For Further Reading: Dean

Second, the Hebrew name for God, Elohim, is plural in form but takes the singular verb. This is regarded by some as a rudimentary allusion to the triunity of God. In the very least it is a "plural of majesty" which sums up in the Creator God all the divine powers and attributes. In Gen. 1:1 God is self-existent, the First Cause of all that is, an eternal Being who existed before the begin­ning.

See creation, god, theism, cosmology.

Plato first discussed being in a systematic manner, contrasting the world of change with the unchanging being of metaphysical forms. Since then the meaning of being has played an important part in Western thought. Those in­clined towards metaphysics view being as the object of their inquiry (idealism, process philoso­phy); those opposed to metaphysics consider be­ing as the most empty of all general concepts (positivism, analytical philosophy). In recent thought continental philosophers reject being as some underlying substance of "stuff" by relating being to human existence (Marxism, existential­ism).

In Christian theology being primarily appears in three contexts. First, being expresses the un­derlying unity wherein all three Persons of the Godhead are One. This is the sense in which classical theology speaks of God as absolute. Or ancient creedal statements mention the "same substance" (homoousios) with respect to the Fa­ther and Son in Trinitarian discussion. Second, Roman Catholic theology distinguishes between the substance and accidents of the Eucharistic elements. The substance of the bread and wine is transubstantiated into the very body and blood of Christ, while the elemental accidents (taste, color) remain the same. Third, Paul Tillich and John Macquarrie suggest that being be under­stood as that which empowers us to be and that God be identified with Being as such. However, critics charge that this departs from the tradi­tional emphasis on God as a being.
BELIEF—BENEVOLENCE

69

By and large it may be said that belief is the cognitive side of faith—the content side—which may fall short of Christian faith, for it may stop with the assent of the mind. Many have sub­scribed to a creed or to a religious philosophy or way of life who have never personally put their trust in a living Christ.

Yet sometimes the NT uses "the faith" as equivalent to the particular body of teachings marking the boundaries of that which is authen­tically Christian in distinction from that which is still pagan (e.g., Acts 6:7; 13:8; 14:22; Rom. 1:5; Gal. 1:23; Jude 3).

See FAITH, FIDELITY OBEDIENCE. For Further Reading: Purkiser, ed., Exploring Our Christian Faith (1960), 26-38.

A benediction may be a prayer for God's bless­ing, or an acknowledgment of its having been re­ceived. The "blessing" of the bread and cup during the Last Supper (Matt. 26:26-27; 1 Cor. 10:16) is the most important and far-reaching now in use. The Christian appellation Eucharist for the Lord's Supper indicates the believer's ac­ceptance of God's greatest Benediction on man­kind, and the believer's gratitude for it.

A benediction may also be a form of good words spoken on God's behalf, to a congregation of His people, by His representative. In this sense the words and the spokesman's gestures are closely related (2 Chron. 30:26-27; Neh. 9:5; Ps. 134:2; 1 Tim. 2:8). There are many such bene­dictions or blessings in Scripture, the most famil­iar being found in Num. 6:24-26; 2 Cor. 13:14; Heb. 13:20-21; Phil. 4:7; Eph. 1:3 ff; Rev. 1:4 ff. Many other scriptures may readily be used as blessings or benedictions. Perhaps we can grasp a little more of the meaning of the words if we remember that they sometimes stand in contrast with the curse (Gen. 27:12; Deut. 11:26-28; 23:5; etc.). Also, Paul sometimes links material and spiritual blessing (cf. Rom. 15:29; 2 Cor. 9:5; Heb. 6:6-7; 12:17).

See curse, prayer, praise, worship.

For Further Reading: Blackwood, The Fine Art of Pub­lic Worship; Pugsley, A Preacher's Prayer Book.

T. Crichton Mitchell

Early Greek writers list benevolence (eunoia) among the qualities of the wise and of a good ruler. In Jewish and Christian usage, it also means affection and love between relatives; and love between husband and wife (even being used for sexual union, as in 1 Cor. 7:3, kjv).

Benevolence, as a civic virtue, implies de­votion, fidelity, goodwill, loyalty, and will­ingness. As a duty of Christian slaves (employees in modern society), it requires service with "good will" (Eph. 6:7). This is a readiness and zeal with a religious basis. For the church, a NT example is Paul's love offering for the poor and needy Jeru­salem saints (1 Cor. 16:1-3).

See charity, love, agape.

For Further Reading: Amdt, Gingrich, 323; Kittel, 4:972ff; Wiley, CT, 3:76-79.

Charles Wilson Smith



70

BETRAYAL—BIBLE


BETRAYAL. In Scripture "betrayal" refers to the manner in which Jesus was delivered into the hands of the ecclesiastical and the civil author­ities for trial and death. Judas Iscariot is the pri­mary figure in this foul deed, according to each of the four Gospel writers (Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22; John 13). Hence, the name Judas has become a byword for one who will falsely betray another for personal gain.

The impetus for the betrayal was satanic (John 13:2); however, there was something in the char­acter of Judas which made him susceptible to such a suggestion (12:4-6). Characteristically, be­trayal involves treachery, as seen in Judas' kiss.

That the betrayal of Jesus was a violation of trust is further illustrated by the giving of the "sop" (John 13:26-27). In conformity to oriental custom, Jesus, as the Host at the feast, dipped a small piece of bread in the gravy from the roast lamb, probably gathering some crumbs of roast with the bread. This was placed by Jesus in the mouth of Judas, signifying first, that the recipient was an honored guest and that, second, the host was now obligated to protect, with his life if nec­essary, the recipient.

Few sins are more despicable or inexcusable than the violation of trust. This could have been an element in the primal sin of the universe, when (according to the traditional view) an arch­angel became Satan the Adversary. Jesus spoke of Satan as the father of lying (John 8:44).

See faithfulness, infidelity, trust.
For Further Reading: Turner, Martey, The Gospel of
John, 271 ff. LEROY E. LlNDSEY

BIBLE. The Holy Bible is the sacred book of Christians, and its first major division is also the sacred book of the Jews. Throughout Christen­dom it is commonly referred to as the Word of God, and by evangelicals believed to be the final and sufficient authority in all matters pertaining to doctrine and Christian life.

The English word Bible is derived from the Greek word biblion, meaning "a written volume, roll, or little book" (cf. Luke 4:17, 20; Rev. 10:9). Biblion is derived from the Greek word biblios, a word for the pith of the papyrus plant which, when processed, became paper (papyri in Latin). The plural of biblion is biblia. Thus books written on paper were called biblia. How a plural word derived a singular meaning is not clear. Possibly the neuter plural word biblia was assumed to be a femine singular (spelled the same). At any rate the word Book (Bible) came to be applied to the entire collection of Christian sacred writings.

That was fitting because of the unity of the Scriptures.

The Bible is composed of the OT ("the old cov­enant") and the NT ("the new covenant"). The OT is the body of Scriptures adopted by Judaism centuries before Christ's birth, but made official by the Council of Jamnia in a.d. 90. While other religious works had been produced by the Jews, the 39 books of the OT are the only books which they considered to be inspired. Inspiration itself seems to have been determined by the standing of the person or persons who wrote the books. The writings of prophets (as Moses, Samuel, Jer­emiah, etc.) and of others who, although not prophets, possessed the prophetic gift (as David, Solomon, etc.) were believed to be inspired. Other writings, though having religious value, found no place among their Scriptures. In gen­eral, the Christian church accepted the judgment of Judaism in this matter, though apocryphal (uncanonical) books sometimes have been bound separately in their versions. Only the Ro­man branch of Christianity has pronounced the Apocrypha inspired (Council of Trent, 1545-63).

There was a time of disagreement in the Early Church over which books should comprise the NT. The present 27 books were suggested first by Athanasius (a.d. 315). Again inspiration was the chief determinant. Books were considered to be inspired if they were written by an apostle (as Peter, Paul, etc.) or by one who worked closely with, and under the influence of, an apostle (as Mark or Luke). Besides apostolicity, the tests of spirituality, agreement with unquestioned books in doctrine and morality, and the usefulness of the books also were applied.

The original languages of the Bible were He­brew and a few Aramaic passages for the OT, and Greek for the NT.

Christians generally divide the literature of the OT into the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deu­teronomy), the Historical Books (Joshua through Esther), the Poetical and/or Wisdom Literature (Job through Song of Solomon), and the Proph­ets. The Prophets extend from Isaiah through Malachi and are subdivided into Major Prophets (Isaiah through Daniel) and Minor Prophets (Hosea through Malachi). Jews divide their Scriptures into the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Law (Torah) contains the books tra­ditionally attributed to Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets (Nabim) are sub­divided into Former and Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets include Joshua, Judges-Ruth, and Samuel and Kings each as one book. The Latter Prophets are Isaiah, Jeremiah-Lamenta-



BIBLE, INSPIRATION OF—BIBLE: THE TWO TESTAMENTS

71

Christians divide the NT into the Gospels (Matthew through John), the Historical Book (Acts), the Epistles, and the Apocalypse (Revela­tion). The Epistles are subdivided into the Pau­line Epistles (Romans through Philemon) and the General Epistles (roughly James through Jude). Disagreement over who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews has continued since the second century

Originally the Bible was not divided into chap­ters and verses. The words of the OT text were not separated from each other in the earliest manuscripts, neither did they contain vowel let­ters. Jewish scholars called Masoretes added vowel points after a.d. 600. Stephen Langton (d. 1228) probably was the first to divide the Bible into chapters. Robert Stephens divided the NT into verses about a.d. 1551.

The overall theme of the Bible is the redemp­tion of man. The OT reveals the need for re­demption and God's preparatory stages in its unfolding. The NT presents Christ as God's means of redemption, and more fully displays its nature, both in time and eternity. If read aright, the Bible always leads to Christ. An epitome of the progressive revelation found in the Bible is Heb. 1:1-4.

Disciplines closely related to the Bible are: apologetics, the defense of the Bible's authority; biblical criticism, which inquires into the origin, character, and purposes of the several books (higher criticism), and which seeks to bring the text to the highest possible level of accuracy (lower criticism); biblical theology, which discov­ers the doctrines of the Bible; and hermeneutics, the science of biblical interpretation.

See biblical authority, biblical inerrancy bibli­cal realism, inspiration, hermeneutics, apocrypha, canon, bible: the two testaments.

For Further Reading: Demaray, Bible Study Source Book ZPBD; Eerdman's Handbook to the Bible; Wakefield, A Complete System of Christian Theology, 51-123.

W. Ralph Thompson

Ultimately, the two questions are one, es­pecially when the term hermeneutic is used in a normative (rather than a merely descriptive) sense. If it can be shown that the OT is related to the NT by a valid hermeneutic, then it follows that the OT is theologically relevant to the NT and thereby to the Christian Church. Compre­hensive treatment here is impossible. What will be attempted is an account of representative fea­tures of the hermeneutic of each Testament fol­lowed by an analysis of the principles upon which both Testaments are linked. Characteristics of the Hermeneutic of the Old Testa­ment

Before taking up the question of the rela­tionship between the OT and the NT, it is worth inquiring as to the nature of the interpretative process within the OT itself. Three features fig­ure prominently.

1. Promise and Fulfillment This motif, which is sometimes advanced as being characteristic of the relationship between the Testaments, func­tions significantly within the OT. Several aspects of its use are worth noting.

1. 
   There are specific promises which find spe­cific fulfillment. Moses' word promises deliv­erance from Egypt when such an event seems utterly improbable (Exod. 3:10-12, 15-17; 4:29-31); and the promise is fulfilled in the Ex­odus and the eventual occupation of the land of Canaan. Isaiah promises deliverance from Sen­nacherib (Isa. 37:21 ff; cf. 30:15), and his proph­ecy is vindicated (37:36).
   
2. 
   Other promises are more far-reaching in their scope and therefore more complex in their fulfillment. So much is this so that in many cases the form of the fulfillment could not be deduced from the terms of the promise. The covenant promise is a good example (Gen. 12:3). The orig­inal covenant had to do with land (13:14-17; 15:12-21). The Sinai covenant, though linked with the patriarchs (Exod. 3:6,15-16) and related ultimately to land (vv. 8, 17), was concerned in its immediate form with law (24:3, 7-8), indispens­ably necessary for ordering the life of a larger community than that with which the Abrahamic covenant was made. The Davidic covenant dif­
   
3. 
   
   

2. 
   Salvation History. In the OT, salvation is re­alized within history and therefore has a history. The covenants alluded to in illustration of prom­ise and fulfillment are regularly formulated in as­sociation with the recital of God's mighty acts (Exod. 20:2; 2 Sam. 7:8-9, 23 f). The significant feature is that, in this developing process, there takes place the amalgamation of a constant, the divine plan, with a contingency, the unfolding events unforeseen by this plan, especially those which are in opposition to it. This means that the new saving events require to be placed in con­nection with the old, necessitating a rein-terpretation of them. That is, in the course of salvation history the divine plan is clarified, modified, and transformed.
   
3. 
   Typology. While commonly regarded as a means of relating the Testaments, typological in­terpretation is part of the hermeneutical process within the OT. The concept originates within prophetic eschatology whereby present events are interpreted in terms of past events. The prime example is the Exodus which is viewed as the prefigurement of God's later deliverances of His people (cf. Isa. 43:14-21; 48:20f; 51:9-11). A re­lated example is the new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34; Isa. 43:16-21). Implicit in such typological exe­gesis, as L. Goppelt points out (art. "types," TDNT 8:254), is that the divine plan reaches its goal in spite of judgment; but also, that the renewal does not simply correspond to what went before: it transcends it. The new covenant is not a re-promulgation of the old, but an advance upon it.
   

There may be correspondence of substance be­tween the two, but not correspondence of form. The importance of these observations regarding OT hermeneutics is that the NT is often criticized for handling the OT in the very way in which the OT interprets itself.

Whereas the field of investigation for OT her­meneutic is the OT's interpretation of itself, the field of investigation for NT hermeneutic is the NT's interpretation of the OT. The OT was the Bible of the primitive Church, and among the conspicuous features of the latter's interpretation of the former were the following.

1. 
   Christocentricity. The fundamental feature of the NT reading of the OT is that the OT speaks of Christ and finds its fulfillment in Him. Ac­cording to the Synoptics, this view goes back to Jesus himself. It is made comprehensively by the risen Christ with specific reference to His death (Luke 24:26 f, 44-47). A similar approach is evi­dent during His ministry, again with particular reference to His death (Mark 9:12; 14:49; Matt. 26:54-56), though not exclusively thereto (Luke 4:21). Nowhere is the point affirmed more strongly than in the Gospel of John (5:39, 46; 13:18). If this is so, then Jesus' followers learned from Him well as is shown in the Gospels by Matthew's fulfillment formulae (1:18; 2:15, 17; etc.), as well as in the Epistles where OT passages which, in their original, historical sense do not refer to Jesus, are taken in fact to do so (Gal. 3:16; cf. 1 Cor. 9:8-12; etc.). To echo Cullmann's image: The light of Christ is reflected back upon the OT, which is now illuminated by the later event (Christ and Time, 90 f).
   
2. 
   Typology. If Christocentricity is a hermeneu­tical perspective, typology is the hermeneutical method by which that perspective is applied. E. Earle Ellis describes typology in the NT as "not so much a system of interpretation as a 'spiritual perspective' from which the early Christian com­munity viewed itself" (in I. Howard Marshall: NT Interpretation, 210 ff). This "spiritual perspective" rests upon three assumptions, (a) The essential unity in all ages of man's need, and the similar unity in all ages of God's redemption, (b) The dis­tinction between type and antitype, the latter go­ing beyond the former and fulfilling it. (c) The historical character of Scripture out of whose lit­eral (as opposed to allegorical) sense the meaning of the text arises (Ellis, op. cit., 212). In the NT the three main areas of the OT which are treated typologically are the Covenant, Creation, and Judgment.
   

3. Creative Exegesis. The hermeneutical dyna­mism observed in OT is present also in NT in various forms in which the interpretation spills over beyond the terms of the text. For example, the application to Jesus of the words "He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt. 2:23) is most probably to be understood as a wordplay on the words "Nazirite" (drawn from Judg. 16:17) and "Naza­rene" (inhabitant of Nazareth). For a full state­ment see R. N. Longenecker: Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 145 ff). Again, Paul's inter­pretation of Deut. 30:12 in Rom. 10:6-8 as a ref­erence to Jesus (a conclusion to which no amount of historical exegesis could ever lead) is based on the principle that the entire OT speaks of Christ. Hermeneutical Principles Underlying the Unity of the Testaments

1. 
   Dynamic Interpretation. Reference has been made above to what was called the hermeneuti­cal dynamism of the OT and creative exegesis in the NT. What this means in practice is that, not only is Scripture used to interpret events, but events are used to interpret Scripture. Just as the adult "comes out of the child," but in a devel­opmental way, by the addition of and interaction with new factors and forces; so the meaning of the OT comes out of it only in the light of the long history of Israel culminating in Christ. But such a meaning is accessible only to faith. Histor­ical exegesis alone cannot prove that Jesus is the true Servant of the Lord; and historical exegesis cannot be allowed the last word in interpreting the OT. There is a supraliteral or spiritual dimen­sion which is inaccessible to the historical method, the adjudication of which lies at the level of faith. Longenecker says, with reference to the apostolic authors: "Accepting the Messi-ahship and Lordship of Jesus, and believing that in His teaching and person was expressed the fullness of revelation, they took a prophetic stance upon a revelatory basis and treated the OT more charismatically than scholastically" (op. cit., 212).
   
2. 
   Objective Coherence. Taken by itself, dy­namic interpretation might seem to open the door to unbridled exegetical subjectivism. The impression is frequently given that this is largely what is found in the NT—OT passages being torn out of context and forced by exegetical acro­batics to say what was desired. Against this may be set the judgment of F. F. Bruce who, compar­ing the use of the OT at Qumran with that in the NT, says: "In great areas of OT interpretation there is a coherence we do not find in Qumran exegesis. Atomizing exegesis like that of the Qumran texts is present in the NT too, but the distinctive feature of the NT use of the Old is the contextual exegesis that so often lies behind the citation of individual texts" (Tradition and In­terpretation, 413). If, as many say the apostolic authors believed, Jesus is the true Israel, then the door is opened at once to finding Christ in the OT in a spiritual yet thoroughly objective way. The extent to which this was done has been shown by (among others) C. H. Dodd, who con­cludes his study thus:
   

See bible, hermeneutics, inspiration of the bi­ble, progressive revelation. biblical inerrancy.

For Further Reading: Bruce, The NT Development of OT Themes; Dodd, According to the Scriptures; Ellis,
74

BIBLICAL AUTHORITY