its present form offered it to the 

        church and to the world as evidence for the claim that Jesus is the Christ,

        the Son of God. There are 6 signs which lead up to the final and perfect 

        sign, the death & resurrection of Christ.  The 1st sign symbolizes Christ’s

        ministry as the substitution of the wine of the gospel for the water of the 

        law; the 2nd and 3rd, 2 miracles of healing, show Christ as the bringer of 

        life and forgiveness; the 4th shows him as the bringer of the real manna; 

        the 5th illustrates that in him was life and the life was the light of human-

        kind; the 6th, the raising of Lazarus, shows Christ as victor over death and 

        prepares immediately for his own resurrection.

                   Jesus’ discourses may well have originated in sermons expounding

        the “signs” that were then formed into the gospel. It is not easy to date the 

        gospel at all precisely. Much of its material, even in the discourses, may be 

        primitive, but it may have been gradually brought into shape during a life-

        time of preaching.   A man who was a youth at the time of the Crucifixion

        could well have published the gospel in the nineties when he was himself 

        an old man, perhaps the last survivor of those who had seen the Lord.

                    There is no reason to doubt that the author believed that the events

        he narrates actually happened. Chances are he chose those which best 

        suited his purpose and put them in theological order. They take up and ex-

        pound many actual words of Jesus, but their final form and emphasis is the

        evangelist’s. If it is indeed wholly or mainly the work of a disciple, matured 

        through years of preaching and meditation, then it truly is the “spiritual gos-

        pel.”   Its author possessed the “mind of Christ” as truly as Paul, and gene-

        rations of Christians have found in his work an insight into the life of their 

        Lord given nowhere else.

JOHN, LETTERS OF. These 3 letters, together with the Gospel of John and the

        Revelation, make up a body of writings which have long been associated 

        with the name John. All five books were written in the province of Asia from

        90-110 A.D.   Whether Asian churches had more than one leader named 

        John, and whether the Johannine writings come from one hand or from a 

        Johannine school, are questions to which there is still no generally accep-

        ted answer.   Whoever may have written them, these short writings raise in 

        striking form questions which are of permanent interest and importance for 

        Christian faith and practice.

              List of Topics—1.  Purpose;    2.  Contents: First Letter;

       3.  Second letter;     4.  Third letter;     5.  I John and the Fourth 

       Gospel;   6.  Early Church Fathers References and Author-

       ship;    7.  Text

                  1. Purpose—Each of the 3 letters deals with a challenge to the tea-

        ching or authority of the writer which had arisen within the Asian churches. 

        They are pastoral letters directed to faithful Christians. Throughout the 1st 

        letter we find warnings against those who make claims which are not justi-

        fied by the facts.

                   It is obvious that these warnings are not made without good reason

        and that someone has actually made such statements. The opposition has 

        been laying claim to a special knowledge and love of God which frees them

        of the demands of Christian ethics.   These heretical teachers have also 

        been denying that Jesus was the Christ; they were Christians who denied 

        his Incarnation.  It reasonable to assume that the strange words “chrism” or

        “unction,” have found their way into the vocabulary of the letter, because 

        the heretics had first used it to describe what they believed to be their own 

        unique spiritual endowment.   The opponents were Christian who had re-

        cently withdrawn from the Christian fellowship to start a new movement of 

        their own.

                  In the 2nd letter, “the presbyter” wrote to inform a particular church of

        the existence of a missionary movement, which was denying the reality of 

        the Incarnation.   The opposition in the 3rd letter comes from Diotrephes, 

        but there is no reason to connect him with the heretical party from the other

        2 letters.

                   An aberrant Christianity can be identified unmistakably as an early 

        form of the movement which came to be known as Gnosticism. The moral

        laxity that was first stigmatized consists solely on indifference to the practi-

        cal demands of the law of love.  We can be equally sure that the denial that

        Jesus has come in the flesh was a form of the Docetic heresy, that denies 

        the reality of Christ’s nature.   This idea was a natural result of Gnosticism, 

        which placed little value on the physical body. The belief that there is a fun-

        damental antagonism between spirit and matter was originally an idea of 

        oriental origin which made its way into Greek thought.

                   Among the early Gnostics there is one, Cerinthus, whose teaching 

        shows certain points of similarity with that which is attacked in I John. He 

        taught that Christ descended into Jesus in the form of a dove after his bap-

        tism; in the end Christ withdrew from Jesus. Cerinthus denied that the hu-

        man Jesus could in any real way be identified with the divine Christ. 

        Though the author of I John deals firmly with his Gnostic opponents, his 

        theology has nevertheless much in common with theirs. 

                   Unlike them, he does not repudiate the Old Testament, nor does he 

        quote from it. He is the New Testament (NT) writer who is the most affected

        by Greek culture. He does not believe in salvation through esoteric know-

        ledge, but he does lay emphasis on faith’s cognitive side.   He expresses 

        himself in dualistic terms, which have a dominant place in the thought of I 

        John.   This suggests that the author was at home in the religious atmo-

        sphere in which Gnosticism flourished.

J-76                  

                   2.  Contents: First Letter—The first letter defies precise dating or 

        analysis; it opens abruptly without introduction. It is clearly addressed to a 

        particular situation and a particular people. Even in controversy his purpose

        is not primarily to preach against, but to teach. He firmly lays down the one 

        paramount criterion for distinguishing between genuine & spurious Christi-

        anity:  that Christian teaching must preserve the apostolic witness to 

        Christ. The early Christians found it necessary to distinguish the authentic 

        tradition from the legends, myths, and fantasies. The answer to this distinc-

        tion began to emerge in the NT Canon.   The prescription of I John led 

        directly to Protestantism’s guiding principle, that to be apostolic the church

        must be controlled by the NT.

                   The main argument of the letter begins with two tests whereby we 

        may tell whether a person’s faith is really the apostolic faith & experience 

        of the one true God. The first test is an ethical one: a Christian is one who 

        believes that God is utter goodness, and that the road to goodness lies 

        through acceptance of the means which God has provided in Christ for 

        dealing effectively with sin. The second test is a theological one: a Chris-

        tian is one who believes that Jesus is the Christ, that the human Jesus is 

        the incarnate Son of God.

                   Those who have passed these tests have the right to call them-

        selves children of God. The Christian life is a life free from sin, free from a 

        definite violation of the moral law. For there can be no salvation no eternal

        life, no union with God, which does not involve a thorough moral purifica-

        tion.   The Gnostics who denied that they were sinful were quite right in 

        their belief that a Christian should be without sin, but wrong in claiming 

        that they personally had reached the point where they could dispense the 

        power of Christ.

                  The epitome of all sin is hatred and the opposite of sin is love. From

        the cross of Christ we can see that love means a willingness to serve the 

        needs of others at whatever cost to ourselves.   The Christian, then, has 

        free access to God.   Nothing should be allowed to interrupt his normal 

        state of calm assurance, based as it is on God’s knowledge of him. Love, 

        moreover, provides every Christian with a standard for discriminating be-

        tween true and false inspiration. 

                   Those who claim to speak as inspired prophets but deny the reality

        of the Incarnation, and thus deny that the love displayed in the ministry of 

        Jesus was God’s love, show that they are controlled by a spirit antagonis-

        tic to God. The intellectual and the moral belief in the Incarnation and obe-

        dience to the commandment of love are two sides of the same coin.

                   We now turn to the Christian assurance that the love which moves 

        in our hearts is the love of God, or rather the love which is God. The histo-

        ric act of God’s love in Christ and the continuing action of that love in the 

        heart produce a conviction which enables the believer to live in tranquil 

        communion with God. Christian assurance is based, not on human effort 

        or achievement, but on God’s love for us and God’s love in us.

                   The Christian who tries to live the life of love as a member of the 

        family of God has also to live in a world which is hostile to God.   This is 

        possible only through faith’s victory, which consists in a belief that Christ 

        came by water, blood and spirit. God’s victory over the world was wrought 

        out by the Holy Spirit’s operation in Jesus’ ministry. The same Spirit, made 

        available to believers in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, operates in their 

        lives with the same victorious results. 

                   God’s decisive victory over the world is being reproduced in the 

        Christian’s own life. The writer then turns briefly to prayer.   The Christian 

        prays for the fulfillment of God’s will and can expect an answer. The letter  

        then ends with the 3 great certainties: that those who belong to God do

        not sin, that we belong to God, and that our God was revealed in Jesus 

        Christ.

                   3.  Second letter—The second letter is written by one who calls 

        himself “presbyter,” or “elder,” and is addressed “to the elect lady.”   The 

        presbyter declares that some of her children are faithful Christians. She 

        has a sister living near the presbyter. The only reasonable explanation is 

        that the 2 ladies are actually churches. The presbyter writes to warn them 

        against a missionary campaign launched by heretics.  He urges the church 

        not to offer hospitality to these missionaries, since this would be tanta-

        mount to supporting their mission.

                   If we entitle I John “The Letter of Love,” then II John must be titled 

        “The Letter of Love’s Limitation.” In particular, it raises the question of the 

        limits of toleration.  Whenever the church has been engaged in a struggle 

        for its very life, its leaders have usually agreed with the presbyter that tole-

        ration lies too near compromise, and that it is wrong to tolerate those who 

        do not believe in toleration.

J-77

                  4.  Third letter—This letter is also written by a presbyter to Gaius, 

        asking that some traveling Christians who are proposing another mission-

        ary journey be given a welcome at Gaius’ church.   But a certain Diotre-

        phes has persuaded most of the members not to receive anyone who 

        came with the presbyter’s recommendation. Diotrephes is important be-

        cause he represents a stage in the transition from the church order of the

        first century to that of the Ignatian letters. Each congregation is governed 

        by presbyters, but the local church is overseen by men like the Presbyter, 

        who exercise authority over a wide area.   This Diotrephes episode be-

        longs to the growing pains of this development period.   He is in revolt 

        against the presbyter’s paternalism.

                   5.  I John and the Fourth Gospel—Any careful reader of the New 

        Testament will notice a close resemblance of vocabulary, style, & thought

        between I John and the Gospel of John.   Both use a small vocabulary to 

        express a small number of ideas.   Both books shares certain points of 

        style, and both teach union with God. These similarities are obvious and 

        undeniable and have usually been taken as proof of common authorship. 

        But it is possible that the letter was written by someone deeply influenced 

        by the evangelist. 

                   There are significant differences between the two writings that give 

        support to this theory. The letter makes no use of some 30 of the words 

        used in the gospel, and uses about 40 words which do not occur in the 

        gospel. Of the words which are common to both works, some are used in 

        quite different senses. There are, moreover, several points at which the 

        thought of the letter comes closer to that of the primitive church than to 

        the gospel.

                   6.  Early Church Fathers References and Authorship—The first 

        writer to show any acquaintance with the Johannine letters is Polycarp of 

        Smyrna in a letter that could have been written at any time between 115 

        and 140 A.D.   In addition, the church fathers, Papias of Hieropolis, Irena-

        eus of Lyons, and Clement of Alexandria quote from them.   Origen, 

        Jerome, Cyril, and Athanasius comment in favor of the apostolic author-

        ship and authenticity of all 3 letters. This survey of the references that the 

        early church fathers made to these letters provides no compelling reason 

        for regarding the 3 letters as inseparable. There are 3 theories describing 

        the authorship of these letters:  Muratorian, traditional, and Hieronymian.

                   The Muratorian theory is that the 1st and 2nd letters are by one au-

        thor and the 3rd by another, based on the intensely personal character of 

        the 3rd letter, which is much different from the first 2.   Also, the sources 

        from the 100s A.D. fail to mention it or quote from it. This theory doesn't 

        hold up under criticism, & it is hardly surprising that it wasn't quoted from, 

        as it wasn't a document that would be useful in a controversy. The obvious 

        and simple conclusion is that the same presbyter wrote both letters that 

        bear his name.  

                   The traditional theory is that the gospel and all 3 letters are the work

        of John the Apostle. But Irenaeus, our earliest witness, could have con-

        fused John the Apostle with John the Presbyter, which would then have
        given rise to the traditional theory. And surely, it is easier to imagine Diotre-

        phes defying the authority of a “disciple of the apostles,” rather than one of 

        the closest friends of Jesus.  And would not the presbyter/ apostle have ap-

        pealed to his apostolic authority in order to silence this upstart rebel?

                 The Hieronymian (Jerome’s) theory is that the gospel and the first let-

        ter were written by John the apostle and the other two letters by John the 

        presbyter. Jerome simply could not believe that the apostle would have re-

        ferred to himself merely as presbyter. And if we abandon the idea that an 

        apostle wrote the gospel and I John, then it is possible that the presbyter 

        wrote one or both of them. This is based on the grounds that the presbyter 

        claims much more authority than a subordinate member of the Johannine 

        school would have.

                   The case for apostolic authorship of I John rest wholly on its ope-

        ning sentence.  But will the sentence bear this much weight? For it is quite 

        reasonable to suppose that the author is referring, not to individual experi-

        ence, but to the corporate experience of the church.   Jerome’s theory still 

        has its advocates among modern scholars, but others prefer to ascribe the 

        gospel and all three letters to the presbyter of II and III John.

                   Another theory is that the presbyter wrote all 3 letters but not the 

        gospel.   This theory applies if we are convinced that the differences of the 

        gospel and I John are impressive enough to outweigh ancient testimonies 

        of their common authorship. In fact, only one statement will command uni-

        versal agreement: The authorship of the Johannine letters is still very much

        an open question.

                   7.  Text—The text of the Johannine letters is well preserved; the di-

        vergent readings involve only minor details. There are a number of passa-

        ges where the King James Version (KJV) and the Revised Standard Ver-

        sion (RSV) differ because they used a different text on which to base their 

        translations.

                   In I John 2, half of verse 23 was missing from the Greek manuscript 

        that the King James translators were using.   In today’s editions it is inclu-

        ded but is printed in italics.   Elsewhere in chapter two, the KJV phrase “Ye 

        know all things,” has been replaced in the RSV with “You all know.”   The 

        argument being presented here is that the Holy Spirit confers knowledge    

        of God upon all.   In chapter 4, the KJV follows the majority of manuscripts

        in reading:  “We love him, because he first loved us.”   But the RSV follows 

        the reading of 2 other versions: “We love, because he first loved us.”

J-78

                  One of the greatest textual curiosities in the NT is in I John 5.   The 

        KJV has “There are 3 that bear record [in heaven:  the Father; the Word; &

        the Holy Ghost; these 3 are 1.   And there are 3 that bear witness in earth]:

        the spirit; and the water; and the blood; these 3 agree in one." The RSV

        leaves out the part in brackets, because it is clearly a later addition which

        occurs in only 2 later Greek manuscripts.  At the end of the 1800s, the pre-

        siding Pope denied any Roman Catholic the right to question this phrase. 

                    This is one of the few places where there is a textual difference be-

        tween the official Roman Catholic Bible and modern Protestant texts.  In

        I John 5, a difference of one letter produces a very striking alteration in    

        meaning. The KJV reads: “He that is begotten of God keepeth himself.” 

        The true reading, based on different versions is: “. . . the one who was 

        born of God protects [Christians].”

JOHN, REVELATION TO. See Revelation, Book of.

JOIADA (יוידע, whom the Lord knows)  1. Son of Paseah and a builder of the

        wall of Jerusalem under Nehemiah (Nehemiah 3).      2. A postexilic high 

        priest; son of Eliashib and father of Johanan (Nehemiah 12, 13).

JOIAKIM (יויקים, the Lord will establish him) A post exilic high priest 

        (Nehemiah 12).

JOIARIB (יהויריב, the Lord will defend his cause) 1. A priest in the time of 

        David (I Chronicles 24).      2. One of those who assisted Ezra in securing 

        temple servants before the return to Palestine (Ezra 8).     3. The name of

        a priestly house that lived in Jerusalem after the Exile (I Chronicles 9)

        4. A Judahite ancestor of Maaseiah who lived in Jerusalem after the Exile. 

        (Nehemiah 11).

JOKDEAM (יקדעם, possessed of the people) A village of Judah in the hill-

        country district of Maon; possibly near Ziph (Joshua 15).

JOKIM (יוקים, the Lord will establish) A descendant of Judah (I Chronicles 4).

JOKMEAM (יקמעם, he shall gather the people)  1. A Levitical city in Ephraim 

        (I Chronicles 6).    2.  A city of Zebulun, identical with Jokneam (I Kings 4).

JOKNEAM (יקנעם, gotten by the people) A Levitical town near the border in 

        Zebulun (Joshua 19, 21), approximately 11 km northwest of Megiddo, 

        overlooking the Valley of Jezreel.  It is strategically located at the junction 

        of the north-south route through the Valley of Jezreel and the east-west 

        pass through the Carmel range. Jokneam is one of the towns taken by 

        Thutmose III. It also fell to Joshua during the Conquest.

JOKSHAN (יקשן, fowler) A son of Abraham and Keturah, and the father of 

        Sheba and Dedan (Genesis 25).

JOKTAN (יקטן, diminished) The younger son of Eber and the brother of 

        Peleg. His descendants represent a number of Arabian groups. Arabic 

        historians of the Islamic period have tried to identify Joktan with Kahtan, 

        a character of Arab legend. The 13 peoples enumerated as descendants 

        of Joktan are reported to have lived in the territory in the north of Arabia.

JOKTHEEL (יקתאל, subdued of God)      1. A village of Judah in the southern 

        Shephelah district of Lachish (Joshua 15).       2. When Amaziah of Judah 

        (800-783 B.C.) completed his Edomite campaign by storming Sela, he 

        changed its name to Joktheel.

J-79

JONADAB (יונדב, the Lord liberally bestowed him)  1. A nephew of David; son

        of Shimeah.  He was the shrewd friend of David’s son Amnon, who de-

        vised the plan whereby the latter tragically seduced his half sister Tamar. 

        Jonadab corrected a false report brought to David that Absalom had slain

        all David’s sons, instead of just Amnon.

                   2. Son of Rechab, and first of the ultraconservative Rechabites who 

        advocated and maintained an austere anti-agriculturalist tradition. He was

        a sympathizer with the bloody reform of Jehu and accompanied him in the

        final purge of the house of Ahab.

JONAH (יונה, dove) Son of Amittai. He was a prophet, but the dates of his acti-

        vity cannot be specified. He foretold the restoration of the territory of the 

        northern kingdom, from the entrance of Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah  

        (Dead Sea). Later a prophetic mission to Nineveh was also attributed to 

        this prophet (II Kings 14).

JONAH, BOOK OF. The 5th in the collection of 12 short books which form the 

        last part of the Old Testament (OT).   It is about a prophet rather than a 

        book of prophetic sayings like the other 11 in this part. The book is now 

        mostly seen as being written around the 300s B.C. by an unknown writer 

        who shared the view of the second part of Isaiah that God’s concern for 

        humankind was universal. This period is when Nehemiah and Ezra had 

        been pursuing exclusiveness, nationalism, intolerance in a misguided at-

        tempt to preserve the unique Jewish heritage. The Book of Jonah is de-

        signed to be a counterblast to that policy. The Book of Jonah is thus to be 

        reckoned among those OT writings which come closest to the spirit of the 

        Christian gospel. 

                  The chief character of the book is Jonah the son of Amittai, a pro-

        phet from Gath-hepher, near Nazareth, who predicted that Jeroboam II 

        would reconquer large tracts of territory previously held by Israel. Yahweh 

        commands this prophet to go to Nineveh, where he is to proclaim the Yah-

        weh’s judgment upon it, but the prophet, for reasons which are only given 

        later in the story, is unwilling to fulfill his assignment.   He boards a ship 

        headed in the opposite direction. Yahweh then causes a storm to arise 

        which threatens to wreck the ship.

                   The crew now proceeds to draw lots to discover which of them has  

        provoked the gods; Jonah is revealed as the culprit. He admits that it is be- 

        cause of his attempt to escape Yahweh’s command that the tempest has 

        come upon them all.   With a prayer to Yahweh to save them and to hold 

        them guiltless of the death of his prophet, they throw Jonah into the sea. 

        Yahweh has a great fish swallow him and convey him safely to land.

                   The psalm of chapter 2 is one of thanksgiving for escape from death

        by drowning. It would have come more appropriately, therefore, after verse

        10 than after verse 1. Most probably it was first intended to be understood 

        figuratively as the thanksgiving of one was rescued from the spiritual death

        of estrangement from God.   Most commentators would date it somewhere

        in the 200s B.C.

                   For the second time Yahweh commands him to denounce the peo-

        ple of Nineveh for their sinful ways, and this time Jonah obeys.   The first 

        day he publicly pronounces Nineveh’s impending doom.   The whole city 

        turns to Yahweh and dons the garments of penitence. Moved by this mass 

        conversion, Yahweh stays Yahweh’s hand.   This angers the prophet, who 

        now says he tried to evade his original mission, because he was afraid 

        that God would show compassion towards the hated Gentiles and they 

        would not be destroyed after all.

                   Jonah prays for death rather than live to see the Gentiles live within 

        Yahweh’s favor. Then Yahweh causes a large plant to spring up overnight.

        No sooner is the plant ready to serve its purpose than Yahweh destroys it 

        by a grub.   The apparently senseless destruction of the young plant has 

        angered and saddened him. Yahweh therefore poses Yahweh’s last ques-

        tion: If you can have pity on this hapless plant, ought not I to take pity on 

        this great pagan city? There, the story ends. The recalcitrant Hebrew pro-

        phet is finely contrasted with the humane and charitable Gentile sailors 

        and the repentant pagan city.

                   The story of Jonah may be regarded as history, allegory, or parable, 

        and all 3 views have found support. Jonah the son of Amittai was clearly a 

        historical figure. Jesus speaks of Jonah’s sojourn for 3 days and 3 nights 

        in the belly of the whale, and seems to regard the city’s repentance as a 

        historical fact. In the past, there had been similar missions to Sidon and 

        Syria. It is only recently that there have been suggestions that the book is

        not historical.  If the narrative is historical, we should assume a date some-

        where between Jeroboam II’s reign and Nineveh’s fall in 612 B.C., and as-

        sume an author whose information came from the prophet.   The sailors 

        might perhaps have supplied the account of what happened on the ship.

                   The chief difficulty in accepting the story as historical is not that 

        Jonah reached the belly of “the whale” intact, which appeared to be the 

        main stumbling block.   We should have to believe also that the tempest 

        subsided immediately, that the prophet emerged unscathed from inside the 

        monster 72 hours later, and that he went to the center of a hostile city, and 

        somehow knowing their language, brought about a mass conversion. The   

        magic plant and the worm suggest a fairy tale rather than history.

J-80

                   There is further the problem of Nineveh itself, and the “king of Nine- 

        veh,” a title which could hardly have been used during the Assyrian Em-

        pire’s existence.   A more awkward problem is the size of the city.   We are

        told that it was “3 days’ journey” across the city. We know from archaeo-

        logy that the walls were about 13 km in circumference, which is not large 

        enough for a million people.  Does it detract from the theological value of 

        the book if it is not purely history? Should we not rather see this book as 

        an imaginative fantasy?

                   There is no real reason why Jonah the son of Amittai of II Kings 

        should not have been a real person, but equally no reason why this book 

        has to come from his biography. As for Jesus’ apparent belief that the book

        of Jonah was historical, the 3 verses in Matthew where he compares Jo-

        nah’s period in the whale's belly with his own entombment are strongly sus-

        pected of being added by the author of Matthew. Jesus compares his own 

        proclamation of the kingdom with the traditional story of how Jonah pro-

        claimed God’s judgment at Nineveh. It is an illustration, not a pronounce-

        ment on how historical the event was.

                  If the story is meant to teach, there's no reason why it should date 

        from the time of the monarchy at all.   The great majority of scholars re-

        gard the book as postexilic, a reaction to the school of Nehemiah & Ezra’s 

        attempt to protect the Jewish religious heritage in splendid isolationism. 

        This rigid policy bore bitter fruit, in that it meant that no member of the 

        Jewish community might have any contact whatever with any person out-

        side the covenant. 

                   The author of the book of Jonah sought in this little tale of Yahweh 

        teaching a lesson to a harsh & intolerant Jew, to protest against this policy, 

        and to persuade his people that God’s love is wide deep enough to include 

        the Gentile.   Several centuries later the rigorists in the Jewish-Christian 

        section of the church had likewise to be taught that God has also granted 

        Gentiles the right to repent.

                   It could be that this tale is one in which the literal meaning can be 

        disregarded, and all the elements of it represent a part of Israel’s experi-

        ence. The experiences of the prophet could represent the mission and fail-

        ure of Israel to be the People of God, and to bring the pagan world to the 

        knowledge of God. We may see in Jonah’s flight to Tarshish Israel’s avoi-

        dance of its mission before the Exile, embarking upon the sea of diploma-

        tic intrigue. 

                   After the Exile (the “belly of the whale”), Israel has the task of pro-

        claiming its faith to its Palestinian neighbors (Nineveh). The author then 

        suggests the readiness of Israel’s neighbors to respond to the message. 

        The prophet in his flimsy shelter suggests the Nehemiahs, Ezras, Joels, 

        and Obadiahs of his day, sheltering under the precarious protection of 

        their rebuilt temple, uncompromising in their hatred of the Gentiles, hoping

        for the judgment of God to fall upon them.

                   It is equally possible to regard the story of Jonah as simply a para-

        ble. If Jonah is intended to be the “certain man,” of Jesus’ parable he still 

        remains unmistakably a portrait of the narrow and intolerant Hebrew of 

        Ezra’s day, or the narrow, intolerant Christian of our own day, who refuses

        to face the idea that the divine revelation is for everyone and its call was 

        meant to be a world mission.

JONATHAN (יונתן, whom the Lord has given)  1. A Levite of the tribe of Judah 

        who served as house priest in the sanctuary which the Ephraimite Micah

        had established.  Jonathan’s benefactor supplied images, ephod, tera-

        phim, and shrine. Spies from the tribe of Dan stopped at the shrine and re-

        ceived a favorable oracle from Jonathan. The Danites then dispatched 600 

        men, who on their way to Laish seized Micah’s religious items, and persua-

        ded Jonathan to assume the more honorable office of priest to the tribe of 

        Dan.

                   2. See Jonathan Son of Saul.
                   3. Son of Abiathar the priest, who during Absalom’s rebellion, con-

        veyed the enemy’s secret plans to David.   Jonathan was in the priestly 

        company that brought the ark to David. Jonathan and Ahimaaz, Abiathar’s 

        sons, were stationed as couriers at En-rogel during the rebellion.   When 

        Adonijah held a feast, at which he expected to be proclaimed king, Jona-

        than brought the news that Solomon had secured the succession.   Jona-

        than was implicated with his father in this attempt of Adonijah to secure 

        the throne and was banished.

                   4. An uncle of David and on the personal staff of the king, as well 

        as the royal scribe.
                   5. Son of Shimea or Shimei, David’s brother. He slew a Philistine 

        giant who taunted Israel at Gath (II Samuel 21; I Chronicles 20).

                   6. Son of Shammah, and a member of the company of the Mighty 

        Men of David known as the Thirty (II Samuel 21; I Chronicles 20).

                   7. Son of Uzziah, and in charge of the royal treasuries of David that 

        were outside the capital (I Chronicles 27).

                   8. The scribe or secretary whose house was converted into a prison

        in which Jeremiah was imprisoned.

J-81

                   9. The King James Version of the name of one of the 2 sons of Ka-

        reah, the captain of a Judean military contingent (Jeremiah 40).

                   10. The father of Ebed, who was head of the family of Adin and 

        joined Ezra in his journey to Jerusalem with fifty of his clansmen (Ezra 8).

                   11. A priest who was the head of the priestly family of Malluchi in 

        the days of Joiakim’s high priesthood.

                   12. One of the high priests of the postexilic period whose father 

        was Joiada and whose son was Jaddua (Nehemiah 12). Jonathan may 

        be a spelling error of Johanan, who killed his brother Jesus in the temple 

        because he feared that he might displace him as high priest.

                   13. Son of Shemaiah and father of Zechariah, who participated 

        with other priestly personnel as a trumpeter in the thanksgiving proces-

        sion at the rededication of the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 12).

                   14. Son of Asahel. He opposed the formation of the Jerusalem com-

        mission to consider the cases of the Jews who had married foreign wives 

        (Ezra 10)

                   15. A descendant of the family of Jerahmeel of the tribe of Judah; a 

        son of Jada and the father of Peleth and Zaza (I Chronicles 2).

JONATHAN SON OF SAUL. King Saul’s eldest son, whose filial piety and altru-

        istic friendship with David have secured for him the admiration of posterity.

                   Jonathan was responsible for the liberation of Jabesh-gilead from 

        the ultimatum of the Ammonites. In the Philistine campaign he was placed 

        in charge of 1,000 troops, stationed at Geba.   Jonathan initiated the war 

        with the Philistines by liquidating the prefect or garrison of Geba, where 

        upon Saul dispatched a general summons to all Israel to muster at Gilgal. 

        The intimidated Israelites failed to respond to the call to arms, & even re-

        gular soldiers deserted, reducing the army of Saul from 3,000 to 600 men.

                   Jonathan and his armor-bearer left Geba and struck a telling blow 

        against the enemy. They routed the garrison when they had climbed the 

        heights. Somehow the entire camp of Philistines was thrown into confu-

        sion, and Saul pursued them with his forces.   The king then ordered an 

        oath that all should abstain from eating, but out of ignorance Jonathan ate 

        some wild honey as he pursued the enemy.   That evening the oracle of 

        Yahweh was silent when the king inquired whether he should continue to 

        pursue the enemy.   Saul would have slain his son for his unwitting error 

        had he not been ransomed by the appreciative Israelites.

                    After David had finished telling Saul about dispatching the Phili-

        stine giant, Jonathan loved David as his own soul and made a covenant 

        with him. The meteoric success of David disturbed and enraged Saul. He 

        encouraged Jonathan and the courtiers to kill this possible seeker of the 

        throne. When Jonathan and David next met, they decided to find out what

        the king’s attitude toward David was.   Jonathan exacted an oath from 

        David that David would show kindness to Jonathan’s descendants.  Jona-

        than then discovered that the hatred of his father toward David was irre-

        parable. The final meeting of the two friends was in the Wilderness of 

        Ziph. Jonathan made a covenant that David was to be the next king and 

        Jonathan was to be his first minister.

                   Jonathan was slain at Mount Gilboa, along with his father and bro-

        thers. Their corpses were hung from Beth-shan’s walls. The royal dead 

        were rescued by the men of Jabesh-gilead and buried at Jabesh. David 

        lamented the bitter irony of the fate of the king and the loss of his beloved

        friend.   Some years later, David re-interred the remains of Saul and his 

        son in the tomb of Kish.

                   Jonathan’s one son was Meribbaal, who was five years old when

        the tragedy on Mount Gilboa occurred. David secured the lands of Saul 

        for this son and membership at the royal court.   Meribbaal also avoided

        the fate of Saul's other sons, who were executed because of the slaugh-

        tering of the Gibeonites. Jonathan had a brother named Ish-baal and two 

        sisters.   The name of his mother was Ahimoan.  Swift as an eagle and 

        strong as a lion, this crown prince of the house of Saul possessed cou-

        rage and daring that knew no retreat and provided inspiration for his fol-

        lowers; he continually proved his love for David.

JOPPA (יפוא, beautiful) A city 56 km west of Jerusalem built on a rock hill 35 

        meters high which projects beyond the coastline to form a small cape. A 

        natural breakwater is formed by rocks 100-120 meters offshore. The nor-

        thern entrance is narrow, shallow and treacherous.    A rock around 3 

        meters high at this entrance was said to have been the one to which An-

        dromeda was chained to be devoured by a sea monster. It is possible that

        in biblical times the harbor was somewhat larger and better protected by 

        the natural breakwater, then in better repair. Since modern Jaffa was built

        on the ruins of Joppa, little excavation has been possible.

J-82

                  Joppa first appears in the list of Palestinian cities captured by Thut-

        mose III (1490-1436 B.C.). During the Amarna period (1350 B.C), Joppa 

        was ruled by a native prince.   Joppa was on the northern border of Dan 

        until the Philistine invasion, when it became the major northern city of the 

        Philistine Plain. The Danites then migrated northeastward to Leshem. So-

        lomon apparently developed its facilities so that it became a major port 

        serving Jerusalem; cedar logs were floated down from Lebanon to Joppa. 

        Jonah attempted to flee from his responsibility by embarking on a ship 

        sailing from Joppa to Sardinia.   Early in the Persian period, cedar logs 

        from Lebanon were floated to Joppa from Tyre and Sidon.

                  (See also the entry in the Old Testament Apocrypha/Influence Out-

        side the Bible section of the Appendix.)

                   In New Testament times an early Christian community arose in 

        Joppa, one beloved member of which, Tabitha or Dorcas, was raised from

        the dead by Peter, who stayed there for a few days in the house of Simon

        the tanner. It was a principal center of the First Revolt and was destroyed 

        by Vespasian in 68 and was later rebuilt. Today it is the city of Jaffa and 

        has been annexed to the city of Tel Aviv.

JORAI (יורי, whom the Lord teaches) A Gadite (I Chronicles 5).

JORAM (יורם, the Lord is exalted)    1. Son of Toi, King Hamath, sent by Toi to 

        congratulate King David on the occasion of David’s victory over Hadadezer

        of Zobah (II Samuel 8). In I Chronicles he is called Hadoram.

                   2. King of the southern kingdom of Judah around 849-842 B.C.; 

        Jehoshaphat’s son and successor.   Jehoram became king at 32 & reigned

        8 years. The Chronicler records that when he became king, Jehoram put 

        to death six of his brothers, all of whom are mentioned by name. In view of 

        the fact that Jehoram put to death some of Judah’s princes, it seems possi-

        ble that Jehoram had a rebellion stirred up by his brother.

                   With the death of Ahab in Israel and Jehoshaphat in Judah, a 

        change came in the political climate. In the east, Edom seized the opportu-

        nity to revolt and succeeded in regaining her independence.    In the west 

        Libnah rebelled against Judah at the same time.  In all probability the 

        Chronicler has based his account on: the sharp contrast between the cha-

        racters of Jehoram and his father Jehoshaphat; an attack on Judah by the 

        Philistines and the Arabs; and Jehoram' severe sickness which brought 

        about his death.   II Kings 8 declares that Joram “was buried with his fa-

        thers in the city of David,” while the Chronicler records that “he departed 

        with no one’s regret. . .” The Chronicler adds further that “his people made

        no fire in his honor. . .” The additions of the Chronicler here are of doubtful 

        historical value.

                  3. King of the northern kingdom of Israel (852-841 B.C.) brother and 

        successor of Ahaziah, murdered by Jehu. II Kings 1 gives the beginning of

        his reign as the 2nd year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat. II Kings 3 

        gives the year as “the 18th year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah. Both dates

        are difficult to reconcile with other given data.

                  It is noteworthy that the writer of Kings does not condemn Jehoram 

        directly. In Jehoram’s reign occurred Moab’s revolt from Israel, which is 

        confirmed in the Moabite stone, dated around 830 B.C. Edom had no king

        at this time. Presumably the reference is to Edom’s ruler, who acted on 

        order from Judah. Jehoram appealed to Jehoshaphat, Judah’s king for as-

        sistance.   Together with Edom’s king, the allies marched against Mesha 

        king of Moab.   The war climaxed in the siege of Kirhareseth.   As a last 

        desperate resort, the king of Moab “offered up his eldest son as a burnt of-

        fering” on the city wall.  The allies lost heart and withdrew.

                   Intermittent warfare continued between Israel and Aram.   Later      

        there was a siege of Samaria in which the defenders were reduced to dire 

        straits by the resultant famine in the city. It is a historical fact that Ben-ha-

        dad was murdered by Hazael, who became king in his stead.   Jehoram      

        was wounded in battle against Hazael, king of Syria, at Ramoth-gilead, 

        and returned to Jezreel to recover from his wounds.   A revolt broke out 

        against his dynasty, and Jehu, one of the army commanders, was pro-

        claimed king. Jehu approached the city of Jezreel and killed Jehoram of 

        Israel and Ahaziah of Judah as they went out to meet him.

                  4. A Levite descendant of Eliezer, son of Moses (I Chronicles 26).
                  5. One of two priests sent out by Jehoshaphat, along with princes 

        & Levites to teach the people of Judah the Lord’s law (II Chronicles 17).

J-83

JORDAN (ירדן, flowing, river, from the root meaning “descent”) The longest

        and most important river of Palestine, traversing the entire country from 

        its sources at the northern border to its outlet in the Dead Sea. It is remar-

        kable for its natural character and because of the part it played in the his-

        tory of Palestine.

                   The oldest form of the name Jordan is found in Egyptian records of

        the Nineteen Dynasty (1303-1202 B.C.), which give it as ya ar du na. The 

        source of the word “Jordan” has been much in dispute between those who 

        consider it to be of Indo-Aryan origin and those who regard it as a Semitic 

        word. The Indo-Aryan theory gives the meaning as “perennial river.” This 

        derivation has been contested on historical and geographical grounds, but 

        is by no means impossible, as it is known that Palestine was invaded by 

       groups that spoke Indo-Aryan languages.   The Semitic theory translates 

        “Jordan” as “the stream that descends rapidly.”

                  Important phrases relating to the Jordan include the following:
                  ארץ ירדן (air ets  yor dan), land [origin] of the Jordan.
                  הערבה (ha ar oo bah), desert. The Valley from the Sea of Galilee to 

        the Gulf of Aqabah.

                  גאון הירדן (gaw on  ha yor dan) ornament of the Jordan. Jungle or 

        thicket surrounding the lower river.

                  ככר הירדן (kik kawr  ha yor dan) around the Jordan. The broader 

        parts of the Valley.

                  גלילות הירדן (gel ih loth  ha yor dan) districts of the Jordan. Parts

        of the Valley with their own names.

                   The valley of the Jordan lies in a deep rift in the earth, the northern 

        part of the same line of weakness in the earth’s crust that has produced 

        the Arabah, the Red Sea, and the Great African Rift. During the Miocene 

        and Pliocene periods the mountains to the east & the west began to rise, 

        and the rift between sank lower.   Crosswise faulting produced the 4 river 

        valleys of the Yarmuk, the Jabbok, the Arnon, and the Zered.

                   During the Pleistocene period there was considerable volcanic acti-

        vity in the Jordan Valley. During the earlier part of this period there were 3 

        seas: one near the Dead Sea, one that lay roughly near the Sea of Galilee, 

        and one near Lake Huleh.   During a period of very heavy rain, the lakes 

        joined, and there was a single salt sea.   After the rains of the Pluvial peri-

        od ceased, the area dried out. The salt sea gradually shrank into the fresh-

        water lakes of Huleh and Galilee. 

                   The Jordan had to carve its way through, among other obstacles, 

        the basalt dam left by volcanic activity. The tributary valleys, especially to 

        the east, have cut canyons through the rocks or have leaped down from 

        them in great waterfalls. Since the Pleistocene period there have been no 

        essential changes in the climate of the Jordan Valley.

                   In order to cover 128 km north-to-south, the river follows a winding, 

        twisting course of over 300 km.   No parts of it are navigable, except the 

        lakes; there are at least 60 fords where it can be waded. In Bible times the 

        possession of the fords became an important factor in the warfare of that 

        age. The four sources that unite to form the Jordan all arise in the parting 

        of the watersheds near Mount Hermon. 

                     The 1st most eastern source is the Nahr Banias, in ancient times 

        known as Paneas, which burst forth from the base of Mount Hermon out of

        a large cave. It was here that Philip, son of Herod built Caesarea Philippi. 

        The 2nd source, about 3.2 km further west is the Nahr el-Leddan, which 

        arises from the strong springs of ‘Ain Leddan, near Dan.   The 3rd source 

        is the Nahr Hasbani, about 38 km long. The 4th and most western source,

        the Nahr Bareighit, is a short stream which comes from the western part of 

        the  same valley and empties into the Nahr Hasbani near its end.

                  The Jordan flows about 11 km before it enters Lake Huleh; the entire 

        area is rather swampy. The papyrus plant grows so abundantly that it must 

        have been a good source for the papyrus manufactured at Gebal & other 

        Phoenician places. Lake Huleh, some 230 feet above sea level is a small 

        body of water, shaped in the form of a triangle.  Its width is about 3 km and 

        it length 5 km; it varies from 3 to 5 meters in depth.

                   On leaving Lake Huleh, the Jordan flows for about 16 km to the Sea

        of Galilee; in this short stretch it drops 280 meters.   It flows fairly steadily 

        for about 3 km, before it begins to cut its way through a gorge in the black 

        basalt.   It emerges into a plain and in another mile flows through a delta 

        into the waters of the lake. The Sea of Galilee is a heart-shaped body of 

        water, about 19 km long and 8 km at its broadest part. The warm winters, 

        the long summers, & the abundance of water make the region one where 

        almost any sort of crop can be raised.   It is likely that it was well populated

        in Old Testament (OT) times; among its cities were Capernaum, Chorazin, 

        Julias (Beth-saida), Magdala, Tiberias, and Dalmanutha.

                   The stretch of the river from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea is 

        the one that appears most frequently in the OT narratives. The length of 

        the valley is about 104 km, but the river curves & twists for nearly 3 times

        this distance. The current is still swift, for the drop from the Sea of Galilee 

        to the Dead Sea is 180 meters.

J-84

                  The closer the river approaches the Dead Sea, the more the Jordan 

        Valley becomes divided into several levels.   The lowest, which the Arabs 

        call the Zor, is a trench cut in the soft alluvium which can be as much as 45

        meters below the upper level.   There are dense thickets of tamarisks, ole-

        anders, willows, poplars, bushes, and  vines, inhabited by wild beasts. 

        Next closest to the river are the gray qattarah hills. The Ghor on both sides

        of the valley is a fertile area sloping steadily downward from the cliffs that 

        hem in the valley to the edge of the qattarah.   Most of the wider Ghor be-

        low this area is uncultivated at the present time, but was more fruitful in an-

        cient times as the result of irrigation.

                   The stretch below the Sea of Galilee is also notable as the only part

        of its course in which the Jordan has any tributaries. Not far below the lake

        the River Yarmuk comes in from the east, almost doubling the river's vol-

        ume.   The Jalud, flowing down from the northwest past Beth-shan arrives 

        about 13 km farther on.   Still lower the Jurm, Yabis, Kufrinjeh, Rajib, and 

        Jabbok enter from the east. Many cities of antiquity were built close to the 

        point of junction of tributaries and the main river, such as Adam, Succoth, 

        Jabesh-gilead, and Pella on the east side, and Jericho, Gilgal and Beth-

        shan on the west. At least 70 places where people lived and worked in an-

        cient times have been discovered along the river.

                   The earliest inhabitants of the Jordan Valley existed at an age when

        the climate was still a tropical one, and such animals as the elephant and 

        the rhinoceros were plentiful in the land. The hunters of these animals wan-

        dered off or disappeared before the Natufian civilization of the Mesolithic 

        age and the Ghassulian civilization of the Neolithic age (7000 to 4001 B.C.)

                   The pattern of life in the Jordan Valley now became one of periods 

        of intense development, then of depopulation until a new resettlement. 

        There were settlements throughout the Chalcolithic period (4100-3100 

        B.C.) and a great increase in population toward the end of this period. 

        During the Early Bronze Age (3200-2100) the greatest development was in 

        the first half of the period; new settlements began in the Middle Bronze 

        Age.  From 1900 to 1400 the population seems to have decreased again.

                  The first mention of the Jordan in the Bible occurs in the story of 

        Abram and Lot.  When the two decided to separate, Lot chose to travel to 

        the “round district of the Jordan”; later the cities of the district were taken 

        and plundered.   Abram summoned his servants and the followers of his 

        friends, routed the attackers in a night attack.   It is probable that he at-

        tacked the slow-moving and heavily burdened rear division as it was pre- 

        paring to cross the river. Jacob crossed the river twice on his journey to 

        and his return from Aram.

                  In the account of Canaan’s conquest, the Jordan was the last obsta-

        cle to be surmounted before the promise made by God to the Israelites 

        could be fulfilled. Joshua, at the very beginning of his leadership received 

        the command to “go over this Jordan.”   The place where the Israelites 

        crossed over was not far below Adam.   The cause of the water ceasing to 

        flow was probably from a heavy landslide, as the Jordan has been 

        dammed and its flow curtailed more than once; but later tradition magni-

        fied it into a miracle. The consequence of this breaching of the river barrier 

        was the rapid conquest of Jericho and the central part of western Palestine.

                   During the period of the judges and the early kingdom, the posses-

        sion of the fords of the Jordan more than once meant the difference be-

        tween defeat and victory. From this and other narratives it is apparent that

        the Jordan was a strong line of defense, not to be easily forced. Abner and 

        Ishbosheth escaped to safety across the river after the Philistines had won

        all the western country. David sent his father and mother across the river 

        to escape Saul; he was to cross the Jordan in haste and at night.

                   In the remaining historical narratives of the Bible, the scene of the 

        action shifts away from the Jordan until the miracles of Elijah and Elisha. 

        Elijah took off his cloak, and struck the water, which divided to let him and 

        Elisha cross; Elisha performed the same feat.   When Naaman, the com-

        mander of the army of Syria, came to Elisha to be cured of his leprosy, the

        prophet told him to go and bathe 7 times in the Jordan.  It was also in the 

        waters of the Jordan that Elisha brought about the miraculous floating of 

        the iron axe head.

                   The essential story of the gospel begins at the Jordan River, where 

        John the Baptist preached the coming of the kingdom of heaven, and 

        bade the people to bathe in the Jordan and repent of their sins. The tradi-

        tional site of the baptism of Jesus is below Jericho, but it is very possible 

        that this event took place not far below the Sea of Galilee. The first part of

        the ministry of Jesus was in the cities about the Sea of Galilee. At one of 

        the mountains near Caesarea Philippi, the Transfiguration took place. The 

        second part of his ministry followed as he pursued his course down the 

        eastern side of the Jordan Valley. He crossed the Jordan for the last time 

        at Jericho, & thence set forth for the final part of his ministry in Jerusalem. 

J-85

JORIM (‘Iwrim) An ancestor of Jesus (Luke 3).

JORKEAM (ירקﬠם, the people are spread abroad) A place in Judah occupied

         by the Calebite family of Hebron.

JOSECH (‘Iwshc) An ancestor of Jesus (Luke 3).

JOSEPH (יוסף, he shall add)  1. See Joseph Son of Jacob.       2. The father

        of Igal, the spy from the tribe of Issachar among the 12 sent by Moses to 

        reconnoiter the land of Canaan (Numbers 13).       3. A Levite of the “sons 

        of Asaph” (I Chronicles 25).      4. One of Ezra’s contemporaries listed 

        among those who married foreign wives (Ezra 10).      5. A priest, contem-

        porary with the postexilic high priest Joiakim (Nehemiah 12)      6. An an-

        cestor of Jesus Christ (Luke 3).       

                  7. An ancestor of Jesus Christ who lived between the time of King 

        David and Governor Zerubbabel of Judah (Luke 3).      8. See Joseph, 

        Husband of Mary.      9. A brother of Jesus Christ (Matthew 13)      10. A 

        brother of James the younger (Mark 15).     11. See Joseph of Arimathea. 

        12. A Christian in the early church, also called Barsabbas and Justus, who

        was considered as a candidate to fill the place vacated by Judas Iscariot,

        but was not chosen.       13. The given name of Barnabas (Acts 4).

JOSEPH, HUSBAND OF MARY. The husband of the mother of Jesus. This Jo-

        seph is mentioned only a few times in the New Testament (NT) and almost 

        exclusively in the birth and childhood stories of Matthew and Luke. In the 

        Gospel of John, Jesus is twice said to be the “son of Joseph.”   Since Jo-

        seph appears as the father or foster father of Jesus and the references to

        him drop out early in the gospel narratives, it is a likely inference that he 

        died before Jesus’ ministry began.

                   The birth and infancy stories of Matthew and Luke express more or

        less poetically and symbolically the church’s faith in Jesus as God’s unique 

        act. They are not primarily historical records, so no fully historical account

        of Joseph’s career or any part of it is possible.   The aim of the 2 gospel 

        genealogies is to show that Jesus belonged to the Davidic line. Matthew 

        and Luke wish to affirm, not that Joseph was Jesus’ actual father, but that 

        he was his legal (foster) father.   From Matthew one would conclude that 

        Joseph was a resident of Bethlehem, who settled in Nazareth. Luke states

        that he lived in Nazareth prior to the birth of Jesus.   Both agree that his fa-

        mily’s historic connections were with Bethlehem.

                  At the time when Joseph discovered Mary’s condition, he was legally 

        betrothed to her. She could be dismissed from the relationship of betrothal 

        only by a letter of divorce.  From Matthew it appears that Joseph suspec-

        ted her of adultery, though some interpreters prefer to think that he suspen-

        ded judgment or feared to consummate marriage with one in whom God 

        had worked so great a miracle.   Joseph is described as a just (dikaios) 

        man, by which is meant that he was a devout servant of God.   Joseph’s 

        deep piety is indicated by his glad response to the revelation of Mary’s 

        innocence & the Savior’s coming which came to him through a dream that

        told him that he should have no fear of proceeding with his plans with re-

        spect to her.

                   In Luke 2 we are told that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to 

        be enrolled for taxation and that the child was born there. The shepherds 

        came to the manger and found Mary, Joseph and the babe. Joseph is pic-

        tured as sharing Mary’s anxiety of the search for Jesus. Apparently Jo-

        seph’s authority in the home at Nazareth was respected by Jesus.   Mat-

        thew pictures Joseph as often receiving guidance from angels in dreams.

                   (See also the entry in the NT Apocrypha section of the Appendix.)

JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA. A member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, who buried the 

        body of Jesus in a tomb on his own property. Although he had come from 

        a tiny village in the northwest corner of the central hill country of Judea (Ari-

        mathea in Greek, probably the same as Ramathaim in Hebrew), Joseph 

        became a “respected member” of either his village council or the Sanhedrin

        in Jerusalem, and he was rich.

                   John’s account also says that the tomb was located in a garden, not

        far from the site of the Crucifixion.   It may have been necessary to use a 

        special tomb, since Jewish law prohibited burying executed criminals in fa-

        mily tombs. The question of the motive for Joseph’s request for the body of 

        Jesus is not easily decided. Why would a leading Jew, probably a member

        of the Sanhedrin, risk his reputation to do a favor for some frightened, de-

        spairing Galilean followers of a man condemned by both Roman and 

        Jewish authorities.

J-86

                   One possible answer is that Joseph took seriously the rabbinic tradi-

        tion that a dead body shouldn't be allowed to remain unburied beyond the 

        day of death.   The Romans usually left the body of a crucified criminal ex-

        posed indefinitely.   But in Jewish lands the Romans bowed to the religious 

        regulation, hastening the victim's death in order to have the body buried by 

        nightfall. Joseph, therefore, was performing an act of piety—actually pre-    

        venting the defilement of the land—by removing Jesus' body and burying it.

                  The gospels suggest a further, and more urgent, motive for Joseph’s 

        action.  Mark’s account states that Joseph was “looking for the kingdom of 

        God.” Luke goes beyond this hint to affirm that Joseph was unsympathetic 

        with the council’s intent and refused to condemn Jesus.   In Matthew’s ver-

        sion there is an unequivocal claim that Joseph was part of the circle of 

        Jesus’ disciples.   Joseph bought a linen shroud, had the body of Jesus laid

        in a tomb, and rolled a stone against the door.   The Gospel of John adds 

        that Nicodemus assisted Joseph in the burial, providing at his own ex-

        pense the spices for the preparation of the body.

JOSEPH, SON OF JACOB. The name is the first element of a much longer 

        name, composed of the verb “he shall add” and a god’s name. Joseph is 

        described as the 11th son of Jacob and the first-born of Rachel. Like his 

        father, Jacob, and his grandfather, Isaac, Joseph was born to a woman 

        who had previously been barren. This pattern tends to impress the reader 

        with divine activity in connection with childbirth.   We can safely assume 

        that the Joseph story was meant to enhance our appreciation of the divine 

        favoritism evident throughout.

                   The cautious student will avoid attempts to date precisely happe-

        nings in the “patriarchal age.” At one end of the scale there are those who 

        view the Joseph story as a historicized  myth; at the other end come those 

        who treat it as a matter-of-fact account.    Within the great national saga 

        that lies behind these stories, Joseph was born 3 generations after Abra-

        ham but before the small family of Jacob entered Egypt.  

                   Archaeological evidence puts the age of Abraham in the Middle 

        Bronze Age (2000-1500 B.C.). Our only hope for dating Joseph more ex-

        actly lies within the realm of archaeology.  With the help of ancient docu-

        ments such as those discovered at Nuzi and Mari, we can describe the 

        type of culture into which he was born. These Hurrian documents con-

        tain close parallels to the patriarchal life at Haran described in the Bible.

                   Immediately after the birth of Joseph the family left Haran and re-

        turned to the land of Canaan. At Kiriatharba (Hebron), Esau and Jacob 

        are said to have buried their father, Isaac. In connecting the family of Ja-

        cob with the region of Hebron the biblical writer does not mean to imply 

        that they were “city dwellers.”   And the shepherd life of Joseph’s time 

        was not sedentary because of the constant need for seeking areas in

        which to graze flocks. Nor was the life Joseph knew strictly nomadic, be-

        cause Jacob built himself a house in Succoth, and he stayed behind in 

        Hebron with Joseph when the rest of the family followed the flocks in 

        Shechem.

                   Joseph was favored by his father, “because he was the son of his 

        old age.” Jacob, who had stolen his older brother’s birthright, seemed de- 

        termined to by-pass convention by favoring first Joseph then Benjamin. 

        This pattern of favoring the younger over the older seems to appear quite

        frequently in the biblical account and in other Near Eastern cultures. The 

        preference of Jacob for Joseph expresses itself in the making of a “long 

        robe with sleeves.” There is no real reason for holding that this robe was 

        distinctively feminine, as other ancient Near Eastern cultures made little 

        distinction in the covering worn by men in contrast to women. The func-

        tion of Joseph’s robe was that it marked the wearer as a favorite.

                   Dreams were very important in the ancient world.   Joseph’s 

        dreams and the ones he interpreted in Egypt both came in pairs and re- 

        quired a man of special skill to interpret them. Since the majority of the 

        dreams recorded in the Joseph story are said to have been dreamed in 

        Egypt, one may suspect that this was their proper location.   One of 

        the expressions used to describe Joseph is “the lord of dreams.” We can 

        be quite sure that the older brothers had no idea of flattering Joseph 

        when they used this expression, which as it happened, turned out to be a 

        remarkably accurate one.

                   Joseph was sent after his brothers at Shechem. Not finding his bro-

        thers in Shechem, he went to Dothan. It was at Dothan that the brothers

        threw Joseph into a pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites or Midianites; it is 

        not clear which.   Also, at one point Reuben was the only brother who 

        wished to spare Joseph’s life, but in another section it was Judah. It is pos-

        sible that the Elohwist source of this story is responsible for the section 

        which has Joseph being sold to the Midianites, and that the Jahwist source

        is responsible for the brothers’ plan to kill Joseph and the passing of an 

        Ishmaelite caravan.

J-87

                   After his betrayal, Joseph was brought to Egypt, where he was sold

        to an Egyptian named Potiphar.   We now possess an Egyptian slave list 

        from the 1700s B.C. which contains a number of persons bearing names 

        from the same region as where Joseph came from. The biblical account 

        implies that Joseph was not long in Potiphar’s household before he was 

        promoted to the highest position in the house. He is pictured as modest, 

        hard-working, honest, wise, and devoted to his superior.

                   Joseph’s story in Potiphar’s house gives the reader his first hint of 

        the Joseph story’s theology. Joseph became successful because his mas-

        ter noticed “the Lord was with him, and that the Lord caused all that he did

        to prosper. . .”   For the man who is favored by God, there is nothing that 

        can’t be overcome. Joseph, who was favored by a God who could convert

        the evil directed against him to good, couldn’t be kept down in slavery.

                  It has been long observed that there are strong affinities between 

        the Joseph story and the famous Egyptian myth of Bata and Anubis, the 

        "Tale of Two Brothers," which can be dated to around 1225 B.C.   Some 

        scholars of the 1800s were inclined to take this date at face value.   The 

        Egyptian story’s nature leads one to suspect that it had a long history be-

        fore it was written down.   Many scholars feel that the Joseph story is de-

        pendent upon its Egyptian counterpart. One might even imagine that Poti-

        phar’s wife, who would be familiar with the Egyptian story, was pulling an 

        old trick on this “bumpkin” from Hebron.  This incident is not vital to the 

        Joseph story, so it would much easier to understand its presence if it had

        long been part of the story.

                   Why did Potiphar react by simply imprisoning Joseph?   Unfortu-

        nately, no good parallel can be found anywhere. We are in the dark about

        the legal aspects of the situation.   Egypt has bequeathed no great legal 

        corpus.   The king of Egypt was considered a god, and the law of Egypt 

        was the will of this god-king. To codify the divine demands of one pharaoh 

        might impinge dangerously upon the prerogative of the next.

                   While in prison Joseph met the royal butler (cupbearer) and baker.

        The dreams of both were interpreted by Joseph, & the predicted outcome 

        was brought to pass. The office of butler was very important in the court of 

        the Pharaoh; “he placed the cup in Pharaoh’s hand,” which is the role of a 

        trusted adviser. It is thus quite understandable that the king would take a 

        butler’s advice when he recommended Joseph as an interpreter.   In re-

        sponse to Joseph’s suggestion that the Pharaoh “select a man discreet 

        and wise” comes Pharaoh’s answer: “Since God has shown you all this, 

        there is none so discreet and wise as you are.”

                   The nature of the dreams of the Pharaoh is quite Egyptian. It is ap-

        propriate that the Pharaoh should dream of cows. This contrasts with the 

        situation in the hill country of Palestine, where Joseph’s family raised 

        sheep.   We are told that shepherds were an abomination in Egypt. The 

        simplest explanation is to suppose that it is the result of the well-known, na-

        tural enmity for sheep on the part of cattle raisers, whose cattle have no-

        thing to eat after the sheep have grazed on their pastures.

                  A second Egyptianism in the first dream is the use of a word which is 

        translated as “the reed grass.” The Hebrew ‘ahu is simply the writing of an 

        Egyptian word in Hebrew letters.   It is properly the pasture that has been 

        produced in the wake of the annual flood. It is extended from this meaning 

        to include pasture land in general. The 7 years of famine that are predicted

        in the dreams of the Pharaoh are the common property of the ancient Near 

        Eastern countries; the Assyrian and Ugarit Texts have similar stories.

                   Another section of the Joseph story reminiscent of Egypt is the ac-

        count of Joseph’s promotion.   The “gold of honor” may correspond to the 

        golden chain which was put upon Joseph; it is a much-mentioned item in 

        Egyptian biography. Joseph’s chariot reminds us that it was during the 

        Hyksos period that the horse and chariot were introduced in Egypt.   As-

        syria has a similar method of honoring and investing high ministers. The 

        office into which Joseph was being inducted was apparently that of vizier. 

        As a final gesture Joseph was given a new name, Zaphenath-Paneah, and 

        wife, Asenath, the daughter of the priest Potiphera.

                   The greatness of Joseph’s administrative ability is judged in terms 

        of his results in acquiring all the lands in Egypt for the king.   We do know 

        from sources outside of the Bible that there was just such a shift of land 

        tenure during the Hyksos period.  The report that the priests weren't forced

        to sell their land is in strict accord with Egyptian practice that was current 

        as early as the 5th Dynasty. Just how privileged the priesthood was to be-

        come is reflected in the successful resistance to Akh-en-aton and his radi-

        cal reforms.

                   The story of Joseph continues with an account of the famine in Ca-

        naan and the journey to Egypt to buy grain. The action is now concerned 

        with the whole family of Jacob. The famous Egyptian inscription of Horem-

        heb describes foreigners from famine-stricken lands descending upon 

        Egypt.   The biblical witness is in full agreement with this testimony from 

        secular history.   The Bible relates that Abraham and Issac and finally the 

        family of Jacob were forced to turn to the land of the Nile in search of grain.

J-88

                  The reconciliation of Joseph with his brothers was exercised within 

        the theological framework of what God had planned in contrast to the bro-

        thers’ design.   It is easy for us to understand the first approach Joseph 

        used in dealing with his brothers. There is a natural urge in everyone to do

        a bit of testing before restoring an offender.   He accused his brothers of 

        being spies and kept Simeon as a hostage.   Joseph terrified the brothers 

        by planting a silver cup in the baggage of Benjamin and then accusing him

        of theft. This action brought forth a burst of eloquent pleading from Judah, 

        which has its Egyptian parallel in the story of the Eloquent Peasant.

                  We know from Egyptian documents that the Egyptians allowed Asia-

        tics to graze their animals in the Delta, which is what Jacob’s family did. 

       Jacob requested that Joseph should swear to bury him in the land of his 

        birth. Both Jacob and later Joseph were embalmed. One wonders why Jo-

        seph was taken back to Shechem for burial, rather than to Mamre. Before 

        the death of Jacob, he had a chance to see his children and grandchildren

        and bless them. 

                    In the first blessing of Jacob, Joseph was replaced by his two sons, 

        Ephraim and Manasseh, the strongest of the Northern tribes, thereby doub-

        ling Joseph’s portion. The name of Joseph is later used to define: the tribe

        of Ephraim alone; the tribe of Manasseh alone; the tribe of Ephraim and 

        Manasseh together; the whole northern Kingdom; and the people as a 

        whole.   The final chapter of Joseph’s story is written with Joseph’s death; 

        he ended his life as a prophet, by prophesying the Exodus.

JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS (Hebrew name Joseph ben Mattathias) A historian & a 

        commanding officer of the Galilean Jewish forces in the war against Rome, 

        66-70 A.D. He was born 37/38 A.D. and died after 100 A.D.

                   Despite certain inconsistencies between his Vita and his earlier His-

        tory of the Jewish War Against Rome, the general outline of his life is more

        or less clear.   He was of a priestly family and, on his mother’s side, a de-

        scendant of the Hasmoneans. By the age of sixteen he began a study of 

        the chief Jewish sects: Pharisees; Sadducees; and Essenes. His writings 

        later reflect an admiration for the Essenes and their way of life, and al-

        though he reports on the popularity of the Pharisees, his language at times 

        reveals a critical, unfavorable estimate of them. 

                   In 64 he journeyed to Rome to plead for the liberation of some 

        priests whom the procurator Felix had sent to be tried by Nero. He suc-

        ceeded, but more importantly he was profoundly impressed by the gran-

        deur of Rome.  Unable to restrain the war party back home, he reluctantly 

        joined it, hoping that in short time that the governor of Syria, Cestius Gal-

        lus, would crush the rebellion.

                   Josephus contradicts himself on a number of details regarding his 

        commission and conduct at this point.   He spent the half year between 

        Cestius’ defeat & Vespasian’s arrival in the reorganizing and administration

        of Galilee as its military governor on the Jewish side, fortifying a number

        of cities.  Before long his enemies began to accuse him of various treache-

        ries, & on several occasions both his commission & his life were in danger.

                   By the spring of 67 Josephus, deserted by most of his army, was 

        driven to the fortified town of Jotapata.   The town fell after a siege of 47 

        days.  He hid for some time in a cave with a number of survivors, who 

        vowed that they would take their lives rather than surrender.   Josephus 

        & one companion were the last to remain after the others had killed them-

        selves. Josephus emerged from the cave and gave himself up. He was 

        brought before Vespasian as a prisoner.   He now predicted to Vespasian 

        that Vespasian would shortly become emperor. When this prediction was 

        fulfilled in 69, Vespasian made Josephus a free man.

                   From the time of his surrender to the end of his life Josephus re-

        mained a client of the Flavian emperors. He served the Romans as inter-

        preter and mediator. He went with Titus to Rome, settled there on an impe-

        rial pension with the rights of a Roman citizen in a former palace of Vespa-

        sian, and devoted himself to writing. Josephus’ words have survived be-

        cause of the church’s interest in them, most likely because of a debatable 

        passage on the Founder of Christianity in the Antiquities.

                   His earliest work was The War, mentioned at the beginning of this 

        article, which he wrote shortly after the fall of the Jewish state. The work is 

        divided into 7 books, the first of which is a rapid survey of Jewish history in

        the Greek-Roman period.    In the remaining books Josephus takes up the 

        story of the revolt against Rome and its aftermath. What stands out above 

        all in the War is its pro-Roman tone.

J-89

                   About 20 years after the publication of the War, around 93-94, Jose- 

        phus put out his second great work, the Jewish Antiquities. It is a history of

        the Jews in 20 books, modeled after a similar Roman work, from patriar-

        chal times up to the outbreak of the war with Rome.   The first 10 books, 

        which bring the story down to the Babylonian captivity, are essentially a 

        paraphrase of the primary Greek Old Testament.   The latter 10 volumes 

        cover the rest, using biblical and apocryphal sources.   Where Antiquities 

        and War overlap, the Antiquities come off as more detailed and less pro-

        Roman than War.

                  It was to the Antiquities that Josephus attached his Vita as an appen-

        dix.   It is mainly a self-defense against a rival and an account of Josephus’ 

        life during the 6 months when he “commanded the forces in Galilee.”   

        Finally, he wrote an eloquent apology for Judaism in 2 books, Against Api-

        on.  it is a defense against all sorts of unfair criticisms of Jewish morality 

        and culture made by Egyptians and Greeks.   In his writings Josephus re-

        fers to other works which he planned: a Jerusalem treatise, a work on the 

        Mosaic code and God; but apparently he never produced these.

JOSES (‘IwshV )  1. A brother of Jesus (Mark 6).      2. A brother of James the 

        Less (Mark 15).

JOSHAH (יושה, wealth) A Simeonite (I Chronicles 4).

JOSHAPHAT (יושפט, whom the Lord judges)  1. A Mithite included by the 

        Chronicler among David's Mighty Men known as the 30 (I Chronicles 11). 

        2. One of the priests who had the responsibility of blowing the trumpet be-

        fore the ark of God, especially when it was brought to Jerusalem by David

        (I Chronicles 15).

JOSHAVIAH (יושויה) One of the singers appointed by David; yet the names in 

        this verse form a liturgical prayer, and may not refer to real persons     

        (I Chronicles 25).

JOSHIBIAH (יושביה, whom the Lord settles) A Simeonite (I Chronicles 4).

JOSHUA (יהושע (yeh hoo shoo ‘ah), Yahweh is salvation)    1. See Joshua, 

        Son of Nun.      2. Man of Beth-shemesh in whose field the ark, drawn in 

        a cart by 2 milch cows, came to a halt after the Philistines sent it away.

                3. A governor of the city of Jerusalem during the reign of King Josiah 

        (II Kings 23).

JOSHUA, BOOK OF.  The 6th book in the Old Testament (OT), and in the He-

        brew Bible the first of the Former Prophets.   It describes Canaan’s inva-

        sion after the Exodus and wilderness wandering, and the division and al-

        lotments of the land to Israel’s tribes.   The central figure in the book is 

        Joshua son of Nun, from whose name the title comes.

                   Composition—The problems of the book of Joshua are numerous

        and complicated. Contemporary scholarship dismisses the tradition that 

        Joshua was the author.   Most scholars find many authors in the book, 

        though a few students conclude that the book was composed by a single 

        author soon after the events which it relates. Other scholars have tried to 

        extend the same source theory from the first 5 books into the 6th, because

        of the many ways in which the text contradicts itself.

                   This hypothesis finds the bulk of the conquest narrative (chapters 

        1-12) to be the Elohwist and the Deuteronomist, with very little Jahwist. 

        The editing done by the Deuteronomist has been so thorough that the Jah-

        wist has virtually been suppressed. It is almost as difficult to discover origi-

        nal parts of the Elohwist. The Priestly document does not appear, save for 

        some glosses, until the land divisions. 

                  There are other places in the book that may be the work of priestly 

        writers, such as chapter 22, as well as verses and short passages scat-

        tered throughout the book (e.g. 3-5; 9; 13; 14;19; 21), including the two 

        burial traditions closing the book in chapter 24.  They are little more than 

        occasional glosses, and they are not sufficient to assign to any individual.

                   The various attempts at documentary analysis come up with radi-

        cally different conclusions. The results are so inconclusive that it seems 

        doubtful that the sources found in the first 5 books continue into Joshua. 

        The only literary contact on which everyone agrees is with Deuteronomy

        and with Judges and Kings.

                   Most material in Joshua 1-12 is tribal and sanctuary material that

        was reworked by the Deuteronomic editor.   After the Jordan crossing 

        (3-4), there is the Israelite sanctuary tradition at Gilgal, near Jericho. Here

        12 stones were set up, the nation’s circumcision took place, and the Pass-

        over celebrating the manna’s end took place. From this point until the land 

        survey, Israel had its camp at Gilgal; here is where Saul of Benjamin was 

        crowned.   For a time Gilgal took a leading part in the Israelite confedera-

        cy’s religious and military life. 

J-90

                  The rest of chapters 2-9 are traditions involving the tribe of Benjamin

        in general, apart from their sanctuary at Gilgal. The traditions of the capture

        of Ai and of the covenant with the Gibeonites take place in the hill country 

        of Benjamin.   The Ai tradition is best explained as a folk legend from the     

        Benjaminite area around Ai, which means ruin.  Whether the battle at Gibe-

        on and in the Valley of Aijalon belongs with the Benjaminite tradition is un-

        certain. The important part played by Gibeon and the valley in the Book of 

        Jashar may indicate that the story of the battle has been arbitrarily connec-

        ted with that of the five kings.

                  The part following the battle, if originally separate, must come from a 

        southern tradition, somewhere around the Shephelah of Judah. From the 

        south comes also the catalogue of southern fortresses conquered by Jo-

        shua.  The first part of Joshua 11 presents the narrative of a northern cam-

        paign, the major battle of which took place at the Waters of Merom.   Jo-

        shua burned only Hazor of all the northern fortified cities.

                   Chapters 13-19 present the twelve tribes’ border and town lists, to 

        which are appended the lists of the cities of refuge.   A few narrative frag-

        ments have also found their way into this section. The traditions probably 

        go back to early times, when the independent origin of Calebite and Keniz-

        zite clans was still acknowledged in Judah.   The lists themselves are of di-

        verse character. In some particulars, border and city lists differ from one 

        another, in others they have some of each other’s cities. Judah’s city list 

        includes most of Simeon’s cities as well as several of the tribe of Dan. We 

        don't have border accounts for the tribes of Dan, Issachar, Transjordanian 

        Mannasseh, and Simeon.

                   The list of Levitical cities contradicts the tribal lists, in that Shechem

        is placed in Ephraim instead of in Manasseh, Daberath is placed in Issa-

        char instead of in Zebulun, Jokneam is placed in Zebulun instead of in 

        Asher, and Heshbon is placed in Gad instead of in Reuben. Tribal bounda-

        ries probably shifted more than once, and the lists of chapters 13-21 repre-

        sent many sources and ages.

                   It has been suggested that the lists of chapters 13-19 come from a 

        document which set out tribal boundaries in the period before the kings. 

         Actually, there is not much uniformity among scholars as to the origin or 

        age of the lists. The analysis of these Galilean lists as official documents 

        seems hazardous and tenuous, and it is tempting to suggest that they are

        the work of someone who has listed cities of the northern tribes from me-

        mory.  They have subsequently been worked into boundary descriptions 

        by an editor who had no firsthand knowledge of Galilee. The boundary and 

        town lists of Judah and Benjamin are precise and reflect administrative dis-

        tricts of monarchic times. The other boundaries are extremely vague.

                  Joshua in the Deuteronomic History—The books of Deuteronomy-

        Kings forms a separate historical work.   Joshua takes its place as the first 

        primarily historical book of this series by the Deuteronomist.  He is not inte-

        rested in the patriarchs at all. Canaan’s conquest is the point at which, for 

        Deuteronomic history, Israel’s story really begins. The historian looks back 

        on the Conquest with nostalgia. The judges period, for all its transitory vic-

        tories, was a period of anarchy, which was removed only by the power of 

        Davidic royalty.

                   Joshua is a Deuteronomic book.   Probably during the Babylonian 

        exile the work of compiling Israel’s history was undertaken. The compiler 

        was able to use administrative documents from government archives in 

        Jerusalem. After rewriting the Benjaminite traditions, He placed the boun-

        dary descriptions in order, beginning with the Transjordanian territories 

        promised by Moses according to other traditions existing at that time, and 

        moving on to Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh, the most influential tribes. 

                   He then put down, in the order in which they occurred to him, the re-

        maining tribes’ territories.   The compiler then added lists of refuge cities, 

        which probably had been traditional for some time.   Another person acted 

        as an editor and inserted connecting and summarizing links in the material;

        he wrote the introduction to the book and Joshua’s farewell address.

                   The narrative of the ceremony at Shechem (Joshua 24) is a difficult 

        problem. Most scholars agree that it didn't form a part of the Deuteronomic 

        Joshua. Placing the ceremony at Shechem reflects the importance of the 

        Shechem sanctuary in the pre-monarchic period.   Joshua 8:30-35 closely 

        parallels chapter 24 but without any ceremonial details. Perhaps in the ori-

        ginal edition it took the place of the passage in chapter 8 and was moved to

        its current position later.   Thus the shape of the book Joshua comes from 

        the work of a Deuteronomist, who reworked the narrative traditions from 

        Benjamin and some local traditions from Judah and the north, and wrote 

        campaign summaries. He organized the division of the land into its present 

        form,  recasting some lists and inserting a few narrative traditions.

                   The book of Joshua, therefore, presents the historian’s view of the 

        possession of the land.   He knew that Israel had more battles to fight; 

        nevertheless, Joshua’s conquest is presented as complete.   There is a vi-

        sionary character to this stage of the Deuteronomist’s history which must 

        not be forgotten. His dream, set down during the Babylonian exile, is the 

        full possession of the land.

J-91

                   Historical Significance and Theology—We have seen that the 

        Deuteronomic editor reworked the original material into his own account of 

        Joshua’s achievements; making these traditions more instructive in the pro-

        cess. The greatest controversy has centered around the narratives of chap-

        ters 1-12.  When the detailed narratives are examined in the light of the tra-

        ditions and archaeology, we may only conclude that 2-10 presents tradi-

        tions which seek to explain present names and conditions for which there 

        is no actual historical knowledge.   

                   These traditions have no bearing on the history of the Conquest. 

        The story of the crossing of the Jordan (3-5) is a complex of traditions 

        involving two different versions. Interwoven with them is an interpretation 

        which makes the story an echo of the crossing of the sea under Moses. 

        The circumcision traditions involve a hill near Gilgal and Gilgal itself. Arch-

        aeology has not yet revealed much about the Gilgal story.

                   Archaeological evidence at Jericho is ambiguous.   At the time usu-

        ally given for Joshua’s invasion, the city could hardly have been more than 

        a hilltop fortification. The story as we have it probably explains the ruins of 

        another great city in the midst of Benjamin. The story of the treachery and 

        execution of Achan turns around the naming of the Valley of Achor.   The 

        mention of the heap of stones which “remains to this day” marks the tradi-

        tion as the imaginative supplying of details for an otherwise unknown 

        event.

                   The remaining Benjaminite tradition is that of the covenant with the 

        Gibeonites, which explains how the Gibeonites became servants of Israel.

        We have no evidence that Gibeon existed at the time of Joshua’s cam-

        paign. While it is natural to suppose that if these traditions are not a histori-

        cal part of Joshua’s invasion, they bear on the entry of Benjamin.  Actually, 

        archaeological evidence suggests that the stories don't fit in the time frame

        of a Benjaminite invasion either. Given the non-existence of Gibeon in this 

        period, the battle involving the 5 kings and the cave could hardly have been

        fought over it.   The story of the capture of 5 kings in the cave seems more 

        historical than it does a fanciful explanation, although it does explain the 

        sealed cave with five trees outside. Either theory is equally hypothetical.

                  Archaeological excavations at Lachish, Eglon, and Debir have shown

        evidence of violent widespread fires in the last half of the 1200s B.C. Re-

        cent work at Hazor and Bethel yields similar results. So, a campaign in the 

        Shephelah (south-central Israel) probably took place as reported.   But 

        these narratives which seem to come from historical annals can't uphold 

        the accuracy of what comes before it (Joshua 2-10).

                  The documents underlying chapters 13-21 are of little use in recon-

        structing the history of Joshua’s time.  It is most unlikely that the tribes terri-

        tories were carefully defined in this period.  The careful attention to Judah’s

        and Benjamin’s proper boundaries, & the uncertainty of the northern tribes’ 

        borders, may mean that the Deuteronomic history is a product of Judah; 

        the details of the northern territories have been forgotten.

                  The idea of a loose federation of 12 tribes centered around a sanctu-

        ary is taken from the 12-clan leagues of ancient Greece.  It indicates a con-

        federacy of independent tribes centered around a sanctuary.   Joshua 24 

        suggests that the tribes held a covenant renewal ceremony at Shechem, 

        perhaps on a yearly basis.   3 main shrines figure in the book as centers of 

        national activity. Gilgal is the base of operations from the middle of chapter

        4 to the middle of chapter 17, and is thus associated with the Conquest & 

        with the allotment of land to the Transjordanian tribes & to Judah, Ephraim, 

        and Manasseh. Chapters 18-23 have Shiloh as the central sanctuary, and 

        deal with land allotment to the remaining seven tribes.

                   The sanctuary at Shechem appears twice, once in Joshua 8, & once

        in Joshua 24, which used to be where the chapter 8 passage is now.  This 

        would put the Shechem covenant account after the first phase of the Con-

        quest. Joshua relates no conquest of the central portion of Palestine, the 

        territory of Ephraim and most of Manasseh. Shechem may represent what

        was in the first instance the coalition of only a few tribes, perhaps Ephraim 

        and Manasseh.   Shechem later became the central sanctuary of the 12-

        tribe federation for a time.

                  The only theology present in Joshua is the Deuteronomic viewpoint. 

        This viewpoint sees the keystone to Joshua’s work as the gracious act of 

        God in giving Israel the land Canaan. Obedience is demanded because of 

        God’s gracious leading.   With the possession of the Promised Land goes 

        the vast obligation to respond with unwavering devotion, trust, and obedi-

        ence.  The allotment of the Land is done under the direction of Yahweh. 

        We do not hear in Joshua, as elsewhere, that the land belongs to Yahweh.

                   Can we really say that a God of justice and mercy endorsed and 

        even encouraged bloody conquest?   For the editors of Joshua, the holy 

        war was the means by which Israel actualized God’s promise. Israel was 

        recognizing that her history did not consist solely of humankind’s actions. 

        Since this book was likely written during the Exile, it also meant the possi-

        bility in the future of Yahweh’s re-establishing Israel in her land.

J-92

JOSHUA, SON OF NUN (יהושע (yeh ho shoo ‘ah), Yahweh is salvation) Jo-

        shua first appears as the Israelite general in the battle against Amalek.  Jo-

        shua’s main exploit before the Conquest was his participation as the repre-

        sentative of the Ephraim tribe in the spying out of Canaan; he argued that 

        the land could be taken. When Moses died, Israel obeyed Joshua as they

        had obeyed Moses, because he “was full of the spirit of wisdom.”

                   The archaeological data point strongly to the latter half of the 1200s

        B.C. for Joshua’s conquest.   Joshua’s work in Canaan seems to have 

        mainly comprised an alliance with a tribe or tribes of central Canaan at 

        Shechem (perhaps Manasseh, already resident around Shechem (i.e. not 

        part of the Exodus), and Ephraim, which was in the Exodus) and the con-

        quest of a circle of fortress cities in the Shephelah.

                   In some of the notices in the book of Joshua, he is almost a second 

        Moses. The miraculous crossing of the Jordan (Joshua 3-4) has many re-

        miniscences of the crossing of the Red Sea.   When the angel confronted 

        Joshua before Jericho, he spoke to him precisely as Yahweh addressed 

        Moses at the burning bush. The figure of Joshua has also been invested 

        with a certain royal aura.   He calls the people together for the making of a 

        covenant.   His division of the land is parallel to the king’s erection of admi-

        nistrative districts. Later legends outside of the Bible have somewhat leng-

        thened Joshua’s shadow.   He is called the “successor of Moses in the pro-

        phetic office,” and is said to have received the Torah from Moses & passed 

        it on to the elders.

JOSIAH (יאשיה, whom the Lord heals) King of the southern kingdom of Judah 

        around 640-609 B.C.   Josiah was made king by the “people of the land" 

        after his father, Amon, had been murdered.   He came to the throne at the 

        age of eight and reigned for 31 years.

                  The pictures of Josiah's early years vary considerably in our sources.

        The Chronicler says that in his reign's 8th year (632) he began to seek the

        God of David.   In the 12th year of his reign he began to purge Judah and 

        Jerusalem.   This may indicate that while still nominally a vassal of Assyria,

        in reality Josiah had taken advantage of Assyria’s clear weakness to esta-

        blish his claim to the old Davidic empire.   

                   In the 18th year of his reign with the finding of the “book of the law” 

        in the temple, Josiah carried out a great reform program which clearly had 

        political as well as religious overtones. The Chronicler has only the Cana-

        anite cult being removed.   On the other hand, the author of Kings knows 

        only of the reformation in the 18th year of the king.   In II Kings, Josiah re-

        moved not only the Assyrian cult, but the Canaanite cult as well.

                   It is possible for Josiah to have exercised control if Ashurbanipal’s

        death was around 630, after which Assyrian power in the West began to 

        wane. It is clear that from at least 627 Assyria was fully occupied in the 

        east with Babylon’s revolt.  Possibly as early as 628, Josiah could have 

        asserted his independence from Assyria and began a reformation in the 

        land.   It is questionable if he openly broke with Assyria.   Rather the pic-

        ture would appear to be that while still professing loyalty to Assyrian over-

        lord, he quietly took over the northern territory.   His goal was a reunited 

        Israel, the restoration of the old Davidic empire.

                   Josiah’s reign was rendered notable by reason of the discovery of

        the “book of the law” in the temple. The most probable explanation seems

        to be that it was written early in the reign before his father’s reign & found 

        some 50 years later.   The code now forms the kernel of our present book 

        of Deuteronomy.   The whole work of the Deuteronomist was a review of 

        Israel’s past history in the light of the great prophetic principle of exclu-

        sive loyalty to Yahweh. Deuteronomy was begun in 622, and was probably

        not completed for several years.   It was revised around 560, when addi-

        tions were made to bring it up to date.

                  The major interest of the Deuteronomist was in the covenant en-

        tered into by king and people alike. This was followed by a general clean-

        sing of the land from idolatrous worship—a cleansing which included Be-

        thel as well.  On his return to Jerusalem a great Passover feast was held, 

        which II Kings 23 describes in three verses, while II Chronicles 35 takes 19 

        verses to describe it.

J-93

                  The events of the intervening years till 609 are completely ignored in 

        the biblical record.   In that year Josiah met his death at Megiddo in a vain 

        attempt to preserve his newly won independence by preventing Pharaoh 

        Neco and the Assyrians from joining forces.   Josiah was remembered by 

        later generations as one of Judah’s greatest kings.  “Before him there was 

        no king like him, who turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his 

        soul and with all his might. . .” Why then did Jeremiah take so little notice of

        him?  Josiah did “justice and righteousness,” and “judged the cause of the 

        poor and needy.”  But perhaps Jeremiah looked beneath the surface and 

        saw that Josiah’s real goal was the establishment of a political kingdom.

JOSIPHIAH (יוספיה, may Yahweh increase) The father of Shelomith, who re-

        turned to Palestine (Ezra 8).

JOTBAH (יטבה, goodness) A city mentioned only as the residence of Meshul-

        lemeth mother of King Amon of the southern kingdom of Judah (II Kings 

        21); the site is unknown.

JOTBATHAH (יטבתה, goodness) A stopping place of the Israelites in the wil- 

        derness, where they found a “land of brooks of water.” It may have been in

        the Arabah, north of Ezion-geber (Deuteronomy 10).

JOTHAM (יותם, may the Lord complete)  1. A Judahite, son of Jahdai, descen-

        dant of Jerahmeel (I Chronicles 2).

                  2. Youngest of the 70 sons of Gideon (Judges 9). In the massacre of 

        the sons of Gideon by their half brother Abimelech, Jotham escaped by hi-

        ding himself. When Jotham heard what had happened, he went to the top 

        of Mount Gerizim, and addressed to the men of Shechem a fable on the 

        trees’ anointing a king.   No tree wanted the job because they had other, 

        more important tasks to perform. Jotham accuses the men of Shechem of 

        having acted in bad faith toward Jerubbaal (Gideon) and ends his speech 

        with a prophetic curse.

                   3. Regent of the southern kingdom of Judah (750-742 B.C.); king

        (742-735); son and successor of Uzziah.   His mother was Jerusha the 

        daughter of Zadok. Jotham became king at 25 and is said to have reigned

        16 years, which may be correct if we include the 8-year period when he 

        acted as regent for his father. II Kings 15 says that Hoshea of Israel be-

        came king “in the 20th year of Jotham the son of Uzziah,” without having 

        mentioned Jotham before; II Kings 17 gives a different year for the begin-

        ning of Hoshea’s reign.

                   The writer of Kings mentions that “he built the upper gate of the 

        house of the Lord”; the gate apparently faced north. This was presumably 

        to strengthen the work on the defense of Jerusalem begun by Uzziah. 

        Cities were built in the hill country of Judah, and forts and towers were 

        established on the wooded hills. Archaeology seems to support this gene-

        ral picture of intense building activity during the 700s.

                   In the military sphere too, Jotham continued to win victories. Both 

        militarily and economically Judah was perhaps the strongest state in Syria-

        Palestine at the time, and without her support resistance to Assyria stood 

        little chance of success. Already in Jotham’s time attacks against Judah by

        the northern allies had begun with the object of forcing Judah to join the 

        anti-Assyria coalition. At Ezion-geber (Elath) was found a signet ring with 

        a seal bearing the letters “Itym” in Hebrew. Archaeology thus confirms the

        fact that at this time, during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, and Ahaz, Judah 

        exercised control over Elath.

JOY (שמח (saw may akh); eufrainw (you fra in oh), to gladden; kaucao-        mai-(kaw ka oh may), to glory, boast) The experience of joy, as related to 

        praise and thanksgiving in worship is one of the characteristic elements in 

        the Bible. In the Old Testament 13 Hebrew roots, found in 27 words, are 

        used for some aspect of joyful participation in the cult. Physical expression

        of joy is often mentioned. The most frequent occasions for joy are feasting 

        and offering sacrifice, celebrating harvest or victory. In the New Testament 

        both these terms appear often in connection with joy in God’s salvation. It 

        is in the New Testament that we find the statement of joy in suffering itself, 

        or in weakness seen in terms of a power of God “made perfect in 

        weakness.”

JOZABAD (יוזבד, the Lord has bestowed)    1. A Benjaminite from Gederah 

       who joined David’s forces at Ziklag (I Chronicles 12).      2. A military leader

        of the tribe of Manasseh who deserted Saul to join David (this name is 

        mentioned twice in the same verse of I Chronicles 12).      3. A Levite who 

        shared responsibility for the temple treasury during the reign of King He-

        zekiah (II Chronicles 31).       4. A chief of the Levites during the King Josi-

        ah’s reign (II Chronicles 35).      5. One of the chiefs of the Levites in 

        charge of the “outside work” of the temple (Nehemiah 11). He is perhaps 

        the same Jozabad listed as having married a foreign wife (Ezra 10).

J-94

JOZACAR (יוזכר, whom the Lord remembers) Son of Shimeath, and one of 

        the servants of King Joash who were responsible for his murder.

JOZADAK (יוצדק, the Lord is righteous) The father of Jeshua the high priest, 

        and among those who were exiled to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar 

        (Ezra 3, 5, 10; Nehemiah. It is also spelled Jehozadak (I Chronicles 6).

JUBAL (יובל, river) Son of Lamech; credited by the Jahwistic writer with the 

        invention of musical instruments.

JUBILEE, YEAR OF (שנה היובל (shaw naw ha  yu ba lee), year of the horn) 

        The final year in a cycle of 50 years (i.e 7 sabbatical year cycles that 

        were 7 years long plus one year). The 50-year Jubilee period was the ulti-

        mate unit of time reckoning of a primitive, 50-day agricultural calendar.   

        Just as each 50th day was celebrated as a sacred day, the Jubilee Year 

        was also of sacred character and marked, in fitting, festal manner, the 

        close of the 50-year time unit. The ram’s horn used to announce the year,

        and which gave this year its name, was carried and blown only by priests.

        In all likelihood the “great trumpet” of Isaiah 27 was this horn. All this sug-

        gests that the ram’s-horn trumpet was of unusual character, used only 

        upon extraordinary occasions and for some particular purpose.

                   The Jubilee Year in principle discharged two primary functions. It 

        effected the automatic release or emancipation of a Jew who had at some 

        moment within the preceding 49 years become enslaved to a fellow Jew, 

        and likewise the automatic release or return to the original owner or his 

        family of property which had been sold to a fellow Jew.  

                   The primary legislation for the Jubilee Year is found in Holiness 

        Code.   It is readily apparent that this code for the automatic liberation in 

        the Jubilee of Jews enslaved to fellow Jews contradicts absolutely the ear-

        lier, pre-exilic legislation. Furthermore, no pre-exilic legislation makes any 

        provision whatsoever for property restoration.  

                   The Holiness Code sought through the Jubilee Year to solve in an 

        altogether unprecedented manner a problem of distinctly social character, 

        which had found no effective solution throughout the entire pre-exilic peri-

        od.   Their appreciation of the complete impracticability of the relatively 

        brief, 6-year period, led them to provide for a potentially much longer peri-

        od of such servitude and give the ancient Jubilee year a new function. 

                   Whatever may have been its specific import previously, the Jubilee 

        Year had never before discharged either of the 2 functions now assigned 

        to it. Abundant evidence indicates that this legislation never became effec-

        tive in any manner. Nehemiah 5 proves definitively that from 450 B.C. on,

        the automatic emancipation in the Jubilee Year of Jews enslaved to fellow 

        Jews had already fallen into disuse.

                   The Jubilee Year period persisted only as the largest unit of time 

        reckoning and nothing more. Presumably the 49th year, the final Sabba-

        tical Year of this larger, Jubilee period, functions as the concluding year,

        while the 50th year is completely disregarded.   In the Maccabean and 

        post-Maccabean periods the Jubilee Year was omitted entirely and the 

        Sabbatical Years followed each other in uninterrupted succession every 

        7 years. Eventually, the Jubilee Year became completely obsolete.

JUDAH (יהודה, praised)  1. An ancestor, the 4th son of Jacob and the 

        origin of the name of the tribe of Judah; another theory as to the origin 

        of the tribe’s name is that it was taken over from the area in which they

        settled. He plays a special role along with Reuben and Benjamin as the 

        spokesman for the brothers.

                   Judah belongs to that first great wave of Israelite tribes of the so-

        called Leah group which gradually succeeded in occupying the whole 

        Palestinian hill country. Judah dwelt in the south along with Reuben and 

        Gad, who traveled farther into the land east of Jordan.

                   The area Judah settled was not large; it was the mountain ridge 

        which ran for about 24-32 km south and a little east of Jerusalem down to 

        Hebron and excluded the two cities. There were no old cities in this area,

        and it had been cleared of forest for agricultural use. To the east a natural 

        boundary was set by the eastern slope of the mountains, the Wilderness

        of Judah, which was not well suited for settlement. To the north was a poli-

        tical boundary.   Jerusalem was first conquered, contrary to Judges 1 by 

        David and his mercenaries without the Judeans’ help. The Judeans partici-

        pated in the settlement of the valley of the Jordan to the south of Jericho. 

        Judah certainly did not get down into the coastal plain; Judah’s expansion 

        had to be toward the south.

J-95

                  This expansion toward the south signified a new stage in develop-

        ment; Judah became Great Judah, at first a loose alliance of tribes, then

        a state through the mingling of the Judean hill clans with other related 

        clans who were not “Israelite.”  It brought to the Judean element the poli-

        tical leadership in an area which considerably exceeded the bounds of its 

        own former territory.

                   Several smaller tribes had established themselves before the Israe-

        lites came, but no one of them possessed more than the territory of an old

        city-state: Caleb around Hebron; Kenaz around Debir; Cain around Arad; 

        Jerahmeel in a location that is unknown today; and Simeon around Zepha-

        thormah.   On the steppe south of Beer-sheba, the Negeb was shared by 

        Judah, Jerahmeel, Kenites, and Calebites. This community of interest may 

        have appeared first in the religious sphere in the formation of a loose con-

        federation of six groups.

                   From the beginning of the occupation of land, the tribe of Judah 

        went through a special development. Judah is not mentioned in the Song 

        of Deborah, which comes from the northern tribes. The Blessing of Moses 

        (Deuteronomy 33) sees Judah as an insignificant tribe in need of help.   

        The Blessing of Jacob, on the other hand, combines several Judean say-

        ings which lauds Judah’s authority, his lion’s strength, and his wealth.

                   As a tribe Judah appears later only occasionally, in the Priestly 

        Code, in the Deuteronomic history of the time before the kings, and by 

        the Chronicler, who is always thinking of Greater Judah.   In Ezekiel’s vi-

        sion of the sanctuary, the middle one of the northern gates is named for 

        Judah, who is an immediate neighbor of the sanctuary. In the New Testa-

        ment, Judah ranks at the head of the list of the sealed (Revelation 7). 

                   2. A Levite (Ezra 3).      3. A Levite (Ezra 10).      4. A Benjaminite 

        (Nehemiah 11); son of Hassenuah.      5. A Levite (Nehemiah 12). 

        6. A prince of Judah (Nehemiah 12). 7. A priest and musician (Nehemiah 

        12).      8. A ancestor of Jesus (Luke 3).

JUDAH, HILL COUNTRY OF (הר יהודה (har  ya hood a), hills of the praised)

        A district in Palestine which included the central ridge of hills south of the

        hill country of Ephraim between the Shephelah on the west and the wilder-

        ness of Judah on the east. The extent of the district is not defined. Hebron

        was located in it. Jeremiah 32, 33 indicate that the district included a num-

        ber of cities.

JUDAH, KINGDOM OF. See Israel, History of.

JUDAH, WILDERNESS OF (מדבר יהודה (mid bar  ya hoo da)) On the basis 

        of the Old Testament passages, the wilderness of Judah is usually located 

        the desolate area in the Negeb of southern Palestine, extending to the 

        western shore of the Dead Sea. In Matthew 3 the wilderness of Judea is 

        identified only as the place where John the Baptist started his preaching.

JUDAISM. The belief and life of the Jews. The word doesn't refer to dogma, but

        to the total way of life of the Jewish community. The beliefs and practices

        of the Judaism of Jesus’ day differed in various sects and parties, but all 

        Jews believed in the one God of Israel and acknowledged the Law.

                   (See the separate entries for: Pharisees; Sadducees; Zealots; 

        Essenes).

JUDAIZING. (Ioudaizein) The Greek word meaning “to Judaize,” occurs in the 

        Bible in Galatians 2, where Paul rebukes Peter for refusing to eat with the 

        Gentile members at Antioch. Thus every use of the Greek word applies to 

        Gentiles who live in the Jewish way.  It isn't enough to say that they “sym-

        pathize with” the Jews. As applied to Gentile Christians, it means that they 

        accept the Mosaic law as binding and observe Jewish customs. Paul main-

        tained that to compel Gentile Christians to “live as Jews’ was to lead them 

        to abandon the gospel.   Others claimed that the law was of permanent 

        validity; no one could be a member of God’s people and be saved without 

        observing them. Paul argued that no one can keep the law; a totally new 

        way of salvation is needed, and God’s free grace in Christ provides it.

                  

JUDAS (‘IoudaV ; See also the entry in the Old Testament Apocrypha/Influence 

        Outside the Bible section of the Appendix.)  1. A person mentioned in Mat-

        thew 13 and Mark 6 as one of Jesus’ brothers. His name is given as Judas

        in the passages cited above, but in the shortened form Jude in Jude 1. In 

        the absence of more exact information, we may assume the Judas’ attitude

        toward Jesus was like that of James and the other brothers.

J-96

                   There is an interesting tradition concerning the grandsons of this 

        Judas.   The Roman emperor Domitian became afraid of a messianic upri-

        sing among the Jews, and ordered that the descendants of David be put to 

        death. Two grandsons of Judas were brought before the emperor. They 

        admitted Davidic descent, but explained that Christ’s kingdom was hea-

        venly and angelic, not of this world; after that they were released.

                   2. Judas Iscariot, one of the 12 apostles; the betrayer of Jesus. This

        apostle is certainly the most enigmatic person in the gospel story.   The 

        meaning of his name, his background, his character, his motive in betra-

        ying Jesus, the manner of his death are all riddles that can’t be solved.  Di-

        verse explanations have been offered for the name Iscariot:   “man from 

        Kerioth”; “assassin”; “man from Sychar (Samaria)”; “man of Issachar”; “car-

        rier of the leather bag; and “false one, liar, hypocrite."   The last possibility

        assumes that the word is Aramaic.

                   Jesus chose Judas because he saw possibilities of nobility and 

        great usefulness in him. The love that knew no bounds reached out to him

        for good; Judas must have responded at first with enthusiasm.   The mo-

        tives behind Judas’ betrayal of Jesus are unknowable.   So obscure or  

        so obviously slanted are the accounts of Judas’ treachery and death that 

        some scholars have doubted the historicity of the betrayal, but no one 

        would have made up such a story about an apostle.

                  Did Judas’ enthusiasm for Jesus wane?   Was he disappointed be-

        cause Jesus failed to strike decisively at his enemies?   Did he stumble 

        over Jesus’ indifference to any points of the law?   Did Judas at the last 

        sincerely believe Jesus a false messiah, a deceiver of the people, who ac-

        cording to the law should be done away with?   Or was Judas by the betra-

        yal attempting to force Jesus into a display of the power of his messiah-

        ship?   Was Judas simply greedy and dishonest?   Nothing short of disillu-

        sionment over Jesus, from whom he had hoped so much, and a correspon-

        ding zeal to uphold the law would seem to explain a deed so radical.

                  Exactly what information Judas delivered to the religious authorities

        is unclear. And whether he partook of the bread and wine at the Last Sup-

        per has been much debated.   From Luke 22 one would conclude that he 

        did; the other gospels leave the matter in doubt.  Judas’ end is shrouded in 

        obscurity, just as the events leading up to it.   In Mark and Luke, Judas of-

        fered to betray Jesus and received from them a promise of money.   Mat-

        thew has them pay Judas on the spot—30 pieces of silver.   Matthew later

        pictures Judas as repenting and offering to return the money to the priests.

        On their refusal to accept it, Judas throws down the money in the temple 

        and hangs himself.   The priests, unwilling to put “blood money” in the tem-

        ple, buy a potter’s field.

                   The manner of Judas' death was much commented on by early 

        Christian preachers and writers, who introduced all sorts of gruesome de-

        tails.  Both biblical and post-biblical accounts of the death appear to have 

        been influenced by Old Testament and apocryphal stories. The 2 New Tes-

        tament accounts agree only that Judas died violently as a consequence of

        his evil act and that a plot of ground in Jerusalem was purchased and be-

        came known as the “Field of Blood.”   Tradition has located this field at the 

        confluence of the Kidron, Tyropoen, and Hinnom valleys on the southeast 

        edge of Jerusalem.

                   3. According to Luke 6 and Acts 1, the son or brother of James and

        one of the 12 apostles (Matthew 10 and Mark 3 have his name as Thad

        aeus, which may be a descriptive designation of the apostle, to avoid con-

        fusion with Judas Iscariot.

                   4. Judas Barsabbas, one of two leading members of the Jewish 

        Christian church in Jerusalem who were commissioned by that church to

        carry a message to the churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilcia. (Acts 15). 

        Judas and Silas are called prophets. It is not impossible that Judas Bar-

        sabbas and the Joseph Barsabbas of Acts 1 were brothers.

JUDE, LETTER OF. A letter claimed to have been written by Jude, brother of 

        James, to the church at large; it is one of the “Catholic letters.” It didn't get 

        early recognition and had a disputed place in the canon, partly because of

        the difficulty of identifying its author.   The letter is an appeal to uphold the 

        faith against heretical dangers, and its importance lies in the contribution

        it makes to the complex story of heresy within the church.

                  The author addresses himself to Christendom at large, “to those 

        who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ.” He 

        directs an urgent appeal to “contend for the faith which was once for all 

        delivered to the saints.” The heretics reject ethical norms and established 

        order; they scorn angelic powers; they undermine the ordered life of the 

        church, and they undercut the unity of church by their religious pride.

                  In order to counteract them, the faithful are reminded of the aposto- 

        lic faith. The apostles predicted that these heresies would come, and said

        that they are part of the plan of salvation and signs of the nearness of the

        Second Coming of Christ. Sticking faithfully to their confession, the Chris-

        tians must expect the Second Coming.  The purpose of the letter, then, is 

        2-fold: negatively, it wants to indict the heretics for their moral and religious 

        apostasy; positively it contends for the trustworthiness of the apostolic faith 

        and tradition, and for the unity of the church with its established order and 

        authority.

J-97

                   The questions of authorship date and destination are interwoven.

        This is not the apostle Judas, son of James, but rather Judas the brother

        of James and Jesus. This Jude is virtually unknown in the history of early 

        Christianity. Scholarship is divided on the issue of whether to acknow-

        ledge the letter as a product of the brother of James and Jesus or to view

        it as the work of an unknown author writing under that name.   Internal evi-

        dence militates against an early date and against the ascription of the letter

        to the brother of Jesus.

                  1st, his language is decidedly from Greek rather than Palestinian 

        culture. 2nd, his salutation “May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied”

        was apparently based on something written long after the apostles' time. 

        3rd, the author speaks of faith as a deposit “once for all delivered to the 

        saints.” 4th, the author speaks of    “. . . predictions of the apostles of our 

        Lord Jesus Christ,” without including himself as one. On these grounds 

        we have reason to believe that the letter was composed sometime in the 

        beginning of the 100s A.D.; and that the author was not a Palestinian Jew

        or a brother of the Lord.   The destination of the letter can't be established, 

        although the description of the heretics makes Asia Minor a likely choice.

                   It has been a constant problem for scholarship to identify the here-

        tics of Jude. The author isn't interested in a description of or a debate with

        the heretics. They were not early Palestinian Christians who have relapsed 

        into moral laxity, nor were they to be associated with the fully developed 

        Gnostic systems of the 100s A.D. Also, it is important not to associate the 

        heretics with the name of a well-known leader of a heretic sect, but to de-

        termine what stage of the early Christian movement they may illuminate for

        us. And it is of central importance to recognize that Gnosticism is not a late 

        offshoot of the Christian gospel, but that a Gnostic climate surrounds the 

        New Testament from its beginning.

                  The heretics’ relation to the church isn't clear. Not withstanding their 

        “illegal entrance,” they have gained quite a hearing for their Gnosticizing  

        teachings. They see themselves as “spirituals” elevated in a spiritual realm,

        in which they are free from this world’s moral norms and authorities.   Their 

        special knowledge is based on their claim to be victorious over the evil an-

        gelic powers of this world.   It is difficult to tell whether the heretics have a 

        Gnostic system of beliefs about Christ. 

                   On the basis of Jude's otherwise established post-apostolic date, we

        should see here a reflection of the inner-Christian struggle around heresy.

        Jude, notwithstanding its brevity and apocryphal references has enjoyed a 

        relatively strong position within the church.  Although doubts about  authen-

        ticity are voiced by Eusebius and Origen, it is accepted at the end of the 

        100s in Alexandria, Carthage, and Rome.   In Rome it received a place in 

        the Muratorian Canon.

                  
JUDE THE LORD’S BROTHER. (See Judas 6); Brothers of the Lord. 

JUDEA (‘Ioudaia) The southern part of western Palestine, formally called Ju-

        dah.   The name Judea appears first in Greek, in Ezra-Nehemiah and the 

        apocryphal Maccabees.    In the Persian period it was a very small area 

        around Jerusalem governed by Nehemiah, extending only 16 km south of 

        Jerusalem to Beth-zur.

                  (See also the entry in the Old Testament Apocrypha/Influence Out-

        side the Bible section of the Appendix)

                   When Herod the Great’s kingdom was divided, his son Archelaus 

        became the ethnarch of Judea, which was only Idumea and Samaria. 

        After 6 A.D., each Roman procurator of Judea controlled the same territory 

        from the new capital at Caesarea on the coast.  So, political circumstances

        at times extended the area to which the name Judea was applied, al-

        though Judea proper was a limited region around Jerusalem.

                   Judea proper was almost a square, about 72 km on a side. Jerusa-

        lem was near the northern border. There was a natural division along the 

        Valley of Ajalon.   Judea is chiefly “hill country,” a mountainous fortress of 

        limestone ranging between 660 and 1,000 meters above sea level. This is 

        the traditional “wilderness,” where the population has always been sparse 

        because the springs are few.   The highways of commerce have always 

        passed around rather than through Judea, and only the deliberate visitor 

        has sought access to her mountain trails.  There is only one north-south 

        road over the tableland.  

                   Judea’s livelihood was pastoral and self-contained. The shallow and

        stony soil yielded olives and grapes, figs and citrus, and some grain in the 

        valleys. The Dead Sea yielded salt, and later other minerals.   The greatest 

        wealth of Judea was the annual half-shekel temple tax upon all male Jews 

        by the Torah.   The wealth and population of Judea was in and around Je-

        rusalem. The rest of Judea was organized into 10 toparchies.

J-98

                   During the Greco-Roman period the Sanhedrin sat in Jerusalem. 

        This governing body ruled over all Judea, while its prestige reached also

        to Jewish towns lying outside. The Jewish population of Judea proper has

        been estimated to be about 200,000, and half of those lived in Jerusalem.

        Roughly 20,000 were priests.   Pilgrims in great numbers converged up-

        on Jerusalem, especially for the great feasts.  Jerusalem, ancient fortress

        tress and holy city, was the setting the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.   

        Revolt arose in Judea in 66 & 135 A.D., which resulted in the downfall of  

        Jerusalem and the Jewish state.

JUDGE (דון (doon), govern, defend; שפט (shaw fat), ruler; krinw (kree no), to 

        separate or make a distinction)

                   An official with authority to administer justice by trying cases in law; 

        also, one who usurps this authority outside court; the war leader in Israel, 

        having temporal authority and the grace of God to deliver his people in the 

        period between Joshua and David.   Men who served as judges or magi-

        strates served God in their judgment.   Moses appointed judges upon the 

        Jethro’s advice.   

                   During the monarchy the king was the supreme judge.  There are a

        few references to royally appointed judges.   Priests also were the judges, 

        and the sanctuary became a place of judgment.   A judge might go from 

        town to town as did Samuel.   In the time of Greek rule; the high priest was

        the supreme judge in place of the king.   In New Testament times the San-

        hedrin was the supreme court for the Jews. Some men judged their neigh-

        bors outside the courts of law. They were condemned for so doing.

                  The shaphatim or judges were military leaders endowed by the 

        grace of God to deliver and govern his people in time of oppression; their 

        authority was most likely limited to the duration of the crisis. Their authority 

        was sometimes limited to one tribe, such as that of Samson.   In a way 

        Moses could be called the first judge and Samuel the last. For a list of the 

        Judges and the chronological problem, see Judges, Book of.

                   God is called a judge because God is supreme arbiter pronouncing 

        sentences on people. The sinner seeks to avoid God’s judgment by loyalty. 

        Jesus is called a judge (James 5; I Peter 4).   Jesus claimed during his life

        to judge for the Father, and judges the whole world. At the end of the world

        he will be assisted by his saints.

JUDGES, BOOK OF. (דון (doon), govern, defend; שפט (shaw fat), ruler)   A 

        history of the period between Joshua and Samuel; now the 7th book in the

        Old Testament (OT) canon, preceded by Joshua, followed by Ruth. In the 

        Hebrew Bible it is the 2nd book in the Former Prophets division, preceded

        by Joshua and followed by Samuel.   As the only biblical narrative of the 

        Israelites’ adventures between their entrance into Canaan and the rise of 

        the monarchy, the book is a valuable historical source for understanding 

        the last stages of the Conquest.   As essentially religious literature rather 

        than a historical document, the book emphasizes the Spirit of Yahweh as  

        moving through the history of the period and especially in the careers of 

        the “judges.”

                      List of Topics—1.  Title, Text and Versions;     2.  Con-           tents;    3.  The Careers of the Judges;    4.  Danites and 

       Benjaminites;    5.  Composition and Literary Structure;

       6.  Historical Value;    7.  Religious Significance

        

                   1.  Title, Text and Versions—The noun “judge” or “judges” designa-

        ting an office is used at only two points in the book.  6 times it is used in an 

        introduction of the deliverers whom Yahweh would raise up to save the 

        people.   While no person in the book is specifically called a judge, 8 are 

        said to have “judged” Israel. In each of these cases, the service rendered is

        not making judicial decisions, but rather “delivering Israel from an enemy,” 

        usually by war. 

                   The judges were champions or heroes vindicating Israel in war and 

        impelled by Yahweh’s Spirit.   However, while the language used emphasi-

        zes the savior character of these judges, they usually are said to have 

        “judged” for so many years, from 6 to 40; only Jephthah is given the title 

        qatsin or ruler. It is implied that each judge had his or her period of virtual 

        dictatorship.   The judges were regarded as a series of successive rulers, 

        not a hereditary succession, but each separately appointed by God.

                   “Judges” Hebrew text has been unusually well preserved.   Except

        for the Song of Deborah, its preservation has been perhaps better than 

        that of any other OT book outside the first 5 books of the OT.   The Greek 

        translation of “Judges” is unique among all OT books. The divergence be- 

        tween the two oldest and best manuscripts of the primary Greek OT is so 

        great that many scholars have regarded them as two distinct, independent 

        translations from the Hebrew.   To date, the Masoretic Text of the book of 

       Judges is considered to be the best evidence for the original text.

J-99

                   2.  Contents—The present book of Judges is composed of 3 parts: 

        a preface summarizing the Conquest and the final settlement in Canaan; 

        the stories of the careers of the judges; and a supplement recounting 2 

        movements, that of the Danites and the Benjaminites. The summary of the 

        Conquest and settlement (chapters 1-2) provides a very fitting introduction 

        to our book of Judges.   The old Canaanite inhabitants were left in posses-

        sion of the chief cities.   Their religion of Baalism and the failure of the inva-

        ders to exterminate both it and the inhabitants was the cause of the evils 

        which came upon Israel in subsequent generations.

                   This section proceeds in orderly fashion, and, as a whole, presents

        a different picture of the Conquest from that in Joshua. Here the separate 

        tribes conquer territory which has been allotted to them, while in Joshua all

        of Israel wages a united campaign under Joshua. The opening words of 

        the book:   “After the death of Joshua,” indicate that the account is to be 

        understood as a sequel to Joshua’s accomplishments.   There are many 

        points in common with small parts of Joshua, which shows that here is a 

        short, parallel account of the invasion.

                  The southern invasion was accomplished by the tribe of Judah, toge-

        ther with its clans Caleb and Othniel, non-Israelites, and the lesser tribe of 

        Simeon.   The first city conquered was Jerusalem, after defeating 10,000 

        Canaanites.   Later in the account it is stated that “the people of Benjamin

        did not drive out the Jebusites” from Jerusalem.    Although there might 

        have been 2 destructions of Jerusalem, the city was not conclusively cap- 

        tured for Israel until the days of David.

                   The two Judean clans of Caleb and Othniel played the chief roles 

        against Hebron and Debir.   Hebron was assaulted by, and given to Ca-

        leb. Nearby Debir was taken by Caleb’s nephew Othniel. The points far-

        thest south in the campaign were settled by Kenites and by the weaker 

        tribe of Simeon. Contradictory statements are made concerning the Phili-

        stine Plain. The first states that Judah took three Philistine cities, Gaza, 

        Ashkelon, and Ekron; but they remained unconquered in Joshua 13. The

        2nd statement points out that the Judeans were confined to the hill country 

        because they couldn’t compete with the Philistine iron chariots.

                   The story of the settlement of the central and northern tribes deals 

        with the conquest of Bethel, the Canaanite strongholds not captured by the

        Israelites, and the struggles on the south border of the central territory. 

        Bethel's conquest by the “house of Joseph,” followed the scouting of spies 

        and the escape of a friendly citizen who helped the invaders. The Joseph

        tribe of Manasseh did not drive out, but eventually made slaves of, the in-

        habitants of the strong Canaanite fortresses in their area. On the southern 

        border of the central tribes’ territory it was especially the Danites who had 

        difficulty with the local inhabitants, here called Amorites.

                   The final portion of the preface is a statement of the religious impli-

        cations drawn from Israel’s conquest and settlement in the form of a decla-

        ration by Yahweh’s angel. In their settlements the Israelites had failed to 

        obey Yahweh’s command to make no covenant with the inhabitants of Ca-

        naan.   Thus, by this preface, with its tragic conclusion, the groundwork is 

        laid for the role to be played by the judges in the body of the book.

                 3. The Careers of the Judges—Their stories are organized into the 

        following sections: 

               Introduction defining the role of the judges (chapters 2-3) 

               Othniel and deliverance from Cushan-rishathaim (3) 

               Ehud and the Moabites (3) 

               Shamgar and the Philistines (3) 

               Deborah and the Canaanites (4-5) 

               Gideon and the Midianites (6-8) 

               Abimilech’s abortive kingship (9) 

               Tola and Jair, two “minor” judges (10) 

               Introduction of the last judges (10) 

               Jephthah and the Ammonites (10-12) 

               Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon, three “minor” judges (12); 

               Samson and the Philistines (13-16). 

                    Below is a list of the “major” and “minor” judges, the length of Isra-

        el’s service to their oppressor when it is given (NG for "not given"), & the 

        amount of years of their judging of Israel when it is given.   The list in-

        cludes three who qualify as judges, but whose story is told in other books

        of the Bible.

                          Major Judges                                  Minor Judges
        Moses                 Gideon (NG/40)        Shamgar                   Ibzan (NG/7)
        Joshua                Jephthah (18/6)         Abimelech (NG/3)     Elon (NG/10)
        Othniel (8/40)      Samson (40/20)        Tola (NG/23)             Abdon (NG/8)

        Ehud (18/80)       Samuel                     Jair (NG/22)            Deborah (20/40)
        The judges of the book number 12, one from each tribe, these heroes were

        understood to be a succession of inspired leaders, all God-appointed, ex-

        cept for self-appointed Abimelech.

                                   J-100

                   The general theme is that Israel’s historical experience was a series

        of cycles: 

                Israel’s faithfulness to Yahweh during the days of the leader 

                Apostasy to the Baals after his death 

                Yahweh’s punishment of permitting oppression by an enemy 

                People’s cry for deliverance 

                Yahweh’s answer of sending a judge 

                Israel alternating between faithfulness and apostasy, etc. 

                   After Joshua’s death, trouble began with the new generation who 

        had not seen Yahweh’s deeds.   The Israelites’ failure to keep their cove-

        nant, caused Yahweh to leave the Canaanite nations in the land. “The peo-

        ple of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, forgetting the Lord 

        God, and serving the Baals and the Asheroth.  Therefore the anger of the 

        Lord was kindled against Israel, and the Lord sold them into the hand of 

        . . . and the people of Israel served . . . years.  But when the people of Isra-

        el cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer.” 

                   The career of each of the major judges except Samson was distin-

        guished by the deliverance of Israel.   Each was a militant leader whose 

        army achieved victory, except for Deborah, whose power was being the 

        inspiration behind the action; Samson only began the deliverance from the 

        Philistines.

                  The first-mentioned judge, Othniel, appears as prime example of the 

        philosophy of history just concluded in the introduction to all the judges. 

        The people suffered under Cushan-rishathaim for their apostasy. Othniel 

        was empowered by Yahweh’s Spirit to liberate the people and the land.   As
        he is the only judge clearly from a southern tribe, some think of him as a 

        fiction in order to place a Judean hero as the first of the judges.

                  The story of the second judge, Ehud, sounds like an old and authen-

        tic tradition.   This left-handed Benjaminite ended 18 years of oppression by

        assassinating the Moabite King Eglon, and cutting off the escape across 

        the Jordan of the Moabite army. Shamgar, one of the 6 so-called minor 

        judges, is unique in that he is mentioned twice, and is the only one who de-

        livers Israel by an exploit.

                   The beginning of the Deborah account implies there was no Sham-

        gar; it appears in 2 forms.   The prose and the poetry both seem to tell the 

        story of two Israelite heroines: Deborah, prophetess, judge, “mother in Is-

        rael,” who spurred the military leader Barak on to victory; and Jael, who as-

        sassinated the fleeing enemy general.   The prose narrative speaks of De-

        borah as a prophetess making judicial decisions under her sacred palm

        tree.   King Jabin is the enemy, and Sisera is his general; Barak’s troops 

        charged down from Mount Tabor. In the poetic Song of Deborah, she is 

        called to sing the Song, while Barak is called to lead away captives.   For 

        the battle, the Song speaks only of Taanach, the waters of Megiddo, and 

        the Kishon.

                  The 2 accounts differ concerning the fate of fleeing Sisera; the prose 

        narrative tells of his treacherous murder at Jael's hands, while the poetry 

        pictures his being struck down while drinking the curds she has brought. 

        The prose account ends with the eventual destruction of King Jabin. The 

        poem ends with the picture of Sisera’s queen mother consoling herself at 

        her son’s delay, and a prayer.  Deborah, then, is the only one of the judges 

        clearly cast in more than one role.   She is judge in the sense of making 

        judicial decisions at a sacred location. And while not a deliverer, she is the 

        constant inspiration of and presence with the military leader Barak.   Toge-

        ther they stop the Canaanite uprising and win the Plain of Esdraelon in the 

        process.

                   The story of Gideon is probably made of two originally separate ac-

        counts.   The call of Gideon is related, first, in the appearance to him of an 

        angel of Yahweh, and second, in Gideon’s breaking down his father’s Baal 

        altar. His pursuit of the Midianites resulted, first, in the capture and behea-

        ding of Midianite princes by Ephraimites, and second, in Gideon’s blood-

        revenge slaughter of two Midianite kings. Gideon modestly refused the of-

        fer to begin a hereditary monarchy, for Yahweh alone should be ruler.   Gi-

        deon was the true charismatic leader, peculiarly favored with special reve-

        lations and unusual power.

                   The story of Abimelech is a supplement to the narratives of Gideon. 

        Abimelech persuaded fellow Shechemites to pay for the murder of his 70 

        half brothers from the Baal-berith temple; only one half-brother survived. 

        “God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem,” so

        that the latter deprived their would-be king of his revenue.  Abimelech de-

        stroyed Shechem and burned its tower, but later, in a campaign against 

        Thebaz, Abimelech’s three-year reign ended with his ignominious death.

        It is historically probable that this turbulent period in Israel’s life contained

        such an abortive attempt at local kingship.

                   Of the five minor judges, Tola and Jair are mentioned as having 

        “judged Israel” for 23 and 22 years respectively between Abimelech and 

        Jephthah.  Only their names, genealogy or location, lengths of service, 

        and burial place are mentioned.   Before the Jephthah story the usual for-

        mula of introducing each major judge is enlarged to a review of the prece-

        ding history and an introduction to the last 5 judges.  It lists 7 foreign gods 

        whom the Israelites had worshiped and 7 foreign nations whom Yahweh 

        had Israel serve.

  

J-101

  

                   Unlike the other judges, Jephthah, a man exiled because of illegiti-  

        mate birth and for years leader of an outlaw band, was called in crisis by 

        popular demand.   When his work was crowned with success, he, in faith-

        ful fulfillment of a vow to Yahweh, sacrificed his virgin daughter.  Jephthah

        had jealous Ephraimites massacred, when at the Jordan River fords their 

        dialect mispronunciation of the password Shibboleth betrayed them.

                   The brief accounts of the last 3 minor judges, Ibzan, Elon, and Ab-

        don, like those of Tola and Jair, are given with the simple formula: “After 

        him [so and so] . . . judged Israel; and he judged Israel [so many] years. 

        Then he died, and was buried . . .” There is disagreement as to whether 

        these judges are inventions in order to fill a gap in time, or are based on

        official records about the early years of the office of judge.

                   The account of Samson, the last major judge, is a cycle of folk tales

        about a superhumanly strong hero who persistently pestered the nearby 

        Philistines.   According to the stories, Samson was born as the child pro-

        mised to a long-time barren woman who kept Nazarite vows. In illicit love 

        with Delilah he toyed with his sacred vow and lost his hair, his power, his 

        eyes, and his freedom.   In a final act of heroism he pulled the temple Da-

        gon down on his own head and killed more Philistines in his death than in 

        his whole life.

                   Unlike the stories of the other judges, the Samson cycle includes 

        riddles, poetic fragments, and folk tales.   The cycle of adventure stories of

        this folklore hero, whose exploits merely began Israel’s deliverance from 

        the Philistines, closes the stories of the judges and opens the way for the 

        careers of Samuel, Saul, and David.

                   4.  Danites and Benjaminites—The concluding section of the book

        of Judges is the account of 2 tribal movements, that of the Danites and the

        Benjaminites.    It is notable that this section contains no introductory state-

        ments to tie it in with the rest of the book.   The one expression commonly 

        used in this section is:   “In those days there was no king in Israel; every 

        man did what was right in his own eyes.”   Apparently this concluding sec-

        tion of the book is a supplement to illustrate the tragic results of the rela-

        tive anarchy which existed when there was only tribal authority and custom.

        A secondary motif is having a Levite play a chief role in each of these tri-

        bal affairs.

                    The story of the Danites’ move to the north and their sanctuary’s 

        founding begins with the account of Micah’s household shrine with its cultic 

        objects and his replacing his son as priest with a Levite. 5 Danite spies led 

        600 warriors to Micah’s home; they stole his cult objects and his Levite and 

        took them to their new sanctuary.  The priest’s pleasure at being promoted 

        provides insight into the priesthood.   Thus the Dan tribe, by thievery, esta-

        blished in its new location a sanctuary whose cult equipment had proven 

        effectiveness.

                   The story of the bitter war against the Benjaminites begins with a 

        Levite traveler.   He passes up Jerusalem, a city of foreigners, to stay in 

        Ephraimite territory; but the Benjaminites, like the Sodomites, abused his 

        concubine until she was dead.   Aroused to revenge by the Levite’s appeal

        and the Benjaminites’ refusal to turn over Gibeah’s culprits, the Israelites 

        burned Gibeah and ravaged much of Benjaminite territory. 

                   When it was understood that the slaughter might cause the tribe’s 

        extinction, the Israelites sought to repopulate Benjamin by seizing virgins 

        from Jabesh-gilead, and by permitting Benjaminites to capture other mai-

        dens at the annual festival. With the rugged and primitive nature of these 

        tribal stories, it is small wonder that “Judges” ends with:   “In those days 

        there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.”

                   5.  Composition and Literary Structure—The present book of 

        Judges comes mainly from the exile period's Deuteronomic historians. 

        However, the preface, the careers of the judges, and the tribal movement 

        stories form no clear unity.   One possibility is that behind the present nar-

        ratives in the book lie various oral hero stories which originated at local 

        centers.   The tribes of Benjamin, Manasseh, and Dan added their hero 

        stories to the Bible.   The Danite migration story probably came from tra-

        ditions at their northern sanctuary.

                   The Song of Deborah was probably first sung soon after the 

        events it memorializes.  The recognized antiquity of this masterpiece sug-

        gests that others may have received their written form after being taken 

        from an oral poem, perhaps written down by the 900s B.C.  Besides writ-

        ten poetic traditions there may have been such prose compositions as

        the earliest form of the summary of Canaan's conquest (Judges 1-2).

                   It seems likely that at least some of the above-named sources 

        were combined into a single book having some of the same content as 

        the present book of Judges. This book must have contained some form of

        the Ehud, Deborah, Gideon, Abimelech, Jephthah, and Samson stories, 

        as well as brief references to Shamgar, Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon.

        A summary of the Conquest and settlement and narratives of the migration

        of the Danites and the war against the Benjaminites must also have been

        in this earlier book.

                  It is generally agreed that central core of our present book of Judges 

        was given its form by the Deuteronomic editors of the 600s and 500s B.C.

        The binding framework upon which the respective stories were hung de-

        tailed the usual cycle of apostasy, oppression, prayer, and deliverance. 

        This second edition of Judges deliberately left out the summary of the Con-

        quest. This is apparent because the Deuteronomists’ introduction connects 

        directly with the end of the book of Joshua. It may also be that the Song of 

        Deborah, the minor judges, and the Samson cycle were omitted for there is

        no mark of the Deuteronomist in these sections.

 

J-102

 

                   Our present book of Judges may be the product of possibly late- 

        500s B.C. restoration of sections of the earliest edition.   According to 

        most scholars, the introductory summary of the Conquest providing the 

        book's preface bears no marks of the restoring priestly editors’ redaction.

        Possibly Deuteronomic loyalty had forbidden even the mention of the 

        northern sanctuary of Dan.   Perhaps to the latest editors the whole final 

        section was important as demonstrating what had happened when “there

        was no king in Israel.”

                   6.  Historical Value—The historical value of the book of Judges lies

        in its material of the historical events of the period it describes, its preserva-

        tion of fragments of ancient literature, and its insight into social and cultural 

        conditions.  At least 2 aspects of the judges' stories raise questions concer-

        ning the historical accuracy of them.  The first aspect is the artificial nature

        of the book's chronology; frequent use is made of 20, 40, and 80 years.   

        The sum of these figures, from the second generation after Joshua through

        the career of Samson is 410 years.   This figure is too large to square with 

        the statement that Solomon began the temple 480 years after the Exodus.

        It seems obvious that the careers of the judges overlapped one another.

                   The second problem of historical accuracy is the apparent schema-

        tization of the tribal origin of the various judges. Othniel was from Judah, 

        Ehud from Benjamin, Deborah’s general Barak from Naphtali, Gideon from 

        Manasseh, Tola from Issachar, and Elon from Zebulun. Abdon represented 

        Ephraim, Samson was from Dan, Ibzan probably from Asher, Jair from Gile-

        ad or Manasseh, Jephthah from southern Gilead or Gad, and Shamgar 

        from Reuben or Simeon. The existence of one hero from each of the tribes 

        seems artificial.

                   Nonetheless the essential reliability of the Judges summary of the 

        original conquest by the Israelites has long been maintained.   Judges pic-

        tures the Conquest as being done by separate tribes rather than by a uni-

        ted Israel.   Some judges may be legendary figures, but the accomplish-

        ments of such heroic persons as Deborah, Othniel, Ehud, Jephthah, and 

        Gideon may be historical. 

                   Biblical and archaeological evidence suggests that early in the 

        1100s B.C., the pressure of invading Philistines upon local Canaanites 

        caused the Danites to migrate to an inland northern home.  Philistine occu-

        pation of the coastal plain seems at first to have resulted in free communi-

        cation, trade, and even intermarriage with them.   Samson was only to be-

        gin to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines.   It was Samuel and 

        Saul who later attempted to confine these foreigners.

                   An invasion of southern Judah by a ruler from the Upper Euphrates 

        may have happened early in the 1100s; it was repelled by Othniel.   At the 

        same time, Ehud was assassinating the Moabite king Eglon. Perhaps after 

        1125 the crucial battle celebrated in the Song of Deborah won the Plain of 

        Esdraelon for the Israelites.   Early in the 1000s B.C. the first real defense

        of Transjordan territory was achieved by Jephthah, and the annual Midian 

        raids by camel riders in the middle of the 1000s B.C. were stopped by 

        Gideon.

                   One of the greatest historical values of Judges are the fragments of 

        ancient literature, such as the Song of Deborah, Jotham’s fable, and Sam-

        son’s riddles, to name the prominent ones.   Israel’s life in the 1100s and 

        1000s, when the Israelites were in transition from a nomadic to an agricul-

        tural economy appears in Judges.   Samson stories provide instructive ma-

        terial on the period’s culture, presenting us with the ideal rugged folk hero: 

        trickster, conqueror of women, wild beasts, and warriors; possessor of     

        enormous strength, but given to selfish passion and vengeance based on 

        injured honor.

                   The essential dangers of the era of life under a loose tribal confede-

        racy are obvious.   Caravans ceased and travelers kept to the byways; ha-

        rassed Israelite farmers hid from Midianite camel raiders in caves and  

        mountain hideouts.   Also, devastating tribal feuds took place, such as the 

        bitter war against the Benjaminites.   At no time was there complete tribal 

        unity, not even in Deborah’s victory over the Canaanites.   Neither Jeph-

        thah’s nor Gideon’s popularity led to any permanent common rule. 

                   Such events illustrate the Hebrew tradition of primitive popular 

        democracy. The low level of morals of the period is illustrated by the cruel 

        atrocities of war, the stealing of household gods, and the treatment of the 

        Levite’s concubine.   Even the violation of hospitality in Sisera's death, 

        while done for patriotic reasons, was nevertheless a serious offense.

                   7.  Religious Significance—This OT book provides valuable infor-

        mation for a stage in the history of the religion of Israel.   By its underlying 

        presuppositions, selection of facts, and editorial comments, it reveals 

        something of the state of religious life in Israel.   The cultic center of the 

        tribal federation probably moved from Gilgal to Shiloh, but an individual 

        tribe such as the Danites could found their own sanctuary.

 

J-103

  

                   The simplicity of this period’s cult seems evident in how easily Gide-

        on established Yahweh’s altar.  The elevation of Levites from family to clan 

        priesthood is an instructive chapter in the history of the emerging  priest-

        hood before the monarchy. At the family or local level, the Yahwism of the 

        fathers was Baalized by indigenous customs.   Jephthah’s deliberate sacri-

        fice of his only child was related to Canaanite fertility cults.

                    Occasionally a zealous champion of Yahweh would arise to strike 

        out against Baalism.  It was at the semi-national level that the zeal for Yah-

        weh really counted.   The tribal coalition joined in Yahweh’ holy war against 

        paganism.   The intervention in Israel’s life by Yahweh was most clearly 

        seen in the charismatic nature of judgeship, as in Othniel and Gideon.   

        Samson, a onetime folk hero raised to religious savior, proved what God’s 

        charismatic individual shouldn't do.   The Lord’s Spirit showed itself in 

        mighty feats of strength, but when he was forgetful of sacred vows, Sam-

        son’s life story ended in grim, albeit heroic, tragedy.

                  Our book of Judges was a document of prophetic protest and pride—

        protest against the repeated disloyalty of God’s people, and pride in their 

        God’s power over their enemies. This book’s basic religious concern is the 

        activity of Yahweh and his people in the struggle with Baalism.   The inco-

        ming Israelites failed to obey Yahweh and make no covenants with local in-

        habitants or their gods. Yet in crises her God heeded her prayers. 

                   Despite continued divine patience and providence, popular degene-

        ration sank to the depths of Benjaminite civil war when “every man did 

        what was right in his own eyes.”   Israel could be saved from the Canaa-

        nite’s corrosive culture only by God’s anointed kings and the prophets. The

        great judges were heroes of faith, but their role in the life of God’s people 

        was temporary.   The period between Joshua and Samuel was seen as ta-

        king its proper place in the continuing drama of God’s revelation and his 

        people’s history.

JUDGMENT DAYS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT (OT) (Escaton (es ka ton), the 

        last things)  The technical word is "eschatology," and has to do with the 

        days leading up to and sometimes immediately after the actual day of

        Judgment.      (See also Day of Judgment).

                   The term has been in use only since the 1800s; it signifies the doc-

        trine of the last things.  One can distinguish an individual and a general es-

        chatology.   The general eschatology is concerned with the chosen peo-

        ple's future of the  (national eschatology) or of the whole world (universal 

        eschatology). Individual eschatology does not come into view very much in

        the OT.   Much more significant in the OT are the national and universal es-

        chatological expectations.

                  "Eschatology" in the narrower sense means the doctrine of the end

        of history and of the course of the universe and the beginning of eternal 

        salvation. For this to happen there must be an abrupt cleavage between 

        this world and the transcendental world of God.   "Eschatology" in the broa-

        der sense refers to a future in which the circumstances of history becomes

        a new, entirely different, state of things without leaving the framework of 

        history.   The OT contains eschatological concepts in the narrower sense 

        only at the very fringes.   In the broader sense, eschatology is a significant

        component of the OT faith.

                   OT Eschatology Sources —Expectations of history’s end are found

        in many religions.   The common factor in all of them is the association of 

        the ideas with occurrences in nature.   They infer a future destruction of the

        world through fire or flood. The natural-cyclical thinking compares the eter-

        nal rhythm of the ages of the world with the natural year. In contrast to this,

        OT eschatology and the belief in Yahweh is primarily oriented to God’s his-

        tory in dealing with God's people. This view finds no real parallel in non-bib-

        lical religions.

                   In the OT God is manifest in the entire history of Israel as Lord and 

        Director of history and the world.   Based on this they concluded that Yah-

        weh created the world, and that Yahweh keeps on influencing history.  The

        end of history is something toward which the events of history are moving 

        towards.   It is not something with which humans can assist or even calcu-

        late.   Yahweh's dominion prevails victoriously and miraculously against op-

        position; the catastrophes are not the primary and essential matter. It is not

        that God is coming and recreating because the world is perishing, but that 

        the world perishes because God is coming.

                   It is not possible to completely separate history and eschatology. 

        Only when salvation history becomes something separate from secular 

        history does eschatology become separate from history.   Eschatology is 

        from the start an integrating constituent of the OT faith in God, which varies

        in importance throughout the OT.   In the historical writings, hopes for the 

        end of history can only be indirectly inferred. In peaceful years the expecta-

        tion is less important than in times of crisis.  Priests are much less prone to 

        such concerns than prophets, who see themselves as advance messen-

        gers of the Lord.

 

J-104

                   Yahweh is the merciful Lord who saves, and the holy Lord who will 

        punish sin.   Yahweh's acts contain both judgment and salvation. "Judg-

        ment"  here is used in the general sense as the punishing and destroying 

        intervention of God. Getting to the dominion of God demands victory over 

        Yahweh’s enemies by those faithful to him, not only in the cosmic, but also

        in the historical realms.   Judgment is carried out based on past deeds. 

        Many threats of judgment are made without giving a reason in words of re-

        primand.   In Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah, the connection of judg-

        ment with the actual political situation is not at all prominent.

                   The proclamation of judgment and of salvation belong together, as

        the Day of the Lord means both the destruction of all ungodly powers and

        the deliverance of those loyal to Yahweh, or the remnant, entirely at the 

        Lord's discretion.   Survival is assured for the prophet and his followers. 

        The paradoxical union of love and judgment of God is reflected in the pro-

        clamation of doom and proclamation of salvation in most biblical prophets. 

        Before the judgment of exile the proclamation of doom predominates; 

        there is only slight mention of salvation.   But as soon as judgment has ta-

        ken place, there is the change back to the prophecy of salvation.

                  The salvation to which Yahweh raised his people, from death in exile

        to new life is a voluntary sovereign act and not reward for better behavior. 

        Salvation is expressed in very diverse ways and with varied concepts and 

        traditions.   The expectation of a return to the conditions in paradise proba-

        bly had its origin in myths of nature. More often, salvation is depicted as an 

        even more glorious return of the good old days of the people of God under 

        Moses or David, with the city of Jerusalem playing a prominent role in that

        act.

                   Pre-exilic Eschatology—As soon as faith observes God's activity 

        in history, there arises a sort of simple eschatology.   The expectations are 

        obvious only beginning with the prophets; however, they are already pre-

        sent in the earlier period too and traces of them can be seen.   Among the 

        patriarchs the promise of a land of plenty plays an important role, and in 

        the days of the early kings hopes for national salvation are found in the pro-

        phecies of Balaam, in the Blessings of Jacob and of Moses.   In the story 

        of salvation which the author of the Yahweh document has sketched, the 

        world is under God's curse after the Fall. Yahweh, by the choosing of Abra-

        ham, now begins God's story of salvation, which has as its ultimate goal 

        the salvation of humankind.

                  In Amos' eschatology, the first literary prophet, the prophecy of doom

        is preponderant. To be sure, he proclaims judgment upon the hostile neigh-

        bor nations, but the words of judgment strike the Israelites all the more se-

        verely. The proclamation of doom is summed up in the threat of the "Day of

        the Lord," which is "darkness and not light."   Amos proclaims that war, de-

        portation, earthquakes, and mass death will come upon the people.   How-

        ever, deliverance isn't impossible for those who seek Yahweh and his will. 

        The expectations of this message have not yet come to include the end of

        the world, or a renewal of the world.

                  Hosea, too has the obligation of proclaiming calamity over Israel. For

        its defection to Baal of Canaan, the enemies will come upon Israel.   The 

        prophet isn't concerned with a political forecast; the relation between Yah-

        weh and Israel is the central point. Yahweh, in spite of everything, remains

        true to Yahweh's love for Israel.   The goal is the restoration of their first 

        love. The glance at the nation of the world is missing in Hosea, as is the 

        expectation of a Messiah.
                   In Isaiah we find for the first time an expectation with universal fea-

        tures.   The prophecy against the world power Assyria closes with the an-

        nouncement that Yahweh will lay Yahweh's hand upon the whole earth and

        all the nations. Furthermore, Isaiah is the first prophet with whom there ap-

        pears a well-developed conception of a plan of God.   The realization of 

        Yahweh's claim to sovereign authority means, first of all, judgment upon 

        his people and their leaders.   But there is a further judgment which per-

        mits a restoration of the former righteous state of affairs.   Yahweh's plan

        of judgment is strange and wonderful to the prophet.

                   As in Amos, the idea of a remnant also appears in Isaiah. The pro-

        phet himself constitutes for the coming community the pledge of salvation. 

        From Psalms 46, 48, and 76 are drawn the promises in which Mount Zion 

        occupies the central position.   On Mount Zion, Yahweh will lay a precious 

        cornerstone.   Mount Zion also acquires significance to all nations.   There

        is Isaiah's hope in a messiah as well.   The faithless dynasty in Jerusalem

        will be redeemed by the Messiah, who will establish a kingdom of peace

        and justice.

                   Isaiah probably always expects the arrival of history's end in the 

        near future, without, however, assigning definite dates. Several times in 

        pursuit of his commission, he dared to express specific prophecies, which 

        were political and limited as to time.   These political prophecies, of which 

        Chapter 20 was not literally fulfilled, must not be mistaken for the real pro-

        phecy of the judgment and deliverance by Yahweh.   Micah's prophecy of 

        judgment and deliverance reminds us of his predecessor and contempo-

        rary Isaiah.   Zion and Jerusalem aren't exempt from the expected judg-

        ment.   God will deliver Israel from Assyria and establish a kingdom of 

        peace to the ends of the earth.

                   For Zephaniah there is a close association of national judgment and

        the survival of a remnant alongside a universal expectation.   The main 

        theme of the prophecy of judgment in Zephaniah is the proclamation of the

        great and terrible Day of the Lord, in which destruction is coming upon the

        whole world and all its inhabitants.   But the announcement of judgment is

        not the final word.   There exists the possibility that the remnant which 

        seeks the right, justice, and humility will be spared on the Day of Judgment.

        A purified humble and lowly people will seek refuge in the Lord's name.

J-105

                   The expectations of Jeremiah's prophecy shows a few new features.

        In his case, too, the preaching of judgment does not stem from his know-

        ledge of the threatening political situation, but from the chosen people's dis-

        loyalty.  The execution of the judgment is pictured throughout in pictures of 

        desolation and distress caused by enemies.   What is different from other 

        prophets is that the calamity is not just viewed as visionary but is actually 

        experienced by Jeremiah in the catastrophe of Jerusalem.

                   On the other hand, the change to salvation in Jeremiah is still in the 

        future.   Salvation is first granted to exiles from the kingdom of the North 

        (Israel). It is almost without marvelous features; it brings new permanent 

        conditions unknown until then.  Exiles return and live happily under good 

        government.   The messianic hope doesn’t play an important role, and ex-

        pectations of universal judgment and salvation is scarcely present.   Fo-

        reign nations are mentioned, but we hear neither of their destruction nor of 

        any salvation intended for them.

                   Exilic and postexilic eschatology—The prophet Ezekiel belongs

        in the period of transition.  Like Jeremiah and others, Ezekiel turns against 

        nearby nations, but he has no knowledge of universal expectation of judg-

        ment and salvation.   Ezekiel is concerned with outward and inner rebirth. 

        In his writing, emphasis falls upon individual retribution.  Between the ca-

        tastrophe of 587 and deliverance is inserted a judgment of purification.

                   While Ezekiel proclaims unavoidable, absolute judgment, he also 

        has hope. For the sake of the honor of the Lord's name, Yahweh will per-

        mit the people to rise from the death of exile and lead them back to their 

        own country, which will be like a Garden of Eden.   A new temple, from 

        which flows a life-giving stream, rounds out the salvation picture, which is 

        distinguished from Jeremiah’s by its marvelous heavenly colors.

                  The anonymous prophet in Isaiah 40-55 represents an expectation 

        of pure salvation.   The judgment has already taken place; the time of sal-

        vation is immediately ahead, based solely on God's will to choose them. 

         Alongside this expectation of national salvation we also find a universal 

        hope of salvation. The prophet expects the turn of the heathen to the God 

        of Israel.   He differs from other prophets in that the coming of the Lord 

        and the exaltation of Israel are not merely foretold, but are described as al-

        ready in the process of accomplishment.   It fits the historic person of Cy-

        rus, king of the Persians, into the events bringing judgment and salvation 

        as the instrument of God. It also shows a preference for the concept of sal-

        vation as a new creation.

                   In Haggai and Zechariah we encounter once more a salvation ex-

        pectation that has already begun with the temple’s reconstruction. The Per-

        sian governor Zerubbabel emerges as the messianic ruler. The expectation

        of a messiah was later severed from its contemporary historical connection 

        and put off into the future.   Out of all the numerous authors of the minor 

        prophetic writings, or those who added to older prophetic writings, we 

        know for certain only Joel by name.   Accurately dating individual passages

        is, in most cases, no longer possible.   The influence of the author who ad-

        ded salvation prophecy to Isaiah appears in many other passages.

                  Naturally, the descriptions of a universal judgment are more frequent 

        than the prophecies of a universal salvation.   Isaiah 34-35 refers to an ol-

        der document of revelation. Obadiah, Malachi, and Joel likewise expect a

        universal judgment. Malachi in particular uses the image of a messenger

        preparing the way before the Lord.   Originally the prophet of Malachi 

        meant himself; a later explanation points to the returning prophet Elijah as

        this messenger.   Joel begins to show an interest in events heralding the 

        end of history at some time in the distant future.  He sees an outpouring of 

        the Spirit, portents of the Day of Lord in the heavens and on the earth, an-

        nouncement, preparation, and execution of the judgment against the na-

        tions in the Valley of Jehoshaphat. 

                   Signs of the later expectations of judgment, based on the older pro-

        phetic literature, show also in Zechariah 12-14.  It contains not only the an-

        nihilation of the nations, the purification and exaltation of Israel, etc., but al-

        so with the splitting of the Mount of Olives, or with physical changes of the 

        landscape of Judah. The so-called Isaiah apocalypse is actually more of a 

        late collection of prophecies and songs with grandiose imagery of the     

        events leading to judgment and salvation.

J-106

                   Apocalyptic eschatology—There are individual ideas and signs of 

        literature depicting a series of catastrophes and other events right before 

        history’s end.   But a fully developed concept of these events gathered in 

        one book is present in the OT only in the book of Daniel.   Here we must 

        note similarities, and more importantly, differences between early prophetic 

        expectations and more catastrophic expectations of later writers.

                   For both it is a matter of the coming of God’s reign, in which Israel’s 

        salvation is completely established.  However, there is a marked tendency

        to move God further away from direct contact with this world.   The gulf be-

        tween the earthly & the heavenly world draws in its wake the development

        of a doctrine of angels.   Instead of God’s direct intervention in this world’s 

        history, one now expects the destruction of this physical world and the co-

        ming of the new age.   Old prophecies are reinterpreted and fitted into a 

        system of period theories & number symbolism.   In this strange form, faith

        in the Lord of history & the world, who will soon establish his kingdom for 

        the salvation of those who acknowledge him, is still vigorously expressed.

JUDGMENT DAYS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT (NT).   The spiritual climate in 

        which the expectations of judgment and salvation of the NT arose was tho-

        roughly Hebraic-Jewish. The Greek culture made no direct contribution in

        this area save for a few substitutions for Semitic equivalents (e.g. "Hades"

        for Sheol, "Christ," for Messiah, "devil" for Satanas).   Contributions that 

        other pagan cultures, such as Egyptian and Iranian, had to make had al-

        ready become part of Jewish expectations for history’s end before the 

        Christian era.

                   Jewish Culture—The pattern of thought that Jewish culture deve-

        loped out of was the teaching of the Hebrew prophets.   The expectations 

        they taught were distinguished by a wholesome sanity coupled with the 

        courageous faith that God would eventually vindicate his righteous rule 

        within history.   These prophets foresaw the coming of the "day of the 

        Lord."   Parts of the Jewish community that existed both centuries before

        and at the time of the Christian movement drew upon this common pro-

        phetic witness.

                   The scribal movement compressed the prophetic teachings they 

        took over into a very nationalistic mold such as has characterized Judaism 

        ever since.   From its contacts with Iranian thought during the Exile, Juda-

        ism also developed its peculiar brand of expectations regarding the end of

        this world and time. They developed the doctrine of two kingdoms (of God

        and Satan) in which lived good and bad people respectively, along with 

        God's angels and Satan's demons. The ages were divided into Time (now) 

        and Eternity (after the end), and the teachings regarding the Son of Man—

        a heavenly figure coming "on the clouds of heaven" to judge the world—

        were also developed.

                   The nationalistic party within the Judaism of the first Christian cen-

        tury was the Zealots.   For them the Messiah who was to come would be a 

        "Son of David" who would lead his forces into victorious battle against the 

        enemies of Jewry and set up a new kingdom of David. It was their self-ap-

        pointed task to discover this "Messiah" through signs and to aid him by 

        armed force.

                  Jesus’ Eschatological Teaching—Jesus’ teachings on the expecta-

        tion of judgment and salvation was given largely in Galilee and so usually 

        in the context of Jewish thought described above. His teachings were pre-

        served by evangelists who had been subjected to the same influences. We 

        can't always be certain that it is the voice of Jesus to which we are listening

        and not that of his early interpreters.

                   Very diverse points of view exist among NT scholars as to what 

        Jesus actually taught on the subject of judgment and salvation. Four views

        will be offered here before the view of the [article's] author is expressed. 

        The "old liberal" school held that the Jesus’ teaching was in its entirety that

        of the Jewish belief described earlier.   

                    The school of "consistent eschatology" represented by Albert 

        Schweitzer saw in Jesus someone who believed fully in the coming of a 

        new age, and who conceived himself to be the "Son of man." "Form criti-

        cism" & Rudolf Bultmann saw Jesus as only the "herald" of the kingdom's 

        coming, brought about by the hand of God to each individual.   The "rea-

        lized eschatology" of C. H. Dodd believed that Jesus’ prophetic teachings

        on judgment and salvation received fulfillment in his own incarnate life and 

        ministry.

                   The Synoptic or first 3 gospels appear to agree that Jesus began 

        his ministry in the spirit of the "herald" announcing the nearness of God's 

        kingdom or reign.   This could only mean that the "last things" of the He-

        brew prophets was near at hand and that its coming was associated with 

        the person and work of Jesus himself.   Jesus went beyond the indefinite 

        proclamation of a mere herald:   he announced that the kingdom had actu-

        ally arrived and that its power was at work among his hearers. Jesus distin-

        guished between the prophetic era ending with John the Baptist and that 

        which opened with his own activity. 

J-107

                  One scholar may be right in suggesting that Jesus' teaching occurred

        as a result of Peter's confession that Jesus was the Christ, which Jesus 

        may have seen as evidence that God had lordship in that disciple's life.   At 

        any rate, for Jesus there remained a phase of kingdom experience not yet 

        realized.   For Jesus, therefore, the kingdom of God was at once a present 

        reality and a future expectation; God's power was already at work among

        humankind; his judgment of their lives and persons was still to come.

                   It appears reasonably certain that Jesus considered himself as ha-

        ving a leading role in bringing into being both the present and the future 

        aspects of God's kingdom.   The idea some have that the kingdom of God 

        is to be a direct relationship between God and the individual are countered 

        by many prophetic passages where the kingdom of God is a corporate ex-

        perience mediated to God's people through his anointed representative.

                   If the "voice" which spoke to Jesus at his baptism is thought of as 

        reflecting the awareness of mission on Jesus' part, then it will appear that 

        from the beginning of his ministry, Jesus conceived of himself as the (suf- 

        fering) Servant-messiah called upon to begin God's kingdom in the world. 

        Jesus' actions confirm the impression gained from his words that he con-

        sidered himself the mediator of the kingdom to God's people.

                   Jesus chose his disciples, an exceptional act in the Hebrew-Jewish 

        religious system. Neither prophet nor rabbi chose his own followers-Moses 

        and Elijah by Yahweh’s command were the only exceptions. The 12 were 

        to judge the 12 tribes of Israel.  The band of the 12 was to form the nucle-

        us of the prophetic "remnant," a sort of parable acted out, which represen-

        ted the new people of God. The events of passion week are also series of 

        parables acted out in which Jesus seeks to teach his generation that there

        is in their midst one who is Lord of city and temple, and host at the ban-

        quet table of God's kingdom.

                   The term employed by Jesus to designate his function as mediator

        of the kingdom was "Son of Man" (See biblical entry for Son of Man). The 

        originality of our Lord's usage of the term lies, not in his attaching the idea

        of this figure being exalted and brought to heaven (Daniel 7), but rather in

        the idea of humiliation or suffering which he associated with it & which he 

        probably took over from the figure of the Suffering Servant of Yahweh.  If

        the preceding interpretation is correct, then Jesus may have seen the king-

        dom of God as having arrived in and through himself, and may have be-

        lieved that he and his followers will share in the final consummation of the 

        kingdom of God and God's judgment as a sort of corporate "Son of man."

                   Jews who believe the end of this age was close were looking for 

        events such as earthquakes, wars, cosmic catastrophes, etc. to indicate 

        the end of the age. There is good evidence to the effect that Jesus neither 

        concerned himself with times or seasons, nor taught that there would be 

        "signs" of the consummation of the kingdom at the end of history, saying 

        repeatedly that his disciples aren't to account this or that a "sign." 

                   On the other hand, some believe and interpret passages to indicate

        that at some time in his ministry Jesus specified that the consummation 

        would occur during the lifetime of some of his contemporaries.  It seems to 

        make nonsense of Jesus' strenuous efforts to form the nucleus of a new 

        people of God pledged to an expanding program that would eventually em-

        brace the whole of humankind.

                   Popular Jewish Christian Beliefs—Jesus’ disciples had been Ga-

        lileans for the most part and it was in Galilee that Zealot movement found 

        its strongest support.   The Qumran sect considered itself a community 

        that was living in the "last times," near this age’s end.  That the early Chris-

        tian church’s Jewish branch saw in itself a similar kind of community is 

        clear from a comparison of Acts with the Dead Sea Scrolls.   The Jewish 

        church’s poverty may have been because of communal practices and the 

        giving up of worldly occupations.  After Jerusalem’s destruction this Jewish 

        branch of the church became known as "Ebionites."   Their expectation of 

        a literal fulfillment of the promise of the age’s end most likely led to despair

        as it was not realized.

                  The Teaching of the Church’s Scripture—By and large, the scrip-

        tures of the church were written outside the context of popular Jewish 

        Christian beliefs. On the whole, the church's scriptures were written for a 

        community which had become conscious of itself as a people of God trans-

        cending racial or cultural boundaries.   It will be convenient to treat the ex-

        pectations of judgment and salvation in 4 groups.

                  1st, it was the joint witness of the prophetic spirits who wrote in the 

        Christian scriptures that the hopes of the Hebrew prophets had been ful-

        filled in the incarnate life and work of Jesus.   This factor of fulfillment im-

        parts to the church's scriptures an atmosphere that is unmistakable. They

        are scriptures concerned with expectations of judgment and salvation in 

        the sense that their authors are convinced that the new day has dawned.

        The Gospels' teachings meant that the church conceived of the prophetic 

        "last things" in two halves, the first half beginning with the Incarnation; the 

        second half would await the Second Coming, or Parousia.

J-108

                 The first half of the prophetic "last things" already in process of reali-

        zation is the period of the church's life on earth. Beginning with Pentecost, 

        church and Spirit go together in a union that cannot be dissolved. The gift

        of the Spirit to the church means that Christ has assumed authority and 

        begun his reign. The church's ethical teaching finds its source at this point.

        Its ethic is based on the "last things" in that it is one whose requirements

        are capable of fulfillment only in the power of the Spirit given to the church 

        in these "last times."

                  If the beginning of the argument for the kingdom's presence is the 

        Incarnation, the final argument is the Second Coming of the church's Lord 

        at the end of history.   The hope that the church's lord would come again 

        and come soon never seemed to fade. Clearly, in the church's teaching the 

        Lord is present by his Spirit in his church at all times; equally at all times 

        his parousia is "drawing nigh."  The Johannine Jesus remarks: "He who re-

        jects me . . . has a judge.   This is a poetic way of saying that men judge 

        themselves by their attitude toward Jesus. In any case the church believed

        in God's final judgment of all men, living and dead.

                   There is good reason to believe that Jesus thought of eternal life as

        an experience of fellowship with God. He employed the term "kingdom of 

        God" to denote the temporal aspect of such fellowship. There is good rea-

        son to believe that Jesus believed in the resurrection. The church's scrip-

        tures agreed in all essential respects with Jesus' recorded teaching at 

        these points, in only 2 particulars going beyond them. The 1st concern is

        with eternal life; it was said to be God's gift through Jesus Christ, and the 

        believer's resurrection is a gift of God in Christ.   The 2nd concerns the na-

        ture of the resurrection "body," in which Paul showed that there's both con-

        tinuity and discontinuity with the temporal body.

JUDGMENT, HALL OF. One of Solomon’s buildings. See Hall. For King James 

        Version “judgment hall” of John 18, see Praetorium.

JUDGMENT SEAT (bhma (beh ma), steps, tribunal) In Corinth excavation has 

        identified the bema where Paul confronted Gallio as a large, richly decora-

        ted rostrum centrally located in the market place.

JUDITH (יהודית, Jewish) A foreign wife of Esau (Genesis 26)

JULIA (‘Ioulia) A Christian woman, recipient of a greeting (Romans 16).

JULIUS (‘IoulioV)   A Roman centurion, assigned the task of escorting Paul

        from Palestine to Rome. Julius is a common Roman name. Roman Centu-

        rions were advanced by being transferred from cohort to cohort and legion

        to legion, in order to allow a centurion to move from commanding troops at

        the rear of a legion to the officer of the first centuria in the first cohort. We 

        are unable to determine this Julius’ land of origin.   

                   The governor, Festus, and the puppet king Agrippa, agreed that 

        Paul should be sent to Rome for a hearing before Nero.   It was in Julius’ 

        custody that Paul was placed for the trip to Rome. Julius allowed Paul to

        go ashore at Sidon, where he visited friends and received certain kindnes-

        ses.   Bad weather delayed the travelers beyond the season when it was 

        safe to travel in the open Mediterranean.  The ship sailed against Paul’s 

        advice and a storm drove the ship on Malta’s rocks. Julius restrained the 

        soldiers from killing Paul to prevent his escape.

JUNGLE OF THE JORDAN  (גאון הירדן (gaw on ha yor dan) ornament of the 

        Jordan)   Through the centuries the Jordan has eroded a narrow, winding 

        bed, where the tropical heat and seasonal flooding has produced a tan-

        gled thicket of tamarisk willows, and other shrubs.

JUNIAS (‘IouniaV) A Jewish Christian, fellow prisoner of Paul (Romans 16).

JUNIPER (רתם (roe them), broom; ערער (ar air), leafless tree)  King James 

        Version translation of rothem. This is a mistaken translation.   The Hebrew 

        arar refers to the Phoenician Juniper.  The juniper of the Lebanons is a 

        large, timber-producing tree.

JUPITER.  The great sky-god of the Latin peoples worshiped on every hilltop in  

        ancient Italy.  Identified with Zeus, he took on many of the traits and myths 

        of the Greek deity.   The Latin god is not mentioned in the Bible, but the 

        King James Version uses his name instead of Zeus.

JUSHAB-HESED (יושב־חסד, may [God’s] loving kindness be returned)  A son 

        of Zerubbabel (I Chronicles 3).

JUSTICE. See Law; Peace in the Old Testament; Righteousness.

JUSTICE (OFFICER) (praktor (prak tor))  The Greek word is generally used

        for an officer of the court who executes sentences, collects fines and reve-

        nue, and arraigns prisoners, somewhat like the modern-day bailiff.  .

J-109

JUSTIFICATION, JUSTIFY  (צדק (tsaw dak), to be righteous; dikaiow (dik ah 

        yo oh), to make right) The fundamental moral need of humankind. The ter-

        minology of “justification” is seen to describe the basic diagnosis of the hu-

        man problem and the divinely provided solution of it.   The Hebrew word is 

        used in the sense of people getting their due, and this can refer to both ac-

        cuser and accused.   The prominent sense is seeing that justice is done to 

        the accused.  In connection with God, it is punishment for sin and also vin-

        dication of God’s oppressed people

                   God’s problem, if we may so put it, is that God’s people are often 

        guilty, and God must give a verdict against them, because he is just.  The 

        Hebrew conception of justice was a redeeming and not merely a punishing 

        activity, the means to ultimate redemption. The Greek dikaio means “treat 

        rightly,” “regard as right.” New Testament usage isn't that of secular Greek,

        but is strongly influenced by the fact that the primary Greek version of the 

        Old Testament used these Greek terms to translate the Hebrew words.

                   The dominant biblical thought forming the background for justifica-

        tion language is that “God is righteous.”   The prophets’ main contribution 

        was their moralizing of the divine holiness concept. Divine justice involved 

        obligations upon humankind.   Israel’s failure to meet these obligations 

        brought Yahweh’s punishment; Jerusalem’s fall in 586 is seen in this light. 

        Further reflection raised doubts whether the people could achieve the 

        right-living God required.   Right relationship with God is not attainable 

        through statutes.

                   Thus there is need for divine intervention & help if man is to attain 

        righteousness.   God will perform an act of deliverance or justification to 

        make all things right. The book of Job, too, has special significance. It is 

        concerned with both the problem of suffering and the problem of righte-

        ousness.   Job rejected the orthodox view that sin is always punished, 

        and therefore “he must have done something wrong.” This was too easy 

        a dogma, supported perhaps by superficial evidence but not by the dee-

        per complexities of reality.

                   Presupposing universal sinfulness, the Apostle Paul teaches that 

        a right relationship with God must precede right treatment of one’s fellow 

        humans; God’s gospel has a divine offer of righteousness for all who take

        God seriously & give up the assumption that moral effort alone achieves 

        righteousness.   In Paul’s usage sin is the power which impedes human 

        endeavors to obey God’s will.   Paul is not concerned with sinfulness or 

        remorse.   If humans are to be “justified,” they must be delivered, not just 

        from bad conscience, but from the whole involvement in imperfection and 

        death. God has provided this deliverance through Christ as his agent.

                   Knowing what ought to be done under Mosaic Law doesn't convey

        the will and power to do it; law was never intended to produce goodness.

        The law brings wrath, the consequences of sin, not simply objective pena-

        lties, but the divine reaction to sin. 

                    The law actually causes sins.   With the awareness of goodness, 

        which a moral code brings, there comes also knowledge of badness; and 

        moral awareness inevitably carries with it exposure to temptation so that

        in practice knowledge of law has as its consequence temptation and sub-

        mission to temptation. 

                    Law imposes a kind of tyranny on humankind, who feel the obliga-

        tion to obey, but are impotent to fulfill it regularly. Law is part of God’s pro-

        vidential ordering of human affairs.   Thus law has the definite function of 

        preparing humans, of leading them to the place they can get the salvation

        they need.

                   Faith was the primary move on a person’s part toward acceptance 

        of the righteousness which God freely offers.  The possibility of righteous-

        ness (justification) for humans depends on God’s gracious initiative and 

        on a person’s response to that initiative.  Faith means taking God’s pro-

        mise of salvation with simple seriousness.  Faith is centered on Christ. 

        The divine righteousness which is revealed to all is communicated 

        “through faith for faith.” Faith can be said to take the place of the righte-

        ousness attained by “works of law.” God can do something with some-

        one who trusts God, but can do nothing with one who submits one’s own 

        moral performance as the basis of acceptance with God.

                    Paul uses the word dikaiosune in a theological, legal, and ethical 

        sense; it is not always clear which sense is being used in a given passage. 

        Paul’s doctrine of divine righteousness revealed or communicated to hu-

        mankind is his restatement of what Christ himself proclaimed as a “co-

        ming” of God’s kingdom.  This righteousness of God is an activity.  It is 

        God’s dealing with the human situation where righteousness has proved 

       unattainable. The human’s essential contribution is a basic attitude of grati-

        tude and receptiveness which recognizes that God has taken initiative in 

        providing moral incentive.

                   Paul also uses dikaiosune as it relates to one’s moral experience. 

        Sin obscures the divine image in humankind. The recovery of this image is 

        “our hope” and the ultimate outcome of our justification. Whatever sense is 

        uppermost in his mind, Paul always implies that the righteousness which is

        part of the believer’s experience is due to God’s gift rather than his own en-

        deavors.   Morality is transcended in what the Bible says about God’s dea-

        ling with sinful man.   The divine tsadak (righteousness or justification) 

        means much more than punishment of sin. Rather, God restores the sinner

        to goodness.  God puts in the way of righteousness people who can claim

        no actual righteousness, but who offer penitence and faith.

JUSTUS ( ‘IoustoV)  1. A surname of Joseph Barsabbas, candidate for the 

        place of Judas Iscariot among the 12.

                   2. Titius Justus (Acts 18) invited the Christians of Corinth to meet in

        his house when they could no longer meet in the synagogue.      3. A sur-

        name of Jesus, who is mentioned by Paul as one of the few Jewish Chris-

        tians who worked with him and were a comfort to him (Colossians 4).

JUTTAH (יוטה, spread out) A city of Judah in the southeastern hill-country dis-

        trict of Maon about 9 km southwest of Hebron; it was assigned to Aaron as 

        one of the Levitical cities.  A pious tradition once associated Juttah with the 

        city of Judah; most scholars feel there is little substance to this tradition.

 

J-110