The Genesis account of Abraham, the receiver of God’s promises, who God asked to sacrifice his long-awaited son, Isaac, can be hard to understand. This article will explore who Abraham was in the Bible and why it was necessary for him to be willing to sacrifice Isaac. The focus will be on surrender as a key element of faith. Furthermore, some imagery from the sacrifice will be linked to broader themes in scripture, like the altar and the ram that God provided to be offered in Isaac’s place.

Who Are Abraham and Isaac in the Old Testament?

Abraham is the Old Testament patriarch and “Father” of the Israelites, God’s people. He was born 20 generations after Adam and signifies a turning point in the narrative of scripture. When this key figure is introduced in Genesis 11, his name is Abram, and he is a Gentile. But, for some strange reason, God calls him and promises to make him the leader of a great nation—God’s very own nation.

Genesis 15:5 “[The Lord] took him outside and said, ‘Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.’ Then he said to him, ‘So shall your offspring be.’”

Abram and his wife, Sarai, were unable to conceive—a detail that filled Abram with a lot of doubt about God’s promises. How could he be the father of many if he could not even have one child of his own? The couple’s heartbreak about infertility made it hard for them to trust in the promises of God.

Yet, as Abram and Sarai got to know God better, they started trusting Him more and more. One day, three angels disguised as humans visited the couple. Genesis 18:9-12 tells the story:

“‘Where is your wife Sarah?’ they asked. ‘There, in the tent,’ he said. Then one of them said, ‘I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son.’ Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him. Abraham and Sarah were already very old, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, ‘After I am worn out and my lord is old, will I now have this pleasure?’”

However, it happened as the Lord promised, and they named the baby boy Isaac, meaning “he laughs.” It was a great joy for Abraham and Sarah to finally receive a son!

The Sacrifice of Isaac

Knowing how Abraham and his wife longed for a son and that God’s promises literally depended on the life of the son makes what happened next all the more astonishing. Genesis 22 begins with these verses: “Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, ‘Abraham! Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.’” (vv. 1-2)

Abraham got up early the next morning and loaded his donkey with some firewood. He also took two servants and his son, and then they departed to the place God mentioned. Upon their arrival, Abraham told the servants to stay behind while he and Isaac would walk up the mountain to worship the Lord.

Walking up the mountain in silence, Isaac eventually turned to his father and asked: “The fire and wood are here, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” (v.7) Abraham calmly answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son” (v.8) and the two of them went on together.

Reaching the spot where the offering needed to take place, Abraham built an altar to God. Then he bound Isaac’s limbs together like they did for animal offerings, and he laid him on the altar… It was only when Abraham picked up the knife to slay his own son that a voice called out from heaven:

“‘Abraham! Do not lay a hand on the boy. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son’” (vv. 11-12).  When Abraham looked up, there was a ram caught in a bush by its horns, and he sacrificed it instead.

Story of Surrender: Interpreting Isaac’s Offering in Scripture

Abraham’s role in this story has received the most attention—nobody talks about how traumatizing this must have been for Isaac (a topic for another day). But, surprisingly, Abraham is not seen as vicious or evil for almost committing a child sacrifice and murder. He is praised as a hero for his great act of surrendering to God. This is because of what happened next in Genesis 22:

First, Abraham named the place “The Lord Will Provide,” because God provided a ram for the sacrifice and had mercy on Isaac. Secondly, the angel of the Lord spoke to Abraham from heaven for a second time and said:

“‘I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me’” (vv. 16-18).

The focus in this situation is on obedience. Abraham did not consider his son his own because he understood that he was a gift from God. Therefore, Abraham was obedient to God and surrendered his son, Isaac, on the altar. Abraham was learning about God’s character and what kind of god he was. While many of the other gods of the time required child sacrifices, Yahweh provided an alternative sacrifice at the right time.

Why Surrender Matters in the Bible

The story of Abraham and Isaac is a story about surrender. Surrender is a key element of many faiths. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines surrender as “the action of yielding one’s person or giving up the possession of something, especially into the power of another.” Various religions start with an act of surrender and letting go of control, placing that trust rather in a higher being or the Universe.

In the rest of the Bible, Abraham is seen as a hero for his total surrender to God when he placed Isaac on the altar. James 2:21-22 says, “Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did” (vv. 21-22).

In Hebrews 11, the Heroes of Faith are listed, and Abraham receives more attention than anyone else. Abraham’s radical act of relinquishing his son and obedience to God’s request is an example of what it really means to follow God.

The word “lord” describes this well. While many Christians pray and call God “Lord,” few recognize that this means giving over lordship (ownership) of oneself to him. It is essentially like saying “Master” or “King,” a kind of surrender that Abraham understood very well.

Imagery Found in the Offering of Isaac

There are many elements in the account of Abraham offering Isaac that carry significance in the broader scope of scripture. Consider the altar, for instance. Since the days when humankind was banished from God’s presence and the Garden of Eden, they had been making offerings to God (think of Cain and Abel’s offerings in Genesis 4). An altar is associated with laying something valuable down, instead of using it for one’s own selfish benefit. Abraham’s was a burnt offering, signifying complete devotion to God. In modern Christianity, the symbolism of an altar continues. Followers of Christ are commanded by scripture to “lay their lives down” as Jesus did (John 15:13).

The ram that God provided as an alternative to Isaac is another meaningful element of Abraham’s offering. Some scholars have noted that this ram might be a parallel to or a prophecy about Jesus Christ. Christ’s act of sacrificing himself for the sins of humankind is often described in similar language; He is the spotless lamb (John 1:29, Revelation 5:13, 1 Peter 1:19).

When we focus on Abraham, a third element becomes evident: that of a father who sacrifices his own son. This imagery is often used to describe the relationship between God and Jesus, the Son of God. The message of the Gospel is one about a loving father who sent his own son to die for the sins of humankind (John 3:16).

Much more could be said about the offering of Abraham and Isaac, but for the purpose of this article, we can end on this note: Abraham performed the ultimate act of surrender by being willing to sacrifice his own son on the altar, an action that echoes throughout the rest of the Bible.

Shortly after the death of King Solomon, Israel was divided into two kingdoms. The northern kingdom was Israel, and the southern was Judah. Jeroboam, an influential individual who served Solomon, opposed the new monarchy. It exploited political divisions in Israel to establish a monarchy consisting of the tribes of Israel excluding Judah and Benjamin. He had to avoid any influence the Kingdom of Judah would have on his people, so he established a new religious order to draw his people away from worshiping at the Temple in Jerusalem.

Jeroboam Under Solomon’s Reign

Jeroboam was from the tribe of Ephraim. Ephraim and Manasseh were sons of Joseph. The twelve tribes of Israel received their names from the sons of Jacob. When God allotted land to each tribe, the Levites did not receive a portion because they were dedicated to the priestly ministry and received cities within each of the tribal portions of Israel. To re-establish the significant number of twelve, God gave each of Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, their own portion. These two tribes together constituted the house of Joseph. That is why lists of the tribes of Israel that do not include Levi mention Ephraim and Manasseh.

Jeroboam, whose mother was a widow, was a capable and industrious young man. Solomon soon recognized his talents. He appointed Jeroboam over the labor force of the house of Joseph. Israel prospered under Solomon, though the people had to do much labor and paid heavy taxes during his rule. When Solomon ordered that his labor forces must build a Millo (a rampart) and restore a breach at the City of David, Jeroboam objected. Though the Bible does not explicitly state it, it seems as though Solomon expected too much of his labor force, and Jeroboam, who was a courageous man, traveled to Jerusalem to take up the matter with the king.

On his way to Jerusalem, the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite met up with Jeroboam and enacted a significant prophecy by tearing his new garment into twelve parts. He gave Jeroboam ten parts. The prophet then explained that the ten parts symbolized ten of the tribes of Israel that Jeroboam would rule over. He said that, for the sake of David and Jerusalem, Solomon’s descendants would only rule over two tribes and that it was because Solomon worshiped the gods of his wives: “Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites.” 

Solomon also neglected to keep to the rules and statutes of God and so neglected to walk in God’s ways. The prophet informed Jeroboam that if he walked in God’s ways, his kingdom would prosper and last for many generations.

Though the narrative reflects that the prophet and Jeroboam were alone when they met, Solomon heard what had happened and wanted to kill Jeroboam. This was a further act of rebellion by Solomon because God told the king what would happen (1 Kings 11:9-13). By attempting to kill Jeroboam, Solomon wanted to undo what God said would occur. When Jeroboam heard that Solomon sought to kill him, he fled to Egypt, where Pharaoh Shishak reigned, and remained there until Solomon died.

On his return, Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, ruled over Israel. He and other longstanding leaders in Israel advised Rehoboam to lighten the burden that Solomon had placed on his citizens. Instead, Rehoboam decided to follow the counsel of young, unwise advisors he grew up with, answering the call for a lighter burden with: “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke. My father disciplined you with whips, but I will discipline you with scorpions.”

Not surprisingly, ten tribes rebelled against his reign. Events occurred according to what God had said would happen. Rehoboam stoned Adoram, the taskmaster over the forced labor in Israel. The rebelling tribes turned to Jeroboam for leadership, installing him as king of Israel. Rehoboam assembled an army from the men of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin to fight the ten tribes, but the prophet Shemaiah revealed to them that it was not within God’s will that the relatives should battle one another, so war among family was averted.

Establishing a New Kingdom

Jeroboam, with his experience working with the labor force, engaged in construction projects in his new kingdom. He was, however, concerned about the tribes returning to the House of David because they still had to worship in Jerusalem, where the Temple was. He had two calves of gold made and presented them to the new northern kingdom of Israel as their gods. Jeroboam set up places of worship for these bulls in Bethel and Dan.

Providing his citizens with an alternative form of worship meant they no longer needed to travel into the southern kingdom of Judah to practice their faith. He instituted new festivals and appointed non-Levitical priests. He also claimed that these new gods brought the Israelites out of Egypt (1 Kings 12:28). Jeroboam broke the first and second commandments that forbade other gods and the worship of idols.

Jeroboam’s apostasy set a standard that the Bible often referenced subsequently as the “sins of Jeroboam.” 1 and 2 Kings refer to it twelve times when later kings would do what Jeroboam did. 1 Kings 13 records how Jeroboam took up a priestly role as well. God warned him through the “man of God” about what a future king, Josiah, would do to the prophets and altars the king set up. After a brief pause, Jeroboam continued to promote idolatry in the northern kingdom.

When Jeroboam’s son, Abijah, became sick, the king told his wife to disguise herself and go to the prophet Ahijah to enquire what would happen to his son. God revealed to the prophet who the woman was who would present herself under a guise. The prophet revealed her true identity and informed her that Abijah would die.

When Rehoboam, King of Judah, died, his son, Abijam (called Abijah in 2 Chronicles 13), ascended the throne. He warred against Jeroboam with vastly inferior numbers of warriors. Abijah mustered 400,000 troops, and Jeroboam had 800,000, the largest army recorded in the Bible. In a single battle, the armies of Judah slaughtered 500,000 soldiers of Israel. The hand of God in such a defeat was clear.

How Jeroboam died is not clear. The Bible notes that Jeroboam reigned for 22 years and “slept with his fathers,” a fixed expression among the Hebrews to indicate that a person died.

God, who promised to establish the reign of Jeroboam’s line if he remained faithful, then prophesied through Ahijah that the reign of the house of Jeroboam would end. It did not happen during Jeroboam’s reign but in that of his son, Nadab, who reigned only two years. Nadab continued in the wicked ways of his father, promoting idolatry. Baasha, the son of Ahijah of the tribe of Issachar (1 Kings 15:27) (not to be confused with the prophet Ahijah, a Shulamite), assassinated Nadab. Baasha then became King of Israel and completely wiped out the house of Jeroboam.

Historical Evidence for Jeroboam’s Rule

There is no direct archaeological evidence that confirms Jeroboam’s reign. There are, however, several artifacts and finds confirming the context of his reign, aligning with the claims of the biblical narrative. These include the key religious centers in Dan and Bethel.

The Tel Dan site confirms the existence of a significant cultic complex. Finds have included an altar and bamah (high place). The date of its activity aligns with the idolatry in the northern kingdom. The discovery of bull figurines in the northern kingdom also aligns with Jeroboam’s religious reforms.

Jeroboam’s Legacy

Jeroboam showed great potential as a leader among the Israelites, but his desire to compensate for political weaknesses caused him to establish a religious cult in the Kingdom of Israel. Even though his line’s reign ended with his son, idolatry became a fixture in the northern kingdom. According to the Bible, it eventually led to the downfall and exile of the Kingdom of Israel to Assyria in 722 BCE.

Like Saul, the first King of Israel, Jeroboam was a political success in establishing a new kingdom but a spiritual failure by leading his people into idolatry and apostasy. The failure of his dynasty did not deter the later kings in Israel from copying the practices of Jeroboam when the unified monarchy in Israel was divided. Instead, it became the reference point for many later kings who made the same mistakes as Jeroboam in increased measure until it reached its epitome in the reign of Ahab, the worst of all the kings of Israel. In a sense, Jeroboam’s sin caused the fall of multiple generations of Israel and brought an end to the nation. It would be fair to say that “Jeroboam … made Israel to sin” (1 Kings 14:16).

Jesus’ Olivet Discourse and debates with the Pharisees on Tuesday might have been the final nail in the proverbial coffin. While Jesus has always upset the religious leaders with his pointedness and obvious disdain for their traditions and systems, the words Jesus spoke on his last Tuesday were harsher than ever before. Not only did Jesus predict his death and resurrection, he also mentioned who would kill him.

The Holy Week Timeline

The timeline of Easter can be tricky to grasp and the events fit together like pieces of a much larger puzzle. Just as with a puzzle, it can be helpful to organize similar colors together and familiarize yourself with the bigger picture before we begin…

• On Palm Sunday, Jesus Christ entered Jerusalem riding on a colt. The crowds sang his praises and declared he was indeed their long-awaited Messiah.
• On Monday, the atmosphere shifted when Jesus entered the Temple and started throwing out those who were selling goods. 

The tension rises on Tuesday morning when the chief priests, elders, and scribes challenge Jesus’ authority in front of all the people. They insinuated that he was not sent by God but rather received his powers from elsewhere, like dark magic.

Jesus asked them a question they could not answer and proceeded to predict that they would kill him soon, so they left.

Jesus Debates with the Pharisees

The religious leaders disliked Jesus because of his obvious disdain for their traditions and systems, but they also feared his popularity and what he could do to their social and economic standing.

Then they sent Pharisees and Herodians to try to trap Jesus. In short, they wanted him to say something incriminating so that they would have grounds to arrest and kill him. Jesus knew the Pharisees were being hypocritical in their questioning of him and cleverly evaded their trap. 

Desperate to catch him, the Sadduccees stepped up next. They brought up some technicalities of Moses’ law and ethical dilemmas, trying to get Jesus to say the wrong thing, but he ducked from their blows. 

Finally, one of the scribes approached and asked Jesus one last question: “Which command is the most important of all?” Jesus answered correctly and then warned the crowds against the Pharisees, Herodians, Sadduccees, and the scribes.

The Olivet Discourse

That was when Jesus left the Temple and walked over to the Mount of Olives. There, he spoke intimately to his closest disciples, telling them of what would happen before God’s Kingdom comes. In the Christian tradition, the aim had always been that God would live with his people again, just like he did in the Garden of Eden. 

These warnings are what Theologians would describe as ‘apocalyptic literature’. Baker’s Dictionary defines this as a “type of biblical literature that emphasizes the lifting of the veil between heaven and earth and the revelation of God and his plan for the world. Apocalyptic writings are marked by … prediction of future events … , often involving vivid symbolism.”

It’s helpful to remember why Jesus was telling them these things. Sitting in the olive grove, he comforted his disciples that only God knows when that time will come.

What Came Next on the Easter Timeline?

After Tuesday’s debates with the Pharisees and the Olivet Discourse, Holy Wednesday followed. On Thursday, Jesus had the Last Supper and was arrested. Friday was his unfair trial and crucifixion. After three days, Scripture says that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead and appeared to many people over the course of forty days. Then he gave them the Great Commission and ascended into Heaven. 

Jesus knew who would kill him and how they’d turn against him, yet he still engaged with their questions on Tuesday. On Friday, during his trial, he did not answer them and the prophet’s words were fulfilled:

“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.” – Isaiah 53:7

The Taj Mahal. Petra. And Moravian Bethlehem, Pennsylvania? Since 1972, UNESCO has maintained a list of global sites so sacred to humanity that they are called World Heritage Sites.

Considering this, the world raised a collective eyebrow when the newest additions were announced in 2024. Among the many notable historic and natural sites was a collection of 200-year-old stone buildings in eastern Pennsylvania.

How did they qualify for inclusion on the same list as these other landmarks? To understand this, we must first discuss the Reformation.

The First Martin Luther

If you were to make a list of the most important figures of the Protestant Reformation, it is a sure bet that you would probably list Martin Luther right at the top. His well-known writings and his challenge to the authority of the Catholic Church make him among the earliest and most prominent leaders of the Reformation. However, he was far from the first.

100 years before he nailed his famed 95 theses to the door of his local church, another priest in the Czech Republic had already launched what many historians considered to be the first reformation movement.

That priest was named Jan Hus, and in the 1400s, he began openly criticizing the Catholic Church for such practices as simony, infidelity, and, of course, the practice of indulgences, a full century before Martin Luther would do the same. His efforts helped launch the Bohemian Reformation, a religious movement that would be key to why Protestantism first took hold in Germany.

But the activities of Hus didn’t go unnoticed by Rome. Railroaded during an ecumenical council and eventually martyred by being burned at the stake, the Catholic Church thought that it’d put an end to his shenanigans. Little did they know that before he died, Jan had organized his followers into their own separatist church a full century before the rise of Protestantism. Hus’s church would eventually grow into what we still know today as the Moravian church.

The Unitas Fratrum

Soon after the execution of Hus, the Catholic Church realized the job wasn’t quite done, and they moved to snuff out his followers once and for all by launching a full-on Crusade in 1420 that launched what would be known as the Hussite Wars. This should have spelled the end for the followers of Hus, especially given how fractured they were, but miraculously, they were able to defeat not just this first incursion, but three subsequent campaigns as well.

Their resistance was so complete that in the end, the Catholic Church did something it had never before done with a group of heretics: it signed a treaty that allowed the Hussites to practice their own separate form of Christianity in Bohemia without fear of reprisal. It was in this climate that a group known as the Unitas Fratrum organized itself in 1457 in the Czech Republic and would eventually become known as the Moravian Church.

The church would eventually splinter due to the devastation brought on by the Thirty Years War and subsequent persecution, with one group finding refuge on the estate of a German count named Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf in the 1720s. It was there that they regrouped and established the village of Herrnhut, which would eventually serve as the blueprint for what was to come next—international settlements and evangelizing.

From this foundation, the church sent out missionaries, spreading their faith not through force of arms, but through the building of community, and one of the more than 30 settlements established by the Moravians ended up being located in Eastern Pennsylvania.

Bethlehem

In 1741, a group of Moravian missionaries led by Zizendorf himself arrived at the confluence of the Monocacy Creek and the Lehigh River. They sought out the landowner, a wealthy merchant and former mayor of Philadelphia named William Allen, and purchased 500 choice acres on which they intended to build a self-sustaining community. Since the cornerstone was officially laid on Christmas Eve, the group could think of no more fitting a name than Bethlehem.

The community was both industrious and innovative, ahead of its time, especially when it came to urban planning and the construction of purpose-built structures, including notable buildings that would go on to serve their needs. They built the first water supply in the US that was fed by pumps and water towers, the first industrial park in what would eventually become the steel capital of the United States, and like every other Moravian settlement, they built a Gemeinhaus to serve as the hub of the community as a place of worship, learning, and communal living space.

The community operated as a true egalitarian commune. All the members were treated equally, including women, receiving the same education regardless of wealth or gender. Everyone contributed to the sustained development of the community through their labor, and all were taken care of from birth until death. They were, in fact, so dedicated to the ideal of equality that even in the graveyard, everyone was given nearly identical headstones regardless of their status or wealth.

Unlike many other communes, the Moravians didn’t sequester themselves from the outside world. Instead, they sought to build both economic and spiritual connections to those around them. They founded satellite communities across the Mid-Atlantic, including some missions as far west as Ohio. They preached to the nearby Lenape Indians as well as the German settlers in the surrounding area, allowing any converted indigenous people to be buried in their cemetery, which was unusual for the time.

In addition to selling their timber and flour surplus to those nearby, they also petitioned King George III to construct and operate a large “Gasthaus,” eventually naming it the Sun Inn when it opened in 1758. It became an important stopping point for travelers and welcomed many of the era’s most notable people, such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and many others associated with the American War of Independence, especially as the world around them began being consumed by revolution.

The Winds of War Bring Change

Despite a firm desire on the part of church leadership to remain neutral in the war between Great Britain and her colonies, the revolution would find its way into the Moravian community. Despite feeling that rebellion against civil authority was actually forbidden by the New Testament, they were slow to take sides. The congregation saw the Declaration of Independence as premature and continued praying for the health of the king even after the first shots were fired at Lexington and Concord, something that was regarded as suspicious by many of their neighbors.

As armed conflict broke out and men mustered for war, the Moravians refused, citing their pacifist beliefs. While the government of Pennsylvania didn’t make them serve, they did levy taxes and fines on them in reprisal.

Despite being dedicated pacifists, there was nothing in their philosophy that prevented individual members from choosing to support one side or the other, so the vast majority of the Moravians aligned themselves with the Patriot cause throughout the war. Bethlehem and the surrounding communities became centers of production as well as healing, tending to the wounded and burying the dead. So skilled were they at tending to the wounded that the American Army located its general hospital in Bethlehem during 1777/78.

As the war ended, the Moravians probably hoped that all would go back to the way it was, but while this involvement in the war may have won over their detractors, it did mark the end of their separatist ways.

From Isolation to Integration

By the end of the 1700s, the new nation of America was beginning to form its national identity, and the Moravians found themselves swept up in the cultural change as well. Communal economies were abandoned in favor of stronger ties to the sometimes booming ports and cities of the new nation, and in most of their communities, their distinctiveness began to fade. But in Bethlehem, they held on to two important vestiges of their unique identity: their non-violent tradition and their commitment to education. The latter resulted in the establishment of the Moravian College in 1858.

This institution, along with the church, helped provide Bethlehem’s Moravian community with the stability it needed to continue to exist, even throughout tumultuous times. It also ensured that many of the historic structures that disappeared in other settlements remained intact, a big reason why the site would eventually be considered for inclusion on the UNESCO World Heritage List.

In 2024, the Pennsylvania Moravian Settlement was finally admitted to this prestigious list, joining three other Moravian communities in Ireland, Germany, and Greenland as the first multinational site to be included from the US. The inclusion of the historic structures of Bethlehem serves as a testament to the enduring global influence that this community still has to this day.

Nehemiah occupied a high office in the Persian court. He used his influence to gain an appointment as overseer of the reconstruction work the Jews did on the walls of Jerusalem that the Babylonians destroyed years before. Nehemiah worked towards building a Jewish community in Jerusalem that held to the principles of the Torah as the foundation of their society. He guided the Jews through some challenges during the construction project before returning to the Persian court. Later, he returned to Jerusalem and governed the region on behalf of the Persians.

Authorship and Date

According to Jewish tradition, Ezra authored 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Scholars, however, believe Ezra and Nehemiah had a different author than 1 and 2 Chronicles and that the authorship of Nehemiah involved an oral tradition and a compilation of various works. In part, the autobiographical sections of the book (chapters 1-7 and sections from parts of Nehemiah 12:27-43 and Nehemiah 13:4-31) contribute to this view.

The content deals with events during the 5th century BCE, between 445 and 432 BCE. If Nehemiah wrote the autobiographical portions of the book, it dates to during or shortly after that period. If the scholarly view is more accurate, editors compiled the work as late as the early 4th century BCE.

Historical Context

The Persians had a different approach to dealing with exiles than the Babylonians had. They allowed exiles to manage most of their affairs and allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and reconstruct its walls to reestablish their community there. The effort included implementing the Torah, which refers to the first five books of the Old Testament. The Persians even provided materials and funding, pledging to provide more, if needed. In addition, the king appointed Nehemiah, his cupbearer, to oversee the reconstruction activities.

In ancient societies, a cupbearer was much more than a server of drinks. It was an exalted position at the Persian royal court that reflected the trustworthiness and reliability of the individual who held the office. The king staked his life on the integrity of the cupbearer, who had to ensure that the king never consumed poison.

Nehemiah had the ear of the king who granted his request to leave the court and take up the task of managing the building project in Jerusalem. Rebuilding the walls was complicated by opposition from locals, undermined reconstruction efforts, and even attacks on the builders.

This period in Israelite history was important because of nation-building, theological, and scriptural developments. Along with Nehemiah, the historical records of the books of Habakkuk, Zachariah, Malachi, Ezra, and Esther provide details on events shortly before the 400-year silence of the intertestamental period.

Structure

Nehemiah’s First Administration

This section of Nehemiah details how a report concerning the state of Jerusalem came to Nehemiah and how he made intercession for God’s intervention. Nehemiah was sent to Jerusalem to assess the situation and oversee the reconstruction work. Nehemiah 4 narrates how opposition to the restoration efforts interrupted the work and it describes the system Nehemiah put in place to resume construction.

Nehemiah also put structures in place to take care of impoverished Jews in Jerusalem. As governor, Nehemiah was generous in his provisions and lightened the burden on the people previous governors had enforced. Opponents to Nehemiah’s governorship conspired against Nehemiah but they failed, and the walls were finished in 52 days.

Nehemiah 7 lists people who returned to Judah and, after Ezra read the Law and the people confessed their sins, they sealed a covenant with God. The text then provides information on how their leaders determined who could live in Jerusalem, and where the leaders among the Jews resided, while the rest lived in towns around Jerusalem.

This section of the Book of Nehemiah concludes with a list of priests who returned with Zerubbabel, the dedication of the wall, and the resumption of Temple service.

Nehemiah’s Second Administration

Nehemiah 13 provides a record of reforms Nehemiah made when he returned to Jerusalem to serve a second term as governor. The reforms included Sabbath observance, rules relating to priests and Levites, and intermarriage.

Main Themes

Restoration

Nehemiah tells the story of the restoration of the walls, the rebuilding of Jewish society, and the reimplementing of the observance of the Torah. As such, restoration is a central theme that runs through the Book of Nehemiah.

Governance

Nehemiah shows the result of the Babylonian system of governance that caused the destruction of Jerusalem, and the Persian version which empowered the Jews to return and reconstruct what was destroyed. Nehemiah managed the reconstruction effort and dealt with obstacles that prevented their progress. The importance of proper systems to build a healthy society is a recurring theme.

Covenant

The Jews ended up in exile because they did not uphold their end of the covenant with God. The reconstruction efforts in Jerusalem reminded them of their sins and those of their ancestors. It resulted in their confession and renewal of the covenant with God. God kept the promises he made before the exile that Jerusalem would rise again, and the Temple would be restored, showing his trustworthiness.

Perseverance

Perseverance is another recurring theme in Nehemiah. Firstly, those who did not go into exile persevered in Judah until Nehemiah returned to take charge of reconstruction efforts. Those who built the walls had to persevere when attacked during building activities. Lastly, those who were faithful yet found themselves in exile had to persevere in faith until the promises of God came to fruition and the time to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem arrived.

Key Passages

Nehemiah 1:11

“‘O Lord, let your ear be attentive to the prayer of your servant, and to the prayer of your servants who delight to fear your name, and give success to your servant today, and grant him mercy in the sight of this man.’ Now I was cupbearer to the king.”

By the providence of God, Nehemiah already had the ear of the king as his cupbearer. He was praying that the king would grant his request to return to rebuild Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:5).

Nehemiah 2:17

“Then I said to them, ‘You see the trouble we are in, how Jerusalem lies in ruins with its gates burned. Come, let us build the wall of Jerusalem, that we may no longer suffer derision.’”

Nehemiah shared his vision with the people to inspire them to join the reconstruction effort. From Nehemiah’s words, the reader can glean that it was more than just the reconstruction of a structure he had in view.

Nehemiah 6:15-16

“So the wall was finished on the twenty-fifth day of the month Elul, in fifty-two days. And when all our enemies heard of it, all the nations around us were afraid and fell greatly in their own esteem, for they perceived that this work had been accomplished with the help of our God.” 

The speed with which Nehemiah could have the walls rebuilt was a testament to God’s blessing of the work. Their enemies knew the Israelites were not as vulnerable as they had been during the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Nehemiah 9:2-3

“The Israelites separated themselves from all foreigners and stood and confessed their sins and the iniquities of their fathers. And they stood up in their place and read from the Book of the Law of the LORD their God for a quarter of the day; for another quarter of it, they made confession and worshiped the LORD their God.” 

The Israelites took time to reflect on the reasons for their suffering and the destruction of Jerusalem. They needed to know and understand why the trials they and their ancestors faced had occurred.

Nehemiah 13:15

“In those days I saw in Judah people treading winepresses on the Sabbath, and bringing in heaps of grain and loading them on donkeys, and also wine, grapes, figs, and all kinds of loads, which they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day. And I warned them on the day when they sold food.” 

Even though they recently renewed their covenant with God, the Jews broke the Sabbath, which was one of the reasons their ancestors went into exile. It shows the continuing cycle of breaking the covenant, bearing punishment, repenting and confessing, and renewing the covenant that was a trademark of Israel throughout their history.

Contemporary Relevance

A contemporary reader will see how God was faithful to his promise to restore Judah to their native land. Nehemiah teaches that recovery is not without trial, and takes confession, repentance, and recommitment. God’s provision of positive outcomes reassures and builds trust with those who believe God is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. As he intervened on behalf of his people in the past, he can do the same today and in the future.

Moses could be reasonably called the Bible’s most celebrated leader. After Abraham, no person played a more decisive role in determining the future of the Israelite people than he did. In the ancient world, one expects such a person to leave—or to seek to leave—a dynasty. Yet, even though Moses had at least two sons, they fade into obscurity in the story. They were seemingly ignored when the time came to choose Moses’s successor. 

We Know Very Little about Moses’s Sons

Unlike other prominent Israelite figures, the genealogy of Moses’s descendants is basically never provided. Readers are made aware of his sons, but only in the context of ongoing narratives instead of intentionally to show his line of descendants. This contrasts starkly with his brother Aaron’s descendants, whose names are meticulously recorded.  

Moses’s first wife was a Midianite woman named Zipporah. They had two sons together named Gershom and Eleazar. Later, it is implied that Moses married a second wife. She was from Cush, in what is Upper Egypt and northern Sudan today. She is in a story, not a genealogy, and her name is not given. The story, which is found in the book of Numbers, suggests there was a conflict between Moses and his siblings Miriam and Aaron regarding whether or not they shared the same level of prophetic authority. For a reason not provided, Moses’s older siblings objected to his Cushite wife. Did she and Moses’s have any children? Readers are left wondering.   

Israelite Leadership Was Not Hereditary Before The Monarchy

Until the Israelite monarchy emerged, Israelite leaders were chosen variously based on charisma, circumstance, and divine calling rather than heredity. Moses may have set the precedent for this convention. Chosen directly at his famous “burning bush” encounter on Mount Sinai, Moses is never portrayed as even considering the possibility of a dynasty. In the end, he chooses Joshua to take his place, even though Joshua was not even a member of the same tribe as Moses. 

Moses and Joshua were Israel’s only leaders before the Israelites invaded Canaan. The Judges, who ruled Israel before the monarchy was inaugurated with Saul, never established dynasties either. 

However, according to the detailed laws that Moses leaves for the Israelites in the story, priests all had to come from the tribe of Levi, which was Moses’s tribe, and specifically had to come from the line of Aaron, Moses’s older brother.  

Was Gershom, Son of Moses, the Father of a Spurious Priest?

In one of the Bible’s strangest stories, a man named Micah in the book of Judges contracts a priest to set up a small temple in his home. The local people, however, take the ritual objects away from Micah’s house and, in turn, establish their own center of worship. They install a man named Jonathan as its priest, who is identified in Judges 18:30 as “the son of Gershom, son of Moses.”

Israelite tradition came to see any place of worship apart from the Temple (or its predecessor, the Tabernacle) as unauthorized by God. Interestingly, some Hebrew manuscripts of Judges 18:30 contain an extra letter within the name “Moses,” which makes it “Manasseh” instead. While some scholars argue that Manasseh might indeed be original to this verse, it is easy to imagine why later scribes wishing to honor Moses’s legacy might have preferred adding a letter to his name to forestall his being associated with this homespun religion. 

Why Is So Little Said of Moses’s Sons in the Bible? 

Many scholars believe the reading of “Moses” in Judges 18:30 is correct, which is why his name appears in this verse in modern Bible translations. Nevertheless, modern translations include a footnote indicating that the reading could be Manasseh. Maybe Jonathan, who is obviously viewed as a farcical priest by the authors of the story, was not really a descendant of Moses after all. 

Yet, if it was not due to some scandal associated with Moses’s descendants, what was the reason that those who wrote and preserved the Bible said so little about them? Many have asked that question, and interesting possibilities have been proposed. But at the end of the day, the Bible does not say. What is certain is that Moses’s legacy was not carried forward by his children. This did not prevent him, however, from becoming one of the most influential figures in world history.

The Book of Esther does not mention God explicitly. So, why is it in the Bible? For believers, the hand of God is evident in the changing fortunes of multiple characters in the narrative. The book shows Haman, a high-ranking official in the Persian Empire, driven by his hatred of Mordecai, a Jew, plotting to have the Jews exterminated. However, Esther, under the guardianship of Mordecai, became queen. Her position allowed her to expose the machinations that Haman put in place, and he was caught in his own trap.

Authorship and Date

The Book of Esther does not identify its author. Several possible candidates include Mordecai, a central character in the narrative, and Ezra or Nehemiah, who both had much knowledge of the Persian court.

Popular tradition holds that Mordecai was the author, though some Jews held that it was written by Esther. Scholars, however, believe the book likely had more than one author and is a compilation of written and oral sources that were doing the rounds.

What can be gleaned from the text is that the author resided in Persia, had intimate knowledge of the happenings in the Persian court, and was likely a Jew wanting to detail the origins of Purim.

The language used in the narrative suggests that the book was authored before the Macedonians conquered Persia. The feast of Purim had been observed by Jews in Persia for some time when the author wrote (Esther 9:19). Esther 10:2 suggests that by the time of writing, Ahasuerus had likely passed away already. The best estimate for the date of the Book of Esther would be 460-350 BCE.

Historical Context

The Babylonians conquered the Kingdom of Judah and exiled many of its nationals to Babylon at various times. The Babylonians fell to the Persian Empire in 539 BCE. Under Persian rule, the Jews had more freedom than the Babylonians, and some returned to Jerusalem to work on rebuilding the city and the Temple.

King Ahasuerus could have been either Xerxes I (486-465 BCE) or Artaxerxes I or II (465-358 BCE). Nothing in the narrative clarifies which one of the three it was. The Book of Esther plays out in Susa, Persia, where the palace of King Ahasuerus was.

Structure

The Book of Esther structurally divides into three sets of feasts:

The Feast of the King

The narrative of the Book of Esther starts with a feast King Ahasuerus held for dignitaries of his kingdom. He called on Queen Vashti to present herself, but she refused to obey. The king set her aside and initiated finding a new queen to replace her.

The Feasts of Esther

Esther arranged feasts for King Ahasuerus and Haman to attend. It was a carefully planned method to reveal Haman’s plot to kill the Jews. As a woman in the royal court, she found herself in a precarious position and her plan was a way to navigate the situation she found herself in.

The Feast of Purim

The feast of Purim was already celebrated by the time the author wrote the Book of Esther. Jews celebrate the feast every year in commemoration of the providence of God that saved the Jews from extermination in Persia. The Book of Esther details the origins of this feast.

Main Themes

Vindictiveness

Haman’s hatred led to a shocking level of vindictiveness. He craved recognition and honor reminiscent of what Satan wanted for himself. In this story, this vindictiveness resulted in Haman suffering the punishment he desired for Mordecai.

Community

In ancient times, society did not have individualistic tendencies associated with modern culture. People thought of themselves in terms of the community they belonged to. This is shown in several ways in the Book of Esther. Haman hated Mordecai, a Jew, and sought to have the whole nation of Jews exterminated. Esther risked her own well-being and life of comfort and privilege to save her people. She was aware of what had happened to Vashti for what was a seemingly insignificant act in today’s terms, but which was egregious in Persian culture. By revealing her national identity, she put her life at risk for her community.

God in the shadows

The Book of Esther never mentions God. It is, however, clear that the Jewish characters in the story are believers. They fasted in times of trouble and instituted a feast in remembrance of the events. It is reasonable to acknowledge the hand of God in the surprising reversal of fortune of Haman and Mordecai, and how the Jews were saved from annihilation.

Key Passages

Esther 1:1-2

“Now in the days of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces, in those days when King Ahasuerus sat on his royal throne in Susa, the citadel.”

Though the first verses of Esther seem to provide significant information about the time the events played out, and identifies the king, it is not clear who exactly Ahasuerus was. He could have been one of three Persian kings who reigned between 486-358 BCE.

Esther 2:10

“Esther had not made known her people or kindred, for Mordecai had commanded her not to make it known.”

Likely because of the prejudice against the Jews, Mordecai told Esther not to reveal her nationality to anyone at the palace. This allowed her, once she had won the affection of Ahasuerus, to show the king what the character of Haman truly was.

Esther 4:13-14

“Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, ‘Do not think to yourself that in the king’s palace, you will escape any more than all the other Jews. For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?’”

By the providence of God, Esther became queen to influence the king when their enemies plotted to exterminate the Jews. Esther had to make a choice. She decided to stand up for her people and expose Haman as the villain he was.

Esther 5:2

“And when the king saw Queen Esther standing in the court, she won favor in his sight, and he extended Esther the golden scepter in his hand. Then Esther approached and touched the tip of the scepter, acknowledging his invitation to approach and speak.” 

A person who approached the king without him extending his scepter would be put to death. Esther risked her life by going to Ahasuerus. She wisely worked to reveal to her husband the character of his high-ranking official who wanted to manipulate the king into acting against those he despised.

Esther 7:3

“Then Queen Esther answered, ‘If I have found favor in your sight, O king, and if it please the king, let my life be granted me for my wish, and my people for my request.’” 

The narrative suggests that the king loved Esther very much, which was a key factor in saving the Jews. When his beloved wife asked him to spare her and her people, King Ahasuerus complied. A decree could not be revoked according to Persian law, and he had already decreed that attacking the Jews was lawful on a designated day. By declaring that the Jews could defend themselves, the king effectively showed that he did not desire the annihilation of the Jews. The Jews effectively defended themselves and killed, among others, the ten sons of Haman (Esther 9:6-11).

Esther 9:22

“As the days on which the Jews got relief from their enemies, and as the month that had been turned for them from sorrow into gladness and from mourning into a holiday; that they should make them days of feasting and gladness, days for sending gifts of food to one another and gifts to the poor.” 

The feast of Purim, which Jews celebrate to this day, commemorates the day that the Jews would have been destroyed but conquered their enemies. It is a sign of God’s protection and providence.

Contemporary Relevance

Though the Book of Esther does not mention God, his providence is clear in the narrative. The contemporary reader can recognize how God provided an outcome for his people by using one person he placed in a key position. It inspires the reader to see God working “behind the scenes” to protect and care for his people. The reader will also benefit from seeing the results of vindictive actions and malicious intent, and that God is not blind to it. He will bring evil plots to light and bring the wicked to justice.

Obedience is another valuable lesson the Book of Esther teaches. Esther was willing to obey the call of Mordecai to stand for her people before the king, and it saved her people. Similarly, obedience is a virtue that will benefit the contemporary believer.

Anyone who opens a modern Bible would assume that the authors of the four Gospels were the men whose names they bear. But it is plausible that, originally, these works may have circulated anonymously. While scholars agree that the authors’ names were absent from the original manuscripts, they disagree about whether or not the earliest readers actually thought of them as anonymous works.

The Problem of Anonymity

Many ancient writings did not contain their authors’ names, and this was true of the Gospels that are preserved in the New Testament. This does not necessarily mean that they were not associated from the beginning with particular authors—they may have been. But without written evidence in the texts themselves, it is expected that critical scholars will be persuaded differently regarding whether or not the original readers of these works associated them with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Some scholars argue that the Gospels’ first readers simply used them in local churches without reference to their writers’ identities. Others find this implausible, arguing instead that they must have been identified with someone and, in the absence of a viable alternative, present the traditional authors as the most likely possibility. At the same time, this latter group does not necessarily insist that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John personally wrote the works that bear their names in the same way that authors compose their own works today. Rather, they would have used scribes, and it is possible that the voices of a variety of people are present in the Gospels—despite their being ultimately attributed to single authors.

While works were often published anonymously in this period of history, it is also important to note that works were also often published pseudonymously—that is, they were attributed to some famous person who never wrote them. By the 2nd century, there were many pseudonymous gospels and epistles circulating in the Mediterranean World. But scholars generally agree that none of these were published within the lifetime of those who knew Jesus personally. Rather, there is general agreement among scholars that the four Gospels in the New Testament were completed within one generation after Jesus’s lifetime.

The Literacy Problem

Among the factors that come to bear on the question of the Gospels’ authorship has to do with the low literacy rate in the land of Israel in the 1st century, which some scholars estimate could have been only 3%. The Gospels were all composed in a colloquial form of Greek called koine. Given the humble origins of Jesus’s disciples—who all would have spoken Aramaic rather than Greek—some historians doubt that Jesus’s original followers could have personally composed the simple-yet-masterful works preserved as the Gospels in the New Testament. Luke may be the exception to this rule since he was a highly-educated Greek-speaking person, according to the Book of Acts.

However, other scholars agree that there is ample evidence of a thriving scribal industry in and around Jerusalem in the 1st century. Furthermore, the Gospels say that Jesus was not only literate but was well-studied in Jewish scripture, and they present him as being able to read texts in Hebrew in front of others. Moreover, Jesus often seems to expect his interlocutors to have read the Hebrew Bible. According to the picture the Gospels present, knowledge of literature was not entirely out of reach even for those who lived outside Jerusalem’s environs, although it was difficult to obtain.

Papias: Evidence or Questions?

The earliest reference to the four Gospels’ authorship under the names they have now is in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. Himself a resident of Palestine, Eusebius was a bishop and historian whose life spanned between the 3rd and 4th centuries—some 200 years after the Gospels were composed. This is more than enough time for a mistaken tradition of authorship to have developed. However, Eusebius references the work of another Christian bishop named Papias, who ministered in the church at Hieropolis (in modern-day Turkey) within the lifetime of some of Jesus’s disciples. Unfortunately, Papias’s work has been lost, so all that is left is the portions to which Eusebius refers. Nevertheless, what little is preserved is significant. According to Eusebius, Papias attributed one of the four Gospels to Mark and another to Matthew. This means that within only a few decades of their writing, a “Gospel According to Mark” and a “Gospel According to Matthew” were in circulation.

However, some scholars hesitate to associate these individuals immediately with the Mark and Matthew in today’s New Testament for at least two reasons. For one, Papias implies that Matthew wrote in Hebrew—yet New Testament scholars generally believe Matthew was composed originally in Greek. For another, Eusebius includes a quotation from Papias regarding the death of Judas that is radically different from the account given in the Gospel of Matthew. This sheds doubt on the notion that Papias had received his version of events from “our” Matthew as opposed to another person. Was Papias talking about a different set of books about the Christ than the ones that were preserved in the New Testament? There are enough questions introduced by Eusebius’s report of what he said to leave some scholars wondering.

Evidence in Irenaeus

Irenaeus was a bishop in the French city of Lyons whose work contains the second-earliest reference to the Gospel writers. In Against Heresies, he identifies all four writers. He echoes Papias in saying that Matthew wrote in Hebrew and that Mark wrote his Gospel based on Peter’s testimony. But Irenaeus’s quotations of Matthew reflect well the Gospel of Matthew that is present in the New Testament. It appears, thus, that by the end of the 2nd century, the four Gospels were being attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Does this mean that they were originally associated with the same authors?

Irenaeus lived toward the end of the 2nd century, which puts considerable space between him and the lives of those who allegedly wrote the Gospels. Thus, skepticism about his claim may be warranted. Yet, history has not recorded any alternatives. According to what can be discerned from the extra-biblical record, either the identities of the Gospels’ authors have been lost, or they are indeed Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Luke: The Strongest Case for Authorship?

The New Testament’s Book of Acts was written by the same person who wrote the Gospel of Luke. Actually, Luke-Acts should be considered two volumes of a single work. Both are addressed to a patron named Theophilus. This is relevant for two reasons. First, it seems unlikely that a work that was written for a patron could be anonymous since the patron himself would know who wrote it and would have no reason not to reveal who it was. Second, even though Luke’s Gospel technically does not name him as the author, in the Book of Acts, he appears in the story and speaks of his activities in the first person.

Another reason why it is unlikely that Luke would have been given undue credit for writing a Gospel is because he was not personally a disciple of Jesus during Jesus’s lifetime. In fact, he was not even a Jew. It would be strange for the fledgling Christian movement in search of an authority figure to whom to attach an anonymous Gospel to choose Luke over one of Jesus’s original disciples. Most pseudonymous gospels are, for this very reason, named after Jesus’s disciples or immediate acquaintances.

Most Scholars Say Mark Was Written First

Mark is the shortest of the four Gospels, and most scholars agree that Matthew and Luke had access to Mark when they wrote their own works since nearly all of the material in Mark is included in Matthew and Luke. This is an important point to make when discussing the question of authorship. Being a Gospel’s author did not necessarily mean being the sole compiler of the traditions reflected therein. The authors of Matthew and Luke appear to have borrowed significantly from Mark, so any use of the word “author” when discussing the Gospel writers needs to be able to accommodate this phenomenon.

This brings another question to the fore that is often debated in Christian circles. What, exactly, makes the Gospels uniquely authoritative vis-a-vis other early Christian literature about Jesus? Many have pointed to Mark’s close association with Peter, which is highlighted by Papias as well as other early Christian figures. Because Peter was one of Jesus’s twelve specially-chosen disciples, and because Mark is based on Peter’s account of Jesus’s life and ministry, it is reasoned that Mark carries “apostolic authority.” Matthew, meanwhile, was one of Jesus’s disciples, and so the authority of his Gospel follows directly from his status as such.

However, this raises a question: if Matthew was an eyewitness of Jesus’s life, while Mark got his information second-hand from Peter, why does it appear that Matthew copied large amounts of material from Mark’s Gospel? Could it be that it was actually Matthew who wrote first—and that Mark is the one who is copying? Or did they each copy from the same source that is now lost to history?

Tradition Holds That Matthew Was Written First

The idea that Mark was written first does not come from tradition but from the findings of “form criticism,” which, as the name suggests, is an approach to studying ancient texts that prioritizes the history of their formation. This is a modern approach, and sometimes its conclusions conflict with traditional claims regarding when, where, and by whom texts were created. This is also the case with the so-called “theory of Markan priority.”

Tradition holds that Matthew was written first and was followed by Mark. This is difficult for many modern scholars to accept; few findings of source criticism are more widely agreed upon among biblical scholars than the theory of Markan priority. Still, some scholars continue to hold that Matthew was the first Gospel writer.

Is “The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved” John Himself?

The term “Synoptic Gospels” refers to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John is in its own category because it shows so little evidence of direct copying from whatever source the Synoptic Gospels shared.

Like the other Gospels and their traditional authors, there is no rival tradition to John’s authorship in the early church. However, John contains a feature pertaining to its authorship that distinguishes it from its counterparts. While Mark, Luke, and Matthew mention those names within their works, John the Apostle—the traditional author of the Gospel of John—is never mentioned by name in the Gospel of John itself.

Meanwhile, an unnamed disciple called repeatedly “the disciple whom Jesus loved” appears mysteriously at key moments in the narrative. Then, at the very end of the Gospel, this unnamed disciple reveals himself as the author of the foregoing work! In other words, the author expects the reader to have been wondering all along who this unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” was—and he chooses finally to reveal himself dramatically at the end.

Whether or not this revelation removed all doubt about the identity of the author to the original readers or not is difficult to say. But, perhaps in the absence of a willingness to allow this mysterious character to remain unnamed, the tradition developed that this person was John the Apostle. We say “perhaps” because there is no way to be certain.

Some scholars have suggested that the Gospel of John was the product of a communal authorial effort on the part of a group called, in retrospect, “the Johannine Community.” Others have argued that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” may be one of the other, named disciples in the story instead of John.

Who Wrote the Gospels?

In short, we are not sure. But the only proposals available are that it was either the four men whose names appear on them or four people whose identities will never be recovered. Either way, the Gospels will almost certainly remain the most complete sources in existence for understanding Jesus and his mission.

Debates about which religion emerged first between Judaism and Christianity pop up regularly in religious circles. But going by historical records, the Jewish faith is significantly older than the Christian faith by many centuries. A timeline of their histories shows a clear gap between the origins of the two faiths. In fact, the origins of Judaism date back to the Bronze Age in the Middle East while the beginnings of Christianity can be traced back to the 1st century CE in the Roman province of Judea.

The Rise of Judaism

The story of Judaism begins with the emergence of a man named Abraham who is considered to be the patriarch of the religion. According to archaeological estimates, Abraham lived around 2000 BCE. The book of Genesis in the Bible describes how he made a covenant with God that established the Jews as a chosen people. His descendants through Jacob are said to have eventually migrated to Egypt. The book of Exodus tells the story of how Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. Archaeologists often date the Exodus to around 1300 BCE, during the reign of the Pharaoh Ramses II. It is at Mount Sinai that the Israelites were said to have received the Ten Commandments. This was shortly after they left Egypt. It was at that moment that Judaism as a religion began to take shape.

The Move to Canaan

After moving from Egypt, the Israelites eventually settled in the land of Canaan. It was there that the Kingdom of Israel emerged as a unified monarchy. The construction of the First Temple by King Solomon in Jerusalem in the 10th century BCE temple was a major event for the religion, as it provided a central place for Jews to gather and offer sacrifices to their God. The First Temple stood for several centuries until the Babylonian Empire invaded the kingdom and destroyed it in 586 BCE. Notably, the Babylonians took many Jewish people to Babylon as captives.

Many history analysts believe that the Babylonian Exile played a crucial role in the development of Judaism. This is because it compelled Jewish religious leaders and scribes to compile texts that would eventually make up the Torah (the first five books of the Bible), and the larger Hebrew Bible, also known as the Tanakh. When the Persians conquered Babylon, King Cyrus the Great allowed the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem.

This was in 538 BCE. The Jews promptly built the Second Temple and completed it in 516 BCE. And so, the religion of Judaism was fully established with its own laws and rituals by the time the Second Temple was built. The Hebrew Bible was largely complete by the end of the 2nd century BCE.

The Rise of Christianity

Christianity emerged much later as a sect within Judaism. The founder of the religion was a Jewish preacher named Jesus of Nazareth. Most historians believe that Jesus was born around 4 BCE, shortly before the death of Herod the Great. Jesus was a Jewish teacher from the region of Galilee who grew up in the Jewish faith and followed the laws of Moses. As he grew up, he observed the holidays of the religion and read the scriptures as part of his daily life. It is estimated that he began his public ministry around the year 27 CE and preached about the Kingdom of God. He also gathered a group of disciples to help spread his message. The Roman authorities, however, executed Jesus by crucifixion around 30 CE. Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor at the time.

After his death, his followers believed that he rose from the dead and spread the message that he was the Messiah. The movement began to change when Paul the Apostle joined the group. Paul traveled around the Mediterranean region spreading the message of Jesus to non-Jewish people, known as Gentiles. He ultimately made the religion more inclusive.

The Separation of Christianity from Judaism

The divide between Judaism and Christianity happened gradually over the first few centuries. A major turning point occurred following the First Jewish-Roman War in 66 CE, in which the Jewish people rebelled against the Roman Empire. To quell the unrest, the Roman army under Titus destroyed Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70 CE, effectively compelling the religion to restructure itself. 

Subsequently, its leadership moved to the town of Yavne and the focus of the faith shifted from animal sacrifices at the Temple, to prayer and the study of the Torah. Because many Christians had fled Jerusalem before the siege, they did not participate in the rebellion. Consequently, the gap between the two groups grew wider after the war. Soon, the Romans began to persecute Christians as a distinct group rather than as a Jewish sect.

According to the Bible, Abraham was married to at least three women during his life. Sarah and Hagar, his first two wives, each had one son with Abraham and played prominent roles in the Abraham story. Abraham expelled Hagar, the younger of the two women, from his household. After Sarah died, he is said to have married another woman named Keturah with whom he had six more sons. One of them was named Midian, and is seen as the father of the Midianite nation.

Is Keturah the Same Person as Hagar?

Altogether, it appears that Abraham had at least eight sons by the time he died. We are not told that he had daughters. But it is possible that his daughters were ignored by the authors since the Bible usually excludes women from genealogical records. 

While later Rabbinic and Christian interpreters often conflated Hagar’s identity with Keturah’s, nothing in the biblical tradition suggests this. Rather, it appears that Abraham married Keturah some time after after he had exiled Hagar, and after Sarah died. Keturah’s origin is not specified in the text, and this absence of detail seems to have invited creative additions to the story from later interpreters. Regardless, all traditions agree that Abraham is both the father of Isaac, whose son would be named Israel, and of Midian, Isaac’s half-brother. Despite their kinship, the descendants of these two sons of Abraham would become bitter enemies. 

Moses Lived with the Midianites for Forty Years

Yet, the Bible also says that Moses married into a Midianite family, spent forty years among them, and may have even been saved from divine judgment by his Midianite wife Zipporah. 

Once Midian is introduced briefly in Genesis as one of Abraham and Keturah’s sons, little more is said about him or his offspring before the Exodus story begins. In the book of Exodus, Moses is forced to flee Egypt after murdering an Egyptian slavedriver. There he encounters a man called both Reuel and Jethro in the text, who is described as a “priest of Midian.” Remarkably, there is no sign of religious dissension between Jethro and Moses, or the Hebrews once they come back through Midian initially on their way out of Egypt. In fact, Jethro is portrayed in the text as a wise counselor to Moses throughout. 

Did Moses’s Midianite Wife Save His Life?

But arguably the most important Midianite character in the Exodus story is Zipporah, Moses’s wife and the daughter of Jethro. In a cryptic story that takes place in the text immediately after Moses’s famous encounter with God at the burning bush, the text says that God appeared one night at the door of Moses’s tent with the intent to kill either him or Moses and Zipporah’s son (the Hebrew is ambiguous, only using “he” to indicate the intended victim). But when Zipporah performs a ritual circumcision on their son, God relents and no one is killed. 

This strange story is puzzling to interpreters, and is so short that it is often simply passed over by readers. Yet its shortness belies its significance to the storyline. It could be that the text is saying that Moses’s life was saved by a Midianite woman. Given Moses’s essential role in the rest of the Exodus story and in Jewish and Christian traditions thereafter, the story’s significance could scarcely be overstated. 

Midianites and Israelites Fought throughout Their Histories

In one of the most perplexing twists in the story of Moses and the Israelites’ years of wandering in the regions to the south and east of Canaan, the text portrays Midian as one of Israel’s most intractable enemies. In fact, in a relatively long narrative in the book of Numbers, Moses is said to command the complete eradication of the Midianite nation, even to the point of executing prisoners of war and forcibly marrying previously unmarried Midianite women to Israelite men. The passage is one of the starkest contrasts to modern ideals of combat law in the Bible. 

Yet, Bible readers are left wondering how, or whether or not, Moses’s Midianite family is supposed to have been related to this bloody episode. Were they also massacred along with the other Midianites? The text does not say. Instead, the Bible simply includes both stories, and the reader is left unsatisfied. 

Did the Israelites Really Kill All of the Midianites?

Careful Bible readers notice that, despite the story in Numbers that suggests that the Midianite nation was eradicated, Midianite civilization continues to appear in subsequent narratives and to engage in further wars with Israel. The book of Judges contains stories in which it is claimed that Midian was relatively more powerful than Israel at times, to the point of being able to exact heavy taxes upon them. Gideon, who receives a great deal of attention in Judges, is said to have led the Israelites to victory over the Midianites. 

What Have Archaeologists Discovered about the Midianites?

Archaeologists have uncovered artifacts that demonstrate important, thriving centers of civilization in the region known as Midian dating to biblical as well as earlier and later periods. Bible readers can get the impression that this region was a “wilderness,” or a largely uninhabited space. But excavations at sites like Qurrayah, Tayma, and Danan suggest settled communities with trade connections to the great ancient civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Levant.

It is difficult to draw direct, specific parallels between the material culture found in these sites and the picture given of “the Midianites” in the Bible. Some suggest that the various references to Midianites in the Bible are actually not the same group of people. Perhaps biblical Israel interacted with several distinct groups who come from roughly the same region known as Midian.