Sermon and Worship Resources (2024)

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

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

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

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

To harbor an inordinate desire, especially for something belonging to someone else, often with intent to deprive that person of what is rightfully his or hers.

In the OT, the principal Hebrew term, khamad, indicates an unrestrained, selfish desire. A survey of its occurrences shows this desire directed most often toward things that belong to others or that are otherwise illicit (e.g., Josh. 7:21; Prov. 6:25; Mic. 2:2; but see Ps. 68:16: “God chooses”).

Notably, the tenth commandment prohibits coveting another’s possessions (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21). It is unique among the Decalogue’s latter commandments (Exod. 20:1217) because it targets an inward attitude rather than outward acts.

In the NT, a principal Greek term, epithymeō, represents a strong desire generally. Paul uses it when referencing the tenth commandment (Rom. 7:7; 13:9), so that the Greek term is similar to the Hebrew one in meaning. In contrast, James 4:2 employs epithymeō broadly to refer to evil desires that promote strife. The exact meaning of this word is determined by context (cf. Matt. 13:17, where Jesus speaks of those who “longed” to experience what his disciples did).

Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:1213).

Israel’s promised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen. 13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing, fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orienting points for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise, “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27). Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity and judgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationship with God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; this could ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits” people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).

For Israel, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen. 15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithful obedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1Kings 2:1–4). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen. 18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was the supreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance” to give (1Sam. 26:19; 2Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). The Levites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did the other tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20; Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter and to occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3). Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when they accused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however, no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance” (Josh. 13:1).

Egypt is one of the earliest ancient civilizations. The first development of writing took place simultaneously in both Egypt and ancient Sumer around 3000 BC.

Ancient Sumer and Egypt were river valley cultures. Sumer was located in Mesopotamia (southeast Iraq), Egypt in the Nile Valley (northeast Africa). The Nile Valley was well suited for long-term growth and cultural success for three reasons. First, the annual flooding of the Nile (July to October) brought sediment and nutrients from up river to the fields of the Nile Valley. The water also washed the salts out of the soil. These brought great fertility to the valley and allowed the same fields to be farmed year after year for millennia without exhausting the land. Second, the Nile provided a central highway for transporting people and goods across Egypt, thus facilitating internal trade and communication. Third, Egypt was surrounded by a buffer zone of desert regions to the east, west, and south, which hindered foreign invasion. Ancient Egyptians called the fertile land of the Nile Valley the “black land” and the desert regions the “red land.” They also divided the land into “upper” and “lower” Egypt. Upper Egypt (from the first cataract northward to Memphis) was in the higher southern elevations of the Nile River (the Nile flows from south to north). Lower Egypt was made up of the Nile Delta region. Only a pharaoh who controlled and unified both could take the epithet “king of upper and lower Egypt.”

Egypt had an ancient and long history, but the following summary will only address Egypt as it comes into contact with biblical history.

First Intermediate period (21342040 BC) and Middle Kingdom (2040–1640 BC). After the death of PepyII came economic collapse due to drought and falling tax revenues. These led to political collapse, and power was split among many competing factions. This time of instability is known as the First Intermediate period; it ended when the Eleventh Dynasty pharaoh MentuhotepII reunified Egypt and reestablished a strong central government. It is likely around the time of the end of the First Intermediate period (2134–2040 BC) and the beginning of the Middle Kingdom (2040–1640 BC) that Abraham visited Egypt and later Joseph, Jacob, and his family entered Egypt. The famous Beni Hasan tomb painting of this period shows a caravan of Semitic peoples moving into Egypt, wearing multicolored clothing. In this period the position of vizier (prime minister) grew to prominence. One vizier, Amenemhet, succeeded to the throne of Egypt. Joseph filled the role of vizier in the biblical account (Gen. 41:39–40). Also dating from this period are turquoise mines in the Sinai region that have the earliest known Semitic inscription. Written on the mine walls in Proto-Sinaitic, this inscription may be the earliest alphabetic script in existence.

Second Intermediate period (1640–1550 BC). At the end of the Middle Kingdom, Egypt again fell into a fractured political situation with the decline of the pharaoh’s power. A Semitic people, the Hyksos (Egyptian for “foreign rulers” or “shepherd kings”), invaded the Nile Delta region and established their capital at Avaris. The Seventeenth Dynasty continued to rule Upper Egypt in the south while the Hyksos were in power. Although the Israelites were servants of Pharaoh from the beginning (keeping his flocks), they were not enslaved until later. It may have been a Hyksos pharaoh or a New Kingdom pharaoh who enslaved them to hard labor.

New Kingdom (1550–1069 BC). The last king of the Seventeenth (Theban) Dynasty, Kamose, attacked the Hyksos, but it was his successor, Ahmose, who drove them out and reunified Egypt. Ahmose is considered the first pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty. It may have been Ahmose or one of his successors who enslaved the Hebrews. During the first half of the New Kingdom, Egypt was at the height of its power and wealth. During this period Egyptians began to call their king “Pharaoh,” meaning “great house.” The Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh ThutmoseIII and his son AmenhotepII are good candidates for an early-date exodus (c. 1446 BC). A later king of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Akhenaten, moved the capital to Amarna and shifted his allegiance from Amun-Re, the sun god, to sole worship of the god Aton (sun-disk). For this reason, many identify him as the first monotheist. Akhenaten may have made this move in order to defund the temples and priestly orders that had grown very wealthy and powerful over time. His reforms did not last, and the worship of Amun-Re was restored by his successor, Tutankhamen. The Nineteenth Dynasty warrior RamessesII is the likely pharaoh of a late-date Exodus (c. 1250 BC).

Third Intermediate period (1069–664 BC). This period was a time of weak and divided government, with capitals in the north and the south. Pharaoh Siamun has been conjectured to be King Solomon’s father-in-law, who conquered Gezer and gave it to Solomon as a dowry (c. 960 BC; 1Kings 9:16). Later, Sheshonq (biblical Shishak), a Libyan pharaoh of the Twenty-second Dynasty, came to the throne and campaigned against Solomon’s son Rehoboam, plundering Jerusalem in the process (1Kings 14:25; 2Chron. 12:2; cf. 1Kings 11:40). The African Cush*te pharaohs of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty (760–664 BC) ruled the north for a little more than a century but failed to defend against the waves of Assyrian conquest in the seventh century BC.

Late Kingdom period (664–525 BC). The Twenty-sixth (Saite) Dynasty (ruling from the Delta city of Sais) reunified Egypt under native Egyptian control. Pharaoh NechoII tried to support a declining Assyria as a buffer against the Babylonian onslaught but was unsuccessful (c. 609 BC). However, in the process Necho killed King Josiah of Judah in battle at Megiddo and placed one of Josiah’s sons, Jehoiakim, as a vassal upon the throne of Judah (2Kings 23:29–35; cf. 2Chron. 35:20–36:8; Jer. 46:2). After the Babylonian destruction of Judah/Jerusalem (587/586 BC) and the murder of their Jewish governor, Gedaliah, a group of Jewish exiles fled to Egypt. This group forced the prophet Jeremiah to go with them to Egypt (Jer. 40:1–43:7). A small group of Jewish exiles eventually found their way to a tiny island in the upper Nile, Elephantine, where they established a temple and community; there they worked as mercenaries.

Persian period (525–332 BC). CambysesII, king of Persia and son of Cyrus the Great, conquered Egypt in 525 BC. His successor, DariusI, ruled Egypt benevolently and resumed the construction of temples and canals. However, Egypt revolted against Persian rule several times, ultimately winning independence in 404 BC with the help of Greek allies. The last native Egyptian pharaoh was NectaneboII, who ruled in 359–343 BC. However, this period of Egyptian independence was short-lived, with Persia reestablishing control in 343 BC.

Hellenistic-Roman period (332–30 BC; 30 BC and beyond). Alexander the Great conquered Egypt in 332 BC. After Alexander’s death, his general Ptolemy took control of Egypt and ruled as pharaoh. From Alexander’s conquest to the death of Cleopatra, Egyptian rulers were of Greek descent. After Cleopatra’s death (30 BC), Rome annexed Egypt into its empire and governed the country until the fall of the Roman Empire. A large contingent of Jews lived and prospered in the Delta city of Alexandria in this period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The present abode of God and the final dwelling place of the righteous. The ancient Jews distinguished three different heavens. The first heaven was the atmospheric heavens of the clouds and where the birds fly (Gen. 1:20). The second heaven was the celestial heavens of the sun, the moon, and the stars. The third heaven was the present home of God and the angels. Paul builds on this understanding of a third heaven in 2Cor. 12:24, where he describes himself as a man who “was caught up to the third heaven” or “paradise,” where he “heard inexpressible things.” This idea of multiple heavens also shows itself in how the Jews normally spoke of “heavens” in the plural (Gen. 1:1), while most other ancient cultures spoke of “heaven” in the singular.

Although God is present everywhere, God is also present in a special way in “heaven.” During Jesus’ earthly ministry, the Father is sometimes described as speaking in “a voice from heaven” (Matt. 3:17). Similarly, Jesus instructs us to address our prayers to “Our Father in heaven” (6:9). Even the specific request in the Lord’s Prayer that “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (6:10) reminds us that heaven is a place already under God’s full jurisdiction, where his will is presently being done completely and perfectly. Jesus also warns of the dangers of despising “one of these little ones,” because “their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven” (18:10). Jesus “came down from heaven” (John 6:51) for his earthly ministry, and after his death and resurrection, he ascended back “into heaven,” from where he “will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).

Given this strong connection between heaven and God’s presence, there is a natural connection in Scripture between heaven and the ultimate hope of believers. Believers are promised a reward in heaven (“Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven” [Matt. 5:12]), and even now believers can “store up for [themselves] treasures in heaven” (6:20). Even in this present life, “our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20), and our hope at death is to “depart and be with Christ, which is better by far” (1:23). Since Christ is currently in heaven, deceased believers are already present with Christ in heaven awaiting his return, when “God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him” (1Thess. 4:14).

Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit for association with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4). God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while “Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’s Spirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49), as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).

With reference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like his uniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory (Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is, his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).

God’s dwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy” functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly (11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels who surround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).

A corollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy (Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps. 96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).

While “holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,” this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is an associated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied to people and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly or implicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never “from” something.

The symbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, the tabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1Chron. 29:3), and everything associated with them, are holy and the means whereby God’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God. For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these too must be holy (Lev. 11:4445; Heb. 12:14).

The OT system of worship involved the distinction between unclean and clean, and between common and holy, and the means of effecting a transition to a state of cleanness or holiness (Lev. 10:10). People, places, and items may be made holy by a process of consecration or sanctification, whether simply by God’s purifying presence (Exod. 3:5) or by ritual acts (Exod. 19:10; 29:36).

God’s faithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1Pet. 2:9). In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, and of particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10), prophets (2Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7) are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tension between the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holiness of its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended to act as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood, molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind.

In contrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of all images as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images of Yahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented by anything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form at Sinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form can adequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Bible similarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because it elevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the second commandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image of anything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:45).

By NT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but it remained an important issue for the growing church because many believers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostles included idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readers to flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols. Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linked it with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NT authors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worship the true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to the time when all idol worship would cease.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mercy is a distinguishing characteristic of the nature of God. God is called “the Father of mercies” (2Cor. 1:3 NRSV [NIV: “Father of compassion”]). God is “rich in mercy” (Eph. 2:4; cf. 2Sam. 24:14; Dan. 9:9). God’s mercy was demonstrated in his covenantal faithfulness to his people (1Kings 8:2324; Mic. 7:18–20). God redeemed the oppressed Israelites from slavery under Pharaoh because of his mercy, which was stirred when he heard their groaning and cry for help.

Jesus Christ lived a life full of mercy. He is, in a sense, the bodily manifestation of God’s mercy. Jesus expressed deep mercy whenever he saw the sick and the lost. The writers of the Gospels describe Jesus’ demonstrations of mercy when he healed the blind, the lame, the deaf, the leprous, the demon-possessed, and the dead (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 8:2; Luke 7:13; John 11:33). Jesus especially had compassion on the crowds, who did not have a spiritual leader, and he compared them to “sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).

What is the proper response to God’s mercy and compassion? God expects believers to show the same kind of mercy toward other people. One of the best examples is the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23–35).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God’s people were to observe the Sabbath on the seventh day of each week by resting from normal daily work. It is first explicitly introduced in Exod. 16:2330, where God provides twice as much manna for the Israelites in the desert on the sixth day so that they might enjoy his provision for them on the seventh day without having to gather it on that day.

The Sabbath command is incorporated into the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:8–11). The motivation given in Exodus for keeping the Sabbath is the fact that God made the world in six days and rested on the seventh (cf. Gen. 2:2–3)—hence sometimes it is considered a “creation ordinance.” God’s rest was his enjoyment of a world that met his expectations, and thus the weekly celebration might look to a time when the world would once again truly enjoy such “rest.” In Deut. 5:12–15 the motivation is given as the new creation event, the redemption of Israel from slavery in Egypt.

Although religious worship is not prominent in the Sabbath injunctions in the OT, there was to be a gathering of God’s people on that day with special offerings (Lev. 23:3; Ezek. 46:3–5), and it was a day when a visit to a prophet might be more likely (2Kings 4:23). Psalm 92 is identified as a psalm for the Sabbath.

The terms “Sabbath” or “Sabbath rest” could also be applied to special days, such as the Day of Atonement, which did not fall on the seventh day (Lev. 16:31). In an extension of the sabbatical system, the land was to enjoy a Sabbath of rest every seven years (Lev. 25:4–7).

By NT times, regular gatherings were held at local synagogues on the Sabbath wherever a sufficient number of observant Jews resided. Jesus offended Pharisaic sensitivities with regard to Sabbath observance, using it to alleviate human suffering and presenting himself as the true representative of humanity, for whom the Sabbath was designed (Matt. 12:1–13; John 5:9–10). The healings on the Sabbath day draw attention to the realization of God’s creative and redemptive purposes for the world.

The writer to the Hebrews treats the Sabbath as a foretaste of the ultimate rest God provides for those who persevere in faith and obedience (Heb. 4:1–11).

Paul regards the victory of Christ as bringing a freedom “with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day” (Col. 2:16 [cf. Gal. 4:10]). Some Christians understand this as denying continuity of the Sabbath principle of a weekly day of rest. Others understand it in a way similar to Jesus’ remarks on Pharisaic restrictions imposed on the day and see a continuity of Sabbath observance, perhaps with a change of day, to make it a celebration of the Lord’s resurrection on the first day of the week (the Lord’s Day).

Water is mentioned extensively in the Bible due to its prevalence in creation and its association with life and purity. The cosmic waters of Gen. 1 are held back by the sky (Gen. 1:67; cf. Pss. 104:6, 13; 148:4). God is enthroned on these waters in his cosmic temple (Pss. 29:10; 104:3, 13; cf. Gen. 1:2; Ps. 78:69; Isa. 66:1). These same waters were released in the time of Noah (Gen. 7:10–12; Ps. 104:7–9).

Water is also an agent of life and fertility and is therefore associated with the presence of God. Both God himself and his temple are described as the source of life-giving water (Jer. 2:13; 17:13; Joel 3:18; cf. Isa. 12:2–3). Ezekiel envisions this water flowing from beneath the temple and streaming down into the Dead Sea, where it brings life and fecundity (Ezek. 47:1–12; cf. Zech. 14:8). The book of Revelation, employing the same image, describes “the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb” (22:1). This imagery is also illustrated in archaeological remains associated with temples. Cisterns are attested beneath the Dome of the Rock (presumably the location of the Jerusalem temple) and beneath the Judahite temple at Arad. Other temples, such as the Israelite high place at Tel Dan, are located close to freshwater springs. The Gihon spring in the City of David may also be associated with the Jerusalem temple (Ps. 46:4; cf. Gen. 2:13).

This OT imagery forms the background for Jesus’ teaching regarding eternal life in the writings of the apostle John. Jesus claims to be the source of living water, and he offers it freely to everyone who thirsts (John 4:10–15; 7:37; Rev. 21:6; 22:17; cf. Rev. 7:17). This water, which produces “a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (John 4:14), is the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer (John 7:38–39).

Water is also described in the Bible as an agent of cleansing. It is extensively employed in purification rituals in the OT. In the NT, the ritual of water baptism signifies the purity and new life of the believer (Matt. 3:11, 16; Mark 1:8–10; Luke 3:16; John 1:26, 31–33; 3:23; Acts 1:5; 8:36–39; 10:47; 11:16; 1Pet. 3:20–21; cf. Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22).

Finally, the NT also reveals Jesus as the Lord of water. He walks on water (Matt. 14:28–29; John 6:19), turns water into wine (John 2:7–9; 4:46), and controls water creatures (Matt. 17:27; John 21:6). Most important, Jesus commands “the winds and the water, and they obey him” (Luke 8:25; cf. Ps. 29:3).

The English term “witness” occurs in both Testaments numerous times, with a wide range of meanings. One common meaning relates to someone who gives legal testimony and to the legitimacy of that testimony (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:1516, 18; Prov. 12:17; Isa. 8:16, 20). Throughout the NT the term occurs primarily in the context of someone bearing witness—especially God—or testifying to something (Rom. 1:9; 2Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8; 1Thess. 2:5, 10), though it also has a forensic dimension in regard to one who establishes legal testimony (e.g., Acts 6:13; 7:58; 2Cor. 13:1; 1Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28).

Central to the concept of witness is the truthfulness of the witness. This was a vital component of the OT concept of witness. Thus, in legal proceedings a lone witness was insufficient to establish testimony against anyone (Deut. 17:6). This principle carries over into the NT (cf. Matt. 18:16; 2Cor. 13:1). Such truthfulness was so significant that the ninth commandment expressly forbids bearing false witness (Exod. 20:16; Deut. 5:20; cf. Prov. 19:5, 9).

Truth-telling was not something that the people of Israel were called to merely among themselves. They were to be God’s witnesses to the nations (Isa. 43:10; 44:8). As witnesses of God’s existence and holiness, they were called to be separate from the nations (Exod. 19:6) and to be a light to them (Isa. 49:6). Tragically, Israel failed in this responsibility and was deemed “blind” (Isa. 42:19).

The NT continues the concept that the people of God are to be God’s witnesses. John the Baptist is commissioned “to testify concerning that light” (John 1:7). It is in this context that Jesus later declares himself to be “the light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5). Jesus himself is the exemplar of a “faithful witness” (Rev. 1:5). And his followers, whom he has designated as “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14), are then called to bear witness to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).

“Witness” is also employed in terms of a legal testimony regarding what one has seen. That the disciples were intent on establishing such legal testimony is evident in their stipulation that the person to replace Judas Iscariot be someone from among those who had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to his ascension, so that “one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:22). This forensic aspect of witness appears in the close of the Gospel of John: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true” (21:24). Paul demonstrates this forensic concern for witnesses when he references Peter, the Twelve, some five hundred others, and himself as among those who have witnessed the resurrection (1Cor. 15:3–8).

Throughout Revelation there resides a direct link between Christians bearing witness and suffering, and perhaps dying, as a consequence of this witness. This is evident in the mention of Antipas, who was martyred, and is then designated as “my faithful witness” (Rev. 2:13). Also, the two unnamed witnesses in 11:1–12, who explicitly function as witnesses, are the subject of attack and are eventually murdered. Their murder occurs only after they have finished “their testimony” (11:7).

It is this association of persecution and martyrdom that likely leads to the second-century employment of “martyr” as a designation for those who bear witness to Christ to the point of death.

Worship of God is a critical dimension of both Testaments. One might argue that it is the very goal for which Israel and the church were formed.

The living God is the sole object of worship. He delights in the satisfying joy that his children find in him. The nature of worship is not about servant entertainment or passive observation; it is an active acknowledgment of God’s worth in a variety of humble ways.

A genuine selfless focus on the person and work of God brings about a humble response that affects one’s posture, generates works of service, and stirs up a healthy attitude of fear and respect. Knowledge of God is the foundational element in worship. God is worshiped for who he is and what he does. He is the Eternal One (Ps. 90:1; 1Tim. 1:17), unique in every way (Isa. 44:8); he is God alone (Deut. 6:4). He is distinguished by his self-existence, the self-reliant quality of his life (Exod. 3:14; Deut. 32:30). The psalmist calls God’s people to shout joyfully to their good, loving, eternal, and faithful Creator (Ps. 100).

God is worshiped as the Creator of all life. This magnificent creative work of God, declared in the opening of Genesis, is a critical focus in worship (Ps. 95:6; Rom. 1:25; Rev. 4:11). Along with this is the companion declaration that God is the redeemer. The redemptive work of God is celebrated in the Song of Moses (Exod. 15:118) and in the Song of the Redeemed (Rev. 14:3).

Worship is also associated with the royal aspects of God’s character. It was the desire of the magi to find Jesus the king and worship him (Matt. 2:1–2). The final scenes of history will be characterized by humble submission to and worship of the King of kings (1Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16; cf. Rev. 15:3–4). The psalms often draw the reader’s attention to God’s royal character as a basis for worship (Pss. 45:11; 98:6).

Finally, God is worshiped as the Lord of his covenant relationship with the nation of Israel. This covenant theme and metaphor summarize the varied aspects of God’s character and his relationship with Israel. The God who brought Israel into a covenant relationship is to be sincerely and exclusively worshiped (2Kings 17:35, 38; cf. Deut. 31:20). These confessional statements about the character of God are a glorious weight that moves believers to prostrate themselves, to have an attitude of awe and respect, and to obediently serve.

One of the sins forbidden in the Ten Commandments (Exod.20:14; Deut. 5:18). Narrowly interpreted, the prohibition forbidsextramarital relations with a married woman (Lev. 20:10), but it isapplied more broadly in Lev. 20 and Deut. 22–24 to cover avariety of sexual offenses.

Theprophets invoked the commandment in condemning God’s waywardpeople (Hos. 4:2; Jer. 7:9). They also used it as a metaphor forspiritual unfaithfulness to the God of the covenant (Hos. 3–4;Ezek. 16:30–34), as does Revelation for succumbing to falseteaching (Rev. 2:22).

Jesusbrought out the original force of the commandment, saying that alustful look amounted to adultery (Matt. 5:27–30). He listedthis commandment in Mark 10:19 (and pars.) when talking to the richyoung ruler. Paul and James also made clear that the prohibition wasstill in force (Rom. 2:22; 13:9; James 2:11). Jesus taught thatadultery springs from the unregenerate heart (Matt. 15:19 pars.), andfor Paul adultery was one of “the acts of the flesh”(Gal. 5:19).

TheOT penalty for adultery was stoning (Deut. 22:22–24), though itis not clear how rigorously this was enforced. Jesus forgave thewoman “caught in adultery” (John 8:3–11) and toldher not to repeat her sin. His leniency may have been motivated inpart by the hypocrisy of her accusers, who had let the guilty man gofree.

Theexception clause in Jesus’ teaching that forbids divorce andremarriage (“except for sexual immorality,” whichincludes adultery) is found in Matt. 5:32; 19:9. Matthew only spellsout what is implicit in Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18. Jesus statedthat if a man divorces his wife so as to marry another woman (moreattractive to him for some reason), this is nothing but legalizedadultery. The notorious example of Herod’s marriage to Herodiasmay be part of the background to this teaching (Mark 6:17).

To harbor an inordinate desire, especially for something belonging to someone else, often with intent to deprive that person of what is rightfully his or hers. English Bible versions differ on which biblical terms bear this sense and how best to render them.

In the OT, the principal Hebrew term, khamad, indicates an unrestrained, selfish desire. A survey of its occurrences shows this desire directed most often toward things that belong to others or that are otherwise illicit (e.g., Josh. 7:21; Prov. 6:25; Mic. 2:2; but see Ps. 68:16: “God chooses”).

Notably, the tenth commandment prohibits coveting another’s possessions (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21). It is unique among the Decalogue’s latter commandments (Exod. 20:12–17) because it targets an inward attitude rather than outward acts. This reflects awareness that covetousness, when permitted, prompts the very acts that the Decalogue condemns. The OT is replete with corresponding examples: Achan coveted plunder devoted to Yahweh and stole some (Josh. 7); David coveted Bathsheba, thus committing adultery and instigating murder (2 Sam. 11); Ahab coveted Naboth’s vineyard, and he got it when Jezebel had Naboth falsely accused (1 Kings 21).

In the NT, a principal Greek term, epithymeō, represents a strong desire generally. Paul (following the LXX) uses it when referencing the tenth commandment (Rom. 7:7; 13:9), so that the Greek term is similar to the Hebrew one in meaning. In contrast, James 4:2 employs epithymeō broadly to refer to evil desires that promote strife. The exact meaning of this word is determined by context (cf. Matt. 13:17, where Jesus speaks of those who “longed” to experience what his disciples did).

In Rom. 13:9 Paul expands Jesus’ summation of the Decalogue: coveting is the antithesis of loving one’s neighbor as oneself.

To harbor an inordinate desire, especially for something belonging to someone else, often with intent to deprive that person of what is rightfully his or hers. English Bible versions differ on which biblical terms bear this sense and how best to render them.

In the OT, the principal Hebrew term, khamad, indicates an unrestrained, selfish desire. A survey of its occurrences shows this desire directed most often toward things that belong to others or that are otherwise illicit (e.g., Josh. 7:21; Prov. 6:25; Mic. 2:2; but see Ps. 68:16: “God chooses”).

Notably, the tenth commandment prohibits coveting another’s possessions (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21). It is unique among the Decalogue’s latter commandments (Exod. 20:12–17) because it targets an inward attitude rather than outward acts. This reflects awareness that covetousness, when permitted, prompts the very acts that the Decalogue condemns. The OT is replete with corresponding examples: Achan coveted plunder devoted to Yahweh and stole some (Josh. 7); David coveted Bathsheba, thus committing adultery and instigating murder (2 Sam. 11); Ahab coveted Naboth’s vineyard, and he got it when Jezebel had Naboth falsely accused (1 Kings 21).

In the NT, a principal Greek term, epithymeō, represents a strong desire generally. Paul (following the LXX) uses it when referencing the tenth commandment (Rom. 7:7; 13:9), so that the Greek term is similar to the Hebrew one in meaning. In contrast, James 4:2 employs epithymeō broadly to refer to evil desires that promote strife. The exact meaning of this word is determined by context (cf. Matt. 13:17, where Jesus speaks of those who “longed” to experience what his disciples did).

In Rom. 13:9 Paul expands Jesus’ summation of the Decalogue: coveting is the antithesis of loving one’s neighbor as oneself.

The Hebrew word ’erets occurs 2,505 times in the OT andis most frequently translated “country” or “land.”“Earth” renders the Greek word gē in the NT. Notsurprisingly, ’erets appears 311 times in Genesis alone, thebook that initiates Israel’s landed covenant (Gen. 15:18). Theprimary uses of ’erets are cosmological (e.g., the earth) andgeographical (e.g., the land of Israel). Other uses of ’eretsinclude physical (e.g., the ground on which one stands) and political(e.g., governed countries) designations. Less frequently, “earth”translates the Hebrew word ’adamah (“country, ground,land, soil”).

Heavenand Earth

Israelshared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. Thisworldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon theprimeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having fourrims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rimswere sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters.God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth andshaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12–13). Similarly,the Akkadian text Hymn to the Sun-God states, “You [Shamash]are holding the ends of the earth suspended from the midst of heaven”(I:22). The earth’s boundaries were set against chaos (Ps.104:7–9; Isa. 40:12). In this way, the Creator and the Saviorcannot be separated because, taken together, God works against chaosin the mission of redemption (Ps. 74:12–17; Isa. 51:9–11).The phrase “heavens and earth” is a merism (two extremesrepresenting the whole) for the entire universe (Gen. 1:1; Ps.102:25). Over the earth arched a firm “vault” (Gen. 1:6).Heaven’s vault rested on the earth’s “pillars,”the mountains (Deut. 32:22; 1Sam. 2:8). Below the heavens isthe sea, part of the earth’s flat surface.

Therewas no term for “world” in the OT. The perception ofworld was basically bipartite (heaven and earth), though sometripartite expressions also occur (e.g., heaven, earth, sea [Exod.20:11; Rev. 5:3, 13]). Though rare, some uses of ’erets mayrefer to the “underworld” or Sheol (Exod. 15:12; Jer.17:13; Jon. 2:6). The earth can be regarded as the realm of the dead(Matt. 12:40; Eph. 4:9). However, the OT is less concerned with theorganic structure of the earth than with what fills the earth:inhabitants (Ps. 33:14; Isa. 24:1), people groups (Gen. 18:18; Deut.28:10), and kingdoms (Deut. 28:25; 2Kings 19:15). The term’erets can be used symbolically to indicate its inhabitants(Gen. 6:11). However, unlike its neighbors, Israel acknowledged nodivine “Mother Earth,” given the cultural associationswith female consorts.

TheTheology of Land

Inbiblical faith, the concept of land combines geography with theology.The modern person values land more as a place to build than for itsproductive capacities. But from the outset, human beings and the“earth” (’erets) functioned in a symbioticrelationship with the Creator (Gen. 1:28). God even gave the landagency to “bring forth living creatures” (Gen. 1:24). The“ground” (’adamah) also provided the raw substanceto make the human being (’adam [Gen. 2:7]). In turn, the humanbeing was charged with developing and protecting the land (Gen. 2:5,15). Showing divine care, the Noahic covenant was “between[God] and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). Thus, land was no mereonlooker; human rebellion had cosmic effects (Gen. 6:7, 17). The landcould be cursed and suffer (Gen. 3:17; cf. 4:11).

Israel’spromised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen.13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing,fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orientingpoints for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise,“flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27).Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity andjudgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationshipwith God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; thiscould ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits”people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).

ForIsrael, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen.15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithfulobedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1Kings 2:1–4).Conditionality and unconditionality coexisted in Israel’srelationship of “sonship” with Yahweh (Exod. 4:22; Hos.11:1). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen.18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was thesupreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev.25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance”to give (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). TheLevites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did theother tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20;Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter andto occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3).Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when theyaccused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing withmilk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however,no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance”(Josh. 13:1).

Landpossession had serious ethical and religious ramifications (Deut.26:1–11). Israel was not chosen to receive a special land;rather, land was the medium of Israel’s relationship with God.Land functioned as a spiritual barometer (Ps. 78:56–64; Lam.1:3–5). The heavens and earth stood as covenant witnesses(Deut. 4:26). Blood, in particular, could physically pollute the land(Num. 35:30–34). National sin could culminate in expulsion(Lev. 26:32–39), and eventually the land was lost (Jer.25:1–11). For this reason, Israel’s exiles prompted aprofound theological crisis.

Inheritance

Thenotion of inheritance connected Israel’s religious worship withpractical stewardship. Land was not owned; it was passed down throughpatrimonial succession. God entrusted each family with an inheritancethat was to be safeguarded (Lev. 25:23–28; Mic. 2:1–2).This highlights the serious crime when Naboth’s vineyard wasforcibly stolen (1Kings 21). It was Israel’s filialsonship with Yahweh and Israel’s land tenure that formedYahweh’s solidarity with the nation. The law helped limitIsrael’s attachment to mere real estate: Yahweh was to beIsrael’s preoccupation (see Jer. 3:6–25). When the nationwas finally exiled, the message of the new covenant transcendedgeographical boundaries (Jer. 32:36–44; Ezek. 36–37; cf.Lev. 26:40–45; Deut. 30:1–10). In postexilic Israel,sanctuary was prioritized (Hag. 1:9–14).

Itwas Israel’s redefinition of land through the exile thatprepared the way for the incorporation of the Gentiles (Ezek.47:22–23), an integration already anticipated (Isa. 56:3–7).The prophets saw a time when the nations would share in theinheritance of God previously guarded by Israel (Isa. 60; Zech. 2:11;cf. Gen. 12:3). Viewed as a political territory, land receives nosubstantial theological treatment in the NT; rather, inheritancesurpasses covenant metaphor. Using the language of sonship andinheritance, Paul develops this new Gentile mission in Galatians (cf.Col. 1:13–14). The OT land motif fully flowers in the NTteaching of adoption (cf. 1Pet. 1:3–5). Both curse andcovenant are resolved eschatologically (Rom. 8:19–22).Inheritance is now found in Christ (Eph. 2:11–22; 1Pet.1:4). In the economy of the new covenant, land tenure has matured infellowship (koinōnia). Koinōnia recalibrates the ethicalsignificance of OT land themes, reapplying them practically throughinclusion, lifestyle, economic responsibility, and social equity.

Beyondcosmological realms, heaven and earth are also theological horizonsstill under God’s ownership. What began as the creation mandateto fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28) culminates in the newcreation with Christ (Rom. 8:4–25). Under the power of Satan,the earth “lags behind” heaven. Christ’s missionbrings what is qualitatively of heaven onto the earthly stage, oftenusing signs of the budding rule of God (Matt. 6:10; Mark 2:10–11;John 3:31–36; Eph. 4:9–13; Heb. 12:25). As Israel was tostand out in a hostile world (Deut. 4:5–8), now those ofAbrahamic faith stand out through Christian love (John 13:34–35;Rom. 4:9–16). According to Heb. 4:1–11, Israel’sinitial rest in the land (see Exod. 33:14; Deut. 12:9) culminates inthe believers’ rest in Christ (Heb. 4:3, 5). The formerinheritance of space gives way to the inheritance of Christ’spresence. The OT theme of land is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus’exhortation to “abide in me” (John 15).

Earthquake–InPalestine there have been about seventeen recorded major earthquakesin the past two millennia. One of the major sources of theseearthquakes is believed to originate from the Jordan Rift Valley. Inantiquity earthquakes were viewed as fearful events because themountains, which represented everlasting durability, were disturbed.The confession of faith is pronounced in association with suchphenomena (“We will not fear, though the earth give way”[Ps. 46:2]). An earthquake must have made a great impact in Amos’sday (“two years before the earthquake” [Amos 1:1; cf.Zech. 14:5]).

Anearthquake has many symbolic meanings. First, the power of God andhis divine presence are manifested through it (Job 9:6; Ps. 68:8;Hag. 2:6). It accompanied theophanic revelation (Exod. 19:18; Isa.6:4; 1Kings 19:11–12) when the glory of the Lord appeared(Ezek. 3:12). His divine presence was especially felt whenearthquakes occurred during the time of the crucifixion and theresurrection of Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:54; 28:2). It led thecenturion to confess of Christ, “Surely he was the Son of God!”(Matt. 27:54). God’s salvation power is represented when anearthquake comes at the appropriate moment, such as when it freedPaul and Silas from prison (Acts 16:26).

Second,it is used in the context of God’s judgment (Isa. 13:13; Amos9:1; Nah. 1:5). It becomes the symbol of God’s anger and wrath(Ps. 18:7). God brought earthquakes upon the people to destroy evilin the world and to punish those who had sinned against him (Num.16:31–33; Isa. 29:6; Ezek. 38:19). Earthquake activity possiblyexplains the background to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen.19:24).

Third,earthquakes are said to precede the end of time (Matt. 24:7; Mark13:8; Luke 21:11). In the apocalyptic book of Revelation, earthquakesare regular occurrences (Rev. 6:12; 11:13, 19; 16:18).

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.

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

Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.

PatriarchalStructures

Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).

AristotelianHousehold Codes

Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”

TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.

Marriageand Divorce

Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

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

Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.

InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.

Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children,Parenting, and Education

Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.

Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).

Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.

Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Familyas an Analogy

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

Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

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

Generation has three primary meanings in the Bible: (1)alength of time, (2)a group of people of the same period oftime, and (3)a stage in the line of a person’s lineage.It also has three metaphorical or secondary uses.

First,“generation” as a length of time generally involves theduration of time between a person’s birth and the birth of thatperson’s children. The number “forty” is oftenassociated with the length of a generation because God made theIsraelites wander in the wilderness for forty years so that onegeneration would pass away and another arise (cf. Num. 32:13).However, two points should be noted. First, the actual number ofyears was determined to be forty because the people had spied out theland for forty days (Num. 14:34), not because a generation lastedforty years. Second, the forty years applied to those who were agetwenty or older. Since the purpose of the forty years in thewilderness was to allow one generation of adults to pass on(14:30–35), the forty years may represent the upper limit ofthe expected length of an adult’s life in the wildernessconditions, which would be sixty years. In fact, when Moses speaks toIsrael on the plains of Moab, he mentions that Israel crossed theZered Valley thirty-eight years after the wilderness wanderings hadbegun, and that the entire previous generation had died (Deut. 2:14).This comment shows that forty years has less to do with a generationthan with the expected life span of an adult in the wilderness. Otherpassages provide no hints for the length of a generation, such thatthe specific length of a generation is not recorded in the Bible.Furthermore, since a generation represents the duration of timebetween a person’s birth and the birth of that person’schildren, it is also not a fixed number but rather represents animprecise period of time. In one passage “generations”are even set alongside “ages,” which represent longerdurations of an indefinite period of time (Col. 1:26).

Second,“generation” often is used to represent a group of peopleof the same period of time. It may refer to a group of people wholive during the same time (Gen. 7:1) or those who were born atapproximately the same time (Exod. 1:6; Num. 32:13; Deut. 1:35).

Third,“generation” is also commonly used to represent a stagein the line of a person’s lineage. This use often is precededby an ordinal number (first, second, third, etc.). On severaloccasions it occurs in a context highlighting the severity of sin. Itoccurs in the formulaic statement of God’s self-revelationfound in Exod. 20:5; 34:7 and repeated in Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9. Godis described as loving, merciful, and forgiving, but also as jealous,not leaving the guilty unpunished to the third and fourth generation.It also occurs in legal contexts concerning the inclusion of Gentilesinto the assembly of the Lord (Deut. 23:1–8). Its use in thisway highlights the continuity of God’s work even through thetransitions of a family from one generation to another.

Finally,the word “generation” often is used in a secondary way orin a formulaic statement. First, several times the word describes oneaspect of God’s relationship to a particular person and hisdescendants or a nation. Sometimes it describes the long-lastingnature of God’s promise (Gen. 9:12; 17:7); at other times, itdescribes the long-lasting responsibility of the person and hisdescendants or a nation, especially as it relates to Israel and thelaw given at Sinai (Gen. 17:9–21; Exod. 12:14; 16:32–33;27:21; 29:42). Second, the word may emphasize the continuous natureof a condition or obligation (Exod. 3:15; 17:16; Esther 9:28; Pss.33:11; 45:17; 49:11; 72:5; 79:13). Third, the word refers to aparticular class or type of people, such as the righteous (Pss. 14:5[in some translations]; 112:2) or the wicked (Deut. 32:5; Prov. 30:11[in some translations]; Matt. 11:16; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:41; Acts2:40).

For Christians, God is the creator of the cosmos and theredeemer of humanity. He has revealed himself in historicalacts—namely, in creation, in the history of Israel, andespecially in the person and work of Jesus Christ. There is only oneGod (Deut. 6:4); “there is no other” (Isa. 45:5). Because“God is spirit” (John 4:24), he must reveal himselfthrough various images and metaphors.

Imageryof God

God’scharacter and attributes are revealed primarily through the use ofimagery, the best and most understandable way to describe themysterious nature of God. Scripture employs many images to describeGod’s being and character. Some examples follow here.

Godis compared to the father who shows compassion and love to hischildren (Ps. 103:13; Rom. 8:15). The father image is also used bythe prophets to reveal God’s creatorship (Isa. 64:8). Jesuspredominantly uses the language of “Father” in referenceto God (Mark 8:38; 13:32; 14:36), revealing his close relationshipwith the Father. God is also identified as the king of Israel evenbefore the Israelites have a human king (1Sam. 10:19).

ThePsalter exalts Yahweh as the king, acknowledging God’ssovereignty and preeminence (Pss. 5:2; 44:4; 47:6–7; 68:24;74:12; 84:3; 95:3; 145:1). God is metaphorically identified as theshepherd who takes care of his sheep, his people, to depict hisnature of provision and protection (Ps. 23:1–4). The image ofthe potter is also employed to describe the nature of God, whocreates his creatures according to his will (Jer. 18:6; Rom.9:20–23). In Hos. 2:4–3:5 God is identified as thelong-suffering husband of the adulterous wife Israel. In the settingof war, God is depicted as the divine warrior who fights against hisenemy (Exod. 15:3).

Godis also referred to as advocate (Isa. 1:18), judge (Gen. 18:25), andlawgiver (Deut. 5:1–22). The image of the farmer is alsofrequently adopted to describe God’s nature of compassionatecare, creation, providence, justice, redemption, sanctification, andmore (e.g., Isa. 5:1–7; John 15:1–12). God is oftenreferred to as the teacher (Exod. 4:15) who teaches what to do, asdoes the Holy Spirit in the NT (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit isidentified as the counselor, the helper, the witness, and the guide(John 14:16, 26; 15:26). God is often metaphorically compared tovarious things in nature, such as rock (Ps. 18:2, 31, 46), light (Ps.27:1), fire (Deut. 4:24; 9:3), lion (Hos. 11:10), and eagle (Deut.32:11–12). In particular, the Davidic psalms employ many imagesin nature—rock, fortress, shield, horn, and stronghold (e.g.,Ps. 18:2)—to describe God’s perfect protection.

Last,anthropomorphism often is employed to describe God’sactivities. Numerous parts of the human body are used to speak ofGod: face (Num. 6:25–26), eyes (2Chron. 16:9), mouth(Deut. 8:3), ears (Neh. 1:6), nostrils (Exod. 15:8), hands (Ezra7:9), arms (Deut. 33:27), fingers (Ps. 8:3), voice (Exod. 15:26),shoulders (Deut. 33:12), feet (Ps. 18:9), and back (Exod. 33:21–22).

Namesand Attributes of God

TheOT refers to God by many names. One of the general terms used forGod, ’el (which probably means “ultimate supremacy”),often appears in a compound form with a qualifying word, as in ’el’elyon (“God Most High”), ’el shadday (“GodAlmighty”), and ’el ro’i (“the God who seesme” or “God of my seeing”). These descriptive namesreveal important attributes of God and usually were derived from thepersonal experiences of the people of God in real-life settings;thus, they do not describe an abstract concept of God.

Themost prominent personal name of God is yahweh (YHWH), which istranslated as “the Lord” in most English Bibles. At theburning bush in the wilderness of Horeb, God first revealed to Moseshis personal name in sentence form: “I am who I am”(Exod. 3:13–15). Though debated, the divine name “YHWH”seems to originate from an abbreviated form of this sentence. Yahweh,who was with Moses and his people at the time of exodus, is the Godwho was with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to Jesus’testimony, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the Godof Jacob” is identified as the God “of the living”(Matt. 22:32). Hence, the name “Yahweh” is closely tiedto God’s self-revelation as the God of presence and life. (Seealso Names of God.)

Manyof God’s attributes are summarized in Exod. 34:6–7: “TheLord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger,abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands,and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leavethe guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their childrenfor the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”Below are further explanations of some of the representativeattributes of God.

Holiness.The moral excellence of God is the attribute that underlies all otherattributes. Thus, all God’s attributes can be modified by theadjective holy: holy love, holy justice, holy mercy, holyrighteousness, holy compassion, holy wisdom, and so forth. God is theonly supremely holy one (1Sam. 2:2; Rev. 15:4). God’sname is also holy; those who profane God’s name are condemnedas guilty (Exod. 20:7; Lev. 22:32). God is depicted as the one whohas concern for his holy name, which the Israelites profaned amongthe nations; God actively seeks to restore the holiness of hisdefiled name (Ezek. 36:21–23). God’s holiness is revealedby his righteous action (Isa. 5:16). Not only is God holy, but alsohe expects his people to be holy (Lev. 11:45; 19:2). All thesacrificial codes of Leviticus represent the moral requirements ofholiness for the worshipers. Because of God’s character ofholiness, he cannot tolerate sin in the lives of people, and hebrings judgment to those who do not repent (Hab. 1:13).

Loveand justice.Because “God is love,” no one reaches the true knowledgeof God without having love (1John 4:8). Images of the fatherand the faithful husband are frequently employed to portray God’slove (Deut. 1:31; Jer. 31:32; Hos. 2:14–20; 11:1–4).God’s love was supremely demonstrated by the giving of his onlySon Jesus Christ for his people (John 3:16; Rom. 5:7–8; 1John4:9–10). God expects his people to follow the model of Christ’ssacrificial love (1John 3:16).

God’sjustice is the foundation of his moral law and his ways (Deut. 32:4;Job 34:12; Ps. 9:16; Rev. 15:3). It is also seen in his will (Ps.99:4). God loves justice and acts with justice (Ps. 33:5). God’sjustice is demonstrated in judging people according to theirdeeds—punishing wickedness and rewarding righteousness (Ezek.18:20; Ps. 58:11; Rev. 20:12–13). God establishes justice byupholding the cause of the oppressed (Ps. 103:6) and by vindicatingthose afflicted (1Sam. 25:39). God is completely impartial inimplementing justice (Job 34:18–19). As with holiness, Godrequires his people to reflect his justice (Prov. 21:3).

Godkeeps a perfect balance between the attributes of love and justice.God’s love never infringes upon his justice, and vice versa.The cross of Jesus Christ perfectly shows these two attributes in oneact. Because of his love, God gave his only Son for his people;because of his justice, God punished his Son for the sake of theirsins. The good news is that God’s justice was satisfied by thework of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:25–26).

Righteousnessand mercy.God’s righteousness shows his unique moral perfection. God’snature, actions, and laws display his character of righteousness(Pss. 19:8–9; 119:137; Dan. 9:14). “Righteousness andjustice” are the foundation of God’s throne (Ps. 89:14).God’s righteousness was especially demonstrated in the work ofJesus Christ (Rom. 3:21–22). God’s righteousness willultimately be revealed in his final judgment (Rev. 19:2; 20–22;cf. Ps. 7:11).

TheEnglish word “mercy” renders various words in theoriginal languages: in Hebrew, khesed, khanan, rakham; in Greek,charis, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchnon. English Bibles translate thesevariously as “mercy,” “compassion,” “grace,”“kindness,” or “love.” The word “mercy”is chosen here as a representative concept (cf. Ps. 86:15). God’smercy is most clearly seen in his act of forgiving sinners. In thePsalter, “Have mercy on me” is the most common form ofexpression when the psalmist entreats God’s forgiveness (Pss.41:4, 10; 51:1). God’s mercy is shown abundantly to his chosenpeople (Eph. 2:4–8). Because of his mercy, their sins areforgiven (Mic. 7:18), their punishments are withheld (Ezra 9:13), andeven sinners’ prayers are heard (Ps. 51:1; Luke 18:13–14).God is “the Father of mercies” (2Cor. 1:3 NRSV).

Godkeeps a perfect balance between righteousness and mercy. Hisrighteousness and mercy never infringe upon each other, nor does oneoperate at the expense of the other. God’s abundant mercy isshown to sinners through Jesus Christ, but if they do not repent oftheir sins, his righteous judgment will be brought upon them.

Faithfulness.God’s faithfulness is revealed in keeping the covenant that hemade with his people. God “is the faithful God, keeping hiscovenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him andkeep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). God is faithful to hischaracter, his name, and his word (Neh. 9:8; Ps. 106:8; 2Tim.2:13; Heb. 6:13–18). God’s faithfulness is clearly seenin fulfilling his promise (Josh. 23:14). God showed his faithfulnessby fulfilling all the promises that he made to Abraham (Gen. 12:2–3;Rom. 9:9; Gal. 4:28; Heb. 6:13–15), by having Solomon build thetemple that he promised to David (2Sam. 7:12–13; 1Kings8:17–21), and by sending his people into exile in Babylon andreturning them to their homeland (Jer. 25:8–11; Dan. 9:2–3).God’s faithfulness was ultimately demonstrated by sending JesusChrist, as was promised in the OT (Luke 24:44; Acts 13:32–33;1Cor. 15:3–8).

Goodness.Jesus said, “No one is good—except God alone” (Mark10:18). God demonstrates his goodness in his actions (Ps. 119:68), inhis work of creation (1Tim. 4:4), in his love (Ps. 86:5), andin his promises (Josh. 23:14–15).

Patience.God is “slow to anger” (Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18), which isa favorite expression for his patience (Neh. 9:17; Pss. 86:15; 103:8;Joel 2:13). God is patient with sinful people for a long time (Acts13:18). Because of his patient character, he delays punishment (Isa.42:14). For instance, God was patient with his disobedient prophetJonah and also with the sinful people of Nineveh (Jon. 3:1–10).The purpose of God’s patience is to lead people towardrepentance (Rom.2:4).

Godof the Trinity

TheChristian God of the Bible is the triune God. God is one but existsin three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt.28:19). The Son is one with the Father (John 10:30); the Holy Spiritis one with God (2Sam. 23:2–3). All three share the samedivine nature; they are all-knowing, holy, glorious, and called“Lord” and “God” (Matt. 11:25; John 1:1;20:28; Acts 3:22; 5:3–4; 10:36; 1Cor. 8:6; 2Cor.3:17–18; 2Pet. 1:1). All three share in the same work ofcreation (Gen. 1:1–3), salvation (1Pet. 1:2), indwelling(John 14:23), and directing the church’s mission (Matt.28:18–20; Acts 16:6–10; 14:27; 13:2–4).

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood,molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idolsare not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—evenpagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium throughwhich a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguishbetween worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahwehthrough images.

Incontrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of allimages as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images ofYahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented byanything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form atSinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form canadequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Biblesimilarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because itelevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the secondcommandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image ofanything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatryis regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because itmarks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with hispeople (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). Thiscorresponds to the fact that idol worship often included culticprostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alikeridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unableto see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these“gods” depended on humans for transportation andprotection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20).Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as thethings they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing,both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous.This is because idols lead people away from properly worshipingYahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despiteits warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israelregularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supremerevelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping agolden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society hadbecome degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan,engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy wasdivided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship topreserve the loyalty of his people (1Kings 12:25–33).Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reasonfor the exile.

ByNT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but itremained an important issue for the growing church because manybelievers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostlesincluded idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readersto flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols.Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linkedit with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NTauthors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worshipthe true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to thetime when all idol worship would cease.

A feeling of animosity, a disposition toward hostility,rejection, or negative favoritism.

Hateis as old as the conflict between Cain and Abel or as the rebellionof Satan. Many stories involve hatred and animosity between people(e.g., Gen. 37:4; 2Sam. 13:22). Beside humans hating eachother, people hate God and that which is morally upright (Exod. 20:5;Deut. 5:9; 7:10; 32:41; Pss. 68:1; 81:15; 120:6). It is correct,however, to hate sin (Pss. 97:10; 101:3; Prov. 8:13), as God does(Ps. 5:6; Prov. 6:16–19; Isa. 61:8; Rev. 2:6), though he takesno pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11). The twogreat commandments oppose the tendency to hate by calling us to loveGod wholly and love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5;10:12; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:33; Luke 10:27). The reverse is alsocommanded: we should not hate our neighbor (Lev. 19:17) nor even hateour enemy, but rather do good and pray for our enemy (Exod. 23:4–5;Prov. 25:21; Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27; cf. Deut. 10:19). Hateful actionsare not necessarily motivated by hateful feelings, as a father whodoes not give needed punishment to his son is said to treat him withhatred (Prov. 13:24).

Withregard to a hate crime, the main issue was intent—that is,whether an accident had occurred or whether a murder had beencommitted deliberately, “with malice aforethought” (Num.35:20). Hate was a criterion of intent and had to be established bymultiple witnesses for the two parties involved. Having hate did notgarner greater punishment or make it a worse crime; hatred signifiedthat it was a crime because it was intentional (Deut. 4:42; 19:4, 6,11; Josh. 20:5).

Withregard to marriage, in a polygamous marriage there was a danger ofpreferential treatment: a loved wife and a hated wife. The lawforbids reducing the care of one wife in favor of another (Exod.21:10) and protects the rights of the firstborn son even if he isborn to the hated wife (Deut. 21:15–17). Hatred may beexpressed by either party withholding conjugal relations. Thisprobably lies behind the description in Gen. 29:31 of Jacob hatingLeah (some translations say “unloved”).

Rejection,favoritism, or preference may be called “hate,” as in thecase of a nonpreferred wife in a polygamous marriage, in not choosingEsau to continue the covenant line (Mal. 1:2–3; Rom. 9:13), orin not having a greater love for Christ than anything else (Matt.6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25).

Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit forassociation with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4).God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while“Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’sSpirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49),as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).

Withreference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like hisuniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory(Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is,his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).

God’sdwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy”functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly(11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels whosurround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).

Acorollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy(Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps.96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).

While“holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,”this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is anassociated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied topeople and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly orimplicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never“from” something.

Thesymbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, thetabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1Chron. 29:3),and everything associated with them, are holy and the means wherebyGod’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God.For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these toomust be holy (Lev. 11:44–45; Heb. 12:14).

TheOT system of worship involved the distinction between unclean andclean, and between common and holy, and the means of effecting atransition to a state of cleanness or holiness (Lev. 10:10). People,places, and items may be made holy by a process of consecration orsanctification, whether simply by God’s purifying presence(Exod. 3:5) or by ritual acts (Exod. 19:10; 29:36).

Holinessmay be an attribute of places marked by God’s presence (Exod.3:5; Ps. 43:3). Likewise, particular times, especially the Sabbathday (Exod. 20:8), are declared holy.

God’sfaithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1Pet. 2:9).In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, andof particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10),prophets (2Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7)are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tensionbetween the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holinessof its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended toact as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.

Theprophet Zechariah envisions a time when the distinctions between holyand common will be meaningless (Zech. 14:20–21). While vestigesof the symbolic language of holiness remain in the NT (e.g., the“holy city” in Matt. 27:53), after the death andresurrection of Christ the NT no longer operates with the symbolicholiness of the OT. Rather, this language is appropriated to explainwhat true holiness entails in the lives of God’s people (Rom.12:1; Eph. 2:21). All Christians are holy (“saints” [Gk.hagioi] means “holy ones” [e.g., Rom. 1:7]), including insome sense the members of a believer’s family (1Cor.7:14). The holiness of God’s people is both definitive, byvirtue of the saving work of Christ (Heb. 13:12), and progressive, byeliciting, and empowering through his Holy Spirit, holy and righteousliving (Rom. 6:19; 1Thess. 4:7–8). Both divine initiativeand human activity with regard to holiness may be seen in texts suchas Lev. 20:8; Heb. 10:14. The objective of Christian discipline isthat we might share God’s holiness (Heb. 12:10).

In the ancient world, shame and honor are two binaryopposites used to depict one’s status or behavior, which aculture approves or disapproves. The system of honor and shame servesas a primary means of social control. Thus, knowing how to act toconform to the code of social behavior expected by one’s groupis essential to the maintenance of that community.

Inthe Bible, the noun “honor” is representedby kabod (from the verb “to be heavy”) in the OT, and bytimē (from the verb “to honor”) in the NT. Thereverse of honor is shame, which is represented by a varietyof Hebrew and Greek terms, such as boshet in the OT, and aischynēin the NT.

InIsrael, the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26; cf. Num. 5:2–3;8:6–7, 14–15) is comparable to the code of honor andshame. As a covenant community, Israel has the obligation to abide bythe sanction imposed by God to attain honor (Deut. 4:6–8;26:18–19; Pss. 34:5, 8–9; 37:18–19; 127:5; cf.2Chron. 26:18; Pss. 8:5; 62:7; 84:11; Rom. 2:7–11).Israel is honored (Exod. 32:11–12; Deut. 32:26–27) beforethe nations when God’s honor is upheld (Exod. 7:5; 10:1–2;14:4, 17–18). Violation of covenantal stipulations—forexample, deceptions in trading (Deut. 25:16), acts of “abomination”(Lev. 18:17, 22–23, 26–29), idolatry (Deut. 31:20;32:15–17), and failure to perform duties prescribed in the law(Deut. 25:7–10)—results in disgrace before others (Exod.32:25) and God (Deut. 28:25–26, 37).

Thestatus of honor can be ascribed to an individual. A person is morehonorable who is the firstborn (Gen. 49:3), comes from an esteemedfamily (Ps. 45:9), or is married into a dignified family (Gen. 41:45;Ruth 4:5). This worth will last a lifetime unless the reputation ofthe family is compromised, either because of economics (Ruth 1:1–21)or violation of the codes of conduct, such as adultery and incest(Exod. 20:14; Lev. 18:20; 20:10–21; Deut. 5:18; 22:22; Prov.6:32–33), though not necessarily divorce (Deut. 24:1–4).Certain groups of people are honored because of special privilegegranted to them (Prov. 8:15–16; Dan. 2:21; Rom. 13:1–5)—forexample, priests (Exod. 28:2, 40; Ps. 110:4; Heb. 7:21), kings (Ps.2:7), sages (Prov. 3:35), Israel (Exod. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; 8:11–9:7;26:16–19), and the church (1Pet. 2:9).

Wealthsymbolizes one’s status and claims respect for its owners (Gen.12:10–20; 14:21–24; 1Kings 3:13; Prov. 3:16; 8:18;22:4; Ps. 49:16; Isa. 61:6, 12) but does not equate the state ofbeing poor with shame (cf. Ps. 12:5) unless it is a result of morallassitude (Prov. 13:18). Parts of the human body symbolize worth andvalue. Certain parts of the body are less honorable than others, andto expose them is to invite disgrace (2Sam. 10:4–5;1Chron. 19:4; Isa. 20:4; 1Cor. 12:23–24).

Thestatus of honor can also be achieved by an individual’s merits(cf. Rom. 2:7–11). Certain types of behavior are honorable—forexample, humility (Prov. 15:33; 18:12; 29:23), taking care of one’smaster (Prov. 27:18), honoring parents (Exod. 20:12; 21:15; 22:28;Prov. 19:26; Mal. 1:6; Matt. 15:4; Eph. 6:2), good service (Gen.45:13), military exploits (2Sam. 23:19–23; cf. 2Chron.32:21), almsgiving and justice (Prov. 21:21). One important aspect ofachieving honor is the pursuit of wisdom. The ways of wisdom arehonorable (Prov. 3:16–17; 4:8; 8:18), preserving a person fromdishonor (Prov. 3:16–17, 31–33, 35; 24:14), but the waysof folly, such as injustice (Prov. 1:22; 14:31) and dishonoringparents (Prov. 30:17; cf. Exod. 20:12; 21:15; Lev. 20:9; Deut.27:16), are a disgrace (Prov. 20:3; 26:1). The failure to performone’s duty (Gen. 40:1–3) or a defeat in battle (Isa.23:9; Lam. 1:8; Nah. 3:10) results in shame and, accordingly, loss ofsocial status (Isa. 16:14; 23:9; Jer. 46:12; Lam. 1:6, 8; Hos. 4:7).An ultimate form of disgrace is to be hanged for public viewing(Deut. 21:22–23; Esther 5:14; 7:7–10; Matt. 27:32–44;Mark 15:22–32; Luke 23:33–43; John 19:17–24; 1Cor.1:18–25). In a patriarchal society, the status of women isobtained through their sexual exclusiveness. Their chastity (Gen.38:24; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:13–21; cf. 2Sam. 13:13; Song8:8–9) and fertility (Gen. 16:2; 30:2; 1Sam. 1:3–8)become indicators of family and social worth.

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood,molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idolsare not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—evenpagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium throughwhich a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguishbetween worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahwehthrough images.

Incontrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of allimages as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images ofYahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented byanything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form atSinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form canadequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Biblesimilarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because itelevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the secondcommandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image ofanything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatryis regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because itmarks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with hispeople (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). Thiscorresponds to the fact that idol worship often included culticprostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alikeridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unableto see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these“gods” depended on humans for transportation andprotection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20).Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as thethings they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing,both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous.This is because idols lead people away from properly worshipingYahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despiteits warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israelregularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supremerevelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping agolden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society hadbecome degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan,engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy wasdivided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship topreserve the loyalty of his people (1Kings 12:25–33).Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reasonfor the exile.

ByNT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but itremained an important issue for the growing church because manybelievers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostlesincluded idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readersto flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols.Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linkedit with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NTauthors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worshipthe true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to thetime when all idol worship would cease.

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood,molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idolsare not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—evenpagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium throughwhich a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguishbetween worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahwehthrough images.

Incontrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of allimages as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images ofYahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented byanything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form atSinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form canadequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Biblesimilarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because itelevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the secondcommandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image ofanything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatryis regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because itmarks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with hispeople (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). Thiscorresponds to the fact that idol worship often included culticprostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alikeridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unableto see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these“gods” depended on humans for transportation andprotection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20).Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as thethings they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing,both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous.This is because idols lead people away from properly worshipingYahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despiteits warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israelregularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supremerevelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping agolden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society hadbecome degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan,engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy wasdivided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship topreserve the loyalty of his people (1Kings 12:25–33).Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reasonfor the exile.

ByNT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but itremained an important issue for the growing church because manybelievers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostlesincluded idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readersto flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols.Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linkedit with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NTauthors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worshipthe true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to thetime when all idol worship would cease.

There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin;hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, orportrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of thedriving forces of the entire Bible.

Sinin the Bible

OldTestament.Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’scommandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree ofthe knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. WhenAdam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete.They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaveswere inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with theirattempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent,Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).

Inthe midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways thatsin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised toput hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of thewoman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blowupon the offspring of the woman, the offspring ofthe womanwould defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequatecovering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implicationis that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adamand Eve, covering their sin.

InGen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on fulldisplay. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able toeradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humansgathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make aname for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them toscatter across the earth (11:1–9).

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

Despitethese provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke itscovenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under thereign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people,including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder(2Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wivesand concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods(1Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israeland Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry becamerampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judahin 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised toraise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as aguilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

AfterGod’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that thegreat prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, wereat hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remainedunder foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell ofSolomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Beforelong, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning awayfrom him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administrationof the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failedto properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).

NewTestament.During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longingfor God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last,when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it wasrevealed that he would “save his people from their sins”(Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, Johnthe Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism ofrepentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereasboth Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to bethe obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation(Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13;Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also theSuffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45;cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrathof God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. Withhis justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify allwho are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). Whatneither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, JesusChrist did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).

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

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

Definitionand Terminology

Definitionof sin. Althoughno definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of theconcept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conformto God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action,orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered thatGod’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character,so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather isa personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited toactions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen.4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature ashuman beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.

Terminology.TheBible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying themis not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and useof the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one ofthe following four categories.

1.Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator andruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’sself-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankindfoolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom.1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows tohumans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31).Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodlinessor impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa.9:17; 1Pet. 4:18).

2.Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from thelawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass”picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or thecrossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42;Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’slaw, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45;Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violatinghis statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result isguilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’slaw is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectivelyfeels guilt.

3.Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what isgood. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what isgood (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contraststhe upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could alsoinclude here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speakof perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequentmention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievousdeparture from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27;1Cor. 5:1–11).

4.Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individualhad to be in a state of purity before him. While a person couldbecome impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating womanwas impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity”clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek.24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Althoughit is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, inother places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7;Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).

Metaphors

Inaddition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible usesseveral metaphors or images to describe it. The following four areamong the more prominent.

Missingthe mark.In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin”have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sinis reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that aperson simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it isthat he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9;Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional ornot, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num.15:30).

Departingfrom the way.Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in thewisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of therighteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19).Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways,but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18).Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed bytheir own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).

Adultery.Since God’s relationship with his people is described as amarriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32),it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness asadultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous womanvividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them ofspiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52).When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate inidolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1Cor.6:12–20; 10:1–22).

Slavery.Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clearthat Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture ofits far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7;49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to thosewho do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything thatpleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic powerthat is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare(Rom. 7:7–25).

Scopeand Consequences

Sindoes not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage alongwith it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.

Scope.The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As aresult of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist humanefforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen.3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under theweight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2Chron.36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation aswell (Rom. 8:19–22).

Sinaffects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions,motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom.3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “totaldepravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful asthey could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is taintedby sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as asinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societalstructures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economicmarkets, to name but a few.

Consequences.Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’sneighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sinhas consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level.Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen.2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty inGod’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, andsubjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20;5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict betweenindividuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breedsmistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closestrelationships.

Conclusion

Nosubject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding ofsin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As thePuritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ willnot be sweet.”

Godthe Worker

Abiblical theology of work starts with God as the creator of allthings. In the OT, the verb bara’ (“to create”) isused only with God as subject. The first verb in the Bible (Gen.1:1), it occurs also in many other texts that describe Godaccomplishing what only God can do. Other terms such as yatsar (“toform, fashion”) and ’asah (“to make, do”) areused numerous times throughout the OT with either God or humans assubjects.

Thesethree terms reinforce the portrayal of God as worker in Gen. 1–2(cf. Isa. 45:7). God creates light and darkness; sky and earth; sun,moon, and stars; land and sea; plant and animal life; andhumankind—in sum, all that is. He forms the “man”(Heb. ’adam) from the dust of the ground, bringing him to lifeby breathing into him the breath of life.

Elsewherein the OT God is said to build, build up, or rebuild/restore (Heb.banah [e.g., Pss. 102:16; 147:2; Jer. 24:6; Amos 9:11]).Interestingly, God takes a rib from the man, which he then makes(lit., “builds into” [Heb. banah+ le]) a woman(Gen. 2:22). He founds (Heb. kun) the earth (Isa. 45:18) andstretches out (Heb. natah) the heavens (Zech. 12:1). Further, wisdomis God’s “craftsman” (Heb. ’amon), takingpart in the world’s creation (Prov. 8:30). The NT revealsChrist as the one through whom God creates all things (John 1:1–3;Col. 1:16). This brief sketch suggests the range of ways in whichGod’s work is described.

HumanLabor

Ideally,work is performed as service to God (Col. 3:17, 22–24). Work isone way we express the divine image. God’s creation mandate tofill, subdue, and rule the earth implies work (Gen. 1:26–28),and God places the man in the garden “to work it and take careof it” (Gen. 2:15). The importance of work for human dignity aswell as survival undergirds the laws of gleaning that make provisionfor the poor to gather their own food (e.g., Deut. 24:19–22).The expansion of human technologies and occupations (mela’kah[see Exod. 12:16]) reflects that dignity and God’s own diverseworkmanship. Job 28 celebrates human industry and achievement whilesubordinating all to the prevailing value of wisdom, rooted in “thefear of the Lord.” Given the indispensable role of work withinthe limits of human life, diligence is commended (Eccles. 3:9–10),idleness condemned (Prov. 10:4; 12:24; 21:5; 2Thess. 3:6–10).Work is essentially God’s good gift to us in creation.

Butwork now has negative aspects. In response to Adam’s sin, Godcurses the ground, introducing “painful toil” into thework cycle (Gen. 3:17–19; 5:29). We now eke out our living byhardship, finding frustration instead of bounty—a lifelongreminder that we are made of dust and will return to dust. The bookof Ecclesiastes echoes this note of futility and raises sharpquestions about the lasting value of human labor (1:2–3, 14;2:4–11, 17–23; 3:9; 4:4–6; 8:16–17). Sin anddeath haunt the unfolding occupations in Gen. 4, and the episode ofthe tower of Babel in Gen. 11 signals God’s judgment on humanpretension (cf. James 4:13–16). Excessive toil (workaholism) isa pitfall, not a virtue, for it expresses reliance on self ratherthan on God, who builds, protects, and gives rest (Ps. 127:1–2).Oppressive, unjust working conditions are cause for lament, and theyincur God’s judgment (Exod. 5:6–19; Prov. 14:31; James5:4–6).

Thus,Israel’s labor policy is to reflect God’s covenantfaithfulness, generosity, and concern for the vulnerable. Moses’law places limits on employers/masters to protect employees, slaves,and foreign workers from exploitation. The primary limit is God’scommand that Israel keep the Sabbath holy by a complete cessation oflabor (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). This moveprioritizes God’s covenant above human labor and sets a rhythmof work and rest. Exodus grounds the Sabbath in God’s rest fromhis work of creation on the seventh day. Deuteronomy ties it toIsrael’s history of slavery in Egypt and deliverance by God; bykeeping the Sabbath, Israel shows gratitude to God and guards againstreplicating Egypt’s oppressive policies.

Exodus31–32 portrays work in its best and worst lights. The properinterplay of work and rest is seen in chapter 31, which narrates thedivinely empowered work on the tabernacle, followed by a strongreminder to keep the Sabbath as a “sign” between God andIsrael. In contrast, chapter 32 portrays artisanship put to the worstuse, the making of a golden idol. Aaron fashions gold with a tool andmakes the calf image, but later he tells Moses, “I threw [theirgold jewelry] into the fire, and out came this calf!” (32:24).This remark anticipates the prophets’ later mockery ofidol-makers (e.g., Isa. 44:9–20) and raises the issue ofpersonal responsibility for the outcome of one’s labor: Aaronseeks to avoid being implicated in Israel’s idolatry byconcealing his own role in the project.

Publiclabor issues increase in complexity when Israel adopts human kingshipand engages in international trade (e.g., 1Sam. 8; 1Kings9:15–23). Babylon deals a decisive blow to Judah’sstatehood by deporting leaders and skilled workers. Many of theseestablish such viable, productive new lives in Babylon that whenCyrus later allows the exiled Judeans to return, they choose toremain.

TheNT assumes the legitimacy of work and adopts the OT’s view thatwithin proper limits work is a good gift of God. Jesus, however, hascome to do his Father’s “work” (John 5:16–18),which entails calling some people away from their normal occupationsto follow him, as well as a new approach to Sabbath observance (Mark2:21–27; 3:4). These moves signal the urgency and newness ofthe kingdom of God. Consequently, the apostles are “co-workersin God’s service” (1Cor. 3:9), and Christians are“God’s handiwork” (Eph. 2:10). In light of theresurrection, we offer to God work (Gk. ergon) and labor (Gk. kopos),not in futility but in hope (1Cor. 15:58; cf. Rev. 14:13).

The Hebrew word ’erets occurs 2,505 times in the OT andis most frequently translated “country” or “land.”“Earth” renders the Greek word gē in the NT. Notsurprisingly, ’erets appears 311 times in Genesis alone, thebook that initiates Israel’s landed covenant (Gen. 15:18). Theprimary uses of ’erets are cosmological (e.g., the earth) andgeographical (e.g., the land of Israel). Other uses of ’eretsinclude physical (e.g., the ground on which one stands) and political(e.g., governed countries) designations. Less frequently, “earth”translates the Hebrew word ’adamah (“country, ground,land, soil”).

Heavenand Earth

Israelshared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. Thisworldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon theprimeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having fourrims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rimswere sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters.God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth andshaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12–13). Similarly,the Akkadian text Hymn to the Sun-God states, “You [Shamash]are holding the ends of the earth suspended from the midst of heaven”(I:22). The earth’s boundaries were set against chaos (Ps.104:7–9; Isa. 40:12). In this way, the Creator and the Saviorcannot be separated because, taken together, God works against chaosin the mission of redemption (Ps. 74:12–17; Isa. 51:9–11).The phrase “heavens and earth” is a merism (two extremesrepresenting the whole) for the entire universe (Gen. 1:1; Ps.102:25). Over the earth arched a firm “vault” (Gen. 1:6).Heaven’s vault rested on the earth’s “pillars,”the mountains (Deut. 32:22; 1Sam. 2:8). Below the heavens isthe sea, part of the earth’s flat surface.

Therewas no term for “world” in the OT. The perception ofworld was basically bipartite (heaven and earth), though sometripartite expressions also occur (e.g., heaven, earth, sea [Exod.20:11; Rev. 5:3, 13]). Though rare, some uses of ’erets mayrefer to the “underworld” or Sheol (Exod. 15:12; Jer.17:13; Jon. 2:6). The earth can be regarded as the realm of the dead(Matt. 12:40; Eph. 4:9). However, the OT is less concerned with theorganic structure of the earth than with what fills the earth:inhabitants (Ps. 33:14; Isa. 24:1), people groups (Gen. 18:18; Deut.28:10), and kingdoms (Deut. 28:25; 2Kings 19:15). The term’erets can be used symbolically to indicate its inhabitants(Gen. 6:11). However, unlike its neighbors, Israel acknowledged nodivine “Mother Earth,” given the cultural associationswith female consorts.

TheTheology of Land

Inbiblical faith, the concept of land combines geography with theology.The modern person values land more as a place to build than for itsproductive capacities. But from the outset, human beings and the“earth” (’erets) functioned in a symbioticrelationship with the Creator (Gen. 1:28). God even gave the landagency to “bring forth living creatures” (Gen. 1:24). The“ground” (’adamah) also provided the raw substanceto make the human being (’adam [Gen. 2:7]). In turn, the humanbeing was charged with developing and protecting the land (Gen. 2:5,15). Showing divine care, the Noahic covenant was “between[God] and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). Thus, land was no mereonlooker; human rebellion had cosmic effects (Gen. 6:7, 17). The landcould be cursed and suffer (Gen. 3:17; cf. 4:11).

Israel’spromised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen.13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing,fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orientingpoints for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise,“flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27).Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity andjudgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationshipwith God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; thiscould ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits”people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).

ForIsrael, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen.15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithfulobedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1Kings 2:1–4).Conditionality and unconditionality coexisted in Israel’srelationship of “sonship” with Yahweh (Exod. 4:22; Hos.11:1). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen.18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was thesupreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev.25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance”to give (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). TheLevites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did theother tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20;Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter andto occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3).Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when theyaccused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing withmilk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however,no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance”(Josh. 13:1).

Landpossession had serious ethical and religious ramifications (Deut.26:1–11). Israel was not chosen to receive a special land;rather, land was the medium of Israel’s relationship with God.Land functioned as a spiritual barometer (Ps. 78:56–64; Lam.1:3–5). The heavens and earth stood as covenant witnesses(Deut. 4:26). Blood, in particular, could physically pollute the land(Num. 35:30–34). National sin could culminate in expulsion(Lev. 26:32–39), and eventually the land was lost (Jer.25:1–11). For this reason, Israel’s exiles prompted aprofound theological crisis.

Inheritance

Thenotion of inheritance connected Israel’s religious worship withpractical stewardship. Land was not owned; it was passed down throughpatrimonial succession. God entrusted each family with an inheritancethat was to be safeguarded (Lev. 25:23–28; Mic. 2:1–2).This highlights the serious crime when Naboth’s vineyard wasforcibly stolen (1Kings 21). It was Israel’s filialsonship with Yahweh and Israel’s land tenure that formedYahweh’s solidarity with the nation. The law helped limitIsrael’s attachment to mere real estate: Yahweh was to beIsrael’s preoccupation (see Jer. 3:6–25). When the nationwas finally exiled, the message of the new covenant transcendedgeographical boundaries (Jer. 32:36–44; Ezek. 36–37; cf.Lev. 26:40–45; Deut. 30:1–10). In postexilic Israel,sanctuary was prioritized (Hag. 1:9–14).

Itwas Israel’s redefinition of land through the exile thatprepared the way for the incorporation of the Gentiles (Ezek.47:22–23), an integration already anticipated (Isa. 56:3–7).The prophets saw a time when the nations would share in theinheritance of God previously guarded by Israel (Isa. 60; Zech. 2:11;cf. Gen. 12:3). Viewed as a political territory, land receives nosubstantial theological treatment in the NT; rather, inheritancesurpasses covenant metaphor. Using the language of sonship andinheritance, Paul develops this new Gentile mission in Galatians (cf.Col. 1:13–14). The OT land motif fully flowers in the NTteaching of adoption (cf. 1Pet. 1:3–5). Both curse andcovenant are resolved eschatologically (Rom. 8:19–22).Inheritance is now found in Christ (Eph. 2:11–22; 1Pet.1:4). In the economy of the new covenant, land tenure has matured infellowship (koinōnia). Koinōnia recalibrates the ethicalsignificance of OT land themes, reapplying them practically throughinclusion, lifestyle, economic responsibility, and social equity.

Beyondcosmological realms, heaven and earth are also theological horizonsstill under God’s ownership. What began as the creation mandateto fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28) culminates in the newcreation with Christ (Rom. 8:4–25). Under the power of Satan,the earth “lags behind” heaven. Christ’s missionbrings what is qualitatively of heaven onto the earthly stage, oftenusing signs of the budding rule of God (Matt. 6:10; Mark 2:10–11;John 3:31–36; Eph. 4:9–13; Heb. 12:25). As Israel was tostand out in a hostile world (Deut. 4:5–8), now those ofAbrahamic faith stand out through Christian love (John 13:34–35;Rom. 4:9–16). According to Heb. 4:1–11, Israel’sinitial rest in the land (see Exod. 33:14; Deut. 12:9) culminates inthe believers’ rest in Christ (Heb. 4:3, 5). The formerinheritance of space gives way to the inheritance of Christ’spresence. The OT theme of land is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus’exhortation to “abide in me” (John 15).

Earthquake–InPalestine there have been about seventeen recorded major earthquakesin the past two millennia. One of the major sources of theseearthquakes is believed to originate from the Jordan Rift Valley. Inantiquity earthquakes were viewed as fearful events because themountains, which represented everlasting durability, were disturbed.The confession of faith is pronounced in association with suchphenomena (“We will not fear, though the earth give way”[Ps. 46:2]). An earthquake must have made a great impact in Amos’sday (“two years before the earthquake” [Amos 1:1; cf.Zech. 14:5]).

Anearthquake has many symbolic meanings. First, the power of God andhis divine presence are manifested through it (Job 9:6; Ps. 68:8;Hag. 2:6). It accompanied theophanic revelation (Exod. 19:18; Isa.6:4; 1Kings 19:11–12) when the glory of the Lord appeared(Ezek. 3:12). His divine presence was especially felt whenearthquakes occurred during the time of the crucifixion and theresurrection of Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:54; 28:2). It led thecenturion to confess of Christ, “Surely he was the Son of God!”(Matt. 27:54). God’s salvation power is represented when anearthquake comes at the appropriate moment, such as when it freedPaul and Silas from prison (Acts 16:26).

Second,it is used in the context of God’s judgment (Isa. 13:13; Amos9:1; Nah. 1:5). It becomes the symbol of God’s anger and wrath(Ps. 18:7). God brought earthquakes upon the people to destroy evilin the world and to punish those who had sinned against him (Num.16:31–33; Isa. 29:6; Ezek. 38:19). Earthquake activity possiblyexplains the background to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen.19:24).

Third,earthquakes are said to precede the end of time (Matt. 24:7; Mark13:8; Luke 21:11). In the apocalyptic book of Revelation, earthquakesare regular occurrences (Rev. 6:12; 11:13, 19; 16:18).

References to lightning play a significant role in varioustheologically rich portrayals of God. God is sovereign over allcreation and thus in control of the lightning. As one of God’sservants, lightning obeys his commands (e.g., Job 36:32; 37:15;38:24–25; Pss. 18:12–14; 135:7). Lightning is also calledupon to give praise to God (Ps. 148:7–8). God’s use oflightning against his enemies (Exod. 9:23–24; 2Sam.22:13–15; Pss. 78:48; 144:6) forms part of the OT picture ofGod as warrior. (Artwork from other ancient Near Easterncivilizations depicts their deities as making war on their enemiesand holding lightning bolts in their hands, ready to hurl them downto the earth.)

Varioustheophanies (appearances of God) are accompanied by lightning (Exod.19:16; 20:18). In other visionary theophanies, lightning is usedeither to describe the appearance of God’s attendant creaturesor to describe God’s own appearance (Ezek. 1:4, 13–14;Dan. 10:6; Matt. 24:27; Luke 9:29; 17:24). God’s judgments aredescribed either as being accompanied by lightning or as being likelightning (Hos. 6:5; Zech. 9:14; Rev. 4:5; 8:5; 11:19; 16:18).

OldTestament

TheHebrew word for “Lord,” yhwh (usually pronounced“Yahweh”), occurs more than 6,800 times in the OT and isin every book except Ecclesiastes and Esther. “Yahweh” isGod’s personal name and is revealed as such in Exod. 3:13–14.God tells Moses to declare to the Israelites in Egypt, “I amhas sent me to you” (3:14). The Hebrew behind “I am”connotes active being; the Lord is the one who is there for hispeople and, in the book of Exodus, does so through miraculous events(14:13–14). This demonstrates the close association betweenone’s name and one’s character in the ancient world.Yahweh is one who is with his people (Exod. 3:12; 6:2, 4; Isa. 26:4).Although the divine name is used before the exodus (Gen. 12:1; 15:1),it is not until the time of Moses that God reveals its redemptivesignificance. Nonetheless, the divine name is used in Genesis incontexts where the immanence of God is evident. In Gen. 3:8 “theLord God ... was walking in the garden in the cool of theday.” Further, the Lord makes a covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12;15; 17), and the Lord will remain faithful to his covenants for athousand generations (Deut. 7:9). Later in Israel’s history,Micah, in the face of those who worship other gods, reassures thepeople of Israel that Yahweh is distinct from all others, and thatthey will walk in his name because he will one day act to effectjustice for all (Mic. 4:3–5).

Thedivine name also occurs as a form of address in various prayersthroughout the OT (Gen. 15:2, 8; Exod. 5:22; 2Sam. 7:18;2Kings 6:17), most notably in the psalms, where it occurs overtwo hundred times. In the psalms an abbreviated form of the name isoften seen in an exclamation of praise, halleluyah, “praiseYah[weh]” (e.g., Pss. 149:1; 150:1).

Itis interesting to note the origin of the pronunciation of yhwh as“Jehovah.” To avoid breaking the third commandment,against misusing the name of God, pious Jews did not pronounce thedivine name yhwh, substituting the word ’adonay (“mymaster”) in its place. In medieval times Jewish scholars addedvowels to the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible to aid in correctpronunciation. For yhwh, they used the vowels of ’adonay,which, when pronounced, creates a name unknown to the biblicalauthors, “Jehovah.”

Inthe postexilic period the appellation “Yahweh” occurs farless frequently, being replaced by adonay (Hebrew) or kyrios (Greek).The latter is used for Yahweh over six thousand times in the LXX. InHellenistic literature kyrios is used to describe various gods andgoddesses. The Roman emperors were also called kyrios, often withimplications of deity. Some argue that the early Christians employedthe title polemically to refer to Christ, the true kyrios. A clearexample is found in Phil. 2:11, where it is said that every tonguewill confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord” (cf. 1Cor.8:5–8). Kyrios was also used nonreligiously to refer to a“master” of a slave and as a term of respect to addresssomeone of superior status (“sir”). Peter addresses Jesusas “lord” when he washes Peter’s feet (John 13:6).

NewTestament

Inthe NT, the majority of occurrences of “Lord” (kyrios)appear in Luke-Acts and the writings of Paul, perhaps due to thepredominantly Hellenistic audiences of these texts, who would knowwell its Greco-Roman connotations. As for Paul, the use of “Lord”by Luke may point to the deity of Jesus. In the Lukan birthnarrative, Elizabeth wonders why “the mother of my Lord shouldcome to me?” (Luke 1:43; cf. 7:19; 10:1). In Acts 1:21 the name“Jesus” is preceded by the definite form of “Lord,”reflecting an oft-repeated confessional title in Acts and Paul (Acts15:11; 20:35; 2Cor. 1:2). According to some, if Matthew intendsa divine connotation by his use of the term “Lord,” it ismore oblique. For instance, in Matt. 4:7 Jesus quotes Deut. 6:16,where “the Lord” is Yahweh and not Jesus (cf. Matt.9:38). There are occasions in Mark where “lord,” althoughappearing to function in a nonreligious sense, does seem to point toYahweh. In Mark 2:28 Jesus claims that “the Son of Man is lordeven of the sabbath” (NRSV). Since the Sabbath belongs toYahweh and falls under his sovereign authority (Exod. 20:8–11),it is quite probable that Mark’s readers would now ascribe thatdominion to the Son of Man. This is not unlike his authority toforgive sins (Mark 2:10), which, as the scribes rightfully point out,is something that only Yahweh can do. In light of these usages, onecannot help but think that the use of the term in Mark 11:3, at thetriumphal entry, also carries divine significance. In John, there areexamples of both the nonreligious use of “lord,” as areverent form of address (5:7; 9:36), and the religious, divinesense, particularly after the resurrection (20:28; 21:7).

Itis quite likely that Jewish Christians, even before Paul, regardedJesus as one who shares in Yahweh’s divinity. In his letter tothe Corinthians, a Greek-speaking congregation, Paul uses theexpression maranatha (1Cor. 16:22), a Greektransliteration of an Aramaic phrase that means “Our Lord,come!” This term likely was a part of an early Jewish Christianliturgy. Further, there are places where Paul refers to Jesus simplyas “the Lord,” suggesting a common understanding of theappellation among the early Christians (Rom. 14:6; 1Cor. 3:5).In addition to Phil. 2:11, Paul expresses the divinity of Jesus byalluding to Deut. 6:4, the Shema, in 1Cor. 8:6: “Yet forus there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came andfor whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, throughwhom all things came and through whom we live.” In the book ofRevelation divine status is ascribed to Jesus. While in the vision ofGod in Rev. 4 the title is used of God (4:8, 11), at the conclusionof the book appears the invocation “Come, Lord Jesus”(22:20; cf. 22:21).

ForPaul, a particularly important component of the lordship of Jesus ishis resurrection, through which he becomes “the Lord of boththe dead and the living” (Rom. 14:9; cf. 1:4), and his returnmarks the “day of the Lord,” which in the OT was the dayof Yahweh (1Thess. 5:2; cf. 5:23). Exactly how JewishChristians could attribute such a status to Jesus and yet maintain astrict monotheism remains a matter of considerable debate. Is Christincluded in the identity of the Godhead, or is he an intermediaryfigure (of which Second Temple Judaism had many), possessing aquasi-divine status? If Jesus is an intermediary figure, then hisauthority to do that which only Yahweh can (such as forgiving sinsand fulfilling roles originally referring to God) suggests a veryclose identification between Yahweh and Jesus himself. See also Namesof God; YHWH.

Another name for Sunday, this term reminds us that this daybelongs to the Lord and should be used for his honor and glory. Theterm itself is used only once in Scripture, where John mentions howhe was in the Spirit “on the Lord’s Day” whenChrist commissioned him to write the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:10).There are no other specific details clearly given in Scripture aboutthe identification of this day or how it was observed. Ourunderstanding of this term and how it fits in with other passages ofScripture touches on three separate issues.

Aspecial day.First, should Christians today celebrate any day of the week in aspecial way? At least some believers throughout history have believedthat it is possible to observe every day of the week as equallyspecial in the sense that “this is the day that the Lord hasmade; let us rejoice and be glad in it” (Ps. 118:24 ESV). Paulregards the observance of special days for worship as an area ofChristian freedom: “One person considers one day more sacredthan another; another considers every day alike. Each of them shouldbe fully convinced in their own mind” (Rom. 14:5). The sameprinciple is found in Col. 2:16: “Therefore do not let anyonejudge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religiousfestival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.”Nevertheless, most Christians have concluded that the expression “theLord’s Day” clearly points to a specific day during theweek when the Lord is to be worshiped in a special way.

Aspecific day.Second, which day of the week should we celebrate in a special way?When is the Lord’s Day? For OT believers, the answer is clear:it is the last, or seventh, day of the week. In the Bible, both theidea of a seven-day week and the setting apart of the seventh day arebased ultimately on the creation account in Gen. 2:1–3. ThisSabbath principle is codified in the Ten Commandments, which indicatethat the Sabbath is to be kept holy by requiring people and theiranimals not to engage in work (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15).Observance of the seventh day, or Sabbath, continues among Jews inthe present. More recently, other groups, such as Seventh-DayAdventists and Seventh-Day Baptists, have felt the weight of this OTevidence and have continued to observe Saturday as the proper day forworship.

Nevertheless,most Christians have been persuaded by the practice of the earlychurch to gather together for worship on the first day of the week.Two key passages of Scripture provide support for this conclusion. InActs 20:7 the church had gathered for the Lord’s Supperspecifically “on the first day of the week,” and in1Cor. 16:2 Paul instructs the church at Corinth to collect anoffering specifically “on the first day of every week”(presumably during its local weekly meetings). Thus, most Christianshave concluded that they are no longer under the OT observance of theSabbath as the seventh day of the week (cf. Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:16),and now they are to worship in honor of Jesus’ resurrection “onthe first day of the week” (Matt. 28:1 pars.).

Asacred day.Third, how should we celebrate this day? The Puritans and othersthroughout church history have considered Sunday as the ChristianSabbath. In other words, they made the shift from the seventh day ofthe week in the OT to the first day of the week in the church age,but they believed that all the OT rules and regulations for theSabbath were still binding on believers today. Nevertheless, mostChristians today accept Sunday as the “Lord’s Day,”when they worship in a NT manner and not under the letter of the OTceremonial law, with its focus primarily on resting or not working.Under the OT system there was no concept of people gathering togetheron a regular weekly basis for corporate worship. OT worship revolvedaround various annual feasts and festivals when people would gathertogether at the central temple in Jerusalem a few times each year.The idea of weekly worship services emerged only later, during theBabylonian captivity, with the development of the Jewish synagogue.Thus, most Christians have concluded that Sunday is no longer atransposed OT Sabbath, but rather the NT Lord’s Day, andconsequently that it should be celebrated accordingly, as when “theydevoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship,to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42).

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

Abraham’sDescendants in Egypt

Thebook of Genesis prepares the way for the story of Moses and thefounding of Israel. After recounting the creation of the world andthe fall into sin, the book eventually describes God’s choiceof Abraham as the one whose descendants he will make “a greatnation” and bring a blessing to the world (Gen. 12:1–3).However, by the end of Genesis, Abraham’s descendants have goneto Egypt in order to survive a devastating famine. Although they arein a good relationship with the Egyptian government, the hope isexpressed that God will eventually return them to the land of promise(Gen. 50:24–26).

Manyyears pass between the close of the book of Genesis and the beginningof Exodus. The Israelite population has grown from family size (aboutseventy people) to nation size. Out of fear, the Egyptians had begunto oppress them. Indeed, the size of the Israelite population soworried them that Pharaoh instituted a decree calling for the deathof all male babies born to the Israelites.

Moses’Life before the Exodus

Moseswas born in a dangerous time, and according to Pharaoh’sdecree, he should not have survived long after his birth. He was bornto Amram and Jochebed (Exod. 6:20). Circumventing Pharaoh’sdecree, Jochebed placed the infant Moses in a reed basket and floatedhim down the river. This act seems desperate, but there are similarstories from the Near East (the account of the birth of Sargon, anAkkadian king), and perhaps it was a way of placing the endangeredchild in the hands of God. God guided the basket down the river andinto the presence of none other than Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod.2:5–6), who, at the urging of Moses’ sister, hiredJochebed to take care of the child. When the infant grew older,Pharaoh’s daughter gave him a Hebrew name, “Moses,”which sounds like the Hebrew verb mashah, meaning “to draw out”(Exod. 2:10). This amazing story of Moses’ survival at birthinforms later Israel that their human savior was really provided bytheir divine savior.

Modernmovie adaptations of this story dwell on Moses’ upbringing inPharaoh’s household, but the Bible itself is essentially silenton this period of his life (apart from a reference to Moses’Egyptian education in Acts 7:22; cf. Heb. 11:24). The next majorepisode concerns his defense of an Israelite worker who was beingbeaten by an Egyptian (Exod. 2:11–25). In the process ofrescuing the Israelite, Moses killed the Egyptian. Apparently, hisrelationship to the ruler’s household would not save him frompunishment, so when it became clear that he was known to be thekiller, he fled Egypt and ended up in Midian, where he became amember of the family of a Midianite priest-chief, Jethro, by marryinghis daughter Zipporah.

Theterritory of Midian is vaguely described in the Bible, perhapsbecause its people were nomadic sheepherders. They were often foundaround the Gulf of Aqaba and sometimes farther northeast of theJordan River. The question is whether the tent of Jethro and MountSinai were on the Sinai Peninsula or on the eastern side of Aqaba inwhat is today Saudi Arabia.

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

TheExodus and Wilderness Wandering

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

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

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

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

Thus,Moses was not permitted to enter the land of promise, though he hadled the Israelites to the very brink of entry on the plains of Moab.There he gave his last sermon, which we know as the book ofDeuteronomy. The purpose of his sermon was to tell the secondgeneration of Israelites who were going to enter the land that theymust obey God’s law or suffer the consequences. The form of thesermon was that of a covenant renewal, and so Israel on this occasionreaffirmed its loyalty to God.

Afterthis, Moses went up on Mount Nebo, from which he could see thepromised land, and died. Deuteronomy concludes with the followingstatements: “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel likeMoses, whom the Lord knew face to face.... For noone has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deedsthat Moses did in the sight of all Israel” (Deut. 34:10, 12).

Legacyand Dates

TheNT honors Moses as God’s servant but also makes the point thatJesus is one who far surpasses Moses as a mediator between God andpeople (Acts 3:17–26; Heb.3).

Thedate of Moses is a matter of controversy because the biblical textdoes not name the pharaohs of the story. Many date him to thethirteenth century BC and associate him with RamessesII, butothers take 1Kings 6:1 at face value and date him to the end ofthe fifteenth century BC, perhaps during the reign of ThutmoseIII.

Although essentially characterized by bearing offspring, amother is associated with much more in the Bible. Especiallyprominent are the characteristic ways in which a mother relates toher children: she tends to their needs (1Thess. 2:7), looksafter their welfare (1Kings 3:16–27), comforts them (Ps.131:2), and instructs them (Prov. 1:8; 31:1).

Motherhoodis held in high regard. Bearing a child is an occasion for rejoicing(Gen. 4:1; Ps. 113:9). A virtuous and industrious mother is praisedby her children and husband alike (Prov. 31:28). The Bible describesa mother both crowning a king (Song 3:11) and sitting beside histhrone (1Kings 2:19). The death of a mother brings extremesorrow (Gen. 24:67; Ps. 35:14). Furthermore, God’s promises areoften associated with the birth of a child (e.g., Gen. 3:15; 12:2–3;Judg. 13:3; Isa. 7:14). Mary is blessed among women as the mother ofJesus Christ (Luke 1:42–45). Finally, the Bible protects thedignity of a mother as it does that of the father. The law requireshonor and reverence for both father and mother (Exod. 20:12; Lev.19:3; Deut. 5:16) and condemns to death those who strike or curseeither parent (Exod. 21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9).

Thereis also great concern that adult children look after the welfare oftheir parents as a means of honoring them. David makes provisions forhis parents as he flees from Saul (1Sam. 22:3–4). Jesuscondemns the Pharisees and the scribes for taking the resources duetheir parents and offering them as a gift to God instead (Matt.15:4–6). Even Jesus’ final act upon the cross is toensure the welfare of his mother by defining her relationship withthe Beloved Disciple as mother and son (John 19:26–27). On theother hand, Jesus makes clear that concern for one’s family issubordinate to discipleship to him (Matt. 10:37; Mark 3:35; Luke14:26).

Theword “mother” also carries symbolic or metaphoricalsenses. Sometimes the “mother” is a fitting example ofother things or persons like it, such as Babylon the Great as themother of prostitutes and earthly abominations (Rev. 17:5). In theextended analogy between Hosea’s marriage and God’srelationship to Israel, the nation is called a “mother,”and its inhabitants are her “children” (Hos. 2:4; 4:5;cf. Isa. 50:1; Jer. 50:12). The image of a mother may also refer to alarge city (2Sam. 20:19; Gal. 4:26).

Murder is distinguishable in the Bible from the largercategory of killing. Thus, the sixth commandment (Exod. 20:13) isappropriately translated by the NIV and other versions as “Youshall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.”The taking of lives in warfare, for example, would not have beenconsidered murder. The word used in Exod. 20:13, ratsakh, occursapproximately fifty times in the OT and never refers to killing inbattle, in contrast to two other words for “kill” thattogether occur over three hundred times and quite often refer tobattle contexts. Ezekiel 21:22 (21:27 MT) might appear to be anexception, but ratsakh (NIV: “slaughter”) is probablyused there to indicate the slaying of innocent people rather thanmilitary combatants.

Ratsakh,however, can also refer to unintentional killing or manslaughter(e.g., Num. 35:11); thus, the word does not necessarily mean “murder”but rather refers to the taking of any innocent life, whetherintentionally or accidentally. The lone exception in Num. 35:30 isonly apparently so; it is rather a statement of poetic justice: “themurderer shall be murdered.”

Theprohibition against murder is grounded in the image-bearing characterof humankind. Human beings are made in the image of God; therefore,to kill an innocent person is equivalent to striking out against God(Gen. 9:6).

Significantly,Jesus viewed his own approaching death in Jerusalem as a murder in along line of murders stretching from the murder of Abel by Cain,through the killing of the OT prophets, to himself (Matt. 21:33–46;23:29–39; Luke 11:47–54; 20:9–20).

Murder is distinguishable in the Bible from the largercategory of killing. Thus, the sixth commandment (Exod. 20:13) isappropriately translated by the NIV and other versions as “Youshall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.”The taking of lives in warfare, for example, would not have beenconsidered murder. The word used in Exod. 20:13, ratsakh, occursapproximately fifty times in the OT and never refers to killing inbattle, in contrast to two other words for “kill” thattogether occur over three hundred times and quite often refer tobattle contexts. Ezekiel 21:22 (21:27 MT) might appear to be anexception, but ratsakh (NIV: “slaughter”) is probablyused there to indicate the slaying of innocent people rather thanmilitary combatants.

Ratsakh,however, can also refer to unintentional killing or manslaughter(e.g., Num. 35:11); thus, the word does not necessarily mean “murder”but rather refers to the taking of any innocent life, whetherintentionally or accidentally. The lone exception in Num. 35:30 isonly apparently so; it is rather a statement of poetic justice: “themurderer shall be murdered.”

Theprohibition against murder is grounded in the image-bearing characterof humankind. Human beings are made in the image of God; therefore,to kill an innocent person is equivalent to striking out against God(Gen. 9:6).

Significantly,Jesus viewed his own approaching death in Jerusalem as a murder in along line of murders stretching from the murder of Abel by Cain,through the killing of the OT prophets, to himself (Matt. 21:33–46;23:29–39; Luke 11:47–54; 20:9–20).

Murder is distinguishable in the Bible from the largercategory of killing. Thus, the sixth commandment (Exod. 20:13) isappropriately translated by the NIV and other versions as “Youshall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.”The taking of lives in warfare, for example, would not have beenconsidered murder. The word used in Exod. 20:13, ratsakh, occursapproximately fifty times in the OT and never refers to killing inbattle, in contrast to two other words for “kill” thattogether occur over three hundred times and quite often refer tobattle contexts. Ezekiel 21:22 (21:27 MT) might appear to be anexception, but ratsakh (NIV: “slaughter”) is probablyused there to indicate the slaying of innocent people rather thanmilitary combatants.

Ratsakh,however, can also refer to unintentional killing or manslaughter(e.g., Num. 35:11); thus, the word does not necessarily mean “murder”but rather refers to the taking of any innocent life, whetherintentionally or accidentally. The lone exception in Num. 35:30 isonly apparently so; it is rather a statement of poetic justice: “themurderer shall be murdered.”

Theprohibition against murder is grounded in the image-bearing characterof humankind. Human beings are made in the image of God; therefore,to kill an innocent person is equivalent to striking out against God(Gen. 9:6).

Significantly,Jesus viewed his own approaching death in Jerusalem as a murder in along line of murders stretching from the murder of Abel by Cain,through the killing of the OT prophets, to himself (Matt. 21:33–46;23:29–39; Luke 11:47–54; 20:9–20).

Murder is distinguishable in the Bible from the largercategory of killing. Thus, the sixth commandment (Exod. 20:13) isappropriately translated by the NIV and other versions as “Youshall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.”The taking of lives in warfare, for example, would not have beenconsidered murder. The word used in Exod. 20:13, ratsakh, occursapproximately fifty times in the OT and never refers to killing inbattle, in contrast to two other words for “kill” thattogether occur over three hundred times and quite often refer tobattle contexts. Ezekiel 21:22 (21:27 MT) might appear to be anexception, but ratsakh (NIV: “slaughter”) is probablyused there to indicate the slaying of innocent people rather thanmilitary combatants.

Ratsakh,however, can also refer to unintentional killing or manslaughter(e.g., Num. 35:11); thus, the word does not necessarily mean “murder”but rather refers to the taking of any innocent life, whetherintentionally or accidentally. The lone exception in Num. 35:30 isonly apparently so; it is rather a statement of poetic justice: “themurderer shall be murdered.”

Theprohibition against murder is grounded in the image-bearing characterof humankind. Human beings are made in the image of God; therefore,to kill an innocent person is equivalent to striking out against God(Gen. 9:6).

Significantly,Jesus viewed his own approaching death in Jerusalem as a murder in along line of murders stretching from the murder of Abel by Cain,through the killing of the OT prophets, to himself (Matt. 21:33–46;23:29–39; Luke 11:47–54; 20:9–20).

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

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

Yahweh:The Lord

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elohim

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

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

Adonai

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

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

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

Yahweh:The Lord

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elohim

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

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

Adonai

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

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.

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

Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.

PatriarchalStructures

Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).

AristotelianHousehold Codes

Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”

TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.

Marriageand Divorce

Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

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

Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.

InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.

Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children,Parenting, and Education

Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.

Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).

Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.

Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Familyas an Analogy

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

Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

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

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.

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

Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.

PatriarchalStructures

Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).

AristotelianHousehold Codes

Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”

TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.

Marriageand Divorce

Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

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

Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.

InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.

Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children,Parenting, and Education

Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.

Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).

Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.

Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Familyas an Analogy

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

Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

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

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestial*ty (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); hom*osexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestial*ty (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); hom*osexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Leisure time offers a respite from work, those essentialduties of life such as paid employment and maintaining a household,to pursue other activities. Such nonobligatory pursuits range fromentertainment to fine art, from peaceful relaxation to physicalactivity.

Fromthe beginning, humankind was intended to work (Gen. 1:28; 2:15), butGod also set apart one day per week for his creatures to share in hisdivine rest (Gen. 2:2–3; Exod. 20:8–11). This weekly restshould bring to mind God’s creation and the final rest in theage to come (Heb. 4:9–11). Although leisure time and Sabbathobservance are not identical, both are opportunities to give thanks,worship, and put hope in God. They also refresh and enrich earthlylife.

Indeed,every good thing is a gift from the Father (James 1:17), includingtime off from daily duties. How one uses leisure time is thus amatter of stewardship, much like one’s use of money and workingtime (cf. Matt. 25:14–30). Thus, although the Bible does notdiscuss playing sports or writing poetry, it does proclaim Christ asLord over all spheres of life. Therefore “whether you eat ordrink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God”(1Cor. 10:31).

God’s people were to observe the Sabbath on the seventhday of each week by resting from normal daily work. It is firstexplicitly introduced in Exod. 16:23–30, where God providestwice as much manna for the Israelites in the desert on the sixth dayso that they might enjoy his provision for them on the seventh daywithout having to gather it on that day.

TheSabbath command is incorporated into the Ten Commandments (Exod.20:8–11). The motivation given in Exodus for keeping theSabbath is the fact that God made the world in six days and rested onthe seventh (cf. Gen. 2:2–3)—hence sometimes it isconsidered a “creation ordinance.” God’s rest washis enjoyment of a world that met his expectations, and thus theweekly celebration might look to a time when the world would onceagain truly enjoy such “rest.” In Deut. 5:12–15 themotivation is given as the new creation event, the redemption ofIsrael from slavery in Egypt.

Theweek, marked off by its Sabbath, is closely associated with the newmoon as a quarter of that natural cycle (1Chron. 23:31; Isa.1:13). The people of Mesopotamia observed a lunar festival shabbatu,but we do not know of any people independently of Israel observing aweekly Sabbath. The Sabbath is a communal rather than an individualobservance, including even “any foreigner residing in yourtowns” (Exod. 20:10; Neh. 13:15–22), a sign of Israel’scovenant relationship with God (Exod. 31:13–17; Isa. 56:6).

Althoughreligious worship is not prominent in the Sabbath injunctions in theOT, there was to be a gathering of God’s people on that daywith special offerings (Lev. 23:3; Ezek. 46:3–5), and it was aday when a visit to a prophet might be more likely (2Kings4:23). Psalm 92 is identified as a psalm for the Sabbath.

Theterms “Sabbath” or “sabbath rest” could alsobe applied to special days, such as the Day of Atonement, which didnot fall on the seventh day (Lev. 16:31). In an extension of thesabbatical system, the land was to enjoy a Sabbath of rest everyseven years (Lev. 25:4–7).

ByNT times, regular gatherings were held at local synagogues on theSabbath wherever a sufficient number of observant Jews resided. Jesusoffended Pharisaic sensitivities with regard to Sabbath observance,using it to alleviate human suffering and presenting himself as thetrue representative of humanity, for whom the Sabbath was designed(Matt. 12:1–13; John 5:9–10). The healings on the Sabbathday draw attention to the realization of God’s creative andredemptive purposes for the world.

Thewriter to the Hebrews treats the Sabbath as a foretaste of theultimate rest God provides for those who persevere in faith andobedience (Heb. 4:1–11).

Paulregards the victory of Christ as bringing a freedom “withregard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbathday” (Col. 2:16 [cf. Gal. 4:10]). Some Christians understandthis as denying continuity of the Sabbath principle of a weekly dayof rest. Others understand it in a way similar to Jesus’remarks on Pharisaic restrictions imposed on the day and see acontinuity of Sabbath observance, perhaps with a change of day, tomake it a celebration of the Lord’s resurrection on the firstday of the week.

Slavery and servanthood were part of everyday life in theancient world. There were many different kinds of circ*mstancesthrough which a person might become a slave. Some were coerced intoservitude after being captured in war; others were born into slavery;others served as slaves as a sentence for a crime; still othersserved by personal choice as an apprentice. Slavery was not based onrace. Furthermore, there was an enormous range of social and economicclasses among slaves, from the brutal life of a galley slave to thatof a wealthy servant of a king who might likewise own property andslaves.

Insome cases, manumission, or the freeing of slaves, was possibleduring Roman times. This could be accomplished if the master died orif the master’s will allowed for their freedom, and in somecases slaves could even purchase their own freedom. In the firstcentury AD, there were many such manumitted slaves. Acts 6:9 speaksof a Synagogue of the Freedmen, which probably means that it was madeup of former slaves.

OldTestament

Thereare numerous relationships in the OT that could be characterized asfollowing a servant-master model. These included service to themonarchy (2Sam. 9:2), within households (Gen. 16:8), in thetemple (1Sam. 2:15), or to God himself (Judg. 2:8). We also seeextensive slavery laws in passages such as Exod. 21:1–11; Lev.25:39–55; Deut. 15:12–18. The slavery laws were concernedwith the proper treatment of Hebrew slaves and included guidelinesfor their eventual release and freedom. For example, Hebrew slaveswho had sold themselves to others were to serve for a period of sixyears. On the seventh year, known also as the Year of Jubilee, theywere to be released. Once released, they were not to be sent awayempty-handed, but rather were to be supported from the owner’s“threshing floor” and “winepress.” Slavesalso had certain rights that gave them special privileges andprotection from their masters. Captured slaves, for example, wereallowed rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10) and during special holidays(Deut. 16:11, 14). They could also be freed if their masterpermanently hurt or crippled them (Exod. 21:26–27). Also,severe punishment was imposed on a person who beat a slave to death(Exod. 21:20–21).

Someslaves chose freely to stay with their owner. Deuteronomy 15:16–17speaks of a slave who might say to a master, “I do not want toleave you,” out of love for the master and his family. Thiscommitment was sealed by piercing the earlobe of the slave with anawl. This symbolized a lifelong commitment to the master.

NewTestament

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

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

Thespecial relationship between Jesus and his followers is captured inthe servant-master language of the NT Epistles, especially in Paul’sletters (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1). This language focuses notso much on the societal status of these servants as on the allegianceand honor owed to Christ Jesus.

Theimagery of slavery is also used metaphorically in the NT in both anegative and a positive manner. In Rom. 6 the apostle Paul discusseshow slavery and obedience to former and latter masters is anessential part of the changed Christian life. Prior to knowingChrist, we were “slaves to sin” and obeyed its power(Rom. 6:16–17); after following Christ, we were freed from thepower of sin and death and became “slaves to righteousness”(Rom. 6:18) and “slaves of God” (Rom. 6:22).

There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin;hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, orportrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of thedriving forces of the entire Bible.

Sinin the Bible

OldTestament.Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’scommandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree ofthe knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. WhenAdam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete.They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaveswere inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with theirattempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent,Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).

Inthe midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways thatsin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised toput hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of thewoman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blowupon the offspring of the woman, the offspring ofthe womanwould defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequatecovering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implicationis that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adamand Eve, covering their sin.

InGen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on fulldisplay. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able toeradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humansgathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make aname for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them toscatter across the earth (11:1–9).

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

Despitethese provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke itscovenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under thereign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people,including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder(2Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wivesand concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods(1Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israeland Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry becamerampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judahin 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised toraise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as aguilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

AfterGod’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that thegreat prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, wereat hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remainedunder foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell ofSolomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Beforelong, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning awayfrom him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administrationof the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failedto properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).

NewTestament.During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longingfor God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last,when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it wasrevealed that he would “save his people from their sins”(Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, Johnthe Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism ofrepentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereasboth Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to bethe obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation(Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13;Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also theSuffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45;cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrathof God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. Withhis justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify allwho are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). Whatneither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, JesusChrist did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).

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

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

Definitionand Terminology

Definitionof sin. Althoughno definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of theconcept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conformto God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action,orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered thatGod’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character,so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather isa personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited toactions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen.4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature ashuman beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.

Terminology.TheBible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying themis not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and useof the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one ofthe following four categories.

1.Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator andruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’sself-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankindfoolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom.1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows tohumans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31).Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodlinessor impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa.9:17; 1Pet. 4:18).

2.Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from thelawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass”picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or thecrossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42;Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’slaw, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45;Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violatinghis statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result isguilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’slaw is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectivelyfeels guilt.

3.Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what isgood. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what isgood (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contraststhe upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could alsoinclude here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speakof perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequentmention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievousdeparture from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27;1Cor. 5:1–11).

4.Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individualhad to be in a state of purity before him. While a person couldbecome impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating womanwas impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity”clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek.24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Althoughit is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, inother places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7;Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).

Metaphors

Inaddition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible usesseveral metaphors or images to describe it. The following four areamong the more prominent.

Missingthe mark.In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin”have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sinis reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that aperson simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it isthat he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9;Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional ornot, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num.15:30).

Departingfrom the way.Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in thewisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of therighteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19).Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways,but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18).Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed bytheir own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).

Adultery.Since God’s relationship with his people is described as amarriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32),it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness asadultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous womanvividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them ofspiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52).When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate inidolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1Cor.6:12–20; 10:1–22).

Slavery.Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clearthat Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture ofits far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7;49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to thosewho do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything thatpleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic powerthat is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare(Rom. 7:7–25).

Scopeand Consequences

Sindoes not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage alongwith it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.

Scope.The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As aresult of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist humanefforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen.3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under theweight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2Chron.36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation aswell (Rom. 8:19–22).

Sinaffects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions,motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom.3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “totaldepravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful asthey could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is taintedby sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as asinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societalstructures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economicmarkets, to name but a few.

Consequences.Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’sneighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sinhas consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level.Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen.2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty inGod’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, andsubjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20;5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict betweenindividuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breedsmistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closestrelationships.

Conclusion

Nosubject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding ofsin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As thePuritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ willnot be sweet.”

Slavery and servanthood were part of everyday life in theancient world. There were many different kinds of circ*mstancesthrough which a person might become a slave. Some were coerced intoservitude after being captured in war; others were born into slavery;others served as slaves as a sentence for a crime; still othersserved by personal choice as an apprentice. Slavery was not based onrace. Furthermore, there was an enormous range of social and economicclasses among slaves, from the brutal life of a galley slave to thatof a wealthy servant of a king who might likewise own property andslaves.

Insome cases, manumission, or the freeing of slaves, was possibleduring Roman times. This could be accomplished if the master died orif the master’s will allowed for their freedom, and in somecases slaves could even purchase their own freedom. In the firstcentury AD, there were many such manumitted slaves. Acts 6:9 speaksof a Synagogue of the Freedmen, which probably means that it was madeup of former slaves.

OldTestament

Thereare numerous relationships in the OT that could be characterized asfollowing a servant-master model. These included service to themonarchy (2Sam. 9:2), within households (Gen. 16:8), in thetemple (1Sam. 2:15), or to God himself (Judg. 2:8). We also seeextensive slavery laws in passages such as Exod. 21:1–11; Lev.25:39–55; Deut. 15:12–18. The slavery laws were concernedwith the proper treatment of Hebrew slaves and included guidelinesfor their eventual release and freedom. For example, Hebrew slaveswho had sold themselves to others were to serve for a period of sixyears. On the seventh year, known also as the Year of Jubilee, theywere to be released. Once released, they were not to be sent awayempty-handed, but rather were to be supported from the owner’s“threshing floor” and “winepress.” Slavesalso had certain rights that gave them special privileges andprotection from their masters. Captured slaves, for example, wereallowed rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10) and during special holidays(Deut. 16:11, 14). They could also be freed if their masterpermanently hurt or crippled them (Exod. 21:26–27). Also,severe punishment was imposed on a person who beat a slave to death(Exod. 21:20–21).

Someslaves chose freely to stay with their owner. Deuteronomy 15:16–17speaks of a slave who might say to a master, “I do not want toleave you,” out of love for the master and his family. Thiscommitment was sealed by piercing the earlobe of the slave with anawl. This symbolized a lifelong commitment to the master.

NewTestament

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

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

Thespecial relationship between Jesus and his followers is captured inthe servant-master language of the NT Epistles, especially in Paul’sletters (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1). This language focuses notso much on the societal status of these servants as on the allegianceand honor owed to Christ Jesus.

Theimagery of slavery is also used metaphorically in the NT in both anegative and a positive manner. In Rom. 6 the apostle Paul discusseshow slavery and obedience to former and latter masters is anessential part of the changed Christian life. Prior to knowingChrist, we were “slaves to sin” and obeyed its power(Rom. 6:16–17); after following Christ, we were freed from thepower of sin and death and became “slaves to righteousness”(Rom. 6:18) and “slaves of God” (Rom. 6:22).

The acquisition of another’s property by force orthreat. This crime was perpetrated by bandits (Hos. 7:1), oftenthrough ambush (Judg. 9:25). In Jesus’ parable of the goodSamaritan, the robbers’ attack leaves the victim half dead(Luke 10:30). The eighth commandment’s prohibition againststealing (Exod. 20:15; Deut. 5:19) certainly includes robbery, whichis explicitly condemned in Lev. 19:13. OT law does not distinguishrobbery from theft, which is done by stealth or deception, likelybecause the unlawful seizure of another’s goods was seen as acivil crime and the legal emphasis was on the restitution of propertyalong with some compensation for distress, which varied according tothe item stolen and served as a deterrent to thieves (Exod. 22:1, 4;Lev. 6:1–7). If unable to make restitution, the criminal couldbe sold into slavery to pay the debt (Exod. 22:3). Should theviolence of robbery result in injury, laws concerning personal injuryapplied (Exod. 21:23–25; Lev. 24:19–20). In fact, undercertain conditions, the law addresses an injured thief as the victimand not the perpetrator of violence (Exod. 22:2–3). The two mencrucified with Jesus are traditionally described as “robbers”(Matt. 27:38; Mark 15:27), though in this case the Greek word(lēstēs)likely refers to rebels or insurrectionists (NLT: “revolutionaries”).This was the Roman authorities’ way of casting them as commoncriminals rather than as freedom fighters.

Goddeclares his hatred for robbery, contrasting it with justice (Isa.61:8). Robbery is often an example of injustice, especially whenperpetrated upon the poor (Isa. 10:2; Ezek. 22:29). Rescuing a victimfrom a robber is enjoined as a just action (Jer. 21:12; 22:3), onefor which God himself deserves praise (Ps. 35:10). God describeshimself as the victim of robbery as he accuses Israel of stealingfrom him by withholding its tithes (Mal. 3:8–9).

Greekhas two different words to distinguish a robber (lēstēs)from a thief (kleptēs).In the NT, robbery appears primarily as a metaphor. Jesus uses it torepresent false prophets (John 10:1, 8), his own plunder of Satan’shouse (Matt. 12:29; Mark 3:27), and, in a reference from Jer. 7:11,those seeking economic gain in the temple (Matt. 21:13; Mark 11:17;Luke 19:46).

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.

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

Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.

PatriarchalStructures

Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).

AristotelianHousehold Codes

Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”

TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.

Marriageand Divorce

Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

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

Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.

InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.

Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children,Parenting, and Education

Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.

Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).

Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.

Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Familyas an Analogy

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

Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

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

The English term “witness” occurs in bothTestaments numerous times, with a wide range of meanings. One commonmeaning relates to someone who gives legal testimony and to thelegitimacy of that testimony (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15–16,18; Prov. 12:17; Isa. 8:16, 20). Throughout the NT the term occursprimarily in the context of someone bearing witness—especiallyGod—or testifying to something (Rom. 1:9; 2Cor. 1:23;Phil. 1:8; 1Thess. 2:5, 10), though it also has a forensicdimension in regard to one who establishes legal testimony (e.g.,Acts 6:13; 7:58; 2Cor. 13:1; 1Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28).

Centralto the concept of witness is the truthfulness of the witness. Thiswas a vital component of the OT concept of witness. Thus, in legalproceedings a lone witness was insufficient to establish testimonyagainst anyone (Deut. 17:6). This principle carries over into the NT(cf. Matt. 18:16; 2Cor. 13:1). Such truthfulness was sosignificant that the ninth commandment expressly forbids bearingfalse witness (Exod. 20:16; Deut. 5:20; cf. Prov. 19:5, 9).

Truth-tellingwas not something that the people of Israel were called to merelyamong themselves. They were to be God’s witnesses to thenations (Isa. 43:10; 44:8). As witnesses of God’s existence andholiness, they were called to be separate from the nations (Exod.19:6) and to be a light to them (Isa. 49:6). Tragically, Israelfailed in this responsibility and was deemed “blind”(Isa. 42:19).

TheNT continues the concept that the people of God are to be God’switnesses. John the Baptist is commissioned “to testifyconcerning that light” (John 1:7). It is in this context thatJesus later declares himself to be “the light of the world”(John 8:12; 9:5). Jesus himself is the exemplar of a “faithfulwitness” (Rev. 1:5). And his followers, whom he has designatedas “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14), are then calledto bear witness to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).

“Witness”is also employed in terms of a legal testimony regarding what one hasseen. That the disciples were intent on establishing such legaltestimony is evident in their stipulation that the person to replaceJudas Iscariot be someone from among those who had been with Jesusfrom the beginning of his ministry to his ascension, so that “oneof these must become a witness with us of his resurrection”(Acts 1:22). This forensic aspect of witness appears in the close ofthe Gospel of John: “This is the disciple who testifies tothese things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony istrue” (21:24). Paul demonstrates this forensic concern forwitnesses when he references Peter, the Twelve, some five hundredothers, and himself as among those who have witnessed theresurrection (1Cor. 15:3–8).

Whilelinguistically the Greek word martys(“witness”) has given rise to the English term “martyr,”at the time of the NT martysdid not connote physical martyrdom. Instead, it is likely that theuse of this term in the book of Revelation and its association withthe deaths of those who faithfully witnessed to Jesus Christ and thegospel in the face of persecution gave rise to its application in thetechnical sense of “martyr.”

ThroughoutRevelation there resides a direct link between Christians bearingwitness and suffering, and perhaps dying, as a consequence of thiswitness. This is evident in the mention of Antipas, who was martyred,and is then designated as “my faithful witness” (Rev.2:13). Also, the two unnamed witnesses in 11:1–12, whoexplicitly function as witnesses, are the subject of attack and areeventually murdered. Their murder occurs only after they havefinished “their testimony” (11:7).

Itis this association of persecution and martyrdom that likely leads tothe second-century employment of “martyr” as adesignation for those who bear witness to Christ to the point ofdeath. See also Martyr.

Abstinence refers to intentional restraint from participatingin some activity.

Oneof the primary examples of abstinence throughout the Bible isfasting. People abstained from consuming food in times of seekingGod’s intervention (Esther 4:16), repenting of some sin (Ezra10:6), responding to a disaster (2 Sam. 1:12), or preparing fora new venture (Matt. 4:2). One plausible rationale for fasting isthat it permits clarity of focus and expresses reliance upon God forsustenance (Ezra 8:23).

Otherexamples of abstinence in the OT might be expressed in matters ofdegrees. Food laws prevented some kinds of food from being consumedat all (Lev. 11), other types could not be consumed if found undercertain conditions (Lev. 17:15; Deut. 14:21), and still others couldnot be consumed if prepared in certain ways (Exod. 34:26; Deut.14:21). Such abstinence was for the expressed purpose of consecratingthe people of Israel (Lev. 11:44). Similarly, abstinence from work onthe Sabbath was for all the people of Israel (Exod. 20:8–11),while abstinence from fermented drink and any produce of thegrapevine was reserved for those under the Nazirite vow (Num. 6:3–4)and demonstrated holiness. The corporate focus in these practicesserved as an impetus for reflections upon abstinence in the NT. Jesusinsisted that fasting be accompanied by proper motives (Matt.6:16–18), and Paul suggested that abstinence be practiced whenan activity might cause another to stumble (1 Cor. 8). Sexuallaws called for abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage.Paul even allowed for temporary periods of sexual abstinence withinmarriage so that the couple could devote themselves to prayer (1 Cor.7:5–6).

In the OT, the law commanded respect for those in advancedyears (Lev. 19:32). The fifth commandment (Exod. 20:12) was primarilyaimed at the honoring (and supporting) of elderly parents (as impliedby Mark 7:9–13). The reward for caring for parents is stated inthe motivation clause attached to the commandment: “so that youmay live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you”(being an example of the reward matching the good deed).

Especiallyin OT wisdom literature, old age is viewed as a privilege (Prov.20:29) and a token of divine favor upon the righteous (Prov. 16:31;cf. Gen. 15:15). It was recognized that a person may be “oldbut foolish” (Eccles. 4:13), but more often age and wisdom werelinked. Since wisdom and insight come with experience (Job 12:20;15:9–10; 32:7), leaders and advisers were drawn from the ranksof the elderly. Hence, in both Testaments community and spiritualleaders are called “elders” (Ruth 4:2; Lam. 5:14; Acts14:23; 20:17). Rehoboam’s downfall was due in part to hisignoring the advice of “the elders” who had served hisfather, Solomon (1 Kings 12:6, 8).

Asign of oppressive conditions in the wake of the fall of Jerusalemwas a lack of respect for the old, who, like the very young andwomen, were vulnerable (Lam. 5:12). On the other hand, the futureblessing promised by the prophets included Israel having many elderlypeople (Isa. 65:20; Zech. 8:4).

Thereward of the godly person is to live long enough to see severalgenerations of descendants (Ps. 128:6), examples being Jacob (Gen.50:23) and Job (Job 42:16). The vindication of the Lord’sservant is phrased in traditional symbols of divine favor: “hewill see his offspring and prolong his days” (Isa. 53:10). Thefrailty of age is recognized (e.g., Ps. 71:9, 18; Eccles. 12:2–7),but the experience shared in Ps. 37:25–26 is that God isfaithful in providing and supporting.

Altars were places of sacrifice and worship constructed ofvarious materials. They could be either temporary or permanent. Somealtars were in the open air; others were set apart in a holy place.They could symbolize either God’s presense and protection orfalse worship that would lead to God’s judgment.

OldTestament

Noahand the patriarchs. Thefirst reference in the Bible is to an altar built by Noah after theflood (Gen. 8:20). This action suggests the sanctuary character ofthe mountain on which the ark landed, so that theologically the ark’sresting place was a (partial) return to Eden. The purpose of theextra clean animals loaded onto the ark was revealed (cf. 7:2–3).They were offered up as “burnt offerings,” symbolizingself-dedication to God at this point of new beginning for the humanrace.

Abrambuilt altars “to the Lord” at places where God appearedand spoke to him (Gen. 12:7) and where he encamped (12:8; 13:3–4,18). No sacrifice is explicitly mentioned in association with thesealtars. Thus, they may have had the character of monuments ormemorials of significant events. In association with Abram’saltars, he is said to have “called on the name of the Lord”(12:8)—that is, to pray. The elaborate cultic proceduresassociated with later Israelite altars (e.g., the mediation ofpriests) were absent in the patriarchal period. Succeedinggenerations followed the same practices: Isaac (26:25) and Jacob(33:20; 34:1, 3, 7). God’s test of Abraham involved the demandthat he sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering. In obedience,Abraham built an altar for this purpose, but through God’sintervention a reprieve was granted, and a ram was substituted (22:9,13). Moses erected an altar after the defeat of Amalek at Rephidim,to commemorate this God-given victory (Exod. 17:15–16).

Mosesand the tabernacle.In the context of making the covenant with Israel at Sinai, God gaveMoses instructions on how to construct an altar (Exod. 20:24–26;cf. Josh. 8:31). It could be “an altar of earth” (ofsun-dried mud-brick construction?) or else made of loose naturalstones. The Israelites were expressly forbidden to use hewn stones,perhaps for fear of an idolatrous image being carved (making thisprohibition an application of Exod. 20:4; cf. Deut. 27:5–6).Even if the altar was large, it was not to be supplied with steps forthe priest to ascend, lest his nakedness be shown to God. Therequirement that priests wear undergarments reflects the same concern(Exod. 28:42–43). An altar made of twelve stones, the numberrepresenting the number of the tribes of Israel, was built by Mosesfor the covenant-making ceremony (Exod. 24:4), in which half theblood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the altar (representing God?)and the other half on the people, the action symbolizing the covenantbond created (24:6–8).

Forthe tabernacle, a portable “altar of burnt offering” wasmade (Exod. 27:1–8; 38:1–7). It had wooden framessheathed in bronze and featured a horn at each corner. There was aledge around the altar halfway up its sides, from which was hungbronze grating, and it had four bronze rings into which poles wereslipped for transport. As part of the cultic ritual, blood wassmeared on the horns (29:12). This altar stood in the open air in thecourtyard of the tabernacle, near the entrance to the tabernacle.Included among the tabernacle furnishings was a smaller “altarof incense,” with molding around the top rim (30:1–10;37:25–28). This altar was, however, overlaid with gold, for itstood closer to God’s ritual presence, inside the tabernacle,“in front of the curtain that shields the Ark of the Covenantlaw,” the curtain that separated the most holy place from theholy place. The high priest placed fragrant incense on this altarevery morning and evening. The fact that this was a daily procedureand the description of the positioning of the tabernacle furnishingsin Exod. 40:26–28 (mentioning the altar of incense afterspeaking about the lampstand) might be taken as implying that theincense altar was in the holy place, but 1 Kings 6:22 and Heb.9:4 suggest that it was actually in the most holy place, near theark.

God,through Moses, instructed the people that on entering the PromisedLand they were to destroy all Canaanite altars along with the otherparaphernalia of their pagan worship (Deut. 7:5; 12:3). Bronze Agealtars discovered at Megiddo include horned limestone incense altarsand a large circular altar mounted by a flight of steps. In Josh. 22the crisis caused by the building of “an imposing altar”by the Transjordanian tribes was averted when these tribes explainedto the rest of the Israelites that it was intended as a replica ofthe altar outside the tabernacle and not for the offering ofsacrifices. The worship of all Israel at the one sanctuary bothexpressed and protected the religious unity and purity of the nationat this vital early stage of occupation of the land. In laternarratives, however, Gideon (Judg. 6), Samuel (1 Sam. 7:17),Saul (1 Sam. 14:35), and David (2 Sam. 24) are said tobuild altars for sacrifice and to have done so with impunity, and infact with the apparent approval of the biblical author. Theestablished custom of seeking sanctuary from threat of death in thenation’s shrine is reflected in 1 Kings 1:50–53;2:28–35, where Adonijah and Joab are described as “clingingto the horns of the altar.”

Solomon’stemple and rival worship centers.In the temple built by Solomon, the altar of incense that belonged tothe “inner sanctuary” was overlaid with gold (1 Kings6:20, 22). Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple wasmade before the bronze altar in the courtyard (1 Kings 8:22,54). The altar for sacrifices was much larger than the one that hadbeen in the tabernacle (1 Chron. 4:1 gives its dimensions).

Althoughmany of the psalms may originally have been used in worship in thefirst temple, there are surprisingly few references to the altar inthe Psalter (only Pss. 26:6; 43:4; 51:19; 84:3; 118:27). They expressthe psalmist’s devotion to God and the temple as the placewhere God’s presence is enjoyed as the highest blessing.

Afterthe division of the kingdom, Jeroboam offered sacrifices at the rivalaltar that he set up in Bethel (1 Kings 12:32–33). Anunnamed “man of God” (= prophet) predicted Josiah’sdesecration of this altar, which lay many years in the future(1 Kings 13:1–5). Amos and Hosea, who prophesied in thenorthern kingdom of the eighth century BC, condemned this and theother altars in that kingdom (e.g., Amos 3:14; Hos. 8:11–13).Ahab set up an altar to Baal in Samaria (1 Kings 16:32), and thesuppression of Yahwism by Jezebel included the throwing down of theLord’s altars in Israel (19:10, 14). The competition on MountCarmel between Elijah and the prophets of Baal involved rival altars(1 Kings 18), and Elijah’s twelve-stone altar recalls thatof Exod. 24, for he was calling the nation back to the exclusivemonotheism preached by Moses (1 Kings 18:30–32).

Withregard to the southern kingdom, the spiritual declension in the timeof Ahaz manifested itself in this king making an altar modeled on theAssyrian prototype that he had seen on a visit to Damascus (2 Kings16:10–14). He shifted the Lord’s altar from in front ofthe temple, where it had previously stood. Godly Hezekiah’sreligious reform included the removal of the altars at the highplaces that up to that time had been centers of deviant worship(2 Kings 18:4, 22). The apostasy of King Manasseh showed itselfin his rebuilding the high places that Hezekiah his father haddestroyed and in erecting altars to Baal (2 Kings 21), thusrepeating the sin of Ahab (cf. 1 Kings 16:32). Josiah’sreform included the destruction of all altars outside Jerusalem(2 Kings 23) and the centralizing of worship in the Jerusalemtemple.

InEzekiel’s vision of the new temple of the future, thesacrificial altar is its centerpiece (Ezek. 43:13–17). Thealtar was to be a large structure, with three-stepped stages and ahorn on each corner, and it was to be fitted with steps on itseastern side for the use of the priests.

Thesecond temple.The Israelites’ return from Babylonian exile was with theexpress aim of rebuilding the temple. The first thing that thepriests did was to build “the altar on its foundation”(i.e., its original base; Ezra 3:2–3). The returnees placed thealtar on the precise spot that it had occupied before the Babyloniansdestroyed it along with the temple. They took such care because theywanted to ensure that God would accept their sacrifices and so grantthem protection. At the very end of the OT period, the prophetMalachi condemned the insincerity of Israel’s worship that wasmanifested in substandard sacrifices being offered on God’saltar (Mal. 1:7, 10; 2:13).

NewTestament

Inthe NT, the altar is mentioned in a number of Jesus’ sayings(e.g., Matt. 5:23–24; 23:18–20). In the theology of thebook of Hebrews, which teaches about the priesthood of Jesus Christ(in the order of Melchizedek), the role of the priest is defined asone who “serve[s] at the altar” (7:13), and Christ’saltar (and that of Christ’s followers) is the cross on which heoffered himself as a sacrifice for sin (13:10). Another argument ofHebrews is that since on the most important day in the Jewish ritualcalendar (the Day of Atonement), the flesh of the sacrifice was noteaten (see Lev. 16:27), the eating of Jewish ceremonial foods is notrequired, nor is it of any spiritual value. The altar in the heavenlysanctuary is mentioned a number of times in the book of Revelation(6:9; 8:3, 5; 9:13; 11:1; 14:18; 16:7). It is most likely the altarof incense and is related to the prayers of God’s persecutedpeople, which are answered by the judgments of God upon the people ofthe earth.

The study of human beings, their nature and origins. TheChristian understanding of anthropology stems from a biblical view ofhumankind’s relationship to God.

TheOrigin of Humankind

Accordingto Genesis, the creation of humankind took place on the sixth day ofthe creation week. The amount of narrative space allotted to this day(Gen. 1:24–31) testifies to the special importance of whathappened. Human beings were made on the same day as the animals.Human beings were not given a day of their own, showing that theyhave a certain kinship with the animals, although they are far morethan highly successful and adaptive mammals. This has implicationsfor the care of animals and of the environment generally. The valueof human beings and their special place in the created order is clearin passages such as Pss. 8:5–6; 104:14–15.

Createdin the image of God.Whenit came to the making of human beings, God deliberated over thiscrucial step (Gen. 1:26). The plural of exhortation in “Let usmake man in our image” signals that the decision to makehumankind was the most important one that God had made so far.Genesis 1 says that human beings are like God in some way.

Variousopinions have been canvassed as to what the “image” is.We cannot totally exclude the physical form of humans, given God’shumanoid form in OT appearances (theophanies; e.g., Isa. 6:1; Ezek.1:26; Amos 9:1). The image has sometimes been interpreted as a task,the exercising of dominion (Gen. 1:28), with humanity appointed ascreation’s king, ruling under God. But the image is betterunderstood as the precondition for rule rather than rule itself. Theimage shows human worth (Gen. 9:6) and differentiates humans from allother creatures. It is proper for the Bible to use anthropomorphiclanguage for God, for humans are remarkably like God. Both male andfemale are in the image of God (“in the image of God he createdthem; male and female he created them” [1:27]), so that thedivine image is not maleness, nor is sexual differentiation theimage. Commonly, the image of God is thought to be some peculiarquality of human beings—for example, rationality, speech, moralsense, personality, humans as relational beings.

Everycentury has its own view of what is the essence of humanity. However,nothing in the passage allows a choice among such alternatives. Thepoint of the passage is simply the fact of the likeness, with noexact definition being provided. The fact of the image is the basisof the divine prohibition of murder and of the strict penalty appliedto the transgressor (9:4–6). The fall into sin affected everyaspect of the human constitution, and the Bible does not minimize thefact of human sinfulness (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10–18);nevertheless, humans are still in the image of God (Gen. 5:1–3;9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7). God’s plan of salvation is aimed atridding creation (and especially humanity) of the baneful effects ofsin, and this will be achieved through the work of Christ, who is theimage of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15–20; Heb. 1:1–3;2:5–18). The outcome will be the conformity of believers inChrist to his glorious image (Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 3.18).

Placein the created order.God’s purpose in giving human beings the divine image is “sothey may rule” (NET [Gen. 1:26b translated as a purposeclause]). The syntax suggests that the image is a presupposition ofdominion. It is plain that such a delegated authority makes humansstewards. The vegetarian diet of Gen.1:29 (there was no eating ofmeat at first) represents a limitation to the human right ofdominion. Adam’s naming of the animals was (in part) expressiveof his sovereignty over them (2:19). Later, Noah was charged to bringpairs of animals into the ark to preserve them alive (6:19–20),showing care for other creatures. The patriarchs tended flocks(13:2–9; 26:12–14), and Joseph’s relief measuressaved the lives of people and animals (47:15–18). The wantondestruction of the Promised Land was expressly forbidden (Deut.20:19–20). Humanity is accountable to God for the stewardshipof the earth. The divine command “be fruitful and multiply”(Gen. 1:28 NRSV) shows that God’s purpose is that the humanrace populate the whole earth.

AtGen. 2:7 the biblical narrative becomes thoroughly anthropocentric,picturing the little world that God establishes around the first man,so this account is quite different from the cosmic presentation ofGen. 1. In Gen. 1 humankind is the apex of a pyramid, the last andhighest of a series of creatures; in Gen. 2 the man is the center ofa circle, everything else made to fit around him, and his connectionto the physical earth is emphasized. In either view, a very specialplace is given to human beings in the created order. The two picturesare complementary, not contradictory.

The“man” (’adam) is formed from the “ground”(’adamah), with the related Hebrew words making a pun. Man’sname reminds him of his earthy origins. He is made from the “dust,”which hints at his coming death. He will return to the dust (Gen.3:19; cf. Job 10:8–9; Ps. 103:14; Isa. 29:16). The reference to“the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7) is due to the fact thatthis leaves a person at death (Job 34:14–15; Ps. 104:29–30),so man’s (potential) mortality is implied. Ironically, themaking of man is described using the language of death. What isdescribed in Gen. 2 is the making of the first man, from whom therest of the human race has descended, not the making of humankind,though the word ’adam can mean that in other contexts.

TheNature of Humankind

Body,soul, and spirit.Arguments over whether human nature is bipartite (body and soul) ortripartite (body, soul, spirit) are not to be decided by arbitraryappeal to isolated verses. Verses can be found in apparent supportfor both the first view (e.g., Matt. 10:28) and the second (e.g.,1 Thess. 5:23), but certainly the first scheme is much moreprevalent in the Bible. “Soul” and “spirit”can be used interchangeably (Eccles. 3:21; 12:7; Ezek. 18:31). Deathis marked by the parting of soul/spirit and body, but it would be amistake to think that human beings are made up of separate componentparts, or that the physical body is only a dispensable shell and notessential to true humanity. The physicality of human existence in the“body” is owned and celebrated in Scripture, part of thatbeing the positive attitude to sexuality when properly expressed(Song of Songs; 1 Cor. 7) and the nonascetic nature of biblicalethics (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 2:23). The doctrine of theresurrection of the body is the fullest expression of this (1 Cor.15), in contrast to ancient Greek thought that viewed the body asinherently evil and understood salvation as the immortality of theliberated, disembodied soul.

Thedifferent words used in relation to persons are only intended torefer to and at times focus on different aspects of unified humannature. References to the “soul” may stress individualresponsibility (e.g., Ezek. 18:4 NASB: “The soul who sins willdie”). In Ps. 103:1–2, “O my soul” expressesemphatic self-encouragement to praise God and is in parallel with“all my inmost being”—that is, “my wholebeing” (an example of synecdoche: a part standing for the whole[cf. Ps. 35:10]). These are ways of referring to oneself as a personwho expresses will and intention (cf. Ps. 42:5–6, 11). The“flesh” is used to stress the weakness of mortal humanity(e.g., Isa. 40:6 RSV: “All flesh is grass”). The “heart”is the volitional center of a human being (Prov. 4:23; cf. Mark7:17–23). The emotional and empathetic reactions of humans aredescribed by reference to the organs: “liver,” “kidneys,”“bowels.”

Moralsand responsibility.In Gen. 2 the complexities of the man’s moral relation to Godand his relations with the soil, with the animals, and with the womanare explored. God deposited the man in the garden “to work itand take care of it” (2:15). The words chosen to designate theman’s work prior to the fall have an aura of worship aboutthem, for they are later used in the OT for the cultic actions ofserving and guarding within the sanctuary. The priests served byoffering sacrifices, and the Levites guarded the gates of the sacredprecinct. A theology of work as a religious vocation is presented.The man was a kind of king-priest in the garden of God.

Themoral responsibility of humanity is signaled from the beginning.God’s command gives permission for the man to eat from “anytree” except one (Gen. 2:16–17) and as such indicatesman’s freedom, so that this command is no great restriction.The wording “you are free to eat” reinforces the pointabout God’s generous provision. The prohibition is embedded inthe description of God’s fatherly care for the man and graciousact in placing him in the garden. The divine restriction is slightand not at all overbearing, though the serpent will seek to make itappear mean-spirited (3:1). The command and prohibition are the veryfirst words of God to the man, marking them out as of fundamentalimportance for the relationship between them. The prohibition (“youmust not eat . . .”) is an absolute one in thestyle of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21).What is placed before the man is a test that gives him theopportunity to express his loyalty to God. A relationship ofobedience and trust requires the possibility of choice and theopportunity to disobey (if that is what he wants to do). The moralnature and responsibility of individuals is not a late discovery bythe prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 18); rather, it is the presuppositionbehind the Mosaic law, for the commands of the Decalogue (“youshall not . . .”) are phrased as commands toindividuals (as the Hebrew makes clear). On the other hand, theconcept of corporate responsibility is also present (e.g., Achan’spunishment in Josh. 7).

Relationships.Human beings are relational by nature, as the creation of the womanas a helper and partner for the first man makes plain (Gen. 2:18–25).Later in Scripture this is put in more general terms, so thatfriendship and mutual cooperation are shown to be essential to life(Eccles. 4:7–12). The body life of the church reflects the samefact and need (1 Cor. 12). In Psalms, human needs andvulnerability find their answer and fulfillment in God, with thepsalmist acknowledging his frailty and his creaturely dependence onGod (e.g., Ps. 90). This also shows the folly of sinful human pride,against which the prophets so often inveighed (e.g., Isa. 2:9,11–17, 22).

One who serves as a facilitator of reconciliation between twoparties. The role of a mediator was taken by different individualsand offices in the OT, as seen in Abraham interceding for Sodom andGomorrah (Gen. 18:22–32), Moses asking God to forgive Israel(Exod. 32:31–32), and the Israelites begging Moses to speak toGod on their behalf (Exod. 20:19). In addition, judges, prophets,kings, and priests assumed intermediary functions at times. Mediationfunctions bidirectionally: from God to humans, and from humans toGod. The prophets are quintessentially the first kind of mediators(God to humans), while the priests took, mostly, the second function(humans to God).

Inthe NT, the role of mediator is given to Christ, since he alone, asGod incarnate, is qualified for it (the “one mediator betweenGod and mankind” [1Tim. 2:5]). This implies that insomuchas reconciliation between sinful humankind and a holy God isconceivable, Christ alone can facilitate that mediation.

Hebrewsdevelops a theology of mediation by comparing Christ to angels,Moses, and the prophets, declaring that Christ is superior to each inevery aspect. Hebrews says that Christ is the mediator of a new andbetter covenant (8:6; 9:15; 12:24). Many NT passages present Christengaging in prophetic ministry as he proclaims and interprets God’swill for the lost world. His priestly work consists not only ofgiving himself as the ultimate sacrifice but also of interceding forhumans before God and giving the “priestly blessing” fromhis heavenly abode.

Christ’smediation is to be appreciated in terms of both who he is and what hehas done. The eternal mystery surrounding Christ is his incarnateperson (God-man) and his atoning death (cleansing all guilt). Throughthe patristic period and the following scholastic movement,theological reflection on Christ was channeled to the meaning ofincarnation, emphasizing Christ’s unique status as both trueGod and true human that makes redemptive work possible.

Bycomparison, the Protestant Reformers brought Christ’s salvificand mediatory work into the forefront of their theology. The Reformedtradition developed the mediatory role of Christ in a threefoldmanner: prophet, priest, and king.

Bible formation and canon development are best understood inlight of historical events and theological principles. In thehistorical-theological process we learn what God did and how heengaged a variety of people to produce Scripture as the word of God.The Bible is the written revelation of the triune God, who madehimself known to his creation. The divine actions of God to revealhimself resulted in a written text recognized to be authoritative andthus copied and preserved for future generations. The process ofrecognizing and collecting authoritative books of the Scripturesoccurred over time and involved consensus.

BibleFormation

Revelation.Theprocess of Bible formation begins with God revealing. The act ofrevelation involved God communicating truth to the human writers in aprogressive and unified manner. Inspiration is the act of God theHoly Spirit, who superintended the biblical authors so that theycomposed the books of Scripture exactly as he intended. God used thebiblical writers, their personalities and their writing styles, in amanner that kept them from error in composing the original writtenproduct, the Scriptures. The resulting books of the Bible constituteGod’s permanent special revelation to humankind.

BothTestaments affirm the work of revelation along with the formation ofa body of divine writings. The OT is dominated by the phrase “thussays the Lord” and similar expressions (cf. Gen. 9:8; Josh.24:27; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:7 and contrast Ps. 135:15–19). Everypart of the OT is viewed as the word of God (Rom. 3:2). This isconfirmed by Jesus’ attitude toward the Scriptures (Matt.19:4–5; 21:42; 22:29; cf. Luke 11:50–51; 24:44).

FourNT passages help us understand the work of inspiration. A factualstatement regarding the extent and nature of inspiration is made in2 Tim. 3:16. According to 2 Pet. 1:19–20, the HolySpirit purposefully carried persons along to produce the propheticword, and 1 Cor. 2:10–13 supports the choice of the wordsin the work of composing the inspired product. Finally, Petercomments that Paul was given wisdom to produce inspired literarydocuments in the canon of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:14–18).

Authority.Books formed and authored by God in this manner are authoritative.Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliablycomposed in the originals, it is binding upon people in theirrelationship with God and other people. Biblical authority derivesfrom God’s eternal character and the content of his wordpreserved in Scripture. The inscripturated word of God isauthoritative and requires obedience.

Theauthority of God’s word is affirmed and illustrated in thecreation and fall narratives. In the fall, Adam and Eve rebelledagainst God’s command (Gen. 3:3–4) and were expelled fromthe garden. In subsequent periods of biblical history, God’sspoken and written word continued to be the basis for belief andconduct. God summarized his will in the Ten Commandments (Exod.20:1-17; Deut. 5:6–21) and held his people accountable to it(Deut. 6:2; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 17:5–23). The authoritativeword embraced by faith protects the believer from sin (Ps. 119:11).The fool is the person who rejects God’s authority (Pss. 14:1;53:1). The apostle Paul acknowledged the authority of the gospel forhis own life and ministry (Gal. 1:6–9). God the Holy Spiritimpresses upon the believer the authority of the Bible as thereliable rule for faith and practice (John 6:63).

Godmade provision for a reliable and trustworthy preservation of hisauthoritative word in the multiplicity of extant manuscripts. Godcommanded that his revealed word be copied (Deut. 17:8–18;24:8; 31:9, 25–26; 33:8–10) for administrative andpersonal purposes (Deut. 6:6; Josh. 1:8; 23:6; Prov. 3:3; 7:3).Through this process of multiplication the word of God was preserved(Ps. 119:152, 160; Isa. 40:8; cf. Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35;1 Pet. 1:22–25).

Canonization

Canonizationis the next critical step in the development of the Bible. The word“canon” (Gk. kanōn) refers to a standard, norm, orrule (Gal. 6:16; cf. Ezek. 42:16), and when applied to the Bible, itdesignates the collection of books revealed by God, divinelyinspired, and recognized by the people of God as the authoritativenorm for faith and practice. The presupposition of canonicity is thatGod spoke to his human creatures and his word was accuratelyrecorded. Since inspiration determines canonicity, the books composedby human beings under the direction of the Holy Spirit functionedauthoritatively at the time of writing. The people of God thenrecognized and collected the books that they discerned to be inspiredand authoritative (1 Thess. 2:10–16; 2 Pet. 3:15).

Thecanonical process.The challenge associated with canon and Bible formation is that theScriptures do not reveal a detailed historical process forrecognizing and collecting inspired works. An understanding of thisprocess is derived from the testimony of Jesus, biblical principles,and historical precedents.

Canonicalidentification is associated with the witness of the Holy Spirit, whoworked in connection with the believers to recognize the writtendocuments given by inspiration (1 Thess. 2:13). The Holy Spiritenabled believers to discern a book’s authority and itscompatibility with existing canonical revelation (Isa. 8:20; Acts17:11). Although the question of authorship cannot be positivelysettled for every OT or NT book, believers recognized the prophets asthe OT authors (Deut. 18:14–22) and the apostles as the NTauthors. Canonical books were recognized to bear the power of God andto contain an effective message (2 Tim. 3:15–16; Heb.4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Overtime, the authoritative books of Scripture were collected into a bodyof literature that today forms one book, the Bible. During thisprocess, some believers struggled with the message, content, andambiguous authorship of books such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,and Esther in the OT and Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter in the NT.The pattern of composition and canonical process for the OT providedthe foundation for the composition and development of the NT canon.Therefore, the NT books that came to be recognized as canonical werethose that were composed in connection with an apostle, doctrinallysound, and widely circulated and used by the churches.

Inthe collection task some texts were recognized (hom*ologoumena), somewere disputed (antilegomena), and others were rejected as unorthodox(pseudepigrapha). Historically, there is no evidence for widespreadacceptance of the present-day canon of sixty-six books until thethird century AD.

Structureand content.Overthe centuries, several canonical lists began to emerge, ofteninfluenced by particular theological conclusions. For example, theSamaritan canon, which includes only the first five books of our OT,was compiled by the Samaritans, who were hostile to anything inIsrael or Judea outside Samaria. Today, Christian traditions vary intheir inclusion or omission of the Apocrypha from their Bibles and intheir list of which books are contained in the Apocrypha.

TheBabylonian canon, accepted as standard by Jews, contains all thebooks now recognized as the OT and is divided into three parts: theLaw, the Prophets, and the Writings. This canon is also known as theTanak, an acronym derived from the Hebrew words for “law”(torah), “prophets” (nebi’im), “writings”(ketubim). This canonical list traditionally includes twenty-fourbooks (the twelve Minor Prophets are considered to be one book, asare 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, andEzra-Nehemiah). The twenty-four books of this canonical list are thesame as the thirty-nine OT books in current English Bible editions.The law or instruction section includes the first five books of Moses(Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets section is divided intothe Former and Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets are thehistorical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The LatterProphets include both the Major and the Minor Prophets. The Writingssection contains both poetic and wisdom material, along with somehistorical material.

Historicalreferences to this canonical format are found in extrabiblicalsources as early as the second century BC. The grandson of Jesus BenSira referenced a threefold canon in the prologue of the apocryphalbook Sirach (c. 190 BC); Josephus referenced it in Against Apion (AD37–95). Jesus acknowledged the threefold division in Luke 24:44(cf. Matt. 23:34). Among Christian sources, this division ispreserved in the oldest extant list of OT books, associated withBishop Melito of Sardis (AD 170). Tertullian, an early Latin churchfather (AD 160–250), Origen (AD 254), Hilary of Poitiers (AD305–366), and Jerome (AD 340–420) affirmed an OT canon oftwenty-two or twenty-four books. Most current English versions followa fourfold structure of law, history, poetry, and prophets.

Thetwenty-seven books of the NT are attested in lists associated withchurches in the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean world.Two such witnesses are the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius(AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). The canonical listassociated with Marcion and the Muratorian list represent fragmentarylists from the early part of the second century AD. In terms ofusage, a majority of church fathers recognized and used thetwenty-seven NT books in our canon. See also Apocrypha, NewTestament; Apocrypha, Old Testament.

The blessings and curses of Scripture are grounded in aworldview that understands the sovereign God to be the ultimatedispenser of each. Blessings and curses are not the outcomes ofmagicians who attempt to manipulate the gods for personal gain orretribution. Rather, God is the giver of blessing and ultimately thefinal judge who determines withdrawal or ban. He is the source ofevery good gift (James 1:17) and the one who gives power and strengthto prosper (Deut. 8:17).

Someview the nature of blessing and curse as simply a gift from God,while others see it as an act in which one party transmits power forlife to another party. Perhaps the common thread between views is theidea of relationship.

Terminology.In the OT, the key Hebrew terms for blessing are the verb barak andthe noun berakah. When the context of their use identifies a personor a living creature as the object of blessing, the basic idea is toprovide someone with special power that will ultimately enhance hisor her life. The blessing theme is also illuminated by means of wordssuch as “grace,” “favor,” “loyalty,”and “happiness.”

Inthe NT, the Greek term eulogeō and its cognates are bestunderstood in terms of the impartation of favor, power, and benefits.The makarios word group describes a state or status of beingfortunate, happy, or privileged.

TheOT curse vocabulary includes the ideas of disgracing, makingcontemptible, and imprecation. The NT curse terminology comprises theideas of curse, slander, or consecrated to destruction.

OldTestament.Thesovereign God sometimes employs agents of blessing in his creation.The blessing extends to the nations through Abraham (Gen. 12:3), toJacob through Isaac (Gen. 26–27), and to the people through thepriests (Num. 6:24–26).

Thetheme of blessing/curse is used to structure Deut. 27–28 andLev. 26 (cf. Josh. 8:34) in the overall covenant format of thesebooks. Scholars have observed that the object of this format is notsymmetry or logical unity but fullness. From this perspective, theblessing/curse structure functions to enforce obedience for thepurpose of ensuring a relationship. The blessing of Deuteronomy alsoincludes the benefits of prosperity, power, and fertility. The curse,on the other hand, is the lack or withdrawal of benefits associatedwith the relationship.

Thecreation narratives are marked with the theme and terminology ofblessing (Gen. 1:22, 28; 2:3; cf. 5:2; 9:1). The objects of blessingin Gen. 1:22, 28 (cf. 5:2; 9:1) are the living creatures and humanbeings created in the image of God. As the revelation progresses, theblessing of God is particularized in the lives of Noah (Gen. 6–8),Abraham (Gen. 12–25) and his descendants, and the nation ofIsrael and its leadership (Gen. 26–50). In these contexts, theblessing is intended to engender offspring and to prosper recipientsin material and physical ways (compare a similar NT emphasis in Acts17:25; cf. Matt. 5:45; 6:25–33; Acts 14:17).

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

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

NewTestament.Inthe NT, blessings are not exclusively spiritual. God gives both foodand joy (Acts 14:17) and provides the necessities of life (Matt.6:25–33). The NT does connect blessing with Christ, and itfocuses attention on the spiritual quality of the gift thatoriginates from Christ himself and its intended benefit for spiritualindividuals.

Regardingcurse, the NT explains that Christ bore the curse of the law to freeus from its deadening effect (Gal. 3:10–13). Revelation 22:3anticipates a time when the curse associated with sin will becompletely removed and the blessing associated with creation willprevail.

Deuteronomy concludes the Torah. It is the fifth scroll orchapter of the work traditionally ascribed to Moses. Its title isderived from the LXX and literally means “the second law.”The name is appropriate in view of the fact that in it Moses takes afinal opportunity, before the people go into the promised land and heascends Mount Nebo to die, to speak to the people about theirobligations before God. Many of the laws of the book, most notablythe Ten Commandments (compare Deut. 5 with Exod. 20), may be found inan earlier form elsewhere in the Torah, but there are also many newlaws as well (see below, “Genre and Message”). Inessence, this final sermon by Moses takes the form of a covenant bywhich the people of God reaffirm their relationship to Yahweh.

Authorand Date

Deuteronomyis the capstone of the literary work known as the Torah. WithDeuteronomy, however, a few more comments need to be made. In onesense, this book is the one most closely associated with Moses, as itcontains speeches that he made to the people of Israel before theyentered the land. However, these speeches are placed within anarrative framework that does not name an author. Some scholars dateits composition as late as the seventh century BC, long after thetime of Moses, because although 2Kings 22 describes therediscovery of a portion of the law that leads that generation tocentralize its worship, indicating that the book is Deuteronomy (cf.Deut. 12), these scholars suspect that the book was written, ratherthan found, at this time.

Morein keeping with the evidence of the book itself is the conclusionthat it originates with Moses’ speech, although we must alsoallow that it was updated and edited later in the history of Israel.

Genre,Outline, and Message

Thebook intriguingly takes the form of an ancient treaty similar totreaties formulated in countries that surround Israel. Thisobservation is in keeping with the understanding of the book as acovenant renewal, since biblical covenants are essentially treatiesbetween God and his people established through a mediator, in thiscase Moses. Such ancient treaties have the following five-partstructure, and Deuteronomy roughly follows this pattern:

I.Preamble Introducing the Parties to the Treaty (1:1–5)

II.Historical Prologue (1:6–3:29)

III.Law (4–26)

IV.Curses and Blessings (27–30)

V.Witnesses and Other Arrangements for the Future (31–34)

Therichness of Deuteronomy’s message makes it hard to summarizethe book. Yet behind the concept of a covenant/treaty stands themetaphor of God as a great king over his servant people. The variousparts of the covenant feed into this idea. The preamble introducesthe parties: God and Israel. Moses mediates the covenant between thetwo. The historical prologue then narrates the history of therelationship up to the present. The purpose is to make explicit howgracious the king has been toward his people in the past. Thishistory provides the background for the next and longest section inDeuteronomy, the law. God has established this relationship withIsrael by grace, and Israel should respond by obeying his commands.Law naturally leads to the curses and the blessings. If theIsraelites obey, they will experience God’s blessing, but ifthey disobey, they will feel his curse. Since the treaty/covenant isa legal document, there are witnesses, who will observe therelationship and, if Israel is disobedient, will confirm the justiceof the judgment. This last section simply looks to the futuremaintenance of the covenant.

TheDeuteronomic covenant is a reaffirmation of the covenant formulatedat Sinai (Exod. 19–24), and as such it emphasizes the law. Thislaw casts its long shadow over much of the biblical material thatcomes after Deuteronomy. For instance, the history that follows(Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in contrast to Chronicles) seemsto look at the history of Israel through the lens of thedistinctively Deuteronomic law. Virtually every king is evaluated asto whether he keeps the law of centralization (a law, by the way, notfound in earlier collections [Deut. 12]). Furthermore, some prophets(e.g., Jeremiah) bring their message of judgment specifically becausethe Israelites have broken the law of the covenant and thereforedeserve the curses.

Thus,the significance of Deuteronomy is hard to overestimate. It is thecapstone of the Pentateuch, and it informs the theology of much ofthe OT that follows.

ContinuingRelevance

Deuteronomyis a renewal of the covenant between God and his people at a point ofpotential crisis in the community. Their leader Moses is about todie, and the Israelites are given the opportunity to reaffirm theirallegiance to God and their determination to keep his law. As we knowfrom the history that follows, they failed to keep their word. As weread the story of Christ’s temptation (Matt. 4:1–11) inlight of Deuteronomy, we observe that Satan tries to provoke him tosin in a way similar to Israel in the wilderness by using hunger, thetesting of God, and idolatry. Jesus is obedient where the Israeliteshave been disobedient, and in resisting these temptations he quotesDeuteronomy three times. Jesus is the obedient Son of God.

Thelaw of Deuteronomy is not totally in effect today. Some of the lawsconcern rituals that are fulfilled in Christ, and other laws areshaped to address the needs of the ancient Israelite culture. Forinstance, when the roofs of houses were living areas, it made senseto promote life by requiring that barriers be built around theiredges to keep people from falling off (Deut. 22:8). Even so, thegeneral principles are still in effect, and even in regard to the lawrequiring roof barriers, we may learn that it is important to buildfences around, say, swimming pools.

Finally,it has long been noted that Deuteronomy pays special attention toprotections for the socially vulnerable in society. Widows, orphans,and resident aliens are given special consideration in the laws ofDeuteronomy.

“Go marry a prostitute” are the first words thatthe prophet Hosea hears from God in the book of Hosea (1:2 NET). Histragic marriage with Gomer provides an analogy for the relationshipof God with his people Israel. God loves, confronts, pleads, becomesangry, and seeks reconciliation in this book containing words ofjudgment as well as hope.

Thebook of Hosea is one of the twelve Minor Prophets, but among thesebooks Hosea is preeminent. It is the longest and appears firstcanonically, and it was one of the first of all the prophetic booksto be written down. The emotive poetry depicting God’sheartbreak over the trauma of his broken relationship with his peopleis hardly matched anywhere else in Scripture.

HistoricalBackground

Thefirst verse sets the book into the reigns of JeroboamII ofIsrael (784–748 BC) and Uzziah (769–733 BC), Jotham(758–743 BC), Ahaz (733–727 BC), and Hezekiah (727–698BC) of Judah. It is difficult to pinpoint when it was during thereign of JeroboamII that Hosea began his ministry or how farinto the reign of Hezekiah he served. Scholars generally date Hosea’sministry between 760 and 720BC.

DuringJeroboam’s reign, Israel expanded its borders (2Kings14:25, 28) due to the relative weakness of its two traditionalnorthern enemies, Assyria and Aram. This expansion led to economicprosperity for the upper classes but oppression for the lowerclasses, which was condemned by the prophet Amos. Shortly after thedeath of Jeroboam, Tiglath-pileserIII came to the throne ofAssyria in 744 BC, and as Assyrian influence began to increase inIsrael, political stability for the nation declined. The reigns ofIsrael’s final rulers were characterized by chaos, as six kingsreigned over Israel in less than one generation (2Kings15:8–31; 17:1–6). Jeroboam’s son Zechariah waskilled by Shallum, who was killed by Menahem, who was succeeded byhis son Pekahiah, who was killed by Pekah, who was killed by Hoshea,who was exiled by Assyria.

Hosea’soracles generally target the northern kingdom, with over fortyreferences to “Israel” scattered throughout the book(e.g., 1:4–6), but the tribe of Ephraim is also mentioned overthirty times (e.g., 4:17; 5:3, 5). As the most influential northerntribe, Ephraim is often used synonymously for Israel, but some of thereferences to Ephraim may be due to the fact that after Assyriaconquered and exiled most of Israel in 733 BC, Ephraim was all thatremained until its destruction in 722BC.

Outline

I.Historical Setting (1:1)

II.Hosea’s Family (1:2–2:1)

III.God’s Family (2:2–23)

IV.God Calls Hosea to Bring Gomer Back (3:1–5)

V.The First Set of Messages (4:1–11:11)

VI.The Second Set of Messages (11:12–14:9)

Message

Themessage of the book of Hosea is God’s; his voice dominates thebook, whether he is speaking to the prophet or to the entire nation.While markers of God’s speech are concentrated in the firstthree chapters (1:2, 4, 6, 9; 2:1, 13, 16, 21; 3:1), clearly God isspeaking in most of the remainder of the book (4:1; 11:11). Hosea’sfirst-person perspective appears explicitly only as he narrates howGod has told him to go and bring back his wife, Gomer (3:1–5).Hosea may be speaking as the nation is called to return to God(6:1–3; 14:1–3), or these calls may be coming from thepeople. God also uses quotes from the people to illustrate his points(8:2; 9:7; 10:3).

God’sinitial commission to Hosea to marry the prostitute Gomer serves asthe frame on which to hang the content of the book. God’sprimary message is that the people of Israel have been unfaithful tothe covenant that they had initially established at Sinai after hehad delivered them from enslavement in Egypt. God had said that hewould be their God, and Israel would be his people (Exod. 6:7), sothey had made a covenant that the people promised to obey (24:1–8).Just as Hosea’s heart has been broken by the unfaithfulness ofhis wife, God has been devastated by Israel’s adulterousbehavior. Gomer gives birth to three children: Jezreel (“GodSows”), Lo-Ruhamah (“Not Pitied”), and Lo-Ammi(“Not My People”). The name of each child hassignificance in the book: “Jezreel” because God is goingto judge Jeroboam’s house for the blood shed by hisgreat-grandfather Jehu in the valley of Jezreel (see 2Kings9:36–37; 10:6–7, 11); “Not Pitied” becauseGod will no longer show mercy to the nation; “Not My People”because he is no longer their God and they are no longer his people.The themes of sowing (Hos. 2:23; 8:7; 10:12), God showing pity (2:1,4, 23; 14:3), and Israel as the people of God (2:1, 23; 4:6, 8, 12;6:11; 11:7) reappear throughout the book.

Thebook cycles through patterns of accusation, punishment, and hope. Godaccuses his people of being unfaithful to their covenant. Thisunfaithfulness takes two primary forms: worship of foreign idols andreliance on foreign nations. Despite their commitment to follow God’slaws, they have blatantly broken the first two commandments: have noother gods, and make no idols (Exod. 20:3–4). The first rulerof the northern kingdom of Israel, JeroboamI, had constructedtwo calves of gold, one in Dan and one in Bethel (1Kings12:25–33), similar to the one made by Aaron in the wilderness(Exod. 32:4). JeroboamI’s golden calves have survivedbeyond the reign of JeroboamII and contributed to Israeliteapostasy during the period of the entire northern monarchy. The bookof Hosea specifically condemns calf worship (8:5–6; 10:5),which even took the form of kissing the calves (13:2). Israel’sidolatry also involved consulting blocks of wood instead of God(4:12), joining themselves to idols (4:17), constructing idols ofsilver and gold (8:4), and sacrificing to idols (10:5).

BecauseGod wants Israel to be exclusively committed to him, he has forbiddenthem from making treaties with other nations (Exod. 34:12, 15; Deut.7:2; 23:6). The book of Hosea describes their disobedience to thiscommand in their dealings with Assyria and Egypt. God accuses them ofdepending on Assyria (Hos. 5:13; 7:11; 8:9; 12:1) and declares thatthe calf they worship will be exiled to Assyria (10:6), and Assyriawill become their king (11:5). God reminds Israel of the Egyptiandeliverance in the past (2:15; 11:1; 12:13; 13:4), he condemns theirreliance on Egypt in the present (7:11, 16; 12:1), and he proclaimsthat they will return to Egypt in the future (8:13; 9:3, 6; 11:5).The “return to Egypt” should be interpreted notgeographically but figuratively, as a return to bondage and exile,which will be performed by Assyria first in 733 BC and finally in722BC.

Israel’ssins provoke God’s anger (5:10; 8:5; 13:11) and prompt him todeclare that he will punish his people (1:4; 2:13; 4:9; 5:2, 9; 8:13;9:7, 9; 10:10). The punishment sent by God specifically targetsIsrael’s king, though it is difficult to be certain which one.Jehu’s house is the subject of the first royal condemnation(1:4–5), which may refer to the assassination of Zechariah,JeroboamII’s son (2Kings 15:8–10). The kingis called to listen to the judgment because it pertains to him (Hos.5:1). Some of Israel’s kings have already fallen (7:7), whichmay refer to the period of monarchical instability after JeroboamII.Eventually, Israel’s king will be completely cut off (3:4;10:3, 7, 15; 13:10), which happened in 722 BC, when Assyria destroyedthe capital Samaria.

Inthe midst of accusation and punishment, the book also includes wordsof hope, specifically that Israel will return to its God, and theirrelationship will be restored. Three times the people are called toreturn to God: in the beginning (2:14–23), in the middle(6:1–3), and at the end of the book (14:1–3). God viewshis people not only as his wife but also as his children (11:1–4),and he promises that because of his compassion his anger will cease(11:8–9) and he will lead his children as they return to theirhomes (11:11). In a surprising twist, immediately after telling Hoseato give the three children names signifying judgment (1:4–9),God declares that Israel will be called the “children of theliving God,” and the children’s names change to “Ammi”(“My People”) and “Ruhamah” (“Pity”)(1:10–2:1 NET). God also promises that the people of Israelwill be as numerous as the sand of the seashore (1:10), recalling hispromise to Abraham (Gen.22:17).

Bothparental and marital imagery from the book of Hosea appear elsewherein Scripture. While in Hosea the line “out of Egypt I called myson” (11:1) refers to God bringing his “children”out of Egyptian bondage, Matthew shows how it also describes earlyevents in Jesus’ life as his family fled to Egypt (Matt. 2:15).Jeremiah graphically describes the sins of Judah as adultery andfaithlessness (Jer. 3:1–25). Paul compares the relationshipbetween a husband and a wife to that of Christ and the church (Eph.5:23–24). The book of Revelation concludes by describing howthe residents of the new Jerusalem will be adorned like a bride forher husband, and they will be his people and he will be their God(Rev. 21:2–9; 22:17).

Jeremiah is the second of the Major Prophets, after Isaiahand before Ezekiel, an order determined by the chronology of thebeginning of their prophetic work. Jeremiah and Ezekiel werebasically contemporaries, but the latter began his ministry afterJeremiah. The book of Jeremiah is the longest of the prophets (21,835words), compared to Ezekiel (18,730 words) and Isaiah (16,932 words).Readers ancient and modern are attracted to the book not only by itsstirring message but also because Jeremiah is the most transparent ofall the prophetic personalities, often referred to as the WeepingProphet.

HistoricalBackground

Authorshipand date.The superscription of the book announces that it contains “thewords of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth inthe territory of Benjamin” (1:1). His prophetic ministry isthen described as taking place between the thirteenth year of KingJosiah and the eleventh year of King Zedekiah, equivalent to 626–586BC, a period of great turbulence (see next section). Chapters 40–44narrate events in the period immediately after the fall of Jerusalem.

Onthe one hand, there is no good reason to question the existence ofthe historical Jeremiah or the attribution to him of the prophecythat bears his name. On the other hand, the text indicates that thebook was not written at one sitting but rather is the product of aprocess. Chapter 36 mentions that the prophet wrote down his sermonsin 605 BC, and when King Jehoiakim burned the scroll, the narratorrelates that Jeremiah again dictated them to Baruch, who wrote themall down, and Jeremiah added many more oracles (36:32). The bookdescribes a close relationship between Jeremiah and his associateBaruch. It is possible that the stories about Jeremiah were writtendown and added by this close friend.

AncientNear Eastern historical context.When Jeremiah started his prophetic work in 626 BC, the world wasundergoing major political change. Assyria had been the dominantsuperpower for the preceding centuries. It had incorporated thenorthern kingdom of Israel into its vast empire in 722 BC, and Judahhad been forced to pay tribute. In 626 BC, however, Babylon began itsrebellion against Assyria. Nabopolassar, a Chaldean chieftain, nowking of Babylon, threw off the yoke of Assyrian bondage, and overwhat was almost two decades he eradicated Assyria and inherited theempire.

In626 BC Josiah was king of Judah. His father, Amon, and hisgrandfather Manasseh had been evil kings, promoting false worship.But Josiah served Yahweh, and soon before Jeremiah began his work,the king began to purify the religious institutions of Judah(2Chron. 34:3b–7). Jeremiah’s early ministry thenoccurred in an environment that would find support from the royalcourt. In 609 BC, however, Josiah tried to block Necho of Egypt fromreinforcing the remnants of Assyria against Babylon and in theprocess lost his life. Although the Egyptians were unsuccessful inhelping Assyria survive, they were able to exercise control overJudah and placed a pro-Egyptian king, Jehoiakim, on the throne. Evenso, by 605 BC Egypt could not stop Babylon under their new king,Nebuchadnezzar, from demanding that Judah be their vassal (Dan.1:1–3). Jehoiakim revolted against Babylon in 597 BC. By thetime the avenging Babylonian army arrived, Jehoiakim was gone,replaced by his son Jehoiachin. The latter was promptly deported toBabylon and replaced by Zedekiah. The book of Jeremiah records thatboth Jehoiakim and Zedekiah were determined opponents of the prophet.In any case, Zedekiah too eventually rebelled against Babylon, andthis time Nebuchadnezzar not only captured and exiled many leadersbut also systematically destroyed the city. He then incorporatedJudah into his empire as a province and appointed a Judean governor,Gedaliah. Jeremiah 40–44 describes how Jewish insurgentsassassinated Gedaliah and killed off the Babylonian garrison troops.Many of the remaining Jewish people then fled to Egypt against God’swill as announced by Jeremiah, who was forced to go with them.

Theseevents provide the background to the prophetic oracles and theactions narrated in the book of Jeremiah. Some of Jeremiah’swords and actions are specifically dated to these events, whileothers are not dated.

Text

Jeremiahis one of the few books of the OT that present a significanttext-critical issue. The main Hebrew text (the MT) is clearlydifferent from the Greek text. The latter is about one-eighth shorterthan the former, lacking about 2,700 words. In addition, the order ofthe book is different. The oracles against the foreign nations arechapters 46–51 in the Hebrew but are found right after 25:13 inthe Greek. The DSS attest to early Hebrew manuscripts that reflectthe Greek tradition, and therefore we cannot attribute the differenceto translation error or intentional rearrangement. A better solutionis to remember that the book of Jeremiah as we know it in the Hebrewis the result of a long history of composition. The Greek text mayreflect an earlier shorter version. The longer Hebrew text thenrepresents the final authoritative edition of the book and is rightlyused for modern translations.

LiteraryTypes

Thebook as a whole is a compendium of prophetic oracles and storiesabout Jeremiah. The following distinct literary types are found inthe book.

Poeticalprophetic oracles of judgment and salvation.Chapters 2–25 are composed primarily of poetic oracles ofjudgment directed toward God’s people. They are God’swords to his people uttered by the prophet. Chapters 46–51 arealso judgment oracles, but these are directed toward foreign nationssuch as Egypt and Babylon. Although salvation oracles are found inthe first part of the book, chapters 30–31 form a strikingcollection of such oracles, the best known of which is theanticipation of the new covenant (31:31–34).

Poeticalconfessions/laments.Jeremiah’s confessions are in the form of laments in which hecomplains about the burdens brought on by his prophetic task. Theselaments have many similarities with laments in the psalms, includingelements such as an invocation, a declaration of innocence, aninvocation against enemies, and divine response. While the lamentshave a certain ritual form, there is no good reason to deny that theyauthentically represent the emotions of the prophet. Theconfessions/laments are found in 11:18–23; 12:1–6;15:15–21; 17:14–18; 18:19–23; 20:7–17.

Proseoracles.Jeremiah’s oracles come in the form of prose as well as poetry.Similarities have been drawn between these oracles (a good example is7:1–8:3) and the theology of the book of Deuteronomy. Some wantto use this similarity to deny a connection with the historicalJeremiah, but there is no good reason to deny that Jeremiah couldreflect the theology of this foundational book.

Prosebiographical material.A significant part of the prose material may be described asbiographical, in that it relates events in Jeremiah’s life(chaps. 26–29; 34–45). These descriptions often carry aprophetic oracle. It is likely that these biographical descriptionswere written by someone other than Jeremiah (Baruch?).

Propheticsign-acts.Perhaps a special category of biographical material is thedescription of events and acts of Jeremiah’s that carryprophetic significance. A good example is 13:1–11, whichnarrates Jeremiah’s trip to the Euphrates River to bury hisdirty underwear.

Outline

I.Introduction and Jeremiah’s Call (1:1–19)

IIThe First Half of Jeremiah’s Ministry (2:1–25:14)

A Sermons, oracles, and sign-acts (2:1–24:10)

B Summary (25:1–14)

III.The Second Half of Jeremiah’s Ministry: Judgment and the Fallof Jerusalem (25:15–51:64)

A.Judgment against the nations (25:15–38)

B.Stories about Jeremiah and reports of oracles (26:1–29:32)

C.The Book of Consolation: Salvation oracles (30:1–33:26)

D.Stories about Jeremiah and oracles of judgment (34:1–38:28)

E.Account of the exile (39:1–44:30)

F.Oracle to Baruch (45:1–5)

G.Oracles against foreign nations (46:1–51:64)

IV.Epilogue (52:1–34)

Structure

Thebook of Jeremiah does not have a clearly delineated structure. Inthis respect, Jeremiah is not unique among the prophets. Nonetheless,we may still make some general observations about the shape of thebook and its large sections, even though we cannot always account forwhy one oracle follows another. When they are given chronologicalindicators, they are not arranged sequentially.

Thereare reasons to think that chapter 25 plays a pivotal role in thebook, though it may be that this was more explicit in an earlier formof the book (when the oracles against the foreign nations followedimmediately after it; cf. the Greek version). Even so, 25:1–14summarizes the message of chapters 2–24, and then 25:15–38announces judgment against the nations. Chapter 1, then, is anintroduction to the book, with its account of the prophet’scommissioning, and chapter 52 is an epilogue describing the fall ofJerusalem.

Withinthese two large sections we can recognize blocks of material. Chapter1 introduces the prophet, recounts his call, and presents two undatedoracles that serve to introduce important themes of the book.

Chapters2–24 follow as a collection of sermons, poetic and proseoracles, and prophetic sign-acts that are undated. Indeed, it isoften difficult to tell when one oracle ends and another begins. Itis likely that these are the oracles that come from the first part ofthe prophet’s ministry, that is, his first scroll, described inchapter 36.

Afterchapter 25 summarizes the first part of the book and turns attentionto the judgment against the nations, a block of prose materialfollows consisting of stories about Jeremiah as well as reports oforacles (chaps. 26–29).

Chapters30–33 are a collection of salvation oracles, a break from theheavy barrage of judgment in the book up to this point.Traditionally, these chapters are known as the Book of Consolation.Chapters 30–31 are poetic oracles, while chapters 32–33are prose.

Chapters34–38 return to prose stories about Jeremiah and oracles ofjudgment. This section culminates with the first account of the fallof Jerusalem.

Thenext section, chapters 39–44, gives the distressing account ofthe exile and the continuing failures on the part of those who stayin the land with Jeremiah. They end up in Egypt because of their lackof confidence in God’s ability to take care of them. Chapter 45is an oracle directed toward Baruch, Jeremiah’s associate.

Thebook ends with a collection of oracles against foreign nations(chaps. 46–51), culminating with a lengthy prophetic statementdirected toward Babylon. The book concludes with a second account ofthe fall of Jerusalem.

TheologicalMessage

Jeremiahis a complex book with many themes. One of the central ideas,however, is covenant. The Bible often uses the idea of a covenant todescribe the relationship between God and his people. A covenant is adivinely initiated and defined agreement. God makes promises andcalls on his people to observe certain requirements. Research hasfound that the biblical covenants are close in form and concept toancient Near Eastern treaties between the kings of superpowers andthose of much less powerful nations (vassal treaties). The powerful,sovereign king announces the law to the vassal, and it is accompaniedby curses and blessings. If the vassal obeys, then the king gives areward, but if the vassal disobeys, then the king issues punishment.

Thereis a series of covenantal relationships between God and his people(Noah [Gen. 9]; Abraham [Gen. 12:1–3; 15; 17]; Moses [Exod.19–24]; David [2Sam. 7]), but most relevant for ourunderstanding of Jeremiah is the covenant with Moses as reaffirmed inDeuteronomy. The Mosaic covenant emphasizes law (see Deut. 5–26)and has an extensive section of curses and blessings (Deut. 27–28).

Jeremiahand many of the other prophets may be styled “lawyers of thecovenant.” God sends them to his people when they disobey thelaw. Their job is to warn the people to change their lives and livein conformity with God’s will or else the curses of thecovenant will come into effect.

Jeremiah’soracles focus on warning the people that they are covenant breakers,particularly in the matter of worshipping false gods (Jer. 10–11).The hope is that the people will repent and thus avoid the mostextreme punishment. But it is not only the judgment oracles that arerelated to the covenant; so too are the salvation oracles. In Jer.31:31–34 the prophet announces that God will replace the oldcovenant with a new one, which will be more internal, more intense,and more intimate.

NewTestament Connections

Jeremiahanticipates the founding of a new and better covenant, and the NTwitnesses tothe fulfillment of this expectation. As he passedthe cup to his disciples, Jesus said, “This cup is thenewcovenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20[cf. 1Cor. 11:24–25]). The cup, representing Christ’sdeath, functions as the sign of the new covenant. The point is thatthe new covenant is founded on the death and resurrection of Christ.

Thenew covenant replaces the old. This is the argument of the book ofHebrews, which twice cites the relevant passage in Jeremiah to makethe point (Heb. 8:8–12; 10:15–17; see also 2Cor.3). According to the author of Hebrews, the old covenant failed notbecause of a defect in God or his instrument but because of thepeople (Heb. 8:8). They consistently broke that covenant bydisobeying the law explicated in the covenant with Moses. As aresult, as Jeremiah himself announced, the people would be expelledfrom the land (reversing the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant),bringing to conclusion the monarchy, which is a provision of theDavidic covenant.

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

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

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

Authorshipand Composition

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

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

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

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

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

PrimevalHistory (Gen. 1–11)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patriarchs(Gen. 12–50)

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

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

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

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

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

Liberationfrom Egypt (Exod. 1–18)

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

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

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

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

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

Sinai(Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10)

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

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

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

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

WildernessJourney (Num. 10:11–36:13)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moses’Farewell (Deuteronomy)

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

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

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

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

A call or calling is God’s summons to live one’s life in accordance with his purposes. At creation God instructed Adam to fill the earth and subdue it, and to have dominion over it. God created Eve to be Adam’s lifelong companion and to help him fulfill this task (Gen. 1:28). Thus, in the broader (universal) sense, the notion of calling includes the ordinances that God established at creation: work (Gen. 2:15), marriage (2:18, 24), building a family (1:28), and Sabbath rest (2:2–3).

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they became alienated from God (Gen. 3:6–19). Their fall brought the same plight of alienation from God upon all humanity. However, it did not abolish the human duty to carry out God’s original creation ordinances. Since God showers his blessings on everyone alike (common grace), all human beings possess gifts and are given opportunities to “fill” the earth and “subdue” it. Thus, everyone participates in the universal call (Acts 17:25–26). This has come to be called the “cultural mandate.”

However, God’s original intention was to have communion with human beings. This could not be realized unless he made provision for human beings to be reconciled with him. Against this backdrop, God initiated his plan to redeem people from their plight of spiritual alienation.

The general call. The promise of God to bring deliverance through a future descendant of Eve established the provision for individuals (e.g., Adam, Abel, Seth, Noah) to be “called” back into a relationship of favor with him (Gen. 3:15). The first occasion when this call is made explicit is in God’s call to Abram to leave his country and go to a land that God would show him (11:32–12:1). God promised that Abram would become the father of a nation (12:2–3). In response to God’s call and his promise, Abram believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness (15:6). Abram’s call was implicitly twofold. First, it was a general call to acknowledge this God as the true God and yield to his lordship. Second, it entailed a specific call to leave his country and journey toward a new country.

Several generations later, God appointed Moses to lead these descendants of Abraham out of Egypt, where they had lived for four hundred years. God’s act of delivering them from slavery in Egypt also symbolized redemption from sin’s bondage (Exod. 20:2). God had called the people by means of a covenant to be his own special people, to serve him as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (19:5–6). This was a call to set their lives apart for God by living according to his commands. This general call was more than a verbal summons; it was also the means God used to bring his people into existence (Hos. 11:1).

The NT indicates there is a general call to all people to believe in Christ (Matt. 11:28; Acts 17:30) that becomes effective in the ones that God has already chosen (Matt. 22:14; Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4–5). The latter, which theologians identify as the “effectual call,” is what Paul refers to when he says, “Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. . . . And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29–30). Thus, this is also a sovereign call.

Particular callings. God has endowed each individual Christian with a particular gift set and calls each one to use those gifts in a variety of ways in service to him (1 Pet. 4:10). These callings include one’s occupation, place of residence, status as married or single, involvement in public life, and service in the local church. In the OT, God gifted Bezalel and “filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills” (Exod. 35:31–32) to beautify the tabernacle. In the parable of the talents, Jesus teaches that God has made each of us stewards of whatever he has entrusted to us; we are to become skilled in the use of our gifts and to seek opportunities to use them in service to him (Matt. 25:14–30). Desire is an important factor in discerning one’s particular callings (Ps. 37:4). One’s particular calling is progressive, unfolding through the different seasons of one’s life (Eph. 2:10; 1 Cor. 7:20, 24). No particular calling is more “sacred” than another in God’s eyes.

A call or calling is God’s summons to live one’s life in accordance with his purposes. At creation God instructed Adam to fill the earth and subdue it, and to have dominion over it. God created Eve to be Adam’s lifelong companion and to help him fulfill this task (Gen. 1:28). Thus, in the broader (universal) sense, the notion of calling includes the ordinances that God established at creation: work (Gen. 2:15), marriage (2:18, 24), building a family (1:28), and Sabbath rest (2:2–3).

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they became alienated from God (Gen. 3:6–19). Their fall brought the same plight of alienation from God upon all humanity. However, it did not abolish the human duty to carry out God’s original creation ordinances. Since God showers his blessings on everyone alike (common grace), all human beings possess gifts and are given opportunities to “fill” the earth and “subdue” it. Thus, everyone participates in the universal call (Acts 17:25–26). This has come to be called the “cultural mandate.”

However, God’s original intention was to have communion with human beings. This could not be realized unless he made provision for human beings to be reconciled with him. Against this backdrop, God initiated his plan to redeem people from their plight of spiritual alienation.

The general call. The promise of God to bring deliverance through a future descendant of Eve established the provision for individuals (e.g., Adam, Abel, Seth, Noah) to be “called” back into a relationship of favor with him (Gen. 3:15). The first occasion when this call is made explicit is in God’s call to Abram to leave his country and go to a land that God would show him (11:32–12:1). God promised that Abram would become the father of a nation (12:2–3). In response to God’s call and his promise, Abram believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness (15:6). Abram’s call was implicitly twofold. First, it was a general call to acknowledge this God as the true God and yield to his lordship. Second, it entailed a specific call to leave his country and journey toward a new country.

Several generations later, God appointed Moses to lead these descendants of Abraham out of Egypt, where they had lived for four hundred years. God’s act of delivering them from slavery in Egypt also symbolized redemption from sin’s bondage (Exod. 20:2). God had called the people by means of a covenant to be his own special people, to serve him as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (19:5–6). This was a call to set their lives apart for God by living according to his commands. This general call was more than a verbal summons; it was also the means God used to bring his people into existence (Hos. 11:1).

The NT indicates there is a general call to all people to believe in Christ (Matt. 11:28; Acts 17:30) that becomes effective in the ones that God has already chosen (Matt. 22:14; Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4–5). The latter, which theologians identify as the “effectual call,” is what Paul refers to when he says, “Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. . . . And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29–30). Thus, this is also a sovereign call.

Particular callings. God has endowed each individual Christian with a particular gift set and calls each one to use those gifts in a variety of ways in service to him (1 Pet. 4:10). These callings include one’s occupation, place of residence, status as married or single, involvement in public life, and service in the local church. In the OT, God gifted Bezalel and “filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills” (Exod. 35:31–32) to beautify the tabernacle. In the parable of the talents, Jesus teaches that God has made each of us stewards of whatever he has entrusted to us; we are to become skilled in the use of our gifts and to seek opportunities to use them in service to him (Matt. 25:14–30). Desire is an important factor in discerning one’s particular callings (Ps. 37:4). One’s particular calling is progressive, unfolding through the different seasons of one’s life (Eph. 2:10; 1 Cor. 7:20, 24). No particular calling is more “sacred” than another in God’s eyes.

A call or calling is God’s summons to live one’s life in accordance with his purposes. At creation God instructed Adam to fill the earth and subdue it, and to have dominion over it. God created Eve to be Adam’s lifelong companion and to help him fulfill this task (Gen. 1:28). Thus, in the broader (universal) sense, the notion of calling includes the ordinances that God established at creation: work (Gen. 2:15), marriage (2:18, 24), building a family (1:28), and Sabbath rest (2:2–3).

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they became alienated from God (Gen. 3:6–19). Their fall brought the same plight of alienation from God upon all humanity. However, it did not abolish the human duty to carry out God’s original creation ordinances. Since God showers his blessings on everyone alike (common grace), all human beings possess gifts and are given opportunities to “fill” the earth and “subdue” it. Thus, everyone participates in the universal call (Acts 17:25–26). This has come to be called the “cultural mandate.”

However, God’s original intention was to have communion with human beings. This could not be realized unless he made provision for human beings to be reconciled with him. Against this backdrop, God initiated his plan to redeem people from their plight of spiritual alienation.

The general call. The promise of God to bring deliverance through a future descendant of Eve established the provision for individuals (e.g., Adam, Abel, Seth, Noah) to be “called” back into a relationship of favor with him (Gen. 3:15). The first occasion when this call is made explicit is in God’s call to Abram to leave his country and go to a land that God would show him (11:32–12:1). God promised that Abram would become the father of a nation (12:2–3). In response to God’s call and his promise, Abram believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness (15:6). Abram’s call was implicitly twofold. First, it was a general call to acknowledge this God as the true God and yield to his lordship. Second, it entailed a specific call to leave his country and journey toward a new country.

Several generations later, God appointed Moses to lead these descendants of Abraham out of Egypt, where they had lived for four hundred years. God’s act of delivering them from slavery in Egypt also symbolized redemption from sin’s bondage (Exod. 20:2). God had called the people by means of a covenant to be his own special people, to serve him as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (19:5–6). This was a call to set their lives apart for God by living according to his commands. This general call was more than a verbal summons; it was also the means God used to bring his people into existence (Hos. 11:1).

The NT indicates there is a general call to all people to believe in Christ (Matt. 11:28; Acts 17:30) that becomes effective in the ones that God has already chosen (Matt. 22:14; Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4–5). The latter, which theologians identify as the “effectual call,” is what Paul refers to when he says, “Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. . . . And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29–30). Thus, this is also a sovereign call.

Particular callings. God has endowed each individual Christian with a particular gift set and calls each one to use those gifts in a variety of ways in service to him (1 Pet. 4:10). These callings include one’s occupation, place of residence, status as married or single, involvement in public life, and service in the local church. In the OT, God gifted Bezalel and “filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills” (Exod. 35:31–32) to beautify the tabernacle. In the parable of the talents, Jesus teaches that God has made each of us stewards of whatever he has entrusted to us; we are to become skilled in the use of our gifts and to seek opportunities to use them in service to him (Matt. 25:14–30). Desire is an important factor in discerning one’s particular callings (Ps. 37:4). One’s particular calling is progressive, unfolding through the different seasons of one’s life (Eph. 2:10; 1 Cor. 7:20, 24). No particular calling is more “sacred” than another in God’s eyes.

Bible formation and canon development are best understood inlight of historical events and theological principles. In thehistorical-theological process we learn what God did and how heengaged a variety of people to produce Scripture as the word of God.The Bible is the written revelation of the triune God, who madehimself known to his creation. The divine actions of God to revealhimself resulted in a written text recognized to be authoritative andthus copied and preserved for future generations. The process ofrecognizing and collecting authoritative books of the Scripturesoccurred over time and involved consensus.

BibleFormation

Revelation.Theprocess of Bible formation begins with God revealing. The act ofrevelation involved God communicating truth to the human writers in aprogressive and unified manner. Inspiration is the act of God theHoly Spirit, who superintended the biblical authors so that theycomposed the books of Scripture exactly as he intended. God used thebiblical writers, their personalities and their writing styles, in amanner that kept them from error in composing the original writtenproduct, the Scriptures. The resulting books of the Bible constituteGod’s permanent special revelation to humankind.

BothTestaments affirm the work of revelation along with the formation ofa body of divine writings. The OT is dominated by the phrase “thussays the Lord” and similar expressions (cf. Gen. 9:8; Josh.24:27; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:7 and contrast Ps. 135:15–19). Everypart of the OT is viewed as the word of God (Rom. 3:2). This isconfirmed by Jesus’ attitude toward the Scriptures (Matt.19:4–5; 21:42; 22:29; cf. Luke 11:50–51; 24:44).

FourNT passages help us understand the work of inspiration. A factualstatement regarding the extent and nature of inspiration is made in2 Tim. 3:16. According to 2 Pet. 1:19–20, the HolySpirit purposefully carried persons along to produce the propheticword, and 1 Cor. 2:10–13 supports the choice of the wordsin the work of composing the inspired product. Finally, Petercomments that Paul was given wisdom to produce inspired literarydocuments in the canon of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:14–18).

Authority.Books formed and authored by God in this manner are authoritative.Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliablycomposed in the originals, it is binding upon people in theirrelationship with God and other people. Biblical authority derivesfrom God’s eternal character and the content of his wordpreserved in Scripture. The inscripturated word of God isauthoritative and requires obedience.

Theauthority of God’s word is affirmed and illustrated in thecreation and fall narratives. In the fall, Adam and Eve rebelledagainst God’s command (Gen. 3:3–4) and were expelled fromthe garden. In subsequent periods of biblical history, God’sspoken and written word continued to be the basis for belief andconduct. God summarized his will in the Ten Commandments (Exod.20:1-17; Deut. 5:6–21) and held his people accountable to it(Deut. 6:2; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 17:5–23). The authoritativeword embraced by faith protects the believer from sin (Ps. 119:11).The fool is the person who rejects God’s authority (Pss. 14:1;53:1). The apostle Paul acknowledged the authority of the gospel forhis own life and ministry (Gal. 1:6–9). God the Holy Spiritimpresses upon the believer the authority of the Bible as thereliable rule for faith and practice (John 6:63).

Godmade provision for a reliable and trustworthy preservation of hisauthoritative word in the multiplicity of extant manuscripts. Godcommanded that his revealed word be copied (Deut. 17:8–18;24:8; 31:9, 25–26; 33:8–10) for administrative andpersonal purposes (Deut. 6:6; Josh. 1:8; 23:6; Prov. 3:3; 7:3).Through this process of multiplication the word of God was preserved(Ps. 119:152, 160; Isa. 40:8; cf. Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35;1 Pet. 1:22–25).

Canonization

Canonizationis the next critical step in the development of the Bible. The word“canon” (Gk. kanōn) refers to a standard, norm, orrule (Gal. 6:16; cf. Ezek. 42:16), and when applied to the Bible, itdesignates the collection of books revealed by God, divinelyinspired, and recognized by the people of God as the authoritativenorm for faith and practice. The presupposition of canonicity is thatGod spoke to his human creatures and his word was accuratelyrecorded. Since inspiration determines canonicity, the books composedby human beings under the direction of the Holy Spirit functionedauthoritatively at the time of writing. The people of God thenrecognized and collected the books that they discerned to be inspiredand authoritative (1 Thess. 2:10–16; 2 Pet. 3:15).

Thecanonical process.The challenge associated with canon and Bible formation is that theScriptures do not reveal a detailed historical process forrecognizing and collecting inspired works. An understanding of thisprocess is derived from the testimony of Jesus, biblical principles,and historical precedents.

Canonicalidentification is associated with the witness of the Holy Spirit, whoworked in connection with the believers to recognize the writtendocuments given by inspiration (1 Thess. 2:13). The Holy Spiritenabled believers to discern a book’s authority and itscompatibility with existing canonical revelation (Isa. 8:20; Acts17:11). Although the question of authorship cannot be positivelysettled for every OT or NT book, believers recognized the prophets asthe OT authors (Deut. 18:14–22) and the apostles as the NTauthors. Canonical books were recognized to bear the power of God andto contain an effective message (2 Tim. 3:15–16; Heb.4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Overtime, the authoritative books of Scripture were collected into a bodyof literature that today forms one book, the Bible. During thisprocess, some believers struggled with the message, content, andambiguous authorship of books such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,and Esther in the OT and Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter in the NT.The pattern of composition and canonical process for the OT providedthe foundation for the composition and development of the NT canon.Therefore, the NT books that came to be recognized as canonical werethose that were composed in connection with an apostle, doctrinallysound, and widely circulated and used by the churches.

Inthe collection task some texts were recognized (hom*ologoumena), somewere disputed (antilegomena), and others were rejected as unorthodox(pseudepigrapha). Historically, there is no evidence for widespreadacceptance of the present-day canon of sixty-six books until thethird century AD.

Structureand content.Overthe centuries, several canonical lists began to emerge, ofteninfluenced by particular theological conclusions. For example, theSamaritan canon, which includes only the first five books of our OT,was compiled by the Samaritans, who were hostile to anything inIsrael or Judea outside Samaria. Today, Christian traditions vary intheir inclusion or omission of the Apocrypha from their Bibles and intheir list of which books are contained in the Apocrypha.

TheBabylonian canon, accepted as standard by Jews, contains all thebooks now recognized as the OT and is divided into three parts: theLaw, the Prophets, and the Writings. This canon is also known as theTanak, an acronym derived from the Hebrew words for “law”(torah), “prophets” (nebi’im), “writings”(ketubim). This canonical list traditionally includes twenty-fourbooks (the twelve Minor Prophets are considered to be one book, asare 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, andEzra-Nehemiah). The twenty-four books of this canonical list are thesame as the thirty-nine OT books in current English Bible editions.The law or instruction section includes the first five books of Moses(Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets section is divided intothe Former and Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets are thehistorical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The LatterProphets include both the Major and the Minor Prophets. The Writingssection contains both poetic and wisdom material, along with somehistorical material.

Historicalreferences to this canonical format are found in extrabiblicalsources as early as the second century BC. The grandson of Jesus BenSira referenced a threefold canon in the prologue of the apocryphalbook Sirach (c. 190 BC); Josephus referenced it in Against Apion (AD37–95). Jesus acknowledged the threefold division in Luke 24:44(cf. Matt. 23:34). Among Christian sources, this division ispreserved in the oldest extant list of OT books, associated withBishop Melito of Sardis (AD 170). Tertullian, an early Latin churchfather (AD 160–250), Origen (AD 254), Hilary of Poitiers (AD305–366), and Jerome (AD 340–420) affirmed an OT canon oftwenty-two or twenty-four books. Most current English versions followa fourfold structure of law, history, poetry, and prophets.

Thetwenty-seven books of the NT are attested in lists associated withchurches in the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean world.Two such witnesses are the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius(AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). The canonical listassociated with Marcion and the Muratorian list represent fragmentarylists from the early part of the second century AD. In terms ofusage, a majority of church fathers recognized and used thetwenty-seven NT books in our canon. See also Apocrypha, NewTestament; Apocrypha, Old Testament.

Terminology

Theword “law,” often referred to as “Torah,”occurs 220 times in the OT and derives from a Hebrew root that means“to teach or instruct.” Biblical law is the body ofinstructions or teachings that serve to govern and maintain thecovenant relationship between God and Israel. The distinctiverelationship that Israel enjoyed with God was unparalleled in theancient Near East. Unlike the Gentile nations, Israel received fromYahweh an instrument outlining his expectations of them, a set ofguidelines by which to sustain that covenant relationship (Deut.4:6–8). Outside the OT, the “Torah” or “Law”often refers to the first five books of the Bible, called the“Pentateuch” (Matt. 5:17–18; Luke 2:22). SecondTemple Judaism commonly referred to the Pentateuch in this way.

Theterm “Torah” is not limited to cultic or ceremonialpractice, but embraces civil and social law. In addition, the Torahrefers to the prophetic word and more broadly incorporates the ideaof parental instruction. The Hebrew word torah is employed in avariety of expressions, variously rendered in English versions: “thelaw” (Deut. 1:5; 4:8, 44; 2Kings 23:24), the “Bookof the Law” (Deut. 28:61; 29:21; Josh. 1:8; 2Kings 22:8),the “Book of the Law of Moses” (Josh. 8:31; 23:6), the“law of Moses” (Josh. 8:32; 1Kings 2:3), the “Bookof the Law of God” (Josh. 24:26), and the “law of theLord” (2Kings 10:31)—all of these indicate thedivine origin of the instructions or reinforce the association of theTorah with Moses as Israel’s mediator. The OT notes that Moses“wrote a Book of the Law,” which was placed by the arkfor reference (Deut. 31:26) and read aloud every seven years, duringthe Feast of Tabernacles, to all the assembly (Deut. 31:9–13).The book is not mentioned again until its discovery in the templeduring the reign of King Josiah (2Kings 22:8). The discovery ofthe book initiated a religious reform by Josiah that focused on thecentralization of worship and the destruction of idols.

TheOT employs a number of close synonyms for “law,”including “commandments,” “testimony,”“judgments,” “statutes,” “ordinances,”“decrees,” and “precepts.” Each of theseterms reflects varying nuances or particular aspects of the divineinstruction. Unfortunately, all these words as translated intoEnglish subtly misrepresent the “law” as an odiousexternal set of rules that inhibit human freedom and requirepunishment for disobedience. This perspective suggests that obedienceto the divine law was coerced by the threat of divine judgment.Contrary to this misconception, the people of Israel rejoiced infollowing Yahweh’s instructions because their greatest desirewas to please and live in harmony with him. Yahweh’s peopleenjoyed the privilege of receiving divine revelation consisting ofdirections that assured divine favor. Although perfect adherence tothese instructions proved to be an impossible task, Yahweh’scovenant stipulations provided an ideal toward which his people wereexpected to make progress as they constantly strived to fulfill thatideal. The Torah in its broadest sense reflects a verbal expressionof the character, nature, and will of God.

Typesof Law

Ingeneral, Torah may be subdivided into three categories: judicial,ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlapwith the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah”with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19–23)following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt,though some body of customary legislation existed before this time(Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation inother pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24,indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code ofconduct and worship for Israel not only during its wildernesswanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan followingthe conquest.

Morespecifically, the word “law” often denotes the TenCommandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “tenwords”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered toMoses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandmentsreflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided intotwo parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which theywere first recorded: the first four address the individual’srelationship to God, and the last six focus on instructionsconcerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplisticexpression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelinesextends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any andall incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thingforbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing theprohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice itsopposite good in order to be in compliance.

Judiciallaw.The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), closelyassociated with the Ten Commandments, immediately follows theDecalogue and may be subdivided into casuistic, or “case,”law (21:2–22:17) and a variety of miscellaneous laws, manywhich are apodictic, or absolute, commands. The divine instructionscannot address an infinite range of circ*mstances; consequently, thecasuistic laws describe the judicial process in light of generalsituations, which form the precedence upon which future specificjudgments can be made. Apodictic instructions, generally identifiedby imperatives or volitional forms, set forth a strict prohibitionfollowed by the consequences of disobedience. Government in earlyIsraelite history revolved around the authoritative decisions ofjudges, who declared a verdict based on custom or precedent (Exod.18:13–27). The moral emphasis of the Decalogue and the Book ofthe Covenant provides the underlying theological reasons for obeyingGod’s law and forms an important part of the ethical foundationof pentateuchal discussions and elaborations of law.

Ceremoniallaw.Ceremonial, or cultic, law includes the instructions guiding theconstruction and preparation of the tabernacle for worship combinedwith the Levitical guidelines dictating the proper execution ofritual sacrifice and cultic practice. The significance of thetabernacle as a portable sanctuary of Yahweh and its integralconnection with God’s promise to dwell among the Israelites arereinforced by the tabernacle’s association with the appearanceof Yahweh at Sinai and the inauguration of the covenant. Thetabernacle becomes the place where the people meet God through amediator and seek continued divine favor through ritual purification,sacrifice, and atonement.

Leviticussystematically outlines the procedure for priestly selection andsuccession, details the consecration of cultic vessels and priests,describes conditions for participation and the celebration of sacredfestivals (Lev. 16; 23–25), and addresses other issues such asblasphemy, sexual behavior, and false prophecy. The sacrificialregulations cover sin offerings (6:25), guilt offerings (7:1, 7),burnt offerings (6:9), grain offerings (6:14), and fellowshipofferings (7:11). The book of Leviticus also provides extensiveinstruction concerning the designation of “clean”(consecrated) and “unclean” (profane), reinforcing theseparateness of God’s chosen people (e.g., 11:46; 12:7; 13:59;14:2, 32; 15:32–33). Uncircumcised foreigners were excludedfrom participation in Israel’s sacred assemblies.

Morallaw.Economic hardship presented numerous challenges in Israelite societythat were resolved through laws concerning debt and slavery. A seriesof laws sought to protect the property and rights of those indebtedto creditors (Exod. 22:25–27; Deut. 24:6, 10–13; 2Kings4:1; Amos 2:8). Those who were enslaved in order to compensate fortheir debts had to be released after six years of service (Exod.21:2, 11; Deut. 15:12–18). Property and persons who were turnedover to creditors could often be redeemed (Lev. 25:25–28,47–55). Those who harvested crops were instructed to leave thecorners of fields and the remnants of crops for gleaning by the poor(Deut. 24:19–22; Ruth 2:2–6). The systematic mistreatmentof the marginalized in society led to widespread corruption among thejudiciary, angering Yahweh and leading to the exile (Isa. 1:15–17;Amos 2:6–7; 11–13). It is clear that this type of law wasreenacted during the postexilic period (Neh. 5:1–13; Jer.34:8–16).

Torahin Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

OTwisdom literature develops the concept of Torah as human instructionfor daily living, underscoring the dynamic character of the law andits permeation of all areas of life. Vigilant obedience to the lawresults in wise and godly conduct. In Proverbs, the son is admonishedby the father to obey the Torah (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 6:23), and the pupilis instructed by the teacher to respect the law (13:13) and to resistthe company of those who do not obey the Torah (28:4), with suchobservance resulting in God’s blessings (29:18) and answers toprayer (28:9). The wise woman familiarizes herself with the Torahbecause the responsibility for instruction of her household lies withher (31:26).

Thebook of Psalms contains three compositions typically classified asTorah psalms (1; 19; 119). In Ps. 1 continual reflection on the Torahmanifests itself in the prosperity and the wisdom of the obedient.Psalm 19 celebrates the benefits of keeping the Torah, includingwisdom, joy, enlightenment, life, and moral discernment. In a lengthyacrostic arranged according to the Hebrew alphabet, Ps. 119 exploitsthe attitudes, effects, and practicality of the Torah as exemplifiedin the life of the faithful.

Inthe prophetic material, Torah refers to teaching administered in thename of Yahweh, either by the priests or the prophets. Moral decline,manifested by the social injustice of Israel’s leader-shipcoupled with idolatry and syncretistic worship, was directlyattributed to the failure of the priests to uphold the Torah andtheir negligence in instructing the community (Jer. 2:8; 8:8; Ezek.7:26; 22:26; Hos. 8:1–12; Amos 2:4). The prophetic emphasis onjustice and righteousness as characteristic qualities of God’speople highlights the importance placed on fair and equitabletreatment (e.g., Isa. 5:23–24; 26:1–11; 48:17–19;58:6–9; 59:9–14). The Torah provided the authoritativepoint of departure in the composition of prophetic messages andteachings, undergirding the authority and genuineness of theprophetic proclamations and exhortations to the contemporaryaudience. The messages of the prophets were in fact not new, but weresimply the adaptation and transformation of pentateuchal textsalready generally accepted by the community as authoritative.

BiblicalLaw and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

Biblicallaw did not develop in isolation from other legal systems; rather, itappears to follow long-established, widespread, and standardizedpatterns of Mesopotamian law. A persuasive number of parallelsbetween customs and familial relationships addressed in the Nuzitablets and archaic elements in the patriarchal narratives seem tosuggest that the patriarchs operated under Hurrian law. The Nuzitablets clarify the subjects of adoption, marriage, and economictransactions, apparently exerting an influence on the lives of theearly OT patriarchs. The wife-sister accounts of Abram and Isaac, inwhich the marriage eligibility of Sarai and Rebekah arise (Gen. 12;26), as well as Abraham’s proposed adoption of his servantEliezer as an heir (Gen. 15:2–4) and his siring of Ishmaelthrough Sarai’s servant Hagar (Gen. 16), reflect customarypractice described in these documents.

Avast range of legal documents regulating judicial procedures providesmaterial for comparative analysis with biblical texts. Included amongthese discoveries are a number of law collections, generally namedafter the ruler who commissioned them. Archaeologists have uncoveredevidence, from as early as the twenty-first century BC, of twosurviving Sumerian legal collections affirming the ancient origins ofsocietal governance. The Laws of King Ur-Nammu, recorded during thelast great period of Sumerian literacy (2111–2095 BC), arepreserved in scribal copies from Nippur dated between 1800 and 1700BC and consist of a fragment and two partial stone tablets. Writtenin a casuistic format, the texts attest to twenty-nine stipulations,including legislation addressing weights and measures; protectionsfor widows, orphans, and the impoverished; sexual offenses; maritallaws; slavery; false testimony; and property abuses.

Asecond Sumerian law collection dating from the nineteenth century BC,that of King Lipit-Ishtar, the fifth ruler of the Isin dynasty inlower Mesopotamia, consists of a prologue, thirty-eight wholly orpartially restored laws, and an epilogue. These laws, bequeathed toLipit-Ishtar by the Sumerian deities Anu and Enlil in order to“establish justice in the land,” represent civil lawsgoverning business practices, slavery, property, family, andinadvertent injury to an individual. What appear to be an additionalthirty-eight laws, comprising the second half of the code, have beendestroyed along with part of the prologue. All these laws wererecorded in a casuistic format.

TheLaws of Eshnunna, written in Akkadian, consist of two tabletscontaining approximately sixty different laws. The authorship anddate of origin remain unknown, but historians suggest that this lawcollection, which has no prologue or epilogue, was contemporary withthe Code of Hammurabi (1728–1686 BC). Though written in acasuistic format, this artifact assigns penalties on the basis ofsocial status.

TheCode of Hammurabi, named for the sixth of eleven kings of the OldBabylonian dynasty, is perhaps the most famous and most complete ofthe ancient Mesopotamian collections. In 1902, French archaeologistsdiscovered the code on a black diorite stela, nearly eight feet tall,in what was ancient Susa. Multiple copies of the code have beenpreserved. Written in Akkadian cuneiform, the law collection consistsof 282 legal paragraphs created to promote public welfare and thecause of justice. The format of the code, which includes a prologue,an epilogue, and a category of cursings for disobedience andblessings for obedience, closely mirrors the structure of the book ofDeuteronomy. The casuistic format addresses laws governing publicorder and individual private law. The penalties prescribed forcapital offenses, of which there were thirty, were harsh and oftencruel, including bodily mutilation, multiple punishments, andvicarious punishment. Retaliatory consequences for the protection ofprivate property were exceptionally cruel, taking the form of tortureor excessive fines. Often, those who were presumed guilty would bethrown into the river; survival indicated innocence, while drowningdemonstrated guilt. A predominant feature was the lex talionis (thelaw of retaliation, or measure for measure), whereby a correspondingpenalty was exacted against the offender based on the crime. Forinstance, if a child was killed, the death of the offender’schild was required. Capital crimes included theft of property andadultery. Contrary to biblical law, Hammurabi’s code madefinancial provision for the loss of life, whereas in the OT the valueof life was immeasurable.

Theargument from silence suggests that in the absence of a full biblicallaw code, legal instructions and stipulations in the biblical textconsist primarily of codicil emendations, that is, additions andinnovations to already existing laws. For example, the discussion ondivorce in Deut. 21 describes the execution of a document withoutgiving details concerning the content or form of such a document. Thepassage also mentions a yet undiscovered “book of divorce.”The absence of legal material on commercial and business law as wellas specifics concerning inheritance and other common subjects pointsto a more comprehensive body of unwritten law reflecting preexistingsocietal norms. Israelite society was therefore indebted to itsMesopotamian predecessors for its implementation of law as a means ofprotecting citizens, and for many legal provisions eventually adaptedby the biblical text.

TheCharacter of Biblical Law

AlthoughIsraelite law was in some ways influenced by the legal codes of otherancient Near Eastern cultures, biblical law retained a distinctidentity centered on the relationship between Yahweh and his chosenpeople. Law in the OT is presented not as secular instruction butrather as divine pronouncement, receiving its authority as anexpression of the divine will. The entirety of the divine instructionoriginates with God, and he is both author and guarantor of thecovenant with his people. The people of Israel, then, are heldresponsible to God for their actions and not just to a legislativebody or human ruler. The will of the Israelite is wholly surrenderedto the will of God to such a degree that every aspect of anindividual’s life is inextricably connected to the divineteachings. God assigns the stipulations and requirements of the lawto the entire corporate body of Israel. The responsibility forcovenant fidelity does not lie solely with the community leadership;rather, it is shared by every individual in the community, whose dualrole includes ensuring both the fair execution of justice in thecommunity and personal observance of the law. God’sinstructions are proclaimed publicly and apply equally to all socialstrata without distinction, apart from specific direction concerningslaves.

Torahbecomes the corpus of teaching directed toward the entire community.The didactic purpose of the law is evident by the motive clausesappended to many apodictic and casuistic instructions that elaborateon the ethical, religious, or historical reasons for covenantfaithfulness. The pedagogical aim serves to appeal to the Israeliteconscience as a means of motivating obedience. In addition, theteaching that humanity is created in the divine image reinforces thesacredness of human life as a foundational concern of the law.Religious rather than economic values prevail, eliminating the deathpenalty for all property crimes. Individual culpability predominatesin the biblical corpus, abolishing the notion of vicarious punishmentadvocated in extrabiblical legislation. Each offender pays theconsequences of his or her behavior. Each person, created by God andenjoying equal status with all others, receives fair and equitabletreatment.

TheLaw and the New Testament

Thecontemporary significance of the Torah is recognized in the NT byJesus’ declaration that his incarnation served to fulfill thelaw (Matt. 5:17). He affirms the continued legitimacy of the law(Matt. 5:19) and appeals to the law as the governing authority forproper practice and behavior (Matt. 12:6, 42; Luke 4:1–11; Mark7:9–12; 10:17–19).

Therelationship between gospel and law in both Testaments demonstratesfar greater continuity than is recognized by many Christians.Covenant theologians affirm that the Mosaic law described a “covenantof works,” which functions differently from the NT’s“covenant of grace,” while dispensationalists often teachthat grace supersedes and abolishes the demands of the law. Theconditional nature of the Mosaic covenant differs from that of theAbrahamic covenant, since the unconditional promise of the Abrahamiccovenant suggests that the blessings promised to Abraham and his seedwould be realized not because of human obedience but rather throughdivine fidelity (Gal. 3:15–27). The Mosaic covenant, orcovenant of law, is not contrary to the promises of God (Gal. 3:21);instead, God graciously entered into relationship with the people ofIsrael, redeemed them from Egypt, and then gave them the law so thatthey would respond in humble obedience to his redeeming work. Thus,Mosaic law provided through a mediator a way for God to revealhimself to Israel. Consequently, the idea that Israelite religion waslegalistic is mistaken. It did not teach that one could earnsalvation by “keeping the law”; rather, an individualentered into the covenant with God by grace. When God established thecovenant with his people, he forgave their sins. He did not demand acertain level of attainment as a prerequisite for entering into thatrelationship, nor did Israel have to obey the law perfectly in orderto achieve salvation. Instead, the covenantal arrangement instituteda means of forgiveness through the sacrificial system, making theremoval of the barrier of sin available to the people. Israel’sobedience to the law was a response to God’s gracious andredeeming work. Law and covenant were complementary.

Ongoingdiscussions explore the question concerning the relevance of the lawfor Christians today. Many scholars from past centuries, such asMartin Luther, claimed that the believer is freed entirely from thelaw of Moses, including its moral requirements. The OT law is bindingonly insofar as it agrees with the NT and mirrors natural law. JohnCalvin, on the other hand, maintained that the moral laws of the OTare obligatory for the believer, and he asserts that this is theprincipal function of law. Calvin’s sense of keeping the morallaw does not compromise the message of grace, for keeping the morallaw, as opposed to the ceremonial or civil law, does not earnsalvation but instead forms the acceptable response of the believerto God’s grace. Other Reformation scholars suggested that thelaw was abolished with the coming of Christ, and, as a result, whilethe moral norms remain in effect, the ceremonial laws have beenfulfilled with the coming of Christ. Although the penaltiesoriginally prescribed for disobedience are no longer effective,keeping the moral law reflects the proper outcome of a life lived bythe Spirit of God. See also Ten Commandments; Torah.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.

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

Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.

PatriarchalStructures

Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).

AristotelianHousehold Codes

Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”

TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.

Marriageand Divorce

Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

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

Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.

InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.

Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children,Parenting, and Education

Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.

Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).

Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.

Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Familyas an Analogy

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

Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

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

Pieces of metal stamped with a particular impression, used asa medium of exchange. From time immemorial people used animals,grain, or other commodities to barter (Hos. 3:2), pay taxes (1 Sam.8:15), or as a measure of wealth (Job 1:3). Substituting smaller,more easily handled pieces of precious metal had obvious advantages.Gradually people used precious metal such as silver or gold alongwith commodities (Gen. 20:14–16) and then in place of them(37:28) as a means of payment. Such metal had been refined, but itcould have been in most any form (rings, bars, ingots, dust) as longas it weighed the appropriate amount. Local and internationalstandards developed to regulate the weights, and later the conceptgrew in popularity to use standard, authorized, clearly stampedpieces of precious metal—coins.

OldTestament. Mintingof coins may have begun as far back as the late eighth century BC,and it gradually spread throughout the known world. The first coinsapparently were made in Asia Minor using electrum, a natural alloy ofgold and silver.

Whenthe Persians took over much of the ancient Near East in the sixthcentury BC, the use of coins spread, and Persian coins came to theland of the Bible. At the end of the Hebrew Bible there is mention oflarge quantities of Persian coins called “darics”(1 Chron. 29:7; Ezra 8:27), also translated as “drachmas”(NASB) or “drams” (KJV) (Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70–72).These darics were stamped with the likeness of Darius the Great(521–486 BC) and were minted from gold and occasionally silver.At about the same time, silver tetradrachmas (four-drachma coins)from Athens made their way to the western shores of theMediterranean. Local imitations of this coin were stamped with “YHD”to represent the province of Judah.

NewTestament.Coins appear dozens of times in the NT; some have Hellenistic roots,while others come from the periods of Hasmonean or Roman rule.

Forseveral centuries after Alexander the Great conquered the ancientNear East (fourth century BC), coins with the images of Alexander orhis Seleucid or Ptolemaic successors were circulated in Judea. Inparticular, silver shekels from the Phoenician port cities of Tyreand Sidon enjoyed wide usage for a long time. Also called a “stater,”the shekel or four-drachma coin recovered by Peter from the fish’smouth (Matt. 17:27) may have been such a Tyrian coin. Many or all ofthe thirty silver coins that the chief priests gave Judas forbetraying Jesus (Matt. 26:15; 27:3) probably were Tyrian shekels aswell, since this coin came to be the accepted currency at the templein Jerusalem and the priests would have had a good supply of them.

Afterthe Hellenistic rulers lost control of Judea during the rebellion ledby the Maccabean or Hasmonean family in the second century BC, theJews could mint their own coins for the first time. The honor ofproducing the first Jewish coin apparently goes to John Hyrcanus I(134–104 BC), son of Simon and nephew of Judas Maccabeus.Simon’s modest bronze lepton (pl. lepta), or prutah, has aninscription on one side and two cornucopias and a pomegranate on theother. Use of such agricultural symbols apparently fulfilled twopurposes: it portrayed the fertility of the land that God had givenhis people, and it helped the Jews avoid depicting people on coins,as the Greeks and later the Romans would do. During this perioddevout Jews avoided such images in order to help fulfill the secondcommandment (Exod. 20:4), to avoid graven images. Hyrcanus I’sson Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BC) minted great quantities ofdifferent types of bronze lepta, still often found in excavations inIsrael today. These coins remained in circulation for many years,probably through the ministry of Jesus. Thus, the two small coins forwhich Jesus commended the widow for donating to the temple treasury(Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2) may well have been lepta of AlexanderJannaeus. The tiny lepton, typically smaller than a dime and worthonly 1/400 of a shekel, also appears in Luke 12:59.

Itis also possible that the aforementioned lepta were not minted byAlexander Jannaeus, since later rulers, including the Jewish kingHerod the Great (40–4 BC), also minted large numbers of similarsmall bronze coins. Though not known for his piety, Herod continuedto avoid human representations on his coins. For the most part, sodid his sons and the later Roman procurators (including PontiusPilate [governed AD 26–36]), who ruled Judea before the revoltin AD 66.

OtherRoman coins, such as the silver denarius (pl. denarii) minted outsideJudea, clearly did not avoid human representation, however. Jesus’request for a coin with Caesar’s image and inscription (Matt.22:15–22) refers to the denarius. The denarius in Jesus’day could have portrayed the emperor Tiberius (r. AD 14–37) oreven Augustus (r. 27 BC–AD 14), whose coins were probably stillin circulation. The silver denarius came to represent the daily wageof a common laborer, as clearly shown in the parable of laborers(Matt. 20:1–16). The denarius also appears in many otherpassages, although modern translators sometimes use a moreinterpretive expression (“two silver coins” for “twodenarii” in Luke 10:35; “a year’s wages” for“three hundred denarii” in Mark 14:5).

Althoughmany of the references discussed above contain specific terms thatcan be identified with coins known from history, others cannot.General terms meaning “coins” or “pieces of money”sometimes appear, as when Jesus scattered the coins of the moneychangers (John 2:15), or the rather common term for silver thatappears frequently and is often translated as “money”(Matt. 28:12; Luke 9:3) or “silver” (Acts 3:6; 1 Pet.1:18) as well as “silver coins” (Matt. 27:3 GW).

A confession or creed is a summary of doctrine (and sometimes practice) that has several uses. First, it allows like-minded believers to cooperate by identifying their like-mindedness. Everyone promises to advance the same doctrines and practices by subscribing to a common confession. Quality control and accountability then follow, and resources collected are used for agreed-upon purposes. Second, confessions make the doctrinal positions of individual churches transparent to outside observers and seekers. Third, confessions establish the “core curriculum” of the church. They keep both clergy and laity on track theologically and practically, knowing where the outer boundaries lie and which doctrines should receive special emphasis. Indeed, one can hardly imagine a ministry partnership functioning well without a confessional platform of some kind, even a minimalist one.

Nevertheless, some Christians decline to use confessions or creeds, concerned that these might dilute the Bible’s unique authority. Evangelicals who do not want their church leaders and laypersons to dwell more on confessions than on Scripture are concerned that biblical exegesis might lose its priority over creedal affirmations. But no Christian subgroup can define itself without some resort to doctrinal affirmations. One has to go beyond “We favor Jesus Christ, the Bible, and evangelism” to define how Jesus will be preached, Scripture interpreted, and missions conducted. Some boundaries must be established to keep the church “on message,” “on mission,” and therefore intact.

Confessions in the Bible. Both the OT and the NT contain statements that function as confessions, or doctrinal summaries, even if these are not comprehensive. The Decalogue serves this purpose: it defines who Yahweh is and sets forth the absolutes of Israel’s conduct, but without doing so exhaustively (Exod. 20:2–17; Deut. 5:6–21). The Shema is another OT example (Deut. 6:4–5). In the NT, 1 Cor. 15:3–8 contains a confessional statement regarding the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, perhaps the earliest surviving one. The same conclusion follows regarding Phil. 2:6–11; 1 Tim. 3:16, both of which have a recognizably formulaic structure and capture some of the faith “entrusted to God’s holy people” (cf. Jude 3). As Jude 4 indicates, summaries of this kind prove especially useful in confronting the rise of error.

The ecumenical confessions. The pressure of doctrinal confusion and the need to safeguard orthodoxy gave rise to the four great ecumenical (i.e., universally binding) confessions.

The first of these statements, the Apostles’ (or Old Roman) Creed, was composed sometime around AD 150, primarily to refute the heresies of Marcion and the gnostics, both of whom despised the material world. Its reference to belief in “God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” rules out the idea of a material world falling outside God’s rule. God made everything and rules over all of it. Likewise, its statements regarding Jesus tie him directly to the Father and also underscore his materiality. He was born in this world, and he suffered under a historical figure, Pontius Pilate.

The Nicene Creed (AD 325) answers the heresy of Arius, who argued that God the Father created Jesus, his Son, so that the Son is merely of “like” substance with the Father, but not the “same.” This creed declares the Son to be “very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”

The Chalcedonian Creed (AD 451) addresses the more complex issue of Christology, outlining the sense in which God could become incarnate in the person of Jesus; in doing so, it rejects three additional heresies. Apollinarius (c. AD 315–393) suggested that Jesus was essentially half human, with the Spirit of God indwelling a human body. Nestorius (c. AD 381–451) espoused a Christology that left the church with two persons, God and Jesus, occupying the one Savior, so to speak, with the result that he ceases to be the God-man. Eutyches (c. AD 378–454) fell into the contrary error, called “Monophysitism,” which asserts that when God became incarnate in Christ, his humanity almost disappeared into his deity. The two natures mingled, and a third sort of person resulted, being neither God nor human, but something different, though mostly like God. The Chalcedonian Creed incorporates language that rules out each of these substandard views, insisting that Jesus Christ is “to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unalterably, indivisibly, inseparably in two natures; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved.”

The Athanasian Creed, from the fourth or fifth century AD, reiterates the Christology of Chalcedon and offers a succinct statement of the Trinity: “So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.” In these ways and others down through the ages, the church has summarized what it has taken God to reveal in his uniquely authoritative word.

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.

Terminology

Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.

Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.

Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).

Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.

“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).

Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.

Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).

Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.

Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).

Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).

Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).

Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

TheCovenant Genre

Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.

1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.

3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.

Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.

(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).

(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.

(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.

(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).

(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).

4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.

Covenantsin the Bible

Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.

Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.

TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.

Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.

Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).

Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.

Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).

A confession or creed is a summary of doctrine (and sometimes practice) that has several uses. First, it allows like-minded believers to cooperate by identifying their like-mindedness. Everyone promises to advance the same doctrines and practices by subscribing to a common confession. Quality control and accountability then follow, and resources collected are used for agreed-upon purposes. Second, confessions make the doctrinal positions of individual churches transparent to outside observers and seekers. Third, confessions establish the “core curriculum” of the church. They keep both clergy and laity on track theologically and practically, knowing where the outer boundaries lie and which doctrines should receive special emphasis. Indeed, one can hardly imagine a ministry partnership functioning well without a confessional platform of some kind, even a minimalist one.

Nevertheless, some Christians decline to use confessions or creeds, concerned that these might dilute the Bible’s unique authority. Evangelicals who do not want their church leaders and laypersons to dwell more on confessions than on Scripture are concerned that biblical exegesis might lose its priority over creedal affirmations. But no Christian subgroup can define itself without some resort to doctrinal affirmations. One has to go beyond “We favor Jesus Christ, the Bible, and evangelism” to define how Jesus will be preached, Scripture interpreted, and missions conducted. Some boundaries must be established to keep the church “on message,” “on mission,” and therefore intact.

Confessions in the Bible. Both the OT and the NT contain statements that function as confessions, or doctrinal summaries, even if these are not comprehensive. The Decalogue serves this purpose: it defines who Yahweh is and sets forth the absolutes of Israel’s conduct, but without doing so exhaustively (Exod. 20:2–17; Deut. 5:6–21). The Shema is another OT example (Deut. 6:4–5). In the NT, 1 Cor. 15:3–8 contains a confessional statement regarding the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, perhaps the earliest surviving one. The same conclusion follows regarding Phil. 2:6–11; 1 Tim. 3:16, both of which have a recognizably formulaic structure and capture some of the faith “entrusted to God’s holy people” (cf. Jude 3). As Jude 4 indicates, summaries of this kind prove especially useful in confronting the rise of error.

The ecumenical confessions. The pressure of doctrinal confusion and the need to safeguard orthodoxy gave rise to the four great ecumenical (i.e., universally binding) confessions.

The first of these statements, the Apostles’ (or Old Roman) Creed, was composed sometime around AD 150, primarily to refute the heresies of Marcion and the gnostics, both of whom despised the material world. Its reference to belief in “God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” rules out the idea of a material world falling outside God’s rule. God made everything and rules over all of it. Likewise, its statements regarding Jesus tie him directly to the Father and also underscore his materiality. He was born in this world, and he suffered under a historical figure, Pontius Pilate.

The Nicene Creed (AD 325) answers the heresy of Arius, who argued that God the Father created Jesus, his Son, so that the Son is merely of “like” substance with the Father, but not the “same.” This creed declares the Son to be “very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”

The Chalcedonian Creed (AD 451) addresses the more complex issue of Christology, outlining the sense in which God could become incarnate in the person of Jesus; in doing so, it rejects three additional heresies. Apollinarius (c. AD 315–393) suggested that Jesus was essentially half human, with the Spirit of God indwelling a human body. Nestorius (c. AD 381–451) espoused a Christology that left the church with two persons, God and Jesus, occupying the one Savior, so to speak, with the result that he ceases to be the God-man. Eutyches (c. AD 378–454) fell into the contrary error, called “Monophysitism,” which asserts that when God became incarnate in Christ, his humanity almost disappeared into his deity. The two natures mingled, and a third sort of person resulted, being neither God nor human, but something different, though mostly like God. The Chalcedonian Creed incorporates language that rules out each of these substandard views, insisting that Jesus Christ is “to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unalterably, indivisibly, inseparably in two natures; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved.”

The Athanasian Creed, from the fourth or fifth century AD, reiterates the Christology of Chalcedon and offers a succinct statement of the Trinity: “So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.” In these ways and others down through the ages, the church has summarized what it has taken God to reveal in his uniquely authoritative word.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestial*ty (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); hom*osexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestial*ty (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); hom*osexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestial*ty (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); hom*osexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

/a> Deliverance provides relief or escape from a detrimental situation or the prospect of adverse circ*mstances. There are many terms in the Bible that express this thought, such as “save,” “rescue,” “redeem,” “set free,” “bring out,” “escape,” “avenge,” “vindicate,” “preserve,” “give legal protection,” as well as “deliver.” Deliverance may come from God or humans and may be from physical temporal distress or spiritual in nature.

The principal example of deliverance in the OT is the exodus, God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt. The greatness of this deliverance comes from several factors: (1)the extremity of Israel’s circ*mstance, which was long-term slavery to one of the world’s superpowers; (2)the extent of God’s power displayed in the ten plagues upon Egypt and in Israel’s safe passage through the Red Sea; (3)its fulfillment of a promise to Abraham, beginning the process of giving his descendants the land; (4)its foundational place in Israel’s tradition and holy days (Passover). This event becomes the main component of the historical background clause of the covenant and a reminder to covenant faithfulness (e.g., Exod. 20:2; Lev. 22:33; 23:43; Num. 15:41; Deut. 4:20; 6:12; 20:1; Josh. 24:5–7, 17; Judg. 6:8; 1Kings 9:9; Jer. 34:13; Ezek. 20:10; Dan. 9:15). When Jeremiah prophesies of the Babylonian exile and the later return from exile, he portrays it in the manner of or as surpassing the exodus (Jer. 16:14–15).

The NT continues the exodus theme in that Jesus’ death and resurrection, the foundation for salvation, coincide with the celebration of Passover. This constitutes deliverance in that all humanity is in slavery to the power of sin and subject to the penalty of death. Jesus’ death and resurrection provide the possibility of deliverance, usually called “salvation,” from the power of sin and death (1Cor. 15:51–57; Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13; 1Thess. 1:10).

Throughout the Bible, God provides deliverers and is a deliverer (Judg. 3:15; 2Sam. 22:2; 2Kings 13:5; Ps. 40:17). The NT prefers the term “Savior,” applying it to God the Father and to Jesus Christ.

/a> Deliverance provides relief or escape from a detrimental situation or the prospect of adverse circ*mstances. There are many terms in the Bible that express this thought, such as “save,” “rescue,” “redeem,” “set free,” “bring out,” “escape,” “avenge,” “vindicate,” “preserve,” “give legal protection,” as well as “deliver.” Deliverance may come from God or humans and may be from physical temporal distress or spiritual in nature.

The principal example of deliverance in the OT is the exodus, God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt. The greatness of this deliverance comes from several factors: (1)the extremity of Israel’s circ*mstance, which was long-term slavery to one of the world’s superpowers; (2)the extent of God’s power displayed in the ten plagues upon Egypt and in Israel’s safe passage through the Red Sea; (3)its fulfillment of a promise to Abraham, beginning the process of giving his descendants the land; (4)its foundational place in Israel’s tradition and holy days (Passover). This event becomes the main component of the historical background clause of the covenant and a reminder to covenant faithfulness (e.g., Exod. 20:2; Lev. 22:33; 23:43; Num. 15:41; Deut. 4:20; 6:12; 20:1; Josh. 24:5–7, 17; Judg. 6:8; 1Kings 9:9; Jer. 34:13; Ezek. 20:10; Dan. 9:15). When Jeremiah prophesies of the Babylonian exile and the later return from exile, he portrays it in the manner of or as surpassing the exodus (Jer. 16:14–15).

The NT continues the exodus theme in that Jesus’ death and resurrection, the foundation for salvation, coincide with the celebration of Passover. This constitutes deliverance in that all humanity is in slavery to the power of sin and subject to the penalty of death. Jesus’ death and resurrection provide the possibility of deliverance, usually called “salvation,” from the power of sin and death (1Cor. 15:51–57; Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13; 1Thess. 1:10).

Throughout the Bible, God provides deliverers and is a deliverer (Judg. 3:15; 2Sam. 22:2; 2Kings 13:5; Ps. 40:17). The NT prefers the term “Savior,” applying it to God the Father and to Jesus Christ.

The economic life of the biblical world rested on theprecepts of improvement of one’s standing, stable interactionbetween individuals and nations, and the fact that all of lifebelonged first to God. The ability to create a stable economy wasdriven by international standing, military strength, andenvironmental conditions. As a state, Israel was far more successfulin creating and sustaining wealth during periods with little upheavalin the monarchy and when there was little threat from outside forces.The reign of Solomon in the united monarchy and the coterminousreigns of Uzziah in Judah and JeroboamII in Israel, therefore,represent the periods with the most favorable economic conditions,and indeed these two periods are generally considered to be goldenages of economic and cultural strength.

TheEconomy of Israel

Beforethe monarchy.The economic life of the Bible begins with the creation account andthe reflections communicated there about humankind’sstewardship of that which belongs to God. Humankind is placed in theworld as the caregiver and protector of the rest of creation. Thispurpose will have ramifications for the remainder of the biblicalstory. Throughout the Bible, God expresses a deep concern foreconomic justice and economic well-being among his people. The lawgiven by God sets out an economic and political framework that buildson this idea of justice and human stewardship of God’screation, including some rather striking passages meant to assure ajust distribution and maintenance of resources and equality (Lev.25:1–55; Deut. 10:17–18; 15:1–11). The emphasis oneconomic and social justice is closely related to spiritualfaithfulness throughout the prophetic texts. Isaiah speaks ofeconomic prosperity and peace as an integral part of God’sdesire for Israel. Amos, Jeremiah, and Micah denounce the economicinjustices within Israel. This attitude and emphasis continue intothe NT, where Jesus talks as much about economics in his teachings ashe does about the rest of the Christian life. Jesus’ primaryemphases in discussing economic matters suggest a need to recognizeboth the priority of the heavenly economy over the earthly and thefact that one’s economic activities must communicate a sense ofjustice and mercy as well.

Thelack of a centralized government and industry in the early years ofIsrael’s existence meant that much of the economy revolvedaround private ownership and agrarian realities. In conquering theland of Canaan, the Israelites were transformed from seminomads intoagriculturists, but they were still largely on their own in economicmatters. They dwelled in villages and towns and lived off of whatthey raised in their fields and the milk and meat of their livestock.There was limited trade during this period, primarily existing onlythrough opportunities provided by traveling merchants from Phoeniciaand elsewhere. The modifications that took place in the Canaanitematerial culture when they were assumed by Israel were slight innature in this early period. The period of the judges reveals abrutal culture, and the people would have remained somewhatconstrained economically in the days prior to the monarchy. As statedabove, the laws certainly are important in understanding how Israelviewed itself before God; however, it must be admitted that therewere relatively few requisites concerning business contained in itsprecepts (Lev. 19:35–36; 25:36–37, 44–45; Deut.15:2; 23:20). This may in fact reflect the more individualized natureof the early economic systems of Israel.

Themonarchy.With the beginning of the monarchy, and especially the reign ofSolomon, signs of extensive external trade begin to manifestthemselves within Israel. The primary exports seem still to have beenagricultural in nature, as Solomon is said to have sent grains andoil to Tyre in exchange for their timber and workers (1Kings5). Horses were a significant sign of wealth in the ancient world,and during his reign, Solomon apparently was able to import quite afew from Egypt (1Kings 10:28–29). Solomon is even said tohave sent ships to the far reaches of the known world to acquiregold, silver, iron, apes, and peaco*cks (1Kings 10:22). Solomonalso saw the development of an extensive system of internal economicprosperity through division of the land into districts and throughestablishing firm control of the major arteries of travel withinIsrael (1Kings 4). Unfortunately, Solomon’s successorslacked his economic acumen. Due to inner turmoil and outside forces,Israel was unable to regain the standing that it held under Solomon,except for a brief period during the reign of Uzziah. Interestingly,the prophets often equated merchants with the Canaanites (Hos. 12:7;Zeph. 1:11; Zech. 14:21). The kings of the northern kingdom of Israelseem to have fared slightly better in economic matters than did thekings of Judah. Ahab obtained a special standing in the markets ofDamascus (1Kings 20:34), and JeroboamII raised Israel topowerful status in the world’s economic perspectives.

Afterthe exile.Following the return from the exile, the Jewish community wasseverely impoverished and had very little business activity except inits larger cities (Neh. 3:31–32). Hellenism brought with it arenewal of trade capabilities, and Josephus reports that by themid-second century BC, Athenian merchants came regularly to Judea.The Maccabees captured Joppa, and Herod built Caesarea, whichultimately improved the economic standing of the Jews because theythen controlled port locations.

Lifein the NT seems not to have varied much from that in the OT, the mostimportant exception being the stability and ease of transportresulting from Roman control of the region. This stability was oftenoffset, however, by the imposition of high taxes. The NT relates thevast disparity of economic lifestyle between the enormously wealthyand the severely impoverished. There were also political andreligious ramifications to be found in the struggle to find a properresponse to taxation. This dilemma is reflected in the two opposingviewpoints among the twelve apostles, including the views of a taxcollector and of a Zealot. The early church seems to have dealt witheconomic matters with various degrees of success (Rev. 2:9; 3:17).

Coinage

Themonetary system of Israel seems to have always been based primarilyon gold and silver. In fact, the Hebrew word most often translated“money,” kesep, is the word for “silver.” Itis unclear exactly when coinage started in Israel. Opinions vary fromthe period just before the exile to several years after the exile. Upuntil that point, worth was assessed not by the value of the coin butrather by the weight of the metal. People carried their own weightsin a bag that were used to determine the value of an exchange (Deut.25:13; 2Sam. 18:12); thus, the focus for ensuring fair tradewas almost always on guarding against the use of false weights andscales (Lev. 19:36). The precursors to coinage seem to have beenpieces of silver and gold that were considered to be a certainweight, though the emphasis was still on the weight of the product(Josh. 7:21; 1Sam. 9:8). The basic standard of weight was theshekel.

ThePersians developed a more fixed system of coinage. Darius firstintroduced a reformed currency system around 520–480 BC. Thebasic standard was the daric, which was comparable to a Babylonianshekel in weight. Because of the inherent value of coins, the purityof the metals used became more important. This resulted in a slightshift in monetary imagery related to purity versus fair weight. Inthe Roman era, the denarius was the basic unit of money.

Villagesand Cities

TheOT distinguished in size between villages and cities. The smallestmeasure of communal living seems to have been farming settlements orhomesteads (Exod. 8:9; Neh. 11:25; Ps. 10:8). Larger settlements werereferred to as villages (Gen. 25:16; 1Sam. 6:18) or cities(Gen. 4:17; 19:25, 29). Cities were usually built along a lake orriver (Tiberius and Beth Shan) or where natural springs weresufficient to sustain a large population (Jerusalem and Jericho).Streets in the cities seemed to have been named after the place towhich they led or by the industry represented on them (Neh. 11:35;Isa. 7:3; Jer. 37:21). Open squares were found mainly at the gates ofthe city, where most of the commerce took place and which tended tobe the centers of city life. The gate and the adjoining open areaconstituted the marketplace, hence, names such as “Sheep Gate”(Neh. 3:1, 3, 32; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The wells sometimes weresituated here (2Sam. 23:15–16). News from the outside wasannounced first at the gate (1Sam. 4:18). Finally, court andcouncil sessions were held at the gate (Deut. 13:17; Ruth 4:11;2Kings 7:1; Job 29:7; cf. Gen. 19:7).

EconomicIssues Addressed in the Bible

Slavery.Slavery was considered legitimate in various circ*mstances, but sinceindividual possession of a slave was somewhat rare, it never became acenterpiece of the Israelite economic structures. It was a capitaloffense to kidnap people for the purpose of enslaving them (Exod.20:10–16; Deut. 24:7). When held by individual families, slaveswere to be treated as part of an extended family, and they werepermitted to partake in important festivals and to observe theSabbath (Exod. 20:10; Deut. 16:14). Ideally, slaves in debt bondageand Israelite slaves owned by foreign residents were automaticallyfreed at the Jubilee. If they had not already purchased theirfreedom, male Israelite slaves were automatically freed once they hadworked for six years (Exod. 21:2; Lev. 25:39–55); however, theprophet Jeremiah’s denunciation of the permanent enslavement ofHebrew men and women by their masters (Jer. 34:8–22) suggeststhat these practices were not faithfully executed within Israel’shistory.

Death,marriage, and redemption.The economic impact of death is addressed to some degree in thebiblical texts. Daughters who received an inheritance of land becauseof the lack of a male heir were required to marry within the tribe inorder to preserve the tribal allotments outlined by God in his giftof land to the people (Num. 27:7–8; 36:6–9). If thedeceased had no children of his own, his closest male relative wouldreceive the land (Num. 27:9–11). The levirate and go’el(“redeemer”) systems seem to have been enacted in orderto protect both widows and the property rights of the family.Marriage with a brother’s widow was forbidden as a general rule(Lev. 20:21), but when no male heir was present, the act wasconsidered obligatory (Deut. 25:5–10). Although there is somedisagreement, most would consider the case of Ruth to be not one oflevirate marriage, but instead an expression of the go’el (Lev.25:25; Jer. 32:6–9). The two systems apparently are related,with the latter being an extension of the former. But the importantdistinction is that the go’el’s duties includedredemption in much broader terms, including redemption from slavery(Lev. 25:47–55) and vengeance in the case of wrongful death(Deut. 19:6). One clear case of levirate marriage is found in theattempts of Tamar to bear a child with the brother of Er, herdeceased husband, and then eventually with Er’s father(Gen.38).

Tithing.Tithing one’s possessions was a very ancient custom thatactually predates the law codes and is found in the time of thepatriarchs. Abraham gave Melchizedek “a tenth of everything”(Gen. 14:20), and Jacob made a vow that if he returned to hisfather’s house in safety, he would acknowledge Yahweh as hisLord and would give him a tenth of all that he possessed (Gen.28:20–22). The tithe that was applied to the seed of the landor to the fruit of the tree was redeemable. The tithe of cattle, onthe other hand, was not redeemable. Determining which animal was thetithe involved counting each animal singly, and every tenth one thatpassed under the rod became the tithe animal (Lev. 27:30–33).There is apparently some disparity in the biblical texts relating toa tithe. Nehemiah 10:37–38 seems to clearly indicate that therewas only one prescribed tithe taken in the OT era. However, there arethree texts regulating the tithe in the OT (Lev. 27:30–33; Num.18:21–32; Deut. 14:22–29). It would seem, then, that eachlaw gives only a partial picture of the regulations involving thetithe, as each assumes both the presence and the regulations of theothers. The practice of the tithe in Israel involved a yearly gift tothe temple, with the gifts of every third year kept in the communityfor the care of the poor and oppressed. These laws, then, were areminder of Israel’s holy status before God and that itsenjoyment of the rewards of that status was a consequence of theirelection. Consequently, the tithe demanded recognition of God’sownership of all the land. Furthermore, by being allowed to consumepart of the tithe (Deut. 14:23), participants were reminded of thepriority of God in their economy and lives.

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

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

Yahweh:The Lord

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elohim

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

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

Adonai

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

The vice that resents the acceptance, success, and well-beingof other people, especially when benefits come to those who areregarded as unworthy. The envious person competes with others—ifonly in his or her own mind—and therefore cannot love them,serve them, and enjoy their company. Thus, the Bible condemns envy orcovetousness, the most familiar text being the last commandment ofthe Decalogue (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21). It is wrong to smolder withdesire for the advantages of one’s neighbors and also wish themto stumble. Envy incited Cain to kill Abel (Gen. 4:1–16), andScripture acknowledges its destructive tendencies (Prov. 14:30).Jesus warned his disciples that envy’s “evil eye”could defile them (Mark 7:21) and darken their souls (Matt. 6:23).

Thisvice can do enormous damage in churches and among those who professto be the people of God. Pilate recognized jealousy behind the caseagainst Jesus (Matt. 27:18), and the apostle Paul faced manydifficulties traceable to immature one-upmanship. Factions arose inthe churches over coveted associations (1Cor. 1:11–13)and spiritual gifts (1Cor. 12–13). Some professingbelievers even preached Christ simply to advance themselves ahead ofothers, out of “envy and rivalry,” perhaps to postimpressive numbers of converts and gain a following (Phil. 1:15). Inresponse, each person must say with John the Baptist, “He mustbecome greater; I must become less” (John 3:30).

The Bible contains two kinds of statements related to properconduct. Some of them describe the nature of God, the sort of worldhe created, and what he has done for particular groups of people. Italso contains statements telling us what we ought to do, both ascreatures of this God and, in some instances, as the uniquebeneficiaries of his redemptive activity. Consequently, the Biblesets forth a moral viewpoint or ethical system, supported by reasonsthat justify its content and urgency. The writers of Scripture werenot moral philosophers, outlining their position in technical detail;nevertheless, they intended to reveal what pleases our God andSavior, so that the saints are “thoroughly equipped for everygood work” (2Tim. 3:16–17). The Bible, therefore,is the foundational resource for moral discernment, the definitivestatement of what Christians must do and who they must become.

TheSources of Moral Knowledge

Scriptureidentifies two sources of moral knowledge. First, all human beingshave the law of God “written on their hearts” (Rom.2:15). We have a conscience, a God-given awareness of right and wrongthat acquits or convicts us, depending on how we respond to it. Thefall of humankind has damaged this source of knowledge, and ourconsciences can become “seared” through chronicdisobedience and doctrinal treason (1Tim. 4:2). We do not,therefore, see infallibly what our duties are. Nevertheless, theapostle Paul argues that every human being knows enough of God’slaw—and indeed, enough about his nature as God—toeliminate every defense on judgment day (Rom. 1:18–20). No onewill be able to say to God in that hour, “I had no idea who youwere and no hint of what you expected ofme.”

Second,as noted above, we have the Bible as a source of knowledge, this onebeing fully adequate and sufficiently clear to guide our choices.Knowing Scripture is necessary for Christian ethics because it offersa high-definition view of what conscience can (even in its bestmoments) scarcely grasp. The Bible proclaims not only what the churchmust do, often in straightforward, concrete terms, but also (atleast, in many cases) why God’s will has its particular contentand why obedience is an emergency, not a safely deferred, improvementproject. The Bible does not, and really could not, answer everyethical question put to it in unambiguous detail. New technologiesand cultural shifts have created dilemmas unimagined in the firstcentury or any previous age. But the church can be assured that afaithful reading of and response to Scripture will, by the grace ofGod, please him even today, whatever our particular circ*mstances.

TheLogic of Biblical Morality

Themoral teaching of Scripture has an identifiable structure consistingof duties and final objectives. When we obey God’scommandments, which is our duty, his ultimate goals or objectives increating us are realized. In this sense, biblical morality iscomplete and informative compared to systems derived from otherworldviews. It explains what life is all about, but also what we mustdo from day to day. This entire picture emerges from Scripturebecause its theological statements are always practically applied andnever presented with merely theoretical interest.

Theobjectives of biblical morality.The objectives of an ethical system are its final ends or purposes:the results that obedience is supposed to yield. In the Bible, twoobjectives have this ultimate significance, one being the anticipatedside effect of the other.

Toglorify God.The biblical writers proclaim the spectacular goodness of God. He ismaximally excellent in all ways as the Creator, including wisdom,power, justice, and love. He is the holy God who, almost in spite ofthat fact, loves us and gave his Son, Jesus, to suffer for our sinsso that we might live eternally in his presence. In these respects,God stands alone, not simply in experience but necessarily so. No oneever has, and no one ever could, be like him. Thus, the finalobjective of all human striving must be to glorify this God—toknow him, to praise him, and to value what he values. Our actionsmust testify to his excellence, honoring him and encouraging othersto do likewise. Obedience treasures what God treasures, shuns what heabhors, and allows his power to work in our lives, causing us to livein unity with our fellow believers. These patterns of behavior definewhat it means to glorify God.

Tobe happy in God’s presence.The second goal or objective of biblical morality is to be happy inways that are proper for God’s creatures. In this sense, theChristian system of ethics differs from moral theories that eitherreject happiness altogether, viewing it as an unworthy goal, or elsereduce it to a merely practical necessity—that is, we sinnersneed our incentives. On the contrary, the God of Scripture plainlydesires our happiness and often presents himself as the final sourceof it when calling his people to obedience. This tendency followsfrom the perfect goodness of God and his freedom in creating allthings. He did not have to make anything else, but he did so; andbecause he has no needs, his purposes must have been selfless ratherthan selfish. He created in order to give rather than to get, and thevery best he desires for any of us is the happiness that results fromour glorifying him together, as one body in Christ. Likewise, then,biblical morality differs from ethical systems that make humanhappiness an intrinsic good, so that any means to it is acceptable.God wants us to be happy, but our happiness must come from bringinghim glory. All other forms of happiness are deceptive and transitory.The heavenly scenes of the book of Revelation show the church whathappiness God has in store for them if they overcome the trials ofthis life (so, e.g., Rev. 4–5; 7; 21–22; cf. 1Cor.2:9; Heb. 12:2).

Themeans of biblical morality.Not surprisingly, the Bible also shows us how to glorify God—howto reflect his majesty in our daily lives, how to praise him, and howto value what he values. Within the whole of this teaching, severalmajor themes can be discerned, five leading examples of which appearbelow, allowing some overlap between them.

Trustingin God’s promises.Biblical faith is the confidence that God will do for us what he haspromised. We believe that he can and will meet our needs and notallow us to endure pointless suffering. When we trust him, weproclaim his greatness and acknowledge our own dependence upon him.Both Rom. 4 and Heb. 11 make this point in ways that reflect upon OThistory with an application to the present Christian life. The gospelis a promise concerning the death, burial, and resurrection ofChrist; and faith assures us that God will reckon these events to ouraccount. Conversely, we often violate God’s commandmentsbecause we doubt that he will give us what we need when we need it(so, e.g., Abraham’s capitulation to Sarah in Gen. 16, with itscorresponding negative results).

Keepingholiness and impurity separated.God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect Creator of theuniverse. All things depend on him for their existence, and he isextreme both in his commitment to justice and his desire to love.Consequently, God’s creatures encounter him as “holy,”as the ominously transcendent or dangerously perfect deity. He standsalone, apart from everything else, and life in his presence cannotentail business as usual. The shorthand way of expressing this dutyis to say that we ourselves must be holy, as he is holy, by shunningall forms of impurity. In this way, for example, the ancientIsraelites prepared themselves to enter Yahweh’s presence andgave him public honor (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; Ps. 24:3–4; Isa.6:1–5; cf. 1Pet. 1:15–16).

InScripture, the distinction between the pure and the impure, or theholy and the unholy, is sometimes intrinsic and sometimespedagogical. Breaking any of the Ten Commandments makes oneintrinsically impure. It is always evil, everywhere, for anyone tohave other gods, make idols, and disrespect parents. It is evil tolie, steal, and murder. Even breaking the Sabbath is wrong if itexpresses unbelief in God’s ability and willingness to provide.But some lines between purity and impurity—or, in other cases,just between the sacred and the common—seem to be drawn by Godfor instructional purposes only. They do not separate good from evilas such, but they compel the Israelites to “practice Yahweh’spresence” by honoring boundaries imposed on domestic life. Itis not evil to eat pork, but doing that is forbidden in the OT andpermitted in the NT (Lev. 11:7; Mark 7:19). It is not evil to wearblended cloth, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and passed overin the NT (Lev. 19:19). Therefore, as suggested, Levitical rules ofthis kind must have had some instrumental purpose, serving anobjective beyond themselves. They impose the holiness of Yahweh oneveryday choices, as the Holy Spirit now presses the claims of Godupon his church. This separation of impurity and holiness is, in anycase, a constant theme in the OT, and it carries over into the NT aswell, where it informs the question “What must I do to besaved?” (cf. Acts 16:30).

ImitatingGod/Christ.The biblical writers also construe the moral life as an imitation ofGod and/or Christ, especially when the virtues of mercy, humility,and endurance are at stake. In the OT, Yahweh’s behavior towardpeople becomes the standard for Israel’s own conduct. So, forexample, he says, “But let the one who boasts boast about this:that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the Lord, whoexercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in theseI delight” (Jer. 9:24). In the NT, similar inferences appear,as when Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they willbe called children of God” (Matt. 5:9), the son being one whofollows in his father’s footsteps. We must love our enemies, sothat we may be “children of (our) Father in heaven”(Matt. 5:44–45). We must “be perfect,” as he isperfect (Matt. 5:48). Jesus commands his disciples to wash oneanother’s feet, after his own example (John 13:14–15).They must love each other as he has loved them (John 15:12). The newcommandment to love one another, following the Lord’s example,puts on display his character and their own relationship to him(13:34–35). Jesus prays that his disciples will be “one,”just as the Father and the Son are one (17:22). Paul’s hymn inPhil. 2:5–11 serves this purpose: we must imitate the humilitythat surrendered all, even to the point of crucifixion. Hebrews12:1–2 holds up Christ as one who “for the joy set beforehim endured the cross, scorning its shame,” resulting in hisglory.

Livingout our unique identity.Scripture defines the moral ideal for all persons, whoever they are,because its perspective is not relativistic. Murder, idolatry, andlying are not wrong for some and right for others. Nevertheless, mostof the Bible’s moral teaching has a target audience, so that itoften contains inferences to this effect: “You shall do X (ordoing X is urgent for you), either (a)because you belong to Godin a special way or (b)because he has done this special thingfor you.” In the OT, the target audience is Israel; in the NT,the corresponding group is the church. In both Testaments, however,the same ethical particularism operates, thereby giving the moralexhortations of Paul and Peter, to cite two clear examples, arecognizably “Jewish” structure or theme.

Thelinkage between gift and task, or supernatural identity and behavior,is the basic structure of the Sinai covenant itself. The text movesfrom prologue, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out ofEgypt,” to moral exhortation, beginning with, “You shallhave no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:1–3; Deut.5:6–7). Echoes of this prologue also occur frequently in the OTas motive clauses. God will say, in effect, “You shall do X,for I am the Lord your God,” or “You shall not do Y, forI am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt.” In somecases, the motive clause identifies the people themselves, as in,“For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord yourGod has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth tobe his people, his treasured possession” (Deut. 7:6). Or again,“You are the children of the Lord your God. Do not cutyourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, for you area people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on theface of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasuredpossession” (Deut. 14:1–2). In some cases, God refers tothe people’s unique condition to shame them, as in, “WhenIsrael was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.But the more they were called, the more they went away from me”(Hos. 11:1–2). Loyalty was especially urgent, given Israel’sexperience of God’s particular love.

Inthe NT, the mandate to live out one’s special identity appearsoften, especially (though not exclusively) in the writings of Pauland Peter. In Rom. 6 those who have been emancipated from sin mustresist its waning influence. In Rom. 8 those who are under the HolySpirit’s new management must walk in accordance with him andshun the mind-set of the flesh. The Corinthians have become anunleavened batch of dough; therefore, they must “Get rid of theold yeast,” which tolerates extraordinary sin (1Cor. 5).The members of Christ’s one body are to function as one newhumanity (1Cor. 12:12–31). If the Galatians live by theSpirit, they must also walk by the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). Peter tellshis readers to love one another because they have been “bornagain” of “imperishable seed” (1Pet.1:22–23). They are a “chosen race,” a “royalpriesthood,” and a “holy nation”; therefore, theymust proclaim his excellence and abstain from carnal passions (1Pet.2:9–11). Jesus himself says that because he is the vine and weare the branches, we must abide in him (John 15:1–11). In allthese cases, the target audience has a special relationship to Godthat imposes on them corresponding duties or priorities, so that theyreflect his holiness, value what he values, and attain the goals thathe has set before them.

Livingin unity with one another.The first sin separated God from humankind and damaged all otherrelationships (Gen. 3). From that point onward, Adam and Eve wouldlive in tension (Gen. 3:16), and their son Cain kills his brotherAbel (Gen. 4:8). Disunity results from sin; and in some cases, Godscatters sinners as judgment on their wickedness (e.g., Gen. 11:1–9;1Kings 11). It is “good and pleasant” when “God’speople live together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), and obedience to OTteaching would make them do so. Nevertheless, sin stands betweenYahweh and his people, and it stands between one Israelite andanother. Disunity, in all these dimensions, is the unfinishedbusiness of the OT story.

TheNT presents unity as both an effect and a duty (or a gift and a task)of the new life in Christ. We are one in Christ, and we must live inunity of fellowship with one another. Jews and Gentiles—indeed,people from all walks of life—become one body, a new kind ofpeople, defined by relationships that are “thicker than blood,”so to speak, as blood is thicker than water. Paul, as the apostle tothe Gentiles, enforces this theme throughout his letters, so that hisexhortations concentrate on the church, in the first instance, ratherthan the individual. Christians must display the social virtues oflove and humility, resisting selfish ambition and pride, both ofwhich separate believer from believer and each from the head of thechurch, who is Christ. Romans and Ephesians make a positive case forChristian unity among Jews and Gentiles, while Philippians (perhaps,in a broader sense, also Galatians and Colossians) confronts adivisive tendency. The essential vice denounced in 1–2Corinthiansis arrogant grandstanding, which rejects Paul’s “messageof the cross” (1Cor. 1:18) and subdivides the church intocults of personality. Worldly forces are centrifugal, leading us awayfrom one another and into competition for influence, wealth, andpublic honor. In contrast, the Holy Spirit’s force iscentripetal, creating unity where no one would expect it and leadingeach person to self-sacrifice so that others in the body of Christmight be built up in him.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.

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

Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.

PatriarchalStructures

Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).

AristotelianHousehold Codes

Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”

TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.

Marriageand Divorce

Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

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

Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.

InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.

Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children,Parenting, and Education

Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.

Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).

Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.

Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Familyas an Analogy

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

Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

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

The English verb “fornicate” comes from a Latinterm describing the vaulted or arched structure of a ceiling, seenespecially in the basem*nts of buildings. Because prostitutes in theancient world met clients under “fornicated” arches, thesexual usage of the term naturally followed. To fornicate was tovisit a brothel, in the first instance. Later the term acquired themore general sense of illicit sexual activity. Thus, in the KJV,words such as “fornication” and “fornicate”are chosen to translate the NT Greek term p*rneia, which refersgenerically to sexual sin. Adulterers, hom*osexuals, pedophiles, andadults engaged in extramarital affairs were guilty of p*rneia,regardless of more specific labels that may apply.

Genesis1:27 traces human sexuality back to the choice of God himself, whomade male and female human beings. He might have done otherwise, buthe created human beings as men and women, who complement each other’sunique characteristics. The command “Be fruitful and increasein number” (Gen. 1:28) presupposes an attraction between menand women, leading to sexual activity and consequent reproduction.Adam could therefore say of Eve, “This is now bone of my bonesand flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23), given how closely herelates to her and vice versa. The two become “one flesh”through sexual activity, as Paul’s use of Gen. 2:24 makesclear. In 1Cor. 6:16 the apostle argues that men who consortwith prostitutes become one flesh with them, based on what Gen 2:24implies; in this sense, sexual activity unifies. Thus, from abiblical standpoint, there is no such thing as “casual sex.”

InEph. 5:22–33 Paul argues that an analogy exists between theoneness of flesh that husbands and wives experience and the union ofChrist with his bride, the church. Both relationships put servantleadership on display; and as such, a healthy marriage exposesfornication for the fraud that it is. Fornication divorces physicalunity from the multidimensional oneness that husbands and wives areprivileged to share.

Quiteapart from the physical defects of p*rneia—most evident in suchcases as hom*osexuality, bestial*ty, and pedophilia—it is alsodiseased at the social level. For these deviations are, of necessity,exploitative and sterile, and none of them could involve sacrificialleadership tending toward the holiness of husbands and wives. Theyare merely predatory. We therefore are not surprised to find theBible forbidding hom*osexuality (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:26–27),bestial*ty (Lev. 18:23), rape (Deut. 22:23–29), adultery (Exod.20:14), and various forms of sexual adventurism (e.g., 1Cor.6:18–20; 1Thess. 4:3–8), including extramaritalintercourse (Deut. 22:13–21).

Grace is the nucleus, the critical core element, of theredemptive and sanctifying work of the triune God detailed throughoutthe entire canon of Scripture. The variegated expressions of graceare rooted in the person and work of God, so that his graciousnessand favor effectively demonstrated in every aspect of the createdrealm glorify him as they are shared and enjoyed with one another.

Thebiblical terminology informing an understanding of grace defines itas a gift or a favorable reaction or disposition toward someone.Grace is generosity, thanks, and goodwill between humans and from Godto humans. Divine expressions of grace are loving, merciful, andeffective. The biblical texts provide a context for a more robustunderstanding of divine gift. The overall redemptive-historicalcontext of grace is the desire of the eternal God to bring glory tohimself through a grace-based relationship with his creation. TheCreator-Redeemer gives grace, and the recipients of grace give himglory.

OldTestament

Genesis.The grace of the creation narratives is summarized with the repeateduse of the term “good” (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25,31). God is good, and he made a good creation with abundant gifts forAdam and Eve to enjoy. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, herighteously judged and graciously provided for an ongoingrelationship. God clothed the naked Adam and Eve (3:21) and announcedthat the seed of the woman would yield a redeemer (3:15).

Gracein the postcreation narratives (Gen. 4–6) is focused onindividuals. God looked with favor on Abel and his offering (4:4),and Noah found grace in God’s eyes (6:8). God looked at and hadregard for the offering of Abel (Gen. 4). Jacob confessed to Esauthat God graced him with descendants and with possessions (33:5).

Graceand graciousness also characterize interaction between individuals.The Jacob and Esau exchange uses grace vocabulary for the gift andthe disposition of grace. Jacob invited Esau to accept his gift if hehad a favorable disposition toward him (Gen. 33:11). The covenant sonJoseph received favorable treatment from the prison warden because ofhis disposition toward him (39:21).

Exodus.The exodus narrative recounts how the seed of Abraham multiplies, isredeemed, and then is given the law, which defines the relationshipof God to Israel. All these events are tied to the gracious promisesthat God made to Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12; 15; 17; seealso Gen. 21; 27).

Thegrace associated with the redemption of Israel from Egypt iscelebrated in the song of Exod. 15. God’s victory over theEgyptian army and his covenant fidelity to the patriarchs are thesong’s themes. Moses and the Israelites sing because God heardIsrael’s groaning; he remembered his covenant with Abraham andlooked on Israel with concern (2:24). God made Egypt favorablydisposed toward Israel (3:21) and parted the sea for Israel to escape(11:3; 12:36). The confession “He is my God ... myfather’s God” ties together major sections of redemptivehistory and affirms the constancy of God’s grace throughout theperiods (15:2). God’s tenacious covenant loyalty (khesed) tothe nation and his covenant grace (15:13) to Israel cannot bemerited.

Thegiving of the law in Exod. 20 is prefaced by a gracious and powerfulpresentation of God to the nation in Exod. 19. In the organizationand development of Exod. 19–20, grace themes emerge. The graceassociated with redemption and covenant life is marked in Exod. 19.God took Israel from Egyptian bondage, redeemed it, and brought thenation to himself (19:4). Through this action, the nation will becomea special treasure, a holy nation, a kingdom of priests (19:5–6).In sum, Israel exists because God created, loved, and redeemed it.

Second,the Decalogue of Exod. 20 follows upon the redemption effected byGod, defining how Israel will relate to its God. In this sense, lawis viewed as a gift that expresses the divine will. When compared andcontrasted with ancient Near Eastern laws, Torah reflects the graceof God’s character and his genuine concern for the poor,slaves, aliens, and widows. In addition, there is a grace ethic thatmotivates obedience to the law. The motivational statements in theDecalogue in Exod. 20 relate to the grace of redemption (v.2),the righteousness of God (vv. 4–7), the creation work of God(vv. 8–11), and long life (v.12).

Exodus32–34 is a key passage that links the covenant with graceterminology. This section begins with the story of the golden calf(chap. 32) and ends with the account of Moses’ radiant face(34:29–35). The grace terminology is observed in 33:19; 34:6–7.The context of 33:19 involves Moses meeting with God face-to-face.According to 33:12–17, Moses wanted to know who would be leftafter the purge of 33:5. He acknowledged God’s favor in hislife and wondered who else might enjoy it. Moses reminded God thatthe nation was his people (33:13). The grace of this account is God’sassurance of his presence with Israel and the unmerited purposefulexpression of his grace.

Exodus34:6–7 employs a series of adjectives in a grace confessionalstatement. This statement arises out of God’s instructions toMoses to cut two new tablets of stone like the first ones (34:1; seealso 24:12), which were broken after the incident of the golden calf(32:19). God descended in a cloud, stood with Moses, and proclaimedhis name to him (34:5). The rhetoric of the passage emphasizes thespeech of God, who defines himself in connection with covenantmaking. God is merciful and gracious, long-suffering, anddistinguished by steadfast love.

Graceand covenant loyalty.These key passages are foundational for understanding the grace andsteadfast loyalty of God expressed in the subsequent events ofcovenant history. Grace and khesed are expressed in connection withcovenant curse implementation (Num. 14:18; Hos. 4:1; 6:4, 6), in theoverall structure of Deuteronomy (5:10; 7:9, 12), in the Davidiccovenant (2Sam. 7:15; 1Chron. 17:13), in the future hopeof Israel (Isa. 54:8), in restoration (Jer. 32:18), in the newcovenant (Jer. 31:31), and in exile (Dan. 9:4).

Toround out the OT discussion, we may note that covenant siblings wereto be gracious and loyal in their ongoing relationships with oneanother. The book of Ruth illustrates covenant grace in action (2:2,10, 13). In addition, grace is to be expressed toward the poor (Prov.28:8), the young and the old (Deut. 28:50), and those who suffer (Job19:21).

NewTestament

TheNT focus of grace is developed in keeping with the foundation laid inthe OT. The triune God is the center and source of grace: it is thegrace of God (Rom. 1:7), the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:29), and thegrace of Christ (John 1:17). The grace of God revealed in the OT isunveiled uniquely in the person and work of Christ.

TheGospel of John.The canonical development of the grace theme between the Testamentsis explained in the opening chapter of John’s Gospel. JesusChrist is the Word, who was with God, who is God, and who created theworld (John 1:1–3). Christ then became flesh and dwelled amongus (1:14). In doing so, he made known the glory of God to us. At thispoint in the development of chapter 1, John connects Christ (theWord) with the adjectives describing God in Exod. 34:6 to affirm thatChrist has the very same virtues that God has. The assertion in John1:17 that Jesus is full of grace and truth parallels the statement inExod. 34:6 of God’s steadfast love and faithfulness. In Christwe are able to see the glory that Moses hoped to see in God (John1:18). Christ is both the message and the messenger of grace andtruth.

TheEpistles and Acts.The NT Epistles develop the “full of grace and truth”statement about Christ (John 1:14) in several ways. The grace andtruth found in Christ are given to his servants (1Cor. 1:4) andare a reason for praise (2Cor. 8:9; Gal. 1:6, 15; Eph. 4:7;1Tim. 1:2; 2Tim. 2:1). This grace from Christ iseffective in bringing about redemption and sustaining a life ofgodliness. Ephesians 2:8–9 is the classic statement affirmingthat God’s favor is the source of salvation. Paul makes thispoint by repeating “it is by grace” in 2:5, 8 andclarifying the grace of salvation with the “it is the gift ofGod” statement in 2:8. This design of salvation celebrates theincomparable riches of Christ’s grace and the expression of hiskindness to us (cf. Eph. 1:7). Salvation is devoid of human merit,gifts, or favor (2:8). Keeping the law as a means of entrance into arelationship with God and as a means of gaining favor with God isantithetical to the nature of grace. God’s favor expressed topeople in salvation is an expression of his sovereign will.

Romans5 declares many of the same themes found in Eph. 2. In Rom. 5 Paulcontrasts the action and result of Adam’s transgression withthe obedience of Christ. Salvation is God’s grace and giftbrought by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ (v.15). The giftand grace of Christ brought about justification.

Theeffective operation of God’s grace in salvation is illustratedin the historical narratives of Acts. The men involved in the heateddebate of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:2) affirmed the salvation ofthe Gentiles by grace after hearing the report of Barnabas and Paul(15:12). Those in Achaia (18:27) are another illustration of aneffective operation of grace.

Thegrace of God that saves is also the grace that sanctifies. Titus 2:11declares that redemptive grace instructs the redeemed to say no to alife of ungodliness. The instructional nature of grace is highlightedin the development of the Titus 2 context. The teacher in 2:1–10,15 is Titus, who is to nurture godly people. There is a change ofinstructors in 2:11, with grace now teaching. Redemptive grace worksin harmony with sanctifying grace to provide for godly living.

Accordingto Titus 3:8, those who trust in the generosity of God’s graceshould devote themselves to doing what is good. By God’s grace,justified sinners will find their delight and satisfaction in thepromises of God for a life of persevering godliness.

Gracealso functions as an enablement for life and ministry. Paul oftenrehearses this feature of grace in his letters. In Rom. 1:5 Paultestifies about the grace associated with a commission to be anapostle. When reflecting on his role in the church, he affirms thatby God’s grace he has been able to lay a foundation (1Cor.3:10). Paul’s testimony in 1Cor. 15:10 demonstrates theessential role of grace in making him who he is and effectivelyenabling what he does. Giving is also viewed as an exercise of grace(2Cor. 8:7) reflecting the grace received by individualbelievers. This gift of grace for life and ministry is somehowrecognizable. Peter, James, and John recognized it in Paul (Gal.2:9). It was upon the apostles (Acts 4:33), and it was seen in thechurch of Antioch (11:23).

Giventhe source and the effective nature of grace, one can understand theappropriateness of appealing to grace in greetings and salutations(Rom. 1:7; 16:20; Gal. 1:3; 6:18).

Commongrace.Finally, grace does operate beyond the context of the elect and thework of salvation and sanctification. Theologians define this as“common grace.” God’s sending rain and givingcreatures intellectual and artistic abilities are expressions ofcommon grace.

A feeling of animosity, a disposition toward hostility,rejection, or negative favoritism.

Hateis as old as the conflict between Cain and Abel or as the rebellionof Satan. Many stories involve hatred and animosity between people(e.g., Gen. 37:4; 2Sam. 13:22). Beside humans hating eachother, people hate God and that which is morally upright (Exod. 20:5;Deut. 5:9; 7:10; 32:41; Pss. 68:1; 81:15; 120:6). It is correct,however, to hate sin (Pss. 97:10; 101:3; Prov. 8:13), as God does(Ps. 5:6; Prov. 6:16–19; Isa. 61:8; Rev. 2:6), though he takesno pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11). The twogreat commandments oppose the tendency to hate by calling us to loveGod wholly and love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5;10:12; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:33; Luke 10:27). The reverse is alsocommanded: we should not hate our neighbor (Lev. 19:17) nor even hateour enemy, but rather do good and pray for our enemy (Exod. 23:4–5;Prov. 25:21; Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27; cf. Deut. 10:19). Hateful actionsare not necessarily motivated by hateful feelings, as a father whodoes not give needed punishment to his son is said to treat him withhatred (Prov. 13:24).

Withregard to a hate crime, the main issue was intent—that is,whether an accident had occurred or whether a murder had beencommitted deliberately, “with malice aforethought” (Num.35:20). Hate was a criterion of intent and had to be established bymultiple witnesses for the two parties involved. Having hate did notgarner greater punishment or make it a worse crime; hatred signifiedthat it was a crime because it was intentional (Deut. 4:42; 19:4, 6,11; Josh. 20:5).

Withregard to marriage, in a polygamous marriage there was a danger ofpreferential treatment: a loved wife and a hated wife. The lawforbids reducing the care of one wife in favor of another (Exod.21:10) and protects the rights of the firstborn son even if he isborn to the hated wife (Deut. 21:15–17). Hatred may beexpressed by either party withholding conjugal relations. Thisprobably lies behind the description in Gen. 29:31 of Jacob hatingLeah (some translations say “unloved”).

Rejection,favoritism, or preference may be called “hate,” as in thecase of a nonpreferred wife in a polygamous marriage, in not choosingEsau to continue the covenant line (Mal. 1:2–3; Rom. 9:13), orin not having a greater love for Christ than anything else (Matt.6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25).

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.

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

Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.

PatriarchalStructures

Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).

AristotelianHousehold Codes

Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”

TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.

Marriageand Divorce

Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

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

Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.

InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.

Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children,Parenting, and Education

Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.

Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).

Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.

Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Familyas an Analogy

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

Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

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

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.

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

Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.

PatriarchalStructures

Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).

AristotelianHousehold Codes

Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”

TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.

Marriageand Divorce

Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

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

Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.

InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.

Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children,Parenting, and Education

Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.

Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).

Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.

Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Familyas an Analogy

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

Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

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

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood,molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idolsare not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—evenpagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium throughwhich a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguishbetween worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahwehthrough images.

Incontrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of allimages as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images ofYahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented byanything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form atSinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form canadequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Biblesimilarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because itelevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the secondcommandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image ofanything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatryis regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because itmarks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with hispeople (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). Thiscorresponds to the fact that idol worship often included culticprostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alikeridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unableto see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these“gods” depended on humans for transportation andprotection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20).Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as thethings they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing,both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous.This is because idols lead people away from properly worshipingYahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despiteits warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israelregularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supremerevelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping agolden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society hadbecome degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan,engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy wasdivided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship topreserve the loyalty of his people (1Kings 12:25–33).Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reasonfor the exile.

ByNT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but itremained an important issue for the growing church because manybelievers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostlesincluded idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readersto flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols.Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linkedit with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NTauthors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worshipthe true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to thetime when all idol worship would cease.

Altars were places of sacrifice and worship constructed ofvarious materials. They could be either temporary or permanent. Somealtars were in the open air; others were set apart in a holy place.They could symbolize either God’s presense and protection orfalse worship that would lead to God’s judgment.

OldTestament

Noahand the patriarchs. Thefirst reference in the Bible is to an altar built by Noah after theflood (Gen. 8:20). This action suggests the sanctuary character ofthe mountain on which the ark landed, so that theologically the ark’sresting place was a (partial) return to Eden. The purpose of theextra clean animals loaded onto the ark was revealed (cf. 7:2–3).They were offered up as “burnt offerings,” symbolizingself-dedication to God at this point of new beginning for the humanrace.

Abrambuilt altars “to the Lord” at places where God appearedand spoke to him (Gen. 12:7) and where he encamped (12:8; 13:3–4,18). No sacrifice is explicitly mentioned in association with thesealtars. Thus, they may have had the character of monuments ormemorials of significant events. In association with Abram’saltars, he is said to have “called on the name of the Lord”(12:8)—that is, to pray. The elaborate cultic proceduresassociated with later Israelite altars (e.g., the mediation ofpriests) were absent in the patriarchal period. Succeedinggenerations followed the same practices: Isaac (26:25) and Jacob(33:20; 34:1, 3, 7). God’s test of Abraham involved the demandthat he sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering. In obedience,Abraham built an altar for this purpose, but through God’sintervention a reprieve was granted, and a ram was substituted (22:9,13). Moses erected an altar after the defeat of Amalek at Rephidim,to commemorate this God-given victory (Exod. 17:15–16).

Mosesand the tabernacle.In the context of making the covenant with Israel at Sinai, God gaveMoses instructions on how to construct an altar (Exod. 20:24–26;cf. Josh. 8:31). It could be “an altar of earth” (ofsun-dried mud-brick construction?) or else made of loose naturalstones. The Israelites were expressly forbidden to use hewn stones,perhaps for fear of an idolatrous image being carved (making thisprohibition an application of Exod. 20:4; cf. Deut. 27:5–6).Even if the altar was large, it was not to be supplied with steps forthe priest to ascend, lest his nakedness be shown to God. Therequirement that priests wear undergarments reflects the same concern(Exod. 28:42–43). An altar made of twelve stones, the numberrepresenting the number of the tribes of Israel, was built by Mosesfor the covenant-making ceremony (Exod. 24:4), in which half theblood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the altar (representing God?)and the other half on the people, the action symbolizing the covenantbond created (24:6–8).

Forthe tabernacle, a portable “altar of burnt offering” wasmade (Exod. 27:1–8; 38:1–7). It had wooden framessheathed in bronze and featured a horn at each corner. There was aledge around the altar halfway up its sides, from which was hungbronze grating, and it had four bronze rings into which poles wereslipped for transport. As part of the cultic ritual, blood wassmeared on the horns (29:12). This altar stood in the open air in thecourtyard of the tabernacle, near the entrance to the tabernacle.Included among the tabernacle furnishings was a smaller “altarof incense,” with molding around the top rim (30:1–10;37:25–28). This altar was, however, overlaid with gold, for itstood closer to God’s ritual presence, inside the tabernacle,“in front of the curtain that shields the Ark of the Covenantlaw,” the curtain that separated the most holy place from theholy place. The high priest placed fragrant incense on this altarevery morning and evening. The fact that this was a daily procedureand the description of the positioning of the tabernacle furnishingsin Exod. 40:26–28 (mentioning the altar of incense afterspeaking about the lampstand) might be taken as implying that theincense altar was in the holy place, but 1 Kings 6:22 and Heb.9:4 suggest that it was actually in the most holy place, near theark.

God,through Moses, instructed the people that on entering the PromisedLand they were to destroy all Canaanite altars along with the otherparaphernalia of their pagan worship (Deut. 7:5; 12:3). Bronze Agealtars discovered at Megiddo include horned limestone incense altarsand a large circular altar mounted by a flight of steps. In Josh. 22the crisis caused by the building of “an imposing altar”by the Transjordanian tribes was averted when these tribes explainedto the rest of the Israelites that it was intended as a replica ofthe altar outside the tabernacle and not for the offering ofsacrifices. The worship of all Israel at the one sanctuary bothexpressed and protected the religious unity and purity of the nationat this vital early stage of occupation of the land. In laternarratives, however, Gideon (Judg. 6), Samuel (1 Sam. 7:17),Saul (1 Sam. 14:35), and David (2 Sam. 24) are said tobuild altars for sacrifice and to have done so with impunity, and infact with the apparent approval of the biblical author. Theestablished custom of seeking sanctuary from threat of death in thenation’s shrine is reflected in 1 Kings 1:50–53;2:28–35, where Adonijah and Joab are described as “clingingto the horns of the altar.”

Solomon’stemple and rival worship centers.In the temple built by Solomon, the altar of incense that belonged tothe “inner sanctuary” was overlaid with gold (1 Kings6:20, 22). Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple wasmade before the bronze altar in the courtyard (1 Kings 8:22,54). The altar for sacrifices was much larger than the one that hadbeen in the tabernacle (1 Chron. 4:1 gives its dimensions).

Althoughmany of the psalms may originally have been used in worship in thefirst temple, there are surprisingly few references to the altar inthe Psalter (only Pss. 26:6; 43:4; 51:19; 84:3; 118:27). They expressthe psalmist’s devotion to God and the temple as the placewhere God’s presence is enjoyed as the highest blessing.

Afterthe division of the kingdom, Jeroboam offered sacrifices at the rivalaltar that he set up in Bethel (1 Kings 12:32–33). Anunnamed “man of God” (= prophet) predicted Josiah’sdesecration of this altar, which lay many years in the future(1 Kings 13:1–5). Amos and Hosea, who prophesied in thenorthern kingdom of the eighth century BC, condemned this and theother altars in that kingdom (e.g., Amos 3:14; Hos. 8:11–13).Ahab set up an altar to Baal in Samaria (1 Kings 16:32), and thesuppression of Yahwism by Jezebel included the throwing down of theLord’s altars in Israel (19:10, 14). The competition on MountCarmel between Elijah and the prophets of Baal involved rival altars(1 Kings 18), and Elijah’s twelve-stone altar recalls thatof Exod. 24, for he was calling the nation back to the exclusivemonotheism preached by Moses (1 Kings 18:30–32).

Withregard to the southern kingdom, the spiritual declension in the timeof Ahaz manifested itself in this king making an altar modeled on theAssyrian prototype that he had seen on a visit to Damascus (2 Kings16:10–14). He shifted the Lord’s altar from in front ofthe temple, where it had previously stood. Godly Hezekiah’sreligious reform included the removal of the altars at the highplaces that up to that time had been centers of deviant worship(2 Kings 18:4, 22). The apostasy of King Manasseh showed itselfin his rebuilding the high places that Hezekiah his father haddestroyed and in erecting altars to Baal (2 Kings 21), thusrepeating the sin of Ahab (cf. 1 Kings 16:32). Josiah’sreform included the destruction of all altars outside Jerusalem(2 Kings 23) and the centralizing of worship in the Jerusalemtemple.

InEzekiel’s vision of the new temple of the future, thesacrificial altar is its centerpiece (Ezek. 43:13–17). Thealtar was to be a large structure, with three-stepped stages and ahorn on each corner, and it was to be fitted with steps on itseastern side for the use of the priests.

Thesecond temple.The Israelites’ return from Babylonian exile was with theexpress aim of rebuilding the temple. The first thing that thepriests did was to build “the altar on its foundation”(i.e., its original base; Ezra 3:2–3). The returnees placed thealtar on the precise spot that it had occupied before the Babyloniansdestroyed it along with the temple. They took such care because theywanted to ensure that God would accept their sacrifices and so grantthem protection. At the very end of the OT period, the prophetMalachi condemned the insincerity of Israel’s worship that wasmanifested in substandard sacrifices being offered on God’saltar (Mal. 1:7, 10; 2:13).

NewTestament

Inthe NT, the altar is mentioned in a number of Jesus’ sayings(e.g., Matt. 5:23–24; 23:18–20). In the theology of thebook of Hebrews, which teaches about the priesthood of Jesus Christ(in the order of Melchizedek), the role of the priest is defined asone who “serve[s] at the altar” (7:13), and Christ’saltar (and that of Christ’s followers) is the cross on which heoffered himself as a sacrifice for sin (13:10). Another argument ofHebrews is that since on the most important day in the Jewish ritualcalendar (the Day of Atonement), the flesh of the sacrifice was noteaten (see Lev. 16:27), the eating of Jewish ceremonial foods is notrequired, nor is it of any spiritual value. The altar in the heavenlysanctuary is mentioned a number of times in the book of Revelation(6:9; 8:3, 5; 9:13; 11:1; 14:18; 16:7). It is most likely the altarof incense and is related to the prayers of God’s persecutedpeople, which are answered by the judgments of God upon the people ofthe earth.

Terminology

Theword “law,” often referred to as “Torah,”occurs 220 times in the OT and derives from a Hebrew root that means“to teach or instruct.” Biblical law is the body ofinstructions or teachings that serve to govern and maintain thecovenant relationship between God and Israel. The distinctiverelationship that Israel enjoyed with God was unparalleled in theancient Near East. Unlike the Gentile nations, Israel received fromYahweh an instrument outlining his expectations of them, a set ofguidelines by which to sustain that covenant relationship (Deut.4:6–8). Outside the OT, the “Torah” or “Law”often refers to the first five books of the Bible, called the“Pentateuch” (Matt. 5:17–18; Luke 2:22). SecondTemple Judaism commonly referred to the Pentateuch in this way.

Theterm “Torah” is not limited to cultic or ceremonialpractice, but embraces civil and social law. In addition, the Torahrefers to the prophetic word and more broadly incorporates the ideaof parental instruction. The Hebrew word torah is employed in avariety of expressions, variously rendered in English versions: “thelaw” (Deut. 1:5; 4:8, 44; 2Kings 23:24), the “Bookof the Law” (Deut. 28:61; 29:21; Josh. 1:8; 2Kings 22:8),the “Book of the Law of Moses” (Josh. 8:31; 23:6), the“law of Moses” (Josh. 8:32; 1Kings 2:3), the “Bookof the Law of God” (Josh. 24:26), and the “law of theLord” (2Kings 10:31)—all of these indicate thedivine origin of the instructions or reinforce the association of theTorah with Moses as Israel’s mediator. The OT notes that Moses“wrote a Book of the Law,” which was placed by the arkfor reference (Deut. 31:26) and read aloud every seven years, duringthe Feast of Tabernacles, to all the assembly (Deut. 31:9–13).The book is not mentioned again until its discovery in the templeduring the reign of King Josiah (2Kings 22:8). The discovery ofthe book initiated a religious reform by Josiah that focused on thecentralization of worship and the destruction of idols.

TheOT employs a number of close synonyms for “law,”including “commandments,” “testimony,”“judgments,” “statutes,” “ordinances,”“decrees,” and “precepts.” Each of theseterms reflects varying nuances or particular aspects of the divineinstruction. Unfortunately, all these words as translated intoEnglish subtly misrepresent the “law” as an odiousexternal set of rules that inhibit human freedom and requirepunishment for disobedience. This perspective suggests that obedienceto the divine law was coerced by the threat of divine judgment.Contrary to this misconception, the people of Israel rejoiced infollowing Yahweh’s instructions because their greatest desirewas to please and live in harmony with him. Yahweh’s peopleenjoyed the privilege of receiving divine revelation consisting ofdirections that assured divine favor. Although perfect adherence tothese instructions proved to be an impossible task, Yahweh’scovenant stipulations provided an ideal toward which his people wereexpected to make progress as they constantly strived to fulfill thatideal. The Torah in its broadest sense reflects a verbal expressionof the character, nature, and will of God.

Typesof Law

Ingeneral, Torah may be subdivided into three categories: judicial,ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlapwith the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah”with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19–23)following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt,though some body of customary legislation existed before this time(Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation inother pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24,indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code ofconduct and worship for Israel not only during its wildernesswanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan followingthe conquest.

Morespecifically, the word “law” often denotes the TenCommandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “tenwords”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered toMoses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandmentsreflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided intotwo parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which theywere first recorded: the first four address the individual’srelationship to God, and the last six focus on instructionsconcerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplisticexpression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelinesextends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any andall incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thingforbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing theprohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice itsopposite good in order to be in compliance.

Judiciallaw.The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), closelyassociated with the Ten Commandments, immediately follows theDecalogue and may be subdivided into casuistic, or “case,”law (21:2–22:17) and a variety of miscellaneous laws, manywhich are apodictic, or absolute, commands. The divine instructionscannot address an infinite range of circ*mstances; consequently, thecasuistic laws describe the judicial process in light of generalsituations, which form the precedence upon which future specificjudgments can be made. Apodictic instructions, generally identifiedby imperatives or volitional forms, set forth a strict prohibitionfollowed by the consequences of disobedience. Government in earlyIsraelite history revolved around the authoritative decisions ofjudges, who declared a verdict based on custom or precedent (Exod.18:13–27). The moral emphasis of the Decalogue and the Book ofthe Covenant provides the underlying theological reasons for obeyingGod’s law and forms an important part of the ethical foundationof pentateuchal discussions and elaborations of law.

Ceremoniallaw.Ceremonial, or cultic, law includes the instructions guiding theconstruction and preparation of the tabernacle for worship combinedwith the Levitical guidelines dictating the proper execution ofritual sacrifice and cultic practice. The significance of thetabernacle as a portable sanctuary of Yahweh and its integralconnection with God’s promise to dwell among the Israelites arereinforced by the tabernacle’s association with the appearanceof Yahweh at Sinai and the inauguration of the covenant. Thetabernacle becomes the place where the people meet God through amediator and seek continued divine favor through ritual purification,sacrifice, and atonement.

Leviticussystematically outlines the procedure for priestly selection andsuccession, details the consecration of cultic vessels and priests,describes conditions for participation and the celebration of sacredfestivals (Lev. 16; 23–25), and addresses other issues such asblasphemy, sexual behavior, and false prophecy. The sacrificialregulations cover sin offerings (6:25), guilt offerings (7:1, 7),burnt offerings (6:9), grain offerings (6:14), and fellowshipofferings (7:11). The book of Leviticus also provides extensiveinstruction concerning the designation of “clean”(consecrated) and “unclean” (profane), reinforcing theseparateness of God’s chosen people (e.g., 11:46; 12:7; 13:59;14:2, 32; 15:32–33). Uncircumcised foreigners were excludedfrom participation in Israel’s sacred assemblies.

Morallaw.Economic hardship presented numerous challenges in Israelite societythat were resolved through laws concerning debt and slavery. A seriesof laws sought to protect the property and rights of those indebtedto creditors (Exod. 22:25–27; Deut. 24:6, 10–13; 2Kings4:1; Amos 2:8). Those who were enslaved in order to compensate fortheir debts had to be released after six years of service (Exod.21:2, 11; Deut. 15:12–18). Property and persons who were turnedover to creditors could often be redeemed (Lev. 25:25–28,47–55). Those who harvested crops were instructed to leave thecorners of fields and the remnants of crops for gleaning by the poor(Deut. 24:19–22; Ruth 2:2–6). The systematic mistreatmentof the marginalized in society led to widespread corruption among thejudiciary, angering Yahweh and leading to the exile (Isa. 1:15–17;Amos 2:6–7; 11–13). It is clear that this type of law wasreenacted during the postexilic period (Neh. 5:1–13; Jer.34:8–16).

Torahin Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

OTwisdom literature develops the concept of Torah as human instructionfor daily living, underscoring the dynamic character of the law andits permeation of all areas of life. Vigilant obedience to the lawresults in wise and godly conduct. In Proverbs, the son is admonishedby the father to obey the Torah (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 6:23), and the pupilis instructed by the teacher to respect the law (13:13) and to resistthe company of those who do not obey the Torah (28:4), with suchobservance resulting in God’s blessings (29:18) and answers toprayer (28:9). The wise woman familiarizes herself with the Torahbecause the responsibility for instruction of her household lies withher (31:26).

Thebook of Psalms contains three compositions typically classified asTorah psalms (1; 19; 119). In Ps. 1 continual reflection on the Torahmanifests itself in the prosperity and the wisdom of the obedient.Psalm 19 celebrates the benefits of keeping the Torah, includingwisdom, joy, enlightenment, life, and moral discernment. In a lengthyacrostic arranged according to the Hebrew alphabet, Ps. 119 exploitsthe attitudes, effects, and practicality of the Torah as exemplifiedin the life of the faithful.

Inthe prophetic material, Torah refers to teaching administered in thename of Yahweh, either by the priests or the prophets. Moral decline,manifested by the social injustice of Israel’s leader-shipcoupled with idolatry and syncretistic worship, was directlyattributed to the failure of the priests to uphold the Torah andtheir negligence in instructing the community (Jer. 2:8; 8:8; Ezek.7:26; 22:26; Hos. 8:1–12; Amos 2:4). The prophetic emphasis onjustice and righteousness as characteristic qualities of God’speople highlights the importance placed on fair and equitabletreatment (e.g., Isa. 5:23–24; 26:1–11; 48:17–19;58:6–9; 59:9–14). The Torah provided the authoritativepoint of departure in the composition of prophetic messages andteachings, undergirding the authority and genuineness of theprophetic proclamations and exhortations to the contemporaryaudience. The messages of the prophets were in fact not new, but weresimply the adaptation and transformation of pentateuchal textsalready generally accepted by the community as authoritative.

BiblicalLaw and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

Biblicallaw did not develop in isolation from other legal systems; rather, itappears to follow long-established, widespread, and standardizedpatterns of Mesopotamian law. A persuasive number of parallelsbetween customs and familial relationships addressed in the Nuzitablets and archaic elements in the patriarchal narratives seem tosuggest that the patriarchs operated under Hurrian law. The Nuzitablets clarify the subjects of adoption, marriage, and economictransactions, apparently exerting an influence on the lives of theearly OT patriarchs. The wife-sister accounts of Abram and Isaac, inwhich the marriage eligibility of Sarai and Rebekah arise (Gen. 12;26), as well as Abraham’s proposed adoption of his servantEliezer as an heir (Gen. 15:2–4) and his siring of Ishmaelthrough Sarai’s servant Hagar (Gen. 16), reflect customarypractice described in these documents.

Avast range of legal documents regulating judicial procedures providesmaterial for comparative analysis with biblical texts. Included amongthese discoveries are a number of law collections, generally namedafter the ruler who commissioned them. Archaeologists have uncoveredevidence, from as early as the twenty-first century BC, of twosurviving Sumerian legal collections affirming the ancient origins ofsocietal governance. The Laws of King Ur-Nammu, recorded during thelast great period of Sumerian literacy (2111–2095 BC), arepreserved in scribal copies from Nippur dated between 1800 and 1700BC and consist of a fragment and two partial stone tablets. Writtenin a casuistic format, the texts attest to twenty-nine stipulations,including legislation addressing weights and measures; protectionsfor widows, orphans, and the impoverished; sexual offenses; maritallaws; slavery; false testimony; and property abuses.

Asecond Sumerian law collection dating from the nineteenth century BC,that of King Lipit-Ishtar, the fifth ruler of the Isin dynasty inlower Mesopotamia, consists of a prologue, thirty-eight wholly orpartially restored laws, and an epilogue. These laws, bequeathed toLipit-Ishtar by the Sumerian deities Anu and Enlil in order to“establish justice in the land,” represent civil lawsgoverning business practices, slavery, property, family, andinadvertent injury to an individual. What appear to be an additionalthirty-eight laws, comprising the second half of the code, have beendestroyed along with part of the prologue. All these laws wererecorded in a casuistic format.

TheLaws of Eshnunna, written in Akkadian, consist of two tabletscontaining approximately sixty different laws. The authorship anddate of origin remain unknown, but historians suggest that this lawcollection, which has no prologue or epilogue, was contemporary withthe Code of Hammurabi (1728–1686 BC). Though written in acasuistic format, this artifact assigns penalties on the basis ofsocial status.

TheCode of Hammurabi, named for the sixth of eleven kings of the OldBabylonian dynasty, is perhaps the most famous and most complete ofthe ancient Mesopotamian collections. In 1902, French archaeologistsdiscovered the code on a black diorite stela, nearly eight feet tall,in what was ancient Susa. Multiple copies of the code have beenpreserved. Written in Akkadian cuneiform, the law collection consistsof 282 legal paragraphs created to promote public welfare and thecause of justice. The format of the code, which includes a prologue,an epilogue, and a category of cursings for disobedience andblessings for obedience, closely mirrors the structure of the book ofDeuteronomy. The casuistic format addresses laws governing publicorder and individual private law. The penalties prescribed forcapital offenses, of which there were thirty, were harsh and oftencruel, including bodily mutilation, multiple punishments, andvicarious punishment. Retaliatory consequences for the protection ofprivate property were exceptionally cruel, taking the form of tortureor excessive fines. Often, those who were presumed guilty would bethrown into the river; survival indicated innocence, while drowningdemonstrated guilt. A predominant feature was the lex talionis (thelaw of retaliation, or measure for measure), whereby a correspondingpenalty was exacted against the offender based on the crime. Forinstance, if a child was killed, the death of the offender’schild was required. Capital crimes included theft of property andadultery. Contrary to biblical law, Hammurabi’s code madefinancial provision for the loss of life, whereas in the OT the valueof life was immeasurable.

Theargument from silence suggests that in the absence of a full biblicallaw code, legal instructions and stipulations in the biblical textconsist primarily of codicil emendations, that is, additions andinnovations to already existing laws. For example, the discussion ondivorce in Deut. 21 describes the execution of a document withoutgiving details concerning the content or form of such a document. Thepassage also mentions a yet undiscovered “book of divorce.”The absence of legal material on commercial and business law as wellas specifics concerning inheritance and other common subjects pointsto a more comprehensive body of unwritten law reflecting preexistingsocietal norms. Israelite society was therefore indebted to itsMesopotamian predecessors for its implementation of law as a means ofprotecting citizens, and for many legal provisions eventually adaptedby the biblical text.

TheCharacter of Biblical Law

AlthoughIsraelite law was in some ways influenced by the legal codes of otherancient Near Eastern cultures, biblical law retained a distinctidentity centered on the relationship between Yahweh and his chosenpeople. Law in the OT is presented not as secular instruction butrather as divine pronouncement, receiving its authority as anexpression of the divine will. The entirety of the divine instructionoriginates with God, and he is both author and guarantor of thecovenant with his people. The people of Israel, then, are heldresponsible to God for their actions and not just to a legislativebody or human ruler. The will of the Israelite is wholly surrenderedto the will of God to such a degree that every aspect of anindividual’s life is inextricably connected to the divineteachings. God assigns the stipulations and requirements of the lawto the entire corporate body of Israel. The responsibility forcovenant fidelity does not lie solely with the community leadership;rather, it is shared by every individual in the community, whose dualrole includes ensuring both the fair execution of justice in thecommunity and personal observance of the law. God’sinstructions are proclaimed publicly and apply equally to all socialstrata without distinction, apart from specific direction concerningslaves.

Torahbecomes the corpus of teaching directed toward the entire community.The didactic purpose of the law is evident by the motive clausesappended to many apodictic and casuistic instructions that elaborateon the ethical, religious, or historical reasons for covenantfaithfulness. The pedagogical aim serves to appeal to the Israeliteconscience as a means of motivating obedience. In addition, theteaching that humanity is created in the divine image reinforces thesacredness of human life as a foundational concern of the law.Religious rather than economic values prevail, eliminating the deathpenalty for all property crimes. Individual culpability predominatesin the biblical corpus, abolishing the notion of vicarious punishmentadvocated in extrabiblical legislation. Each offender pays theconsequences of his or her behavior. Each person, created by God andenjoying equal status with all others, receives fair and equitabletreatment.

TheLaw and the New Testament

Thecontemporary significance of the Torah is recognized in the NT byJesus’ declaration that his incarnation served to fulfill thelaw (Matt. 5:17). He affirms the continued legitimacy of the law(Matt. 5:19) and appeals to the law as the governing authority forproper practice and behavior (Matt. 12:6, 42; Luke 4:1–11; Mark7:9–12; 10:17–19).

Therelationship between gospel and law in both Testaments demonstratesfar greater continuity than is recognized by many Christians.Covenant theologians affirm that the Mosaic law described a “covenantof works,” which functions differently from the NT’s“covenant of grace,” while dispensationalists often teachthat grace supersedes and abolishes the demands of the law. Theconditional nature of the Mosaic covenant differs from that of theAbrahamic covenant, since the unconditional promise of the Abrahamiccovenant suggests that the blessings promised to Abraham and his seedwould be realized not because of human obedience but rather throughdivine fidelity (Gal. 3:15–27). The Mosaic covenant, orcovenant of law, is not contrary to the promises of God (Gal. 3:21);instead, God graciously entered into relationship with the people ofIsrael, redeemed them from Egypt, and then gave them the law so thatthey would respond in humble obedience to his redeeming work. Thus,Mosaic law provided through a mediator a way for God to revealhimself to Israel. Consequently, the idea that Israelite religion waslegalistic is mistaken. It did not teach that one could earnsalvation by “keeping the law”; rather, an individualentered into the covenant with God by grace. When God established thecovenant with his people, he forgave their sins. He did not demand acertain level of attainment as a prerequisite for entering into thatrelationship, nor did Israel have to obey the law perfectly in orderto achieve salvation. Instead, the covenantal arrangement instituteda means of forgiveness through the sacrificial system, making theremoval of the barrier of sin available to the people. Israel’sobedience to the law was a response to God’s gracious andredeeming work. Law and covenant were complementary.

Ongoingdiscussions explore the question concerning the relevance of the lawfor Christians today. Many scholars from past centuries, such asMartin Luther, claimed that the believer is freed entirely from thelaw of Moses, including its moral requirements. The OT law is bindingonly insofar as it agrees with the NT and mirrors natural law. JohnCalvin, on the other hand, maintained that the moral laws of the OTare obligatory for the believer, and he asserts that this is theprincipal function of law. Calvin’s sense of keeping the morallaw does not compromise the message of grace, for keeping the morallaw, as opposed to the ceremonial or civil law, does not earnsalvation but instead forms the acceptable response of the believerto God’s grace. Other Reformation scholars suggested that thelaw was abolished with the coming of Christ, and, as a result, whilethe moral norms remain in effect, the ceremonial laws have beenfulfilled with the coming of Christ. Although the penaltiesoriginally prescribed for disobedience are no longer effective,keeping the moral law reflects the proper outcome of a life lived bythe Spirit of God. See also Ten Commandments; Torah.

Terminology

Theword “law,” often referred to as “Torah,”occurs 220 times in the OT and derives from a Hebrew root that means“to teach or instruct.” Biblical law is the body ofinstructions or teachings that serve to govern and maintain thecovenant relationship between God and Israel. The distinctiverelationship that Israel enjoyed with God was unparalleled in theancient Near East. Unlike the Gentile nations, Israel received fromYahweh an instrument outlining his expectations of them, a set ofguidelines by which to sustain that covenant relationship (Deut.4:6–8). Outside the OT, the “Torah” or “Law”often refers to the first five books of the Bible, called the“Pentateuch” (Matt. 5:17–18; Luke 2:22). SecondTemple Judaism commonly referred to the Pentateuch in this way.

Theterm “Torah” is not limited to cultic or ceremonialpractice, but embraces civil and social law. In addition, the Torahrefers to the prophetic word and more broadly incorporates the ideaof parental instruction. The Hebrew word torah is employed in avariety of expressions, variously rendered in English versions: “thelaw” (Deut. 1:5; 4:8, 44; 2Kings 23:24), the “Bookof the Law” (Deut. 28:61; 29:21; Josh. 1:8; 2Kings 22:8),the “Book of the Law of Moses” (Josh. 8:31; 23:6), the“law of Moses” (Josh. 8:32; 1Kings 2:3), the “Bookof the Law of God” (Josh. 24:26), and the “law of theLord” (2Kings 10:31)—all of these indicate thedivine origin of the instructions or reinforce the association of theTorah with Moses as Israel’s mediator. The OT notes that Moses“wrote a Book of the Law,” which was placed by the arkfor reference (Deut. 31:26) and read aloud every seven years, duringthe Feast of Tabernacles, to all the assembly (Deut. 31:9–13).The book is not mentioned again until its discovery in the templeduring the reign of King Josiah (2Kings 22:8). The discovery ofthe book initiated a religious reform by Josiah that focused on thecentralization of worship and the destruction of idols.

TheOT employs a number of close synonyms for “law,”including “commandments,” “testimony,”“judgments,” “statutes,” “ordinances,”“decrees,” and “precepts.” Each of theseterms reflects varying nuances or particular aspects of the divineinstruction. Unfortunately, all these words as translated intoEnglish subtly misrepresent the “law” as an odiousexternal set of rules that inhibit human freedom and requirepunishment for disobedience. This perspective suggests that obedienceto the divine law was coerced by the threat of divine judgment.Contrary to this misconception, the people of Israel rejoiced infollowing Yahweh’s instructions because their greatest desirewas to please and live in harmony with him. Yahweh’s peopleenjoyed the privilege of receiving divine revelation consisting ofdirections that assured divine favor. Although perfect adherence tothese instructions proved to be an impossible task, Yahweh’scovenant stipulations provided an ideal toward which his people wereexpected to make progress as they constantly strived to fulfill thatideal. The Torah in its broadest sense reflects a verbal expressionof the character, nature, and will of God.

Typesof Law

Ingeneral, Torah may be subdivided into three categories: judicial,ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlapwith the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah”with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19–23)following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt,though some body of customary legislation existed before this time(Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation inother pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24,indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code ofconduct and worship for Israel not only during its wildernesswanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan followingthe conquest.

Morespecifically, the word “law” often denotes the TenCommandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “tenwords”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered toMoses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandmentsreflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided intotwo parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which theywere first recorded: the first four address the individual’srelationship to God, and the last six focus on instructionsconcerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplisticexpression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelinesextends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any andall incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thingforbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing theprohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice itsopposite good in order to be in compliance.

Judiciallaw.The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), closelyassociated with the Ten Commandments, immediately follows theDecalogue and may be subdivided into casuistic, or “case,”law (21:2–22:17) and a variety of miscellaneous laws, manywhich are apodictic, or absolute, commands. The divine instructionscannot address an infinite range of circ*mstances; consequently, thecasuistic laws describe the judicial process in light of generalsituations, which form the precedence upon which future specificjudgments can be made. Apodictic instructions, generally identifiedby imperatives or volitional forms, set forth a strict prohibitionfollowed by the consequences of disobedience. Government in earlyIsraelite history revolved around the authoritative decisions ofjudges, who declared a verdict based on custom or precedent (Exod.18:13–27). The moral emphasis of the Decalogue and the Book ofthe Covenant provides the underlying theological reasons for obeyingGod’s law and forms an important part of the ethical foundationof pentateuchal discussions and elaborations of law.

Ceremoniallaw.Ceremonial, or cultic, law includes the instructions guiding theconstruction and preparation of the tabernacle for worship combinedwith the Levitical guidelines dictating the proper execution ofritual sacrifice and cultic practice. The significance of thetabernacle as a portable sanctuary of Yahweh and its integralconnection with God’s promise to dwell among the Israelites arereinforced by the tabernacle’s association with the appearanceof Yahweh at Sinai and the inauguration of the covenant. Thetabernacle becomes the place where the people meet God through amediator and seek continued divine favor through ritual purification,sacrifice, and atonement.

Leviticussystematically outlines the procedure for priestly selection andsuccession, details the consecration of cultic vessels and priests,describes conditions for participation and the celebration of sacredfestivals (Lev. 16; 23–25), and addresses other issues such asblasphemy, sexual behavior, and false prophecy. The sacrificialregulations cover sin offerings (6:25), guilt offerings (7:1, 7),burnt offerings (6:9), grain offerings (6:14), and fellowshipofferings (7:11). The book of Leviticus also provides extensiveinstruction concerning the designation of “clean”(consecrated) and “unclean” (profane), reinforcing theseparateness of God’s chosen people (e.g., 11:46; 12:7; 13:59;14:2, 32; 15:32–33). Uncircumcised foreigners were excludedfrom participation in Israel’s sacred assemblies.

Morallaw.Economic hardship presented numerous challenges in Israelite societythat were resolved through laws concerning debt and slavery. A seriesof laws sought to protect the property and rights of those indebtedto creditors (Exod. 22:25–27; Deut. 24:6, 10–13; 2Kings4:1; Amos 2:8). Those who were enslaved in order to compensate fortheir debts had to be released after six years of service (Exod.21:2, 11; Deut. 15:12–18). Property and persons who were turnedover to creditors could often be redeemed (Lev. 25:25–28,47–55). Those who harvested crops were instructed to leave thecorners of fields and the remnants of crops for gleaning by the poor(Deut. 24:19–22; Ruth 2:2–6). The systematic mistreatmentof the marginalized in society led to widespread corruption among thejudiciary, angering Yahweh and leading to the exile (Isa. 1:15–17;Amos 2:6–7; 11–13). It is clear that this type of law wasreenacted during the postexilic period (Neh. 5:1–13; Jer.34:8–16).

Torahin Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

OTwisdom literature develops the concept of Torah as human instructionfor daily living, underscoring the dynamic character of the law andits permeation of all areas of life. Vigilant obedience to the lawresults in wise and godly conduct. In Proverbs, the son is admonishedby the father to obey the Torah (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 6:23), and the pupilis instructed by the teacher to respect the law (13:13) and to resistthe company of those who do not obey the Torah (28:4), with suchobservance resulting in God’s blessings (29:18) and answers toprayer (28:9). The wise woman familiarizes herself with the Torahbecause the responsibility for instruction of her household lies withher (31:26).

Thebook of Psalms contains three compositions typically classified asTorah psalms (1; 19; 119). In Ps. 1 continual reflection on the Torahmanifests itself in the prosperity and the wisdom of the obedient.Psalm 19 celebrates the benefits of keeping the Torah, includingwisdom, joy, enlightenment, life, and moral discernment. In a lengthyacrostic arranged according to the Hebrew alphabet, Ps. 119 exploitsthe attitudes, effects, and practicality of the Torah as exemplifiedin the life of the faithful.

Inthe prophetic material, Torah refers to teaching administered in thename of Yahweh, either by the priests or the prophets. Moral decline,manifested by the social injustice of Israel’s leader-shipcoupled with idolatry and syncretistic worship, was directlyattributed to the failure of the priests to uphold the Torah andtheir negligence in instructing the community (Jer. 2:8; 8:8; Ezek.7:26; 22:26; Hos. 8:1–12; Amos 2:4). The prophetic emphasis onjustice and righteousness as characteristic qualities of God’speople highlights the importance placed on fair and equitabletreatment (e.g., Isa. 5:23–24; 26:1–11; 48:17–19;58:6–9; 59:9–14). The Torah provided the authoritativepoint of departure in the composition of prophetic messages andteachings, undergirding the authority and genuineness of theprophetic proclamations and exhortations to the contemporaryaudience. The messages of the prophets were in fact not new, but weresimply the adaptation and transformation of pentateuchal textsalready generally accepted by the community as authoritative.

BiblicalLaw and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

Biblicallaw did not develop in isolation from other legal systems; rather, itappears to follow long-established, widespread, and standardizedpatterns of Mesopotamian law. A persuasive number of parallelsbetween customs and familial relationships addressed in the Nuzitablets and archaic elements in the patriarchal narratives seem tosuggest that the patriarchs operated under Hurrian law. The Nuzitablets clarify the subjects of adoption, marriage, and economictransactions, apparently exerting an influence on the lives of theearly OT patriarchs. The wife-sister accounts of Abram and Isaac, inwhich the marriage eligibility of Sarai and Rebekah arise (Gen. 12;26), as well as Abraham’s proposed adoption of his servantEliezer as an heir (Gen. 15:2–4) and his siring of Ishmaelthrough Sarai’s servant Hagar (Gen. 16), reflect customarypractice described in these documents.

Avast range of legal documents regulating judicial procedures providesmaterial for comparative analysis with biblical texts. Included amongthese discoveries are a number of law collections, generally namedafter the ruler who commissioned them. Archaeologists have uncoveredevidence, from as early as the twenty-first century BC, of twosurviving Sumerian legal collections affirming the ancient origins ofsocietal governance. The Laws of King Ur-Nammu, recorded during thelast great period of Sumerian literacy (2111–2095 BC), arepreserved in scribal copies from Nippur dated between 1800 and 1700BC and consist of a fragment and two partial stone tablets. Writtenin a casuistic format, the texts attest to twenty-nine stipulations,including legislation addressing weights and measures; protectionsfor widows, orphans, and the impoverished; sexual offenses; maritallaws; slavery; false testimony; and property abuses.

Asecond Sumerian law collection dating from the nineteenth century BC,that of King Lipit-Ishtar, the fifth ruler of the Isin dynasty inlower Mesopotamia, consists of a prologue, thirty-eight wholly orpartially restored laws, and an epilogue. These laws, bequeathed toLipit-Ishtar by the Sumerian deities Anu and Enlil in order to“establish justice in the land,” represent civil lawsgoverning business practices, slavery, property, family, andinadvertent injury to an individual. What appear to be an additionalthirty-eight laws, comprising the second half of the code, have beendestroyed along with part of the prologue. All these laws wererecorded in a casuistic format.

TheLaws of Eshnunna, written in Akkadian, consist of two tabletscontaining approximately sixty different laws. The authorship anddate of origin remain unknown, but historians suggest that this lawcollection, which has no prologue or epilogue, was contemporary withthe Code of Hammurabi (1728–1686 BC). Though written in acasuistic format, this artifact assigns penalties on the basis ofsocial status.

TheCode of Hammurabi, named for the sixth of eleven kings of the OldBabylonian dynasty, is perhaps the most famous and most complete ofthe ancient Mesopotamian collections. In 1902, French archaeologistsdiscovered the code on a black diorite stela, nearly eight feet tall,in what was ancient Susa. Multiple copies of the code have beenpreserved. Written in Akkadian cuneiform, the law collection consistsof 282 legal paragraphs created to promote public welfare and thecause of justice. The format of the code, which includes a prologue,an epilogue, and a category of cursings for disobedience andblessings for obedience, closely mirrors the structure of the book ofDeuteronomy. The casuistic format addresses laws governing publicorder and individual private law. The penalties prescribed forcapital offenses, of which there were thirty, were harsh and oftencruel, including bodily mutilation, multiple punishments, andvicarious punishment. Retaliatory consequences for the protection ofprivate property were exceptionally cruel, taking the form of tortureor excessive fines. Often, those who were presumed guilty would bethrown into the river; survival indicated innocence, while drowningdemonstrated guilt. A predominant feature was the lex talionis (thelaw of retaliation, or measure for measure), whereby a correspondingpenalty was exacted against the offender based on the crime. Forinstance, if a child was killed, the death of the offender’schild was required. Capital crimes included theft of property andadultery. Contrary to biblical law, Hammurabi’s code madefinancial provision for the loss of life, whereas in the OT the valueof life was immeasurable.

Theargument from silence suggests that in the absence of a full biblicallaw code, legal instructions and stipulations in the biblical textconsist primarily of codicil emendations, that is, additions andinnovations to already existing laws. For example, the discussion ondivorce in Deut. 21 describes the execution of a document withoutgiving details concerning the content or form of such a document. Thepassage also mentions a yet undiscovered “book of divorce.”The absence of legal material on commercial and business law as wellas specifics concerning inheritance and other common subjects pointsto a more comprehensive body of unwritten law reflecting preexistingsocietal norms. Israelite society was therefore indebted to itsMesopotamian predecessors for its implementation of law as a means ofprotecting citizens, and for many legal provisions eventually adaptedby the biblical text.

TheCharacter of Biblical Law

AlthoughIsraelite law was in some ways influenced by the legal codes of otherancient Near Eastern cultures, biblical law retained a distinctidentity centered on the relationship between Yahweh and his chosenpeople. Law in the OT is presented not as secular instruction butrather as divine pronouncement, receiving its authority as anexpression of the divine will. The entirety of the divine instructionoriginates with God, and he is both author and guarantor of thecovenant with his people. The people of Israel, then, are heldresponsible to God for their actions and not just to a legislativebody or human ruler. The will of the Israelite is wholly surrenderedto the will of God to such a degree that every aspect of anindividual’s life is inextricably connected to the divineteachings. God assigns the stipulations and requirements of the lawto the entire corporate body of Israel. The responsibility forcovenant fidelity does not lie solely with the community leadership;rather, it is shared by every individual in the community, whose dualrole includes ensuring both the fair execution of justice in thecommunity and personal observance of the law. God’sinstructions are proclaimed publicly and apply equally to all socialstrata without distinction, apart from specific direction concerningslaves.

Torahbecomes the corpus of teaching directed toward the entire community.The didactic purpose of the law is evident by the motive clausesappended to many apodictic and casuistic instructions that elaborateon the ethical, religious, or historical reasons for covenantfaithfulness. The pedagogical aim serves to appeal to the Israeliteconscience as a means of motivating obedience. In addition, theteaching that humanity is created in the divine image reinforces thesacredness of human life as a foundational concern of the law.Religious rather than economic values prevail, eliminating the deathpenalty for all property crimes. Individual culpability predominatesin the biblical corpus, abolishing the notion of vicarious punishmentadvocated in extrabiblical legislation. Each offender pays theconsequences of his or her behavior. Each person, created by God andenjoying equal status with all others, receives fair and equitabletreatment.

TheLaw and the New Testament

Thecontemporary significance of the Torah is recognized in the NT byJesus’ declaration that his incarnation served to fulfill thelaw (Matt. 5:17). He affirms the continued legitimacy of the law(Matt. 5:19) and appeals to the law as the governing authority forproper practice and behavior (Matt. 12:6, 42; Luke 4:1–11; Mark7:9–12; 10:17–19).

Therelationship between gospel and law in both Testaments demonstratesfar greater continuity than is recognized by many Christians.Covenant theologians affirm that the Mosaic law described a “covenantof works,” which functions differently from the NT’s“covenant of grace,” while dispensationalists often teachthat grace supersedes and abolishes the demands of the law. Theconditional nature of the Mosaic covenant differs from that of theAbrahamic covenant, since the unconditional promise of the Abrahamiccovenant suggests that the blessings promised to Abraham and his seedwould be realized not because of human obedience but rather throughdivine fidelity (Gal. 3:15–27). The Mosaic covenant, orcovenant of law, is not contrary to the promises of God (Gal. 3:21);instead, God graciously entered into relationship with the people ofIsrael, redeemed them from Egypt, and then gave them the law so thatthey would respond in humble obedience to his redeeming work. Thus,Mosaic law provided through a mediator a way for God to revealhimself to Israel. Consequently, the idea that Israelite religion waslegalistic is mistaken. It did not teach that one could earnsalvation by “keeping the law”; rather, an individualentered into the covenant with God by grace. When God established thecovenant with his people, he forgave their sins. He did not demand acertain level of attainment as a prerequisite for entering into thatrelationship, nor did Israel have to obey the law perfectly in orderto achieve salvation. Instead, the covenantal arrangement instituteda means of forgiveness through the sacrificial system, making theremoval of the barrier of sin available to the people. Israel’sobedience to the law was a response to God’s gracious andredeeming work. Law and covenant were complementary.

Ongoingdiscussions explore the question concerning the relevance of the lawfor Christians today. Many scholars from past centuries, such asMartin Luther, claimed that the believer is freed entirely from thelaw of Moses, including its moral requirements. The OT law is bindingonly insofar as it agrees with the NT and mirrors natural law. JohnCalvin, on the other hand, maintained that the moral laws of the OTare obligatory for the believer, and he asserts that this is theprincipal function of law. Calvin’s sense of keeping the morallaw does not compromise the message of grace, for keeping the morallaw, as opposed to the ceremonial or civil law, does not earnsalvation but instead forms the acceptable response of the believerto God’s grace. Other Reformation scholars suggested that thelaw was abolished with the coming of Christ, and, as a result, whilethe moral norms remain in effect, the ceremonial laws have beenfulfilled with the coming of Christ. Although the penaltiesoriginally prescribed for disobedience are no longer effective,keeping the moral law reflects the proper outcome of a life lived bythe Spirit of God. See also Ten Commandments; Torah.

Law, more properly labeled “Torah,” isinstruction. In the Bible, Moses is portrayed as the lawgiver parexcellence, dispensing God’s Torah from Sinai (Exod. 20:1–17)and delegating legal matters to others (18:24–26). The TenCommandments are distinct from other forms of Torah in that they aredescribed as having been given by “the finger of God”(Exod. 31:18). That is, Moses functions as an agent of God, the truelawgiver. Unlike law in the broader cultural environment, Torah cameto Israel with God’s authority. Yet even this authority had tobe recast for each generation (Deut. 29:1; Num. 36:13).

Jesus’instruction in the Sermon on the Mount includes the importantstatement “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law orthe Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them”(Matt. 5:17). Although some of his detractors have perceived him asantinomian, Jesus assures his listeners that his teaching is incontinuity with OT law. Indeed, the OT law finds its eschatologicalclimax in the instruction by Jesus, who, like Moses, dispenses lawfrom the mountainside.

Leisure time offers a respite from work, those essentialduties of life such as paid employment and maintaining a household,to pursue other activities. Such nonobligatory pursuits range fromentertainment to fine art, from peaceful relaxation to physicalactivity.

Fromthe beginning, humankind was intended to work (Gen. 1:28; 2:15), butGod also set apart one day per week for his creatures to share in hisdivine rest (Gen. 2:2–3; Exod. 20:8–11). This weekly restshould bring to mind God’s creation and the final rest in theage to come (Heb. 4:9–11). Although leisure time and Sabbathobservance are not identical, both are opportunities to give thanks,worship, and put hope in God. They also refresh and enrich earthlylife.

Indeed,every good thing is a gift from the Father (James 1:17), includingtime off from daily duties. How one uses leisure time is thus amatter of stewardship, much like one’s use of money and workingtime (cf. Matt. 25:14–30). Thus, although the Bible does notdiscuss playing sports or writing poetry, it does proclaim Christ asLord over all spheres of life. Therefore “whether you eat ordrink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God”(1Cor. 10:31).

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

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

Yahweh:The Lord

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elohim

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

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

Adonai

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

An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationshipbetween a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.

Theologyof Marriage

Thebiblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, whichestablishes a number of important points relating to marriage.

First,in Gen. 2:18 God highlights the first expressed inadequacy withincreation: the man is alone. The solution to the man’s solitudeis found not among the animals (a fact demonstrated by the carefulsearch expressed by having the man name each of them) but in acreature specifically created to address the problem of his solitude:woman. She is created from his “rib” (a bettertranslation is “side”), so that she is more like him thanany of the animals. In spite of this, she is not a clone, but rathera complement to him. She is described as a “helper suitable forhim,” which highlights her fulfillment of the inadequacy Godhad previously identified.

Second,the role of the wife is not restricted to providing a means by whichto fulfill the command to fill the earth (through bearing children),for the problem identified in Gen. 2:18 cannot be reduced to thisalone. The OT establishes that human beings are relational andsocial, and that isolation is not good, quite aside fromconsiderations relating to childbearing. Indeed, when marriage isemployed as a metaphor for the relationship between God and hispeople (see below), it can be conceptualized quite apart from thenotion of procreation, suggesting that the latter should not beconsidered the primary purpose of marriage.

Third,Gen. 2:23 describes the relationship between the man and the woman interms strongly reminiscent of the traditional kinship formula usedwith reference to family members elsewhere in the OT: “bone ofmy bones, and flesh of my flesh” (cf., e.g., Gen. 29:14; Judg.9:2; 2Sam. 5:1; 19:13–14—similar to the modernEnglish expression “my flesh and blood”; see also Matt.19:5; Eph. 5:31). Although “be united” (othertranslations use “cleave”) and “one flesh”are frequently understood to refer to sexual union, this is not theonly, or even the primary, implication of the words. Genesis 2:24expresses the unification of the husband and the wife as theantithesis of the man’s leaving his father and mother. Theseterms (“leave” or “forsake,” “beunited” or “cleave”) are used elsewhere incovenantal contexts. “Cleave” is usually used of peoplein the sense of clinging to another out of affection and loyalty(Gen. 34:3; Ruth 1:14; 2Sam. 20:2; 1Kings 11:2). It isalso frequently used of Israel clinging to God (Deut. 10:20; 11:22;13:5; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8). “Forsake” is used ofbreaking covenants (Deut. 12:19; 14:27; 29:25; Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17,19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:9). The verb also appears in thecontext of marital divorce in Prov. 2:16–17; Isa. 54:6; 62:4.

Theimplication of Gen. 2:24 is that the man was formerly “united”to his parents in a familial relationship, but when he marries, thecovenantal relationship with his parents is superseded by the newrelationship with his wife. Thus, in establishing the covenantalrelationship of marriage, the man and the woman form a new familyunit (they become “one flesh,” which parallels thekinship formula more fully expressed in Gen. 2:23). It is noteworthythat Gen. 2 thus defines a family as husband and wife; a family isformed before any children are born. Furthermore, the emphasis on thepriority of the relationship between husband and wife is particularlystriking, given both the importance of honoring one’s parents(Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) and the distinctly patrilocal nature ofinheritance whereby sons would remain in the parents’ householdafter marriage and ultimately inherit a share of it, but daughterswould leave their parents’ house to be with their husbands.

Fourth,the description of the woman as the man’s “helper”cannot alone be used to demonstrate that the wife’s role waseither subordinate or superior to her husband’s. Although theterm is elsewhere often used as a description of God, it is also usedof subordinate helpers, and other contextual indications determinethe relative status of the helper aside from the use of the termitself.

Marriagein the Old Testament

TheBible presents few formal legal, liturgical, or cultic requirementsfor marriage (whereas there are specific laws dealing with divorce),although it does record some details of specific marriages from whichsome insight into marriage practices can be gleaned. Marriages oftenwere established through an arrangement between the parents of thehusband and those of the wife or between the husband and the parentsof his prospective wife (e.g., Gen. 24; 38:6), but there appears tobe some diversity, with examples of a man choosing his own wife(e.g., Judah in Gen. 38:2) or instances when the consent of the womanis sought (e.g., Gen. 24:8, 58). The requirement of a formalcertificate for divorce (Deut. 24:1, 3), together with examples ofmarriage contracts from the ancient Near East, are possible evidencethat marriage within Israel required certification, although there isno explicit confirmation of this in the OT or in Israel prior to therabbinic period. The marriages recorded in the OT often involvedfeasts of varying duration (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:12), the bride beingaccompanied to her home in a festive procession that included musicand singing (Ps. 78:63; Jer. 7:34; 16:9), and a blessing pronouncedover the bride that she might bear many children (Gen. 24:60; Ruth4:11). Deuteronomy 22:15 suggests that evidence of the bride’svirginity was retained by the wife’s family to guard againstfalse accusations by a husband seeking divorce.

Anotheraspect of marriage that appears to have been normative although notlegislated was the payment of a mohar, or “bride-price”(Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1Sam. 18:25), as well as theprovision of a dowry (1Kings 9:16). The former was a paymentmade by the groom’s family to the bride’s family, thelatter an amount given by the father to his daughter. Typically, theformer appears to have exceeded the latter in value. The bride-price,at least in later times, functioned as insurance should the wife bedivorced.

TheBible does not issue any specific age constraints upon those beingmarried, indicating that the OT practice probably did not differsignificantly from that of other nations in the ancient Near East,where girls were considered ready for marriage once they had reachedpuberty or the age of twelve, and boys were generally slightly older.Constraints were placed on the eligibility of marriage partners, andgenerally marriages were endogamous: marriage partners were chosenfrom within the clan, tribe, or nation (e.g., Gen. 24:1–9;27:46–28:5; cf. Deut. 7:3, which prohibits marriage with some,but not all, foreigners, and Deut. 21:10–14, which permitsIsraelite warriors to take a wife from among female prisoners ofwar). While there were exceptions to this constraint (e.g., Mosesmarried a Midianite; Bathsheba was married to a Hittite; Boaz marriedRuth, a Moabite), in later times the restriction was given legalsanction under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:2, 12; Neh. 13:25; cf. Luke14:26; 18:29).

Inspite of the likelihood that many marriages in the OT and the ancientworld in general were arranged, the notion of romantic love as bothan ideal for marriage and a basis for choosing one’s spouseclearly was known and even regarded as desirable. This is reflectedin the approbation given romantic love in Song of Songs as well as instories such as that of Jacob (Gen. 29:18; see also Judg. 14:1–3;1Sam. 18:20).

Socially,marriage was of particular import for a woman in the ancient world,for her well-being usually depended on her place within the house ofeither her father or her husband. Because inheritance was passed downthe male line, women without connection to the house of a man were ina very tenuous state. Inheritance itself was also an important issuein the ancient world, and so great value was placed not just onmarriage but also on bearing children (particularly male [see alsoFirstborn]). Associated with these social functions of marriage inancient Israel is the fact that the OT permits and records a numberof instances of polygamy (always polygyny, never polyandry). Thisafforded social security to widows (see also Levirate Law, LevirateMarriage) and helped ensure the line of inheritance. It should benoted, however, that neither the welfare aspect of marriage nor therelated acceptance of polygamy is based on the biblical foundationfor marriage in Gen. 2, and consequently, polygamy does not reflectthe biblical ideal for marriage.

Thefundamental importance of the marriage relationship is alsohighlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g.,Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).

Marriagein the New Testament

Jesusreinforces the importance of marriage, emphasizing its divine originand lifelong nature (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9) as well as itsinviolability (Mark 10:2–12). In light of this, Jesus’assertion that at the resurrection there will be no marriage issurprising (Matt. 22:30). Although Jesus offers no explanation as towhy there will be no marriage following the resurrection, it isperhaps likely that the fundamental need identified by God in Gen.2:18 (the man was alone) will be solved in a different manner in theage to come: the intimate help and companionship ideally found inmarriage will be provided in perfected relationship with God and allothers.

Paulelaborates somewhat on marriage in the Christian community. Christianmarriage ought to be characterized by mutual submission in somerespects (1Cor. 7:4; Eph. 5:21) while reflecting someasymmetrical aspects of the relationship between Christ and thechurch in others (Eph. 5:22–33). Christians ought to marrywithin the church (2Cor. 6:14–18, although this passageis not restricted to marriage); however, those who are married tononbelievers are not to seek divorce, but are to remain faithful totheir spouses for the sake of both the spouse and their children(1Cor. 7:10–16).

TheNT makes reference to some of the marriage customs of the day,including sharing a feast (Matt. 22:2–12; Luke 12:36; John2:1–11), the expectation that guests be suitably attired (Matt.22:11–12), and a procession to the groom’s home (Matt.25:1–13; Luke 12:35–38).

SymbolicUse of Marriage

Marriageis used figuratively in both Testaments. The relationship between Godand his people is described with marriage language (Isa. 62:4–5;Jer. 2:2). By using such language, the prophets emphasize theintimacy and unity inherent in the relationship between God and hischosen people, as well as the devastating betrayal when the covenantis broken. The use of the marriage metaphor is thus extended to theuse of divorce language to describe God’s treatment ofunfaithful Israel (Jer. 3:8), and the notion of adultery andpromiscuity is equated with the worship of foreign gods (Ezek. 16;23). The prophet Hosea’s marriage is itself a graphicrepresentation of God’s relationship with his people and, inparticular, their faithlessness; however, it also holds out theanticipation of a new covenant, one wherein God declares, “Youwill call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘mymaster’ ” (Hos. 2:16). The metaphorical use ofmarriage to image the relationship between God and his people alsoreflects the implicit belief in the asymmetrical nature of therelationship between husband and wife in the ancient world.

TheNT primarily identifies the church as the bride and Christ as thehusband when using marriage language figuratively (e.g., Eph.5:22–33). In so doing, the NT affirms Christ’s deity byexplicitly depicting him in the place occupied by God in the OT’suse of marriage symbolism. Jesus uses marriage in his parabolicteaching about the kingdom of God (Matt. 22:2–14; 25:1–12),as well as in reference to himself as bridegroom when explaining thebehavior of his disciples (Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35).Revelation depicts the return of Christ as the time of the marriagebetween the bride and the bridegroom (Rev. 19:7; 21:9).

One who serves as a facilitator of reconciliation between twoparties. The role of a mediator was taken by different individualsand offices in the OT, as seen in Abraham interceding for Sodom andGomorrah (Gen. 18:22–32), Moses asking God to forgive Israel(Exod. 32:31–32), and the Israelites begging Moses to speak toGod on their behalf (Exod. 20:19). In addition, judges, prophets,kings, and priests assumed intermediary functions at times. Mediationfunctions bidirectionally: from God to humans, and from humans toGod. The prophets are quintessentially the first kind of mediators(God to humans), while the priests took, mostly, the second function(humans to God).

Inthe NT, the role of mediator is given to Christ, since he alone, asGod incarnate, is qualified for it (the “one mediator betweenGod and mankind” [1Tim. 2:5]). This implies that insomuchas reconciliation between sinful humankind and a holy God isconceivable, Christ alone can facilitate that mediation.

Hebrewsdevelops a theology of mediation by comparing Christ to angels,Moses, and the prophets, declaring that Christ is superior to each inevery aspect. Hebrews says that Christ is the mediator of a new andbetter covenant (8:6; 9:15; 12:24). Many NT passages present Christengaging in prophetic ministry as he proclaims and interprets God’swill for the lost world. His priestly work consists not only ofgiving himself as the ultimate sacrifice but also of interceding forhumans before God and giving the “priestly blessing” fromhis heavenly abode.

Christ’smediation is to be appreciated in terms of both who he is and what hehas done. The eternal mystery surrounding Christ is his incarnateperson (God-man) and his atoning death (cleansing all guilt). Throughthe patristic period and the following scholastic movement,theological reflection on Christ was channeled to the meaning ofincarnation, emphasizing Christ’s unique status as both trueGod and true human that makes redemptive work possible.

Bycomparison, the Protestant Reformers brought Christ’s salvificand mediatory work into the forefront of their theology. The Reformedtradition developed the mediatory role of Christ in a threefoldmanner: prophet, priest, and king.

Pieces of metal stamped with a particular impression, used asa medium of exchange. From time immemorial people used animals,grain, or other commodities to barter (Hos. 3:2), pay taxes (1 Sam.8:15), or as a measure of wealth (Job 1:3). Substituting smaller,more easily handled pieces of precious metal had obvious advantages.Gradually people used precious metal such as silver or gold alongwith commodities (Gen. 20:14–16) and then in place of them(37:28) as a means of payment. Such metal had been refined, but itcould have been in most any form (rings, bars, ingots, dust) as longas it weighed the appropriate amount. Local and internationalstandards developed to regulate the weights, and later the conceptgrew in popularity to use standard, authorized, clearly stampedpieces of precious metal—coins.

OldTestament. Mintingof coins may have begun as far back as the late eighth century BC,and it gradually spread throughout the known world. The first coinsapparently were made in Asia Minor using electrum, a natural alloy ofgold and silver.

Whenthe Persians took over much of the ancient Near East in the sixthcentury BC, the use of coins spread, and Persian coins came to theland of the Bible. At the end of the Hebrew Bible there is mention oflarge quantities of Persian coins called “darics”(1 Chron. 29:7; Ezra 8:27), also translated as “drachmas”(NASB) or “drams” (KJV) (Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70–72).These darics were stamped with the likeness of Darius the Great(521–486 BC) and were minted from gold and occasionally silver.At about the same time, silver tetradrachmas (four-drachma coins)from Athens made their way to the western shores of theMediterranean. Local imitations of this coin were stamped with “YHD”to represent the province of Judah.

NewTestament.Coins appear dozens of times in the NT; some have Hellenistic roots,while others come from the periods of Hasmonean or Roman rule.

Forseveral centuries after Alexander the Great conquered the ancientNear East (fourth century BC), coins with the images of Alexander orhis Seleucid or Ptolemaic successors were circulated in Judea. Inparticular, silver shekels from the Phoenician port cities of Tyreand Sidon enjoyed wide usage for a long time. Also called a “stater,”the shekel or four-drachma coin recovered by Peter from the fish’smouth (Matt. 17:27) may have been such a Tyrian coin. Many or all ofthe thirty silver coins that the chief priests gave Judas forbetraying Jesus (Matt. 26:15; 27:3) probably were Tyrian shekels aswell, since this coin came to be the accepted currency at the templein Jerusalem and the priests would have had a good supply of them.

Afterthe Hellenistic rulers lost control of Judea during the rebellion ledby the Maccabean or Hasmonean family in the second century BC, theJews could mint their own coins for the first time. The honor ofproducing the first Jewish coin apparently goes to John Hyrcanus I(134–104 BC), son of Simon and nephew of Judas Maccabeus.Simon’s modest bronze lepton (pl. lepta), or prutah, has aninscription on one side and two cornucopias and a pomegranate on theother. Use of such agricultural symbols apparently fulfilled twopurposes: it portrayed the fertility of the land that God had givenhis people, and it helped the Jews avoid depicting people on coins,as the Greeks and later the Romans would do. During this perioddevout Jews avoided such images in order to help fulfill the secondcommandment (Exod. 20:4), to avoid graven images. Hyrcanus I’sson Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BC) minted great quantities ofdifferent types of bronze lepta, still often found in excavations inIsrael today. These coins remained in circulation for many years,probably through the ministry of Jesus. Thus, the two small coins forwhich Jesus commended the widow for donating to the temple treasury(Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2) may well have been lepta of AlexanderJannaeus. The tiny lepton, typically smaller than a dime and worthonly 1/400 of a shekel, also appears in Luke 12:59.

Itis also possible that the aforementioned lepta were not minted byAlexander Jannaeus, since later rulers, including the Jewish kingHerod the Great (40–4 BC), also minted large numbers of similarsmall bronze coins. Though not known for his piety, Herod continuedto avoid human representations on his coins. For the most part, sodid his sons and the later Roman procurators (including PontiusPilate [governed AD 26–36]), who ruled Judea before the revoltin AD 66.

OtherRoman coins, such as the silver denarius (pl. denarii) minted outsideJudea, clearly did not avoid human representation, however. Jesus’request for a coin with Caesar’s image and inscription (Matt.22:15–22) refers to the denarius. The denarius in Jesus’day could have portrayed the emperor Tiberius (r. AD 14–37) oreven Augustus (r. 27 BC–AD 14), whose coins were probably stillin circulation. The silver denarius came to represent the daily wageof a common laborer, as clearly shown in the parable of laborers(Matt. 20:1–16). The denarius also appears in many otherpassages, although modern translators sometimes use a moreinterpretive expression (“two silver coins” for “twodenarii” in Luke 10:35; “a year’s wages” for“three hundred denarii” in Mark 14:5).

Althoughmany of the references discussed above contain specific terms thatcan be identified with coins known from history, others cannot.General terms meaning “coins” or “pieces of money”sometimes appear, as when Jesus scattered the coins of the moneychangers (John 2:15), or the rather common term for silver thatappears frequently and is often translated as “money”(Matt. 28:12; Luke 9:3) or “silver” (Acts 3:6; 1 Pet.1:18) as well as “silver coins” (Matt. 27:3 GW).

The mountain where Moses met with God and received the lawand instructions for building the tabernacle. It is important to notethat Sinai is sometimes referred to as Horeb. Scholars who believethat the Pentateuch is composed of sources from different periods oftime suggest that the J and P sources used the name “Sinai”while “Horeb” is used by the E and D sources, but thatthe mountain is the same one. Sinai figures prominently in thebiblical narrative between Exod. 19 and Num. 10, while the Israelitesare camped around the mountain. During this time, Moses makes severaltrips up the mountain. He first ascends the mountain alone when theIsraelites initially camp around it (Exod. 19–23). Next, Mosesalong with Aaron and the elders go up the mountain, followed anothertime by Moses and Joshua (Exod. 24). Moses then ascends for fortydays and nights, at which time he receives the instructions for thetabernacle. This ascent is ruined for Moses when he descends themountain to find the people worshiping a golden calf (Exod. 32).Moses once again climbs the mountain and receives a reiteration ofthe law (Exod. 34). All of this culminates with the descent of Godfrom the top of the mountain to take up residence within the newtabernacle (Exod. 40).

Leviticusimplies that it is a continuation of the law that Moses received onthe mountain. Finally, the first ten chapters of Numbers describe theIsraelites moving away from Sinai and toward the promised land. Themountain also plays a significant role in the book of Deuteronomy,which looks back at the earlier narrative. Sinai is also the locationof Elijah’s sojourn after his supernatural encounter with Godon another mountain, Carmel (1Kings 19). Interestingly, in theElijah narrative the same physical elements of smoke, fire,earthquake, and wind are evidenced in the story, but God is foundonly in a small whisper. Because this is the place where Mosesreceives the law from God, a mountain often is seen as a symbol ofGod’s revelation (cf. Matt. 5:1–2; 17:1–2; Rev.21:10). In Galatians, Paul uses Sinai as a symbol or type of the oldcovenant.

Theexact location of the mountain cannot be determined with certainty.Complicating matters is the fact that the desert and the peninsula onwhich the mountains sit are both called “Sinai.”Furthermore, although some have speculated that the mountain must bea volcano, given the description of smoke coming from the mountainand the earthquakes (Exod. 19:16, 18), this suggestion is of littlespecific help because many of the mountains in this region at onetime were active volcanoes. Several locations for the mountain havebeen suggested. The traditional location is Jebel Musa, in thesouthern part of the peninsula. The Greek Orthodox monastery of SaintCatherine marks this location. This is also the site of the discoveryof the Codex Sinaiticus, one of the earliest and most complete Greekversions of the Bible. Although Jebel Musa is the tallest mountain inthe area, several other mountains in this vicinity have also beensuggested. Another possible location advocated by some scholars is inthe northern part of the peninsula near Kadesh Barnea. Much of thedebate about the site has to do with the amount of time it took theIsraelites to go from the location where the Red Sea was parted tothe mountain. The northern location favors a shorter travel time,while the southern location favors a much longer trip.

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.

Terminology

Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.

Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.

Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).

Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.

“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).

Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.

Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).

Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.

Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).

Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).

Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).

Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

TheCovenant Genre

Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.

1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.

3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.

Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.

(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).

(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.

(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.

(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).

(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).

4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.

Covenantsin the Bible

Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.

Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.

TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.

Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.

Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).

Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.

Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).

Both Testaments proclaim, “The earth is the Lord’s,and everything in it” (Ps. 24:1; 1Cor. 10:26). Only theLord and Creator of the universe can rightfully claim ownership overanything, be it physical, spiritual, or moral (Job 41:11). Thus,“every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down fromthe Father of the heavenly lights” (James 1:17). He even ownshuman beings themselves. In a biblical worldview, God alone exercisesownership. People, however, exercise stewardship over what he hasgiven.

Scriptureguides and regulates human relationships with respect to owningproperty. While people are ultimately only stewards, they must neverwrongly take or desire what God has entrusted to others. ThereforeGod commands, “You shall not steal” (Exod. 20:15) and“You shall not covet” (20:17). The book of Proverbsexplains how to wisely dispose of one’s goods (Prov. 3:9, 10;11:25; 22:9), as does Jesus’ parable of the talents (Matt.25:14–30). Numerous passages teach that human “ownership”should be earned through work, if possible (Jer. 29:5–7;2Thess. 3:10). People should acknowledge their possessions asgifts from God by giving to the poor (Eph. 4:28) and to God’sappointed leaders, both secular and Christian: “Give back toCaesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”(Mark 12:17 [cf. Rom. 13:6; 1Tim. 5:18]).

Infact, the whole Bible can be read as the drama of the divine ownerrelating to his human stewards. At creation, God charges Adam and Eve“to work ... and take care of” the garden(Gen. 2:15), thereby entrusting all creation to human care. Indisobedience they abuse their stewardship, as will their offspring.In the fall, humankind forfeits God’s benefits in paradise(Gen. 3); he disowns his unfaithful stewards. The rest of Scripturerelates how God redeems a people for himself, adopting thedisinherited back into his household. He begins by promising Abrahamthat his offspring, Israel, will possess a land, Canaan (Gen. 17:8),which will be a kind of new paradise (Exod. 3:8). The Israelitesconquer the territory, but over time they prove to be unfaithfulstewards. After breaking God’s covenant, they lose the land inexile.

Jesus’parable of the landowner in Matt. 21:33–44 is basically acapsule version of this grand biblical story. Both come to a climaxwhen God sends his Son, Jesus Christ. He comes to “buy back”his people from their sins as the one faithful servant (Mark 10:45),even unto death on a cross (Phil. 2:8). Jesus pays for his elect’sadoption with his blood, so now believers partake in God’sownership over all things. “All things are yours, whether ...the world or life or death or the present or the future—all areyours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God” (1Cor.3:21–23).

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

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

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

Authorshipand Composition

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

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

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

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

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

PrimevalHistory (Gen. 1–11)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patriarchs(Gen. 12–50)

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

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

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

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

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

Liberationfrom Egypt (Exod. 1–18)

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

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

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

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

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

Sinai(Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10)

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

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

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

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

WildernessJourney (Num. 10:11–36:13)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moses’Farewell (Deuteronomy)

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

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

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

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

The study of human beings, their nature and origins. TheChristian understanding of anthropology stems from a biblical view ofhumankind’s relationship to God.

TheOrigin of Humankind

Accordingto Genesis, the creation of humankind took place on the sixth day ofthe creation week. The amount of narrative space allotted to this day(Gen. 1:24–31) testifies to the special importance of whathappened. Human beings were made on the same day as the animals.Human beings were not given a day of their own, showing that theyhave a certain kinship with the animals, although they are far morethan highly successful and adaptive mammals. This has implicationsfor the care of animals and of the environment generally. The valueof human beings and their special place in the created order is clearin passages such as Pss. 8:5–6; 104:14–15.

Createdin the image of God.Whenit came to the making of human beings, God deliberated over thiscrucial step (Gen. 1:26). The plural of exhortation in “Let usmake man in our image” signals that the decision to makehumankind was the most important one that God had made so far.Genesis 1 says that human beings are like God in some way.

Variousopinions have been canvassed as to what the “image” is.We cannot totally exclude the physical form of humans, given God’shumanoid form in OT appearances (theophanies; e.g., Isa. 6:1; Ezek.1:26; Amos 9:1). The image has sometimes been interpreted as a task,the exercising of dominion (Gen. 1:28), with humanity appointed ascreation’s king, ruling under God. But the image is betterunderstood as the precondition for rule rather than rule itself. Theimage shows human worth (Gen. 9:6) and differentiates humans from allother creatures. It is proper for the Bible to use anthropomorphiclanguage for God, for humans are remarkably like God. Both male andfemale are in the image of God (“in the image of God he createdthem; male and female he created them” [1:27]), so that thedivine image is not maleness, nor is sexual differentiation theimage. Commonly, the image of God is thought to be some peculiarquality of human beings—for example, rationality, speech, moralsense, personality, humans as relational beings.

Everycentury has its own view of what is the essence of humanity. However,nothing in the passage allows a choice among such alternatives. Thepoint of the passage is simply the fact of the likeness, with noexact definition being provided. The fact of the image is the basisof the divine prohibition of murder and of the strict penalty appliedto the transgressor (9:4–6). The fall into sin affected everyaspect of the human constitution, and the Bible does not minimize thefact of human sinfulness (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10–18);nevertheless, humans are still in the image of God (Gen. 5:1–3;9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7). God’s plan of salvation is aimed atridding creation (and especially humanity) of the baneful effects ofsin, and this will be achieved through the work of Christ, who is theimage of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15–20; Heb. 1:1–3;2:5–18). The outcome will be the conformity of believers inChrist to his glorious image (Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 3.18).

Placein the created order.God’s purpose in giving human beings the divine image is “sothey may rule” (NET [Gen. 1:26b translated as a purposeclause]). The syntax suggests that the image is a presupposition ofdominion. It is plain that such a delegated authority makes humansstewards. The vegetarian diet of Gen.1:29 (there was no eating ofmeat at first) represents a limitation to the human right ofdominion. Adam’s naming of the animals was (in part) expressiveof his sovereignty over them (2:19). Later, Noah was charged to bringpairs of animals into the ark to preserve them alive (6:19–20),showing care for other creatures. The patriarchs tended flocks(13:2–9; 26:12–14), and Joseph’s relief measuressaved the lives of people and animals (47:15–18). The wantondestruction of the Promised Land was expressly forbidden (Deut.20:19–20). Humanity is accountable to God for the stewardshipof the earth. The divine command “be fruitful and multiply”(Gen. 1:28 NRSV) shows that God’s purpose is that the humanrace populate the whole earth.

AtGen. 2:7 the biblical narrative becomes thoroughly anthropocentric,picturing the little world that God establishes around the first man,so this account is quite different from the cosmic presentation ofGen. 1. In Gen. 1 humankind is the apex of a pyramid, the last andhighest of a series of creatures; in Gen. 2 the man is the center ofa circle, everything else made to fit around him, and his connectionto the physical earth is emphasized. In either view, a very specialplace is given to human beings in the created order. The two picturesare complementary, not contradictory.

The“man” (’adam) is formed from the “ground”(’adamah), with the related Hebrew words making a pun. Man’sname reminds him of his earthy origins. He is made from the “dust,”which hints at his coming death. He will return to the dust (Gen.3:19; cf. Job 10:8–9; Ps. 103:14; Isa. 29:16). The reference to“the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7) is due to the fact thatthis leaves a person at death (Job 34:14–15; Ps. 104:29–30),so man’s (potential) mortality is implied. Ironically, themaking of man is described using the language of death. What isdescribed in Gen. 2 is the making of the first man, from whom therest of the human race has descended, not the making of humankind,though the word ’adam can mean that in other contexts.

TheNature of Humankind

Body,soul, and spirit.Arguments over whether human nature is bipartite (body and soul) ortripartite (body, soul, spirit) are not to be decided by arbitraryappeal to isolated verses. Verses can be found in apparent supportfor both the first view (e.g., Matt. 10:28) and the second (e.g.,1 Thess. 5:23), but certainly the first scheme is much moreprevalent in the Bible. “Soul” and “spirit”can be used interchangeably (Eccles. 3:21; 12:7; Ezek. 18:31). Deathis marked by the parting of soul/spirit and body, but it would be amistake to think that human beings are made up of separate componentparts, or that the physical body is only a dispensable shell and notessential to true humanity. The physicality of human existence in the“body” is owned and celebrated in Scripture, part of thatbeing the positive attitude to sexuality when properly expressed(Song of Songs; 1 Cor. 7) and the nonascetic nature of biblicalethics (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 2:23). The doctrine of theresurrection of the body is the fullest expression of this (1 Cor.15), in contrast to ancient Greek thought that viewed the body asinherently evil and understood salvation as the immortality of theliberated, disembodied soul.

Thedifferent words used in relation to persons are only intended torefer to and at times focus on different aspects of unified humannature. References to the “soul” may stress individualresponsibility (e.g., Ezek. 18:4 NASB: “The soul who sins willdie”). In Ps. 103:1–2, “O my soul” expressesemphatic self-encouragement to praise God and is in parallel with“all my inmost being”—that is, “my wholebeing” (an example of synecdoche: a part standing for the whole[cf. Ps. 35:10]). These are ways of referring to oneself as a personwho expresses will and intention (cf. Ps. 42:5–6, 11). The“flesh” is used to stress the weakness of mortal humanity(e.g., Isa. 40:6 RSV: “All flesh is grass”). The “heart”is the volitional center of a human being (Prov. 4:23; cf. Mark7:17–23). The emotional and empathetic reactions of humans aredescribed by reference to the organs: “liver,” “kidneys,”“bowels.”

Moralsand responsibility.In Gen. 2 the complexities of the man’s moral relation to Godand his relations with the soil, with the animals, and with the womanare explored. God deposited the man in the garden “to work itand take care of it” (2:15). The words chosen to designate theman’s work prior to the fall have an aura of worship aboutthem, for they are later used in the OT for the cultic actions ofserving and guarding within the sanctuary. The priests served byoffering sacrifices, and the Levites guarded the gates of the sacredprecinct. A theology of work as a religious vocation is presented.The man was a kind of king-priest in the garden of God.

Themoral responsibility of humanity is signaled from the beginning.God’s command gives permission for the man to eat from “anytree” except one (Gen. 2:16–17) and as such indicatesman’s freedom, so that this command is no great restriction.The wording “you are free to eat” reinforces the pointabout God’s generous provision. The prohibition is embedded inthe description of God’s fatherly care for the man and graciousact in placing him in the garden. The divine restriction is slightand not at all overbearing, though the serpent will seek to make itappear mean-spirited (3:1). The command and prohibition are the veryfirst words of God to the man, marking them out as of fundamentalimportance for the relationship between them. The prohibition (“youmust not eat . . .”) is an absolute one in thestyle of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21).What is placed before the man is a test that gives him theopportunity to express his loyalty to God. A relationship ofobedience and trust requires the possibility of choice and theopportunity to disobey (if that is what he wants to do). The moralnature and responsibility of individuals is not a late discovery bythe prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 18); rather, it is the presuppositionbehind the Mosaic law, for the commands of the Decalogue (“youshall not . . .”) are phrased as commands toindividuals (as the Hebrew makes clear). On the other hand, theconcept of corporate responsibility is also present (e.g., Achan’spunishment in Josh. 7).

Relationships.Human beings are relational by nature, as the creation of the womanas a helper and partner for the first man makes plain (Gen. 2:18–25).Later in Scripture this is put in more general terms, so thatfriendship and mutual cooperation are shown to be essential to life(Eccles. 4:7–12). The body life of the church reflects the samefact and need (1 Cor. 12). In Psalms, human needs andvulnerability find their answer and fulfillment in God, with thepsalmist acknowledging his frailty and his creaturely dependence onGod (e.g., Ps. 90). This also shows the folly of sinful human pride,against which the prophets so often inveighed (e.g., Isa. 2:9,11–17, 22).

An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationshipbetween a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.

Theologyof Marriage

Thebiblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, whichestablishes a number of important points relating to marriage.

First,in Gen. 2:18 God highlights the first expressed inadequacy withincreation: the man is alone. The solution to the man’s solitudeis found not among the animals (a fact demonstrated by the carefulsearch expressed by having the man name each of them) but in acreature specifically created to address the problem of his solitude:woman. She is created from his “rib” (a bettertranslation is “side”), so that she is more like him thanany of the animals. In spite of this, she is not a clone, but rathera complement to him. She is described as a “helper suitable forhim,” which highlights her fulfillment of the inadequacy Godhad previously identified.

Second,the role of the wife is not restricted to providing a means by whichto fulfill the command to fill the earth (through bearing children),for the problem identified in Gen. 2:18 cannot be reduced to thisalone. The OT establishes that human beings are relational andsocial, and that isolation is not good, quite aside fromconsiderations relating to childbearing. Indeed, when marriage isemployed as a metaphor for the relationship between God and hispeople (see below), it can be conceptualized quite apart from thenotion of procreation, suggesting that the latter should not beconsidered the primary purpose of marriage.

Third,Gen. 2:23 describes the relationship between the man and the woman interms strongly reminiscent of the traditional kinship formula usedwith reference to family members elsewhere in the OT: “bone ofmy bones, and flesh of my flesh” (cf., e.g., Gen. 29:14; Judg.9:2; 2Sam. 5:1; 19:13–14—similar to the modernEnglish expression “my flesh and blood”; see also Matt.19:5; Eph. 5:31). Although “be united” (othertranslations use “cleave”) and “one flesh”are frequently understood to refer to sexual union, this is not theonly, or even the primary, implication of the words. Genesis 2:24expresses the unification of the husband and the wife as theantithesis of the man’s leaving his father and mother. Theseterms (“leave” or “forsake,” “beunited” or “cleave”) are used elsewhere incovenantal contexts. “Cleave” is usually used of peoplein the sense of clinging to another out of affection and loyalty(Gen. 34:3; Ruth 1:14; 2Sam. 20:2; 1Kings 11:2). It isalso frequently used of Israel clinging to God (Deut. 10:20; 11:22;13:5; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8). “Forsake” is used ofbreaking covenants (Deut. 12:19; 14:27; 29:25; Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17,19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:9). The verb also appears in thecontext of marital divorce in Prov. 2:16–17; Isa. 54:6; 62:4.

Theimplication of Gen. 2:24 is that the man was formerly “united”to his parents in a familial relationship, but when he marries, thecovenantal relationship with his parents is superseded by the newrelationship with his wife. Thus, in establishing the covenantalrelationship of marriage, the man and the woman form a new familyunit (they become “one flesh,” which parallels thekinship formula more fully expressed in Gen. 2:23). It is noteworthythat Gen. 2 thus defines a family as husband and wife; a family isformed before any children are born. Furthermore, the emphasis on thepriority of the relationship between husband and wife is particularlystriking, given both the importance of honoring one’s parents(Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) and the distinctly patrilocal nature ofinheritance whereby sons would remain in the parents’ householdafter marriage and ultimately inherit a share of it, but daughterswould leave their parents’ house to be with their husbands.

Fourth,the description of the woman as the man’s “helper”cannot alone be used to demonstrate that the wife’s role waseither subordinate or superior to her husband’s. Although theterm is elsewhere often used as a description of God, it is also usedof subordinate helpers, and other contextual indications determinethe relative status of the helper aside from the use of the termitself.

Marriagein the Old Testament

TheBible presents few formal legal, liturgical, or cultic requirementsfor marriage (whereas there are specific laws dealing with divorce),although it does record some details of specific marriages from whichsome insight into marriage practices can be gleaned. Marriages oftenwere established through an arrangement between the parents of thehusband and those of the wife or between the husband and the parentsof his prospective wife (e.g., Gen. 24; 38:6), but there appears tobe some diversity, with examples of a man choosing his own wife(e.g., Judah in Gen. 38:2) or instances when the consent of the womanis sought (e.g., Gen. 24:8, 58). The requirement of a formalcertificate for divorce (Deut. 24:1, 3), together with examples ofmarriage contracts from the ancient Near East, are possible evidencethat marriage within Israel required certification, although there isno explicit confirmation of this in the OT or in Israel prior to therabbinic period. The marriages recorded in the OT often involvedfeasts of varying duration (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:12), the bride beingaccompanied to her home in a festive procession that included musicand singing (Ps. 78:63; Jer. 7:34; 16:9), and a blessing pronouncedover the bride that she might bear many children (Gen. 24:60; Ruth4:11). Deuteronomy 22:15 suggests that evidence of the bride’svirginity was retained by the wife’s family to guard againstfalse accusations by a husband seeking divorce.

Anotheraspect of marriage that appears to have been normative although notlegislated was the payment of a mohar, or “bride-price”(Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1Sam. 18:25), as well as theprovision of a dowry (1Kings 9:16). The former was a paymentmade by the groom’s family to the bride’s family, thelatter an amount given by the father to his daughter. Typically, theformer appears to have exceeded the latter in value. The bride-price,at least in later times, functioned as insurance should the wife bedivorced.

TheBible does not issue any specific age constraints upon those beingmarried, indicating that the OT practice probably did not differsignificantly from that of other nations in the ancient Near East,where girls were considered ready for marriage once they had reachedpuberty or the age of twelve, and boys were generally slightly older.Constraints were placed on the eligibility of marriage partners, andgenerally marriages were endogamous: marriage partners were chosenfrom within the clan, tribe, or nation (e.g., Gen. 24:1–9;27:46–28:5; cf. Deut. 7:3, which prohibits marriage with some,but not all, foreigners, and Deut. 21:10–14, which permitsIsraelite warriors to take a wife from among female prisoners ofwar). While there were exceptions to this constraint (e.g., Mosesmarried a Midianite; Bathsheba was married to a Hittite; Boaz marriedRuth, a Moabite), in later times the restriction was given legalsanction under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:2, 12; Neh. 13:25; cf. Luke14:26; 18:29).

Inspite of the likelihood that many marriages in the OT and the ancientworld in general were arranged, the notion of romantic love as bothan ideal for marriage and a basis for choosing one’s spouseclearly was known and even regarded as desirable. This is reflectedin the approbation given romantic love in Song of Songs as well as instories such as that of Jacob (Gen. 29:18; see also Judg. 14:1–3;1Sam. 18:20).

Socially,marriage was of particular import for a woman in the ancient world,for her well-being usually depended on her place within the house ofeither her father or her husband. Because inheritance was passed downthe male line, women without connection to the house of a man were ina very tenuous state. Inheritance itself was also an important issuein the ancient world, and so great value was placed not just onmarriage but also on bearing children (particularly male [see alsoFirstborn]). Associated with these social functions of marriage inancient Israel is the fact that the OT permits and records a numberof instances of polygamy (always polygyny, never polyandry). Thisafforded social security to widows (see also Levirate Law, LevirateMarriage) and helped ensure the line of inheritance. It should benoted, however, that neither the welfare aspect of marriage nor therelated acceptance of polygamy is based on the biblical foundationfor marriage in Gen. 2, and consequently, polygamy does not reflectthe biblical ideal for marriage.

Thefundamental importance of the marriage relationship is alsohighlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g.,Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).

Marriagein the New Testament

Jesusreinforces the importance of marriage, emphasizing its divine originand lifelong nature (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9) as well as itsinviolability (Mark 10:2–12). In light of this, Jesus’assertion that at the resurrection there will be no marriage issurprising (Matt. 22:30). Although Jesus offers no explanation as towhy there will be no marriage following the resurrection, it isperhaps likely that the fundamental need identified by God in Gen.2:18 (the man was alone) will be solved in a different manner in theage to come: the intimate help and companionship ideally found inmarriage will be provided in perfected relationship with God and allothers.

Paulelaborates somewhat on marriage in the Christian community. Christianmarriage ought to be characterized by mutual submission in somerespects (1Cor. 7:4; Eph. 5:21) while reflecting someasymmetrical aspects of the relationship between Christ and thechurch in others (Eph. 5:22–33). Christians ought to marrywithin the church (2Cor. 6:14–18, although this passageis not restricted to marriage); however, those who are married tononbelievers are not to seek divorce, but are to remain faithful totheir spouses for the sake of both the spouse and their children(1Cor. 7:10–16).

TheNT makes reference to some of the marriage customs of the day,including sharing a feast (Matt. 22:2–12; Luke 12:36; John2:1–11), the expectation that guests be suitably attired (Matt.22:11–12), and a procession to the groom’s home (Matt.25:1–13; Luke 12:35–38).

SymbolicUse of Marriage

Marriageis used figuratively in both Testaments. The relationship between Godand his people is described with marriage language (Isa. 62:4–5;Jer. 2:2). By using such language, the prophets emphasize theintimacy and unity inherent in the relationship between God and hischosen people, as well as the devastating betrayal when the covenantis broken. The use of the marriage metaphor is thus extended to theuse of divorce language to describe God’s treatment ofunfaithful Israel (Jer. 3:8), and the notion of adultery andpromiscuity is equated with the worship of foreign gods (Ezek. 16;23). The prophet Hosea’s marriage is itself a graphicrepresentation of God’s relationship with his people and, inparticular, their faithlessness; however, it also holds out theanticipation of a new covenant, one wherein God declares, “Youwill call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘mymaster’ ” (Hos. 2:16). The metaphorical use ofmarriage to image the relationship between God and his people alsoreflects the implicit belief in the asymmetrical nature of therelationship between husband and wife in the ancient world.

TheNT primarily identifies the church as the bride and Christ as thehusband when using marriage language figuratively (e.g., Eph.5:22–33). In so doing, the NT affirms Christ’s deity byexplicitly depicting him in the place occupied by God in the OT’suse of marriage symbolism. Jesus uses marriage in his parabolicteaching about the kingdom of God (Matt. 22:2–14; 25:1–12),as well as in reference to himself as bridegroom when explaining thebehavior of his disciples (Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35).Revelation depicts the return of Christ as the time of the marriagebetween the bride and the bridegroom (Rev. 19:7; 21:9).

The acquisition of another’s property by force orthreat. This crime was perpetrated by bandits (Hos. 7:1), oftenthrough ambush (Judg. 9:25). In Jesus’ parable of the goodSamaritan, the robbers’ attack leaves the victim half dead(Luke 10:30). The eighth commandment’s prohibition againststealing (Exod. 20:15; Deut. 5:19) certainly includes robbery, whichis explicitly condemned in Lev. 19:13. OT law does not distinguishrobbery from theft, which is done by stealth or deception, likelybecause the unlawful seizure of another’s goods was seen as acivil crime and the legal emphasis was on the restitution of propertyalong with some compensation for distress, which varied according tothe item stolen and served as a deterrent to thieves (Exod. 22:1, 4;Lev. 6:1–7). If unable to make restitution, the criminal couldbe sold into slavery to pay the debt (Exod. 22:3). Should theviolence of robbery result in injury, laws concerning personal injuryapplied (Exod. 21:23–25; Lev. 24:19–20). In fact, undercertain conditions, the law addresses an injured thief as the victimand not the perpetrator of violence (Exod. 22:2–3). The two mencrucified with Jesus are traditionally described as “robbers”(Matt. 27:38; Mark 15:27), though in this case the Greek word(lēstēs)likely refers to rebels or insurrectionists (NLT: “revolutionaries”).This was the Roman authorities’ way of casting them as commoncriminals rather than as freedom fighters.

Goddeclares his hatred for robbery, contrasting it with justice (Isa.61:8). Robbery is often an example of injustice, especially whenperpetrated upon the poor (Isa. 10:2; Ezek. 22:29). Rescuing a victimfrom a robber is enjoined as a just action (Jer. 21:12; 22:3), onefor which God himself deserves praise (Ps. 35:10). God describeshimself as the victim of robbery as he accuses Israel of stealingfrom him by withholding its tithes (Mal. 3:8–9).

Greekhas two different words to distinguish a robber (lēstēs)from a thief (kleptēs).In the NT, robbery appears primarily as a metaphor. Jesus uses it torepresent false prophets (John 10:1, 8), his own plunder of Satan’shouse (Matt. 12:29; Mark 3:27), and, in a reference from Jer. 7:11,those seeking economic gain in the temple (Matt. 21:13; Mark 11:17;Luke 19:46).

A Sabbath day’s walk or journey describes the maximumdistance a faithful Jew could walk on the Sabbath day withoutbecoming guilty of violating the fourth commandment, which prohibitsworking on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8–11). This expression is useda single time in Scripture (Acts 1:12) to describe the distance fromthe city of Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives. Traditionally, theJewish rabbis considered a Sabbath day’s walk to be a distanceof no more than twelve hundred yards, or about two-thirds of a mile.

Theidea of a Sabbath day’s walk illustrates the mind-set of Jewishlegalism on matters where Scripture is silent. On the one hand, theJewish rabbis had a potentially legitimate concern to make theprinciples of God’s word practical and applicable to theaverage person in everyday life. On the other hand, they often endedup making arbitrary decisions that had no scriptural warrant. Evenworse, as Jesus pointed out, these Jewish leaders often became sopreoccupied with minor matters of the law that they “neglectedthe more important matters of the law—justice, mercy andfaithfulness” (Matt. 23:23), or in this case, on the positivecommand of keeping the Sabbath day holy.

When God creates humans, he pronounces them “verygood/beautiful” (Gen. 1:31). They are designed to bemagnificent visual displays of God’s character (1:26–27).Human sexuality originally is set in a context of overwhelmingbeauty. God’s first command is to reproduce and extend thisparadise throughout the earth (1:28). Human sexuality is not simply amechanism for reproduction. From the outset it has been aboutcompletion, without which there is loneliness (2:18).

Althoughthe Bible does not define the distinctives of masculinity andfemininity in any detail, it does defend that there are distinctionsbetween the genders. Behaviors that confuse the genders areexplicitly condemned (Deut. 22:5; 1Cor. 6:9; 11:4–16).

hom*osexualintercourse (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1Cor. 6:9;1Tim. 1:10) and intercourse with an animal (Exod. 22:19; Lev.18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21) are violations of God’screated order.

Nakedness

“Nakedness”is confined to the genitals and buttocks (Exod. 20:26; Isa. 20:2–4;Ezek. 23:18, 29; Nah. 3:5) and, after the fall, is synonymous withshame (Gen. 3:7–10; 1Sam. 20:30; Isa. 47:3; Jer. 13:26;Mic. 1:11; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18; cf. Rom. 1:23–24; 1Cor.12:23–24). A woman’s breasts are recognized as erotic(Prov. 5:19; Ezek. 23:3, 21) but not shameful. God slaughters ananimal in order to cover nakedness (Gen. 3:21). Ultimately, when sinand death are removed and the body raised, the redeemed will have noshame and will be clothed only in their righteousness (Rev. 19:5–9).

Exposingnakedness is an action used to humiliate enemies (2Sam. 10:4–5;1Chron. 10:9; Isa. 47:3). Jesus is stripped naked (Matt. 27:28,35–36). Violating another’s nakedness includes touchingor seeing (Deut. 25:11) and produces extreme personal disgrace (Lev.18:6–19 NASB; Hab. 2:15–16). It is an act of grace tocover another’s nakedness (Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7, 16). To eventalk or laugh about inappropriate exposure brings dishonor (Gen.9:21–23). The overarching principle is purity (Lev. 18:24).

Marriageand Adultery

Althoughdamaged by sin, marriage continues to be the ultimate humanrelationship involving intimacy, privacy, and liberty. Marriage isdefined by a covenant—a contract witnessed and enforceable, notjust a promise made in private. The couple separate from theirparents to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

Oncethe marriage contract is agreed upon, the couple are married. Theycannot consummate the marriage until the economic commitments of thecontract have been delivered (Matt. 1:18; 25:1–13). This iscelebrated with a feast. Jesus uses this custom as an analogy for hisdeparture and return (John 14:1–3).

Paulcommands husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25–33; cf. Gen.24:67; 29:20; 1Sam. 1:5; Eccles. 9:9; Song 8:6–7).Nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to love her husband, thougholder women should teach younger women to do so (Titus 2:3–4).Love is the husband’s responsibility. Love is a command thatcan be obeyed, not just a pleasurable feeling over which one has nocontrol. The model of husbandly love is Jesus laying down his lifefor his people.

Theecstasy of making love is celebrated in the erotic Song of Songs,which holds out the hope of such marital delight even now. The axiomof marriage is a righteous jealousy (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num.5:14, 30; Prov. 6:34).

Thefirst year of marriage is especially important and is protected byexemption from military service (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).

Whena man dies without a male heir, his widow’s possession of thatpart of the family estate can result in her marrying a man fromanother family and so alienating that land. This can be resolvedeither by the injustice of eviction or by the device of leviratemarriage. The nearest male relative of the deceased husband marriesthe widow, and their son then inherits the deceased husband’sname and title to the land (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth).

Concubinesare wives from poor families, slaves, or captives, and theirmarriages are protected (Exod. 21:7–9; Deut. 21:11–14).

Rapeof a married woman constitutes adultery by the rapist, not thevictim. Consensual sex with a married woman is adultery by bothparties. Rape of a single woman is treated as fornication, with noblame attached to the woman. Her father has the option of letting hermarry the man or receiving significant financial compensation (Exod.22:16–17; Deut. 22:23–27). Her father has the right totake the money and refuse the marriage. To falsely accuse a woman ofadultery is a crime (Deut. 22:13–21).

Prostitutionis an extreme form of adultery or fornication and totally forbidden(Lev. 19:29; Deut. 23:17). Under the new covenant, this warning isheightened by the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit transformingeach believer into the temple of the Lord (1Cor. 6:15–20).

Originally,marriage between siblings is implied (Gen. 4:17, 26; 5:4). Abrammarried his half sister, Sarai (Gen. 20:12; cf. Gen. 11:29; Num.26:59). The Mosaic covenant at Sinai bans marriage to bloodrelationships closer than first cousins and to in-laws (Lev. 18:6–30;cf. 2Sam. 13; 1Cor. 5:1).

Polygamyoccurs soon after the fall (Gen. 4:19–24). It is neverexplicitly forbidden in the Bible, but it is managed by OT law so asto restrain further injustice and damage. It is always seen as lessthan satisfactory (cf. Gen. 29–30; 1Sam. 1:6; 2Sam.13; 1Kings 1–2; 11). In the NT, monogamy is mandatory forthose who would lead the church (1Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).(See also Premarital and Extramarital Sex.)

Self-Controland Purity

Theviolation of sexual purity is a decision of the heart (Ezek. 23:11;Matt. 5:28). The biblical concept of lust entails more than justphysical arousal. It involves a strong desire for/coveting of (cf.James 1:14–15) something that one has no right to acquire. Thisestablishes both the need for self-control (Titus 2:5–6) andthe availability of appropriate options (1Cor. 7:2, 5, 9).Masturbation is nowhere mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 38:9 is aboutfailure to fulfill the levirate). The critical issue is lust.

Sexualmisconduct is never the responsibility of the victim (Deut. 22:25).Nevertheless, for reasons of personal safety as well as out ofconcern for one another, the family of Christ must practice modestyin dress (1Tim. 2:9) and consider how to build one another uprather than put stumbling blocks in each other’s way.

Godalways provides the believer with what is necessary to resisttemptation and make the right choices (1Cor. 10:13).Consequently, a significant aspect of every parent’s role is toteach godly sexual wisdom to children before they face suchchallenges (cf. Prov. 1–9).

Thegospel requires us to view sexuality from a wider perspective.Reproduction also occurs through the preaching of the gospel, callingforth new birth and a new people (Matt. 28:18–20). This gospelcall will divide families (Luke 12:53). Singleness is no barrier toone’s ability to fulfill the command to multiply and fill theearth (Isa. 56:3–8). In times of distress it may be better toremain single (1Cor. 7, esp. v.26). This is also a giftof God (1Cor. 7:7), given to equip one for the fulfillment ofthe gospel commission.

When God creates humans, he pronounces them “verygood/beautiful” (Gen. 1:31). They are designed to bemagnificent visual displays of God’s character (1:26–27).Human sexuality originally is set in a context of overwhelmingbeauty. God’s first command is to reproduce and extend thisparadise throughout the earth (1:28). Human sexuality is not simply amechanism for reproduction. From the outset it has been aboutcompletion, without which there is loneliness (2:18).

Althoughthe Bible does not define the distinctives of masculinity andfemininity in any detail, it does defend that there are distinctionsbetween the genders. Behaviors that confuse the genders areexplicitly condemned (Deut. 22:5; 1Cor. 6:9; 11:4–16).

hom*osexualintercourse (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1Cor. 6:9;1Tim. 1:10) and intercourse with an animal (Exod. 22:19; Lev.18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21) are violations of God’screated order.

Nakedness

“Nakedness”is confined to the genitals and buttocks (Exod. 20:26; Isa. 20:2–4;Ezek. 23:18, 29; Nah. 3:5) and, after the fall, is synonymous withshame (Gen. 3:7–10; 1Sam. 20:30; Isa. 47:3; Jer. 13:26;Mic. 1:11; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18; cf. Rom. 1:23–24; 1Cor.12:23–24). A woman’s breasts are recognized as erotic(Prov. 5:19; Ezek. 23:3, 21) but not shameful. God slaughters ananimal in order to cover nakedness (Gen. 3:21). Ultimately, when sinand death are removed and the body raised, the redeemed will have noshame and will be clothed only in their righteousness (Rev. 19:5–9).

Exposingnakedness is an action used to humiliate enemies (2Sam. 10:4–5;1Chron. 10:9; Isa. 47:3). Jesus is stripped naked (Matt. 27:28,35–36). Violating another’s nakedness includes touchingor seeing (Deut. 25:11) and produces extreme personal disgrace (Lev.18:6–19 NASB; Hab. 2:15–16). It is an act of grace tocover another’s nakedness (Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7, 16). To eventalk or laugh about inappropriate exposure brings dishonor (Gen.9:21–23). The overarching principle is purity (Lev. 18:24).

Marriageand Adultery

Althoughdamaged by sin, marriage continues to be the ultimate humanrelationship involving intimacy, privacy, and liberty. Marriage isdefined by a covenant—a contract witnessed and enforceable, notjust a promise made in private. The couple separate from theirparents to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

Oncethe marriage contract is agreed upon, the couple are married. Theycannot consummate the marriage until the economic commitments of thecontract have been delivered (Matt. 1:18; 25:1–13). This iscelebrated with a feast. Jesus uses this custom as an analogy for hisdeparture and return (John 14:1–3).

Paulcommands husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25–33; cf. Gen.24:67; 29:20; 1Sam. 1:5; Eccles. 9:9; Song 8:6–7).Nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to love her husband, thougholder women should teach younger women to do so (Titus 2:3–4).Love is the husband’s responsibility. Love is a command thatcan be obeyed, not just a pleasurable feeling over which one has nocontrol. The model of husbandly love is Jesus laying down his lifefor his people.

Theecstasy of making love is celebrated in the erotic Song of Songs,which holds out the hope of such marital delight even now. The axiomof marriage is a righteous jealousy (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num.5:14, 30; Prov. 6:34).

Thefirst year of marriage is especially important and is protected byexemption from military service (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).

Whena man dies without a male heir, his widow’s possession of thatpart of the family estate can result in her marrying a man fromanother family and so alienating that land. This can be resolvedeither by the injustice of eviction or by the device of leviratemarriage. The nearest male relative of the deceased husband marriesthe widow, and their son then inherits the deceased husband’sname and title to the land (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth).

Concubinesare wives from poor families, slaves, or captives, and theirmarriages are protected (Exod. 21:7–9; Deut. 21:11–14).

Rapeof a married woman constitutes adultery by the rapist, not thevictim. Consensual sex with a married woman is adultery by bothparties. Rape of a single woman is treated as fornication, with noblame attached to the woman. Her father has the option of letting hermarry the man or receiving significant financial compensation (Exod.22:16–17; Deut. 22:23–27). Her father has the right totake the money and refuse the marriage. To falsely accuse a woman ofadultery is a crime (Deut. 22:13–21).

Prostitutionis an extreme form of adultery or fornication and totally forbidden(Lev. 19:29; Deut. 23:17). Under the new covenant, this warning isheightened by the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit transformingeach believer into the temple of the Lord (1Cor. 6:15–20).

Originally,marriage between siblings is implied (Gen. 4:17, 26; 5:4). Abrammarried his half sister, Sarai (Gen. 20:12; cf. Gen. 11:29; Num.26:59). The Mosaic covenant at Sinai bans marriage to bloodrelationships closer than first cousins and to in-laws (Lev. 18:6–30;cf. 2Sam. 13; 1Cor. 5:1).

Polygamyoccurs soon after the fall (Gen. 4:19–24). It is neverexplicitly forbidden in the Bible, but it is managed by OT law so asto restrain further injustice and damage. It is always seen as lessthan satisfactory (cf. Gen. 29–30; 1Sam. 1:6; 2Sam.13; 1Kings 1–2; 11). In the NT, monogamy is mandatory forthose who would lead the church (1Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).(See also Premarital and Extramarital Sex.)

Self-Controland Purity

Theviolation of sexual purity is a decision of the heart (Ezek. 23:11;Matt. 5:28). The biblical concept of lust entails more than justphysical arousal. It involves a strong desire for/coveting of (cf.James 1:14–15) something that one has no right to acquire. Thisestablishes both the need for self-control (Titus 2:5–6) andthe availability of appropriate options (1Cor. 7:2, 5, 9).Masturbation is nowhere mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 38:9 is aboutfailure to fulfill the levirate). The critical issue is lust.

Sexualmisconduct is never the responsibility of the victim (Deut. 22:25).Nevertheless, for reasons of personal safety as well as out ofconcern for one another, the family of Christ must practice modestyin dress (1Tim. 2:9) and consider how to build one another uprather than put stumbling blocks in each other’s way.

Godalways provides the believer with what is necessary to resisttemptation and make the right choices (1Cor. 10:13).Consequently, a significant aspect of every parent’s role is toteach godly sexual wisdom to children before they face suchchallenges (cf. Prov. 1–9).

Thegospel requires us to view sexuality from a wider perspective.Reproduction also occurs through the preaching of the gospel, callingforth new birth and a new people (Matt. 28:18–20). This gospelcall will divide families (Luke 12:53). Singleness is no barrier toone’s ability to fulfill the command to multiply and fill theearth (Isa. 56:3–8). In times of distress it may be better toremain single (1Cor. 7, esp. v.26). This is also a giftof God (1Cor. 7:7), given to equip one for the fulfillment ofthe gospel commission.

In the ancient world, shame and honor are two binaryopposites used to depict one’s status or behavior, which aculture approves or disapproves. The system of honor and shame servesas a primary means of social control. Thus, knowing how to act toconform to the code of social behavior expected by one’s groupis essential to the maintenance of that community.

Inthe Bible, the noun “honor” is representedby kabod (from the verb “to be heavy”) in the OT, and bytimē (from the verb “to honor”) in the NT. Thereverse of honor is shame, which is represented by a varietyof Hebrew and Greek terms, such as boshet in the OT, and aischynēin the NT.

InIsrael, the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26; cf. Num. 5:2–3;8:6–7, 14–15) is comparable to the code of honor andshame. As a covenant community, Israel has the obligation to abide bythe sanction imposed by God to attain honor (Deut. 4:6–8;26:18–19; Pss. 34:5, 8–9; 37:18–19; 127:5; cf.2Chron. 26:18; Pss. 8:5; 62:7; 84:11; Rom. 2:7–11).Israel is honored (Exod. 32:11–12; Deut. 32:26–27) beforethe nations when God’s honor is upheld (Exod. 7:5; 10:1–2;14:4, 17–18). Violation of covenantal stipulations—forexample, deceptions in trading (Deut. 25:16), acts of “abomination”(Lev. 18:17, 22–23, 26–29), idolatry (Deut. 31:20;32:15–17), and failure to perform duties prescribed in the law(Deut. 25:7–10)—results in disgrace before others (Exod.32:25) and God (Deut. 28:25–26, 37).

Thestatus of honor can be ascribed to an individual. A person is morehonorable who is the firstborn (Gen. 49:3), comes from an esteemedfamily (Ps. 45:9), or is married into a dignified family (Gen. 41:45;Ruth 4:5). This worth will last a lifetime unless the reputation ofthe family is compromised, either because of economics (Ruth 1:1–21)or violation of the codes of conduct, such as adultery and incest(Exod. 20:14; Lev. 18:20; 20:10–21; Deut. 5:18; 22:22; Prov.6:32–33), though not necessarily divorce (Deut. 24:1–4).Certain groups of people are honored because of special privilegegranted to them (Prov. 8:15–16; Dan. 2:21; Rom. 13:1–5)—forexample, priests (Exod. 28:2, 40; Ps. 110:4; Heb. 7:21), kings (Ps.2:7), sages (Prov. 3:35), Israel (Exod. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; 8:11–9:7;26:16–19), and the church (1Pet. 2:9).

Wealthsymbolizes one’s status and claims respect for its owners (Gen.12:10–20; 14:21–24; 1Kings 3:13; Prov. 3:16; 8:18;22:4; Ps. 49:16; Isa. 61:6, 12) but does not equate the state ofbeing poor with shame (cf. Ps. 12:5) unless it is a result of morallassitude (Prov. 13:18). Parts of the human body symbolize worth andvalue. Certain parts of the body are less honorable than others, andto expose them is to invite disgrace (2Sam. 10:4–5;1Chron. 19:4; Isa. 20:4; 1Cor. 12:23–24).

Thestatus of honor can also be achieved by an individual’s merits(cf. Rom. 2:7–11). Certain types of behavior are honorable—forexample, humility (Prov. 15:33; 18:12; 29:23), taking care of one’smaster (Prov. 27:18), honoring parents (Exod. 20:12; 21:15; 22:28;Prov. 19:26; Mal. 1:6; Matt. 15:4; Eph. 6:2), good service (Gen.45:13), military exploits (2Sam. 23:19–23; cf. 2Chron.32:21), almsgiving and justice (Prov. 21:21). One important aspect ofachieving honor is the pursuit of wisdom. The ways of wisdom arehonorable (Prov. 3:16–17; 4:8; 8:18), preserving a person fromdishonor (Prov. 3:16–17, 31–33, 35; 24:14), but the waysof folly, such as injustice (Prov. 1:22; 14:31) and dishonoringparents (Prov. 30:17; cf. Exod. 20:12; 21:15; Lev. 20:9; Deut.27:16), are a disgrace (Prov. 20:3; 26:1). The failure to performone’s duty (Gen. 40:1–3) or a defeat in battle (Isa.23:9; Lam. 1:8; Nah. 3:10) results in shame and, accordingly, loss ofsocial status (Isa. 16:14; 23:9; Jer. 46:12; Lam. 1:6, 8; Hos. 4:7).An ultimate form of disgrace is to be hanged for public viewing(Deut. 21:22–23; Esther 5:14; 7:7–10; Matt. 27:32–44;Mark 15:22–32; Luke 23:33–43; John 19:17–24; 1Cor.1:18–25). In a patriarchal society, the status of women isobtained through their sexual exclusiveness. Their chastity (Gen.38:24; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:13–21; cf. 2Sam. 13:13; Song8:8–9) and fertility (Gen. 16:2; 30:2; 1Sam. 1:3–8)become indicators of family and social worth.

Pieces of metal stamped with a particular impression, used asa medium of exchange. From time immemorial people used animals,grain, or other commodities to barter (Hos. 3:2), pay taxes (1 Sam.8:15), or as a measure of wealth (Job 1:3). Substituting smaller,more easily handled pieces of precious metal had obvious advantages.Gradually people used precious metal such as silver or gold alongwith commodities (Gen. 20:14–16) and then in place of them(37:28) as a means of payment. Such metal had been refined, but itcould have been in most any form (rings, bars, ingots, dust) as longas it weighed the appropriate amount. Local and internationalstandards developed to regulate the weights, and later the conceptgrew in popularity to use standard, authorized, clearly stampedpieces of precious metal—coins.

OldTestament. Mintingof coins may have begun as far back as the late eighth century BC,and it gradually spread throughout the known world. The first coinsapparently were made in Asia Minor using electrum, a natural alloy ofgold and silver.

Whenthe Persians took over much of the ancient Near East in the sixthcentury BC, the use of coins spread, and Persian coins came to theland of the Bible. At the end of the Hebrew Bible there is mention oflarge quantities of Persian coins called “darics”(1 Chron. 29:7; Ezra 8:27), also translated as “drachmas”(NASB) or “drams” (KJV) (Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70–72).These darics were stamped with the likeness of Darius the Great(521–486 BC) and were minted from gold and occasionally silver.At about the same time, silver tetradrachmas (four-drachma coins)from Athens made their way to the western shores of theMediterranean. Local imitations of this coin were stamped with “YHD”to represent the province of Judah.

NewTestament.Coins appear dozens of times in the NT; some have Hellenistic roots,while others come from the periods of Hasmonean or Roman rule.

Forseveral centuries after Alexander the Great conquered the ancientNear East (fourth century BC), coins with the images of Alexander orhis Seleucid or Ptolemaic successors were circulated in Judea. Inparticular, silver shekels from the Phoenician port cities of Tyreand Sidon enjoyed wide usage for a long time. Also called a “stater,”the shekel or four-drachma coin recovered by Peter from the fish’smouth (Matt. 17:27) may have been such a Tyrian coin. Many or all ofthe thirty silver coins that the chief priests gave Judas forbetraying Jesus (Matt. 26:15; 27:3) probably were Tyrian shekels aswell, since this coin came to be the accepted currency at the templein Jerusalem and the priests would have had a good supply of them.

Afterthe Hellenistic rulers lost control of Judea during the rebellion ledby the Maccabean or Hasmonean family in the second century BC, theJews could mint their own coins for the first time. The honor ofproducing the first Jewish coin apparently goes to John Hyrcanus I(134–104 BC), son of Simon and nephew of Judas Maccabeus.Simon’s modest bronze lepton (pl. lepta), or prutah, has aninscription on one side and two cornucopias and a pomegranate on theother. Use of such agricultural symbols apparently fulfilled twopurposes: it portrayed the fertility of the land that God had givenhis people, and it helped the Jews avoid depicting people on coins,as the Greeks and later the Romans would do. During this perioddevout Jews avoided such images in order to help fulfill the secondcommandment (Exod. 20:4), to avoid graven images. Hyrcanus I’sson Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BC) minted great quantities ofdifferent types of bronze lepta, still often found in excavations inIsrael today. These coins remained in circulation for many years,probably through the ministry of Jesus. Thus, the two small coins forwhich Jesus commended the widow for donating to the temple treasury(Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2) may well have been lepta of AlexanderJannaeus. The tiny lepton, typically smaller than a dime and worthonly 1/400 of a shekel, also appears in Luke 12:59.

Itis also possible that the aforementioned lepta were not minted byAlexander Jannaeus, since later rulers, including the Jewish kingHerod the Great (40–4 BC), also minted large numbers of similarsmall bronze coins. Though not known for his piety, Herod continuedto avoid human representations on his coins. For the most part, sodid his sons and the later Roman procurators (including PontiusPilate [governed AD 26–36]), who ruled Judea before the revoltin AD 66.

OtherRoman coins, such as the silver denarius (pl. denarii) minted outsideJudea, clearly did not avoid human representation, however. Jesus’request for a coin with Caesar’s image and inscription (Matt.22:15–22) refers to the denarius. The denarius in Jesus’day could have portrayed the emperor Tiberius (r. AD 14–37) oreven Augustus (r. 27 BC–AD 14), whose coins were probably stillin circulation. The silver denarius came to represent the daily wageof a common laborer, as clearly shown in the parable of laborers(Matt. 20:1–16). The denarius also appears in many otherpassages, although modern translators sometimes use a moreinterpretive expression (“two silver coins” for “twodenarii” in Luke 10:35; “a year’s wages” for“three hundred denarii” in Mark 14:5).

Althoughmany of the references discussed above contain specific terms thatcan be identified with coins known from history, others cannot.General terms meaning “coins” or “pieces of money”sometimes appear, as when Jesus scattered the coins of the moneychangers (John 2:15), or the rather common term for silver thatappears frequently and is often translated as “money”(Matt. 28:12; Luke 9:3) or “silver” (Acts 3:6; 1 Pet.1:18) as well as “silver coins” (Matt. 27:3 GW).

The Bible has much to say about suffering. While in the OTsuffering is regularly an indication of divine displeasure (Lev.26:16–36; Deut. 28:20–68; Ps. 44:10–12; Isa. 1:25;cf. Heb. 10:26–31), in the NT it becomes the means by whichblessing comes to humanity.

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

Theprayers of suffering people are expressed in the sixteen communal andthirty-seven individual laments in the book of Psalms. Within thelaments the writers describe their problems, express feelings, makerequests, ask questions (“How long, Lord?” [13:1]; “Whyhave you forsaken me?” [22:1]), and lodge complaints againstGod (“My eyes fail, looking for my God [69:3]), enemies (“Youhave made us an object of derision to our neighbors, and our enemiesmock us” [80:6]), and even themselves (“I am a worm andnot a man” [22:6]).

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

Thereare many NT examples of suffering believers (John 15:20–21;Acts 4:3; 5:18; 7:57–60; 8:1–3; 12:1–5; 14:19;16:22–24; 18:17; 2Cor. 6:4–5, 8–10; Heb.10:32; 1Pet. 5:9; Rev. 2:10). Suffering is part of God’splan for his people (Acts 9:16; 1Thess. 3:2–4) and ispart of what it means to be a follower of Christ Jesus (Acts 14:22;Rom. 8:17; Phil. 1:29; 1Pet. 2:21; 4:12).

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

Sufferingis associated with knowing Christ (Phil. 3:10); daily inward renewal(2Cor. 4:16); purity, understanding, patience, kindness,sincere love, truthful speech, the power of God (2Cor. 4:4–10);comfort and endurance (2Cor. 1:6); obedience (Heb. 5:8);blessing (1Pet. 3:14; 4:14); glory (Rom. 8:17; 2Cor.4:17); and joy (Matt. 5:12; Acts 5:41; 2Cor. 6:10; 12:10; James1:2; 1Pet. 1:6; 4:13). Other positive results of Christiansuffering include perseverance (Rom. 5:3; James 1:3), character andhope (Rom. 5:4), strength (2Cor. 12:10), and maturity andcompleteness (James 1:4). Present suffering is light and momentarywhen compared to future glory (Matt. 5:10–12; Acts 14:22; Rom.8:18; 2Cor. 4:17; Heb. 10:34–36; 1Pet. 1:5–7;4:12–13).

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

Another name for Sunday, this term reminds us that this daybelongs to the Lord and should be used for his honor and glory. Theterm itself is used only once in Scripture, where John mentions howhe was in the Spirit “on the Lord’s Day” whenChrist commissioned him to write the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:10).There are no other specific details clearly given in Scripture aboutthe identification of this day or how it was observed. Ourunderstanding of this term and how it fits in with other passages ofScripture touches on three separate issues.

Aspecial day.First, should Christians today celebrate any day of the week in aspecial way? At least some believers throughout history have believedthat it is possible to observe every day of the week as equallyspecial in the sense that “this is the day that the Lord hasmade; let us rejoice and be glad in it” (Ps. 118:24 ESV). Paulregards the observance of special days for worship as an area ofChristian freedom: “One person considers one day more sacredthan another; another considers every day alike. Each of them shouldbe fully convinced in their own mind” (Rom. 14:5). The sameprinciple is found in Col. 2:16: “Therefore do not let anyonejudge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religiousfestival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.”Nevertheless, most Christians have concluded that the expression “theLord’s Day” clearly points to a specific day during theweek when the Lord is to be worshiped in a special way.

Aspecific day.Second, which day of the week should we celebrate in a special way?When is the Lord’s Day? For OT believers, the answer is clear:it is the last, or seventh, day of the week. In the Bible, both theidea of a seven-day week and the setting apart of the seventh day arebased ultimately on the creation account in Gen. 2:1–3. ThisSabbath principle is codified in the Ten Commandments, which indicatethat the Sabbath is to be kept holy by requiring people and theiranimals not to engage in work (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15).Observance of the seventh day, or Sabbath, continues among Jews inthe present. More recently, other groups, such as Seventh-DayAdventists and Seventh-Day Baptists, have felt the weight of this OTevidence and have continued to observe Saturday as the proper day forworship.

Nevertheless,most Christians have been persuaded by the practice of the earlychurch to gather together for worship on the first day of the week.Two key passages of Scripture provide support for this conclusion. InActs 20:7 the church had gathered for the Lord’s Supperspecifically “on the first day of the week,” and in1Cor. 16:2 Paul instructs the church at Corinth to collect anoffering specifically “on the first day of every week”(presumably during its local weekly meetings). Thus, most Christianshave concluded that they are no longer under the OT observance of theSabbath as the seventh day of the week (cf. Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:16),and now they are to worship in honor of Jesus’ resurrection “onthe first day of the week” (Matt. 28:1 pars.).

Asacred day.Third, how should we celebrate this day? The Puritans and othersthroughout church history have considered Sunday as the ChristianSabbath. In other words, they made the shift from the seventh day ofthe week in the OT to the first day of the week in the church age,but they believed that all the OT rules and regulations for theSabbath were still binding on believers today. Nevertheless, mostChristians today accept Sunday as the “Lord’s Day,”when they worship in a NT manner and not under the letter of the OTceremonial law, with its focus primarily on resting or not working.Under the OT system there was no concept of people gathering togetheron a regular weekly basis for corporate worship. OT worship revolvedaround various annual feasts and festivals when people would gathertogether at the central temple in Jerusalem a few times each year.The idea of weekly worship services emerged only later, during theBabylonian captivity, with the development of the Jewish synagogue.Thus, most Christians have concluded that Sunday is no longer atransposed OT Sabbath, but rather the NT Lord’s Day, andconsequently that it should be celebrated accordingly, as when “theydevoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship,to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42).

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.

Terminology

Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.

Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.

Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).

Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.

“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).

Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.

Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).

Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.

Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).

Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).

Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).

Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

TheCovenant Genre

Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.

1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.

3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.

Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.

(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).

(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.

(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.

(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).

(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).

4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.

Covenantsin the Bible

Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.

Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.

TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.

Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.

Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).

Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.

Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.

Terminology

Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.

Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.

Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).

Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.

“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).

Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.

Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).

Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.

Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).

Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).

Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).

Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

TheCovenant Genre

Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.

1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.

3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.

Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.

(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).

(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.

(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.

(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).

(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).

4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.

Covenantsin the Bible

Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.

Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.

TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.

Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.

Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).

Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.

Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).

From the Latin word tabula (“board”), “table”first denoted any flat surface, but especially one of wood or stoneused for writing (Exod. 20:2–17). The Ten Commandments wereoriginally inscribed upon two tables of stone. Eventually “table”in this sense was replaced by “tablet” (see Tablet).

Tableswere used for eating, working, and displaying objects: domestictables (Judg. 1:7; 1Sam. 20:29), temple tables of Yahweh(2Chron. 4:8; Ezek. 40:39–43) or of heathen gods (Isa.65:11), the “Lord’s table” (Mal. 1:7, 12), and thetable for the bread of the Presence in the sanctuary (Exod. 25:23–30;1Kings 7:48; Heb. 9:2).

Tablesfound in the ancient Near East usually stood no more than eighteeninches high. Most were made of wood (2Kings 4:10), but thewealthy had tables of ornate stone. It was a great honor to beinvited to eat at or be given food from the king’s table(2Sam. 9:7, 10–13; 1Kings 2:7; 4:27; Dan. 1:5). Thecustom of the rich reclining on couches around a low table (Amos 6:4;cf. 3:12) became commonplace in NT times. Although dining at a tablewas customary (Luke 22:21; Acts 6:2), to eat under the table was fordogs and the despised (Judg. 1:7; Matt. 15:27; Mark 7:28; Luke16:21). Money changers used tables as stands where money wasexchanged (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15).

Figuratively,“table” was used to represent the meal on which it wasserved. In the ancient Near East, eating with others expressedintimate fellowship and trust, yet Jesus shared table fellowship withJudas (Luke 22:21). At the Lord’s Table (i.e., Communion,Eucharist), Jesus is the host, who invites us to remember him as weeat (1Cor. 10:21; 11:23–26). The imagery of a banquettable of thanksgiving is used to depict God’s provision for hispeople (Pss. 23:5; 78:19).

The Ten Commandments are also identified as the Decalogue,meaning the “Ten Words.” These commands are part of theBible’s legal literature revealed by God to his people Israel.They are the words of the covenant (Exod. 34:28) and define Yahweh’scovenant relationship with Israel. Some biblical laws are conditionaland written in the style of case law, which employs an “if... then” personalized format (most of Exod.21:2–22:17; Deut. 21:18–19; 22:6–9; 23:21–25;24:10–12). Other laws are stated in absolute terms: “youshall...” or “you shall not...”(Exod. 22:18–23:19). The latter, second-person formatcharacterizes the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut.5:6–21).

TheTen Commandments were revealed at Mount Sinai after the exodus fromEgypt and prior to the conquest of the land (Exod. 20:1–17).These laws were restated with some variation to a second generationof Israelites approximately thirty-eight years later in Moab, east ofthe Jordan River (Deut. 5:1–5). Because the postexodusgeneration refused to believe God and enter the land, theyexperienced the wrath of God, which brought their demise over athirty-eight-year period. God then renewed his covenant with thesucceeding generation and made preparations for them to enter thepromised land (Deut. 2).

TheTen Commandments are prefaced with a staggering manifestation of God(Exod. 19) that accentuates his awesome character. This theophanyrevealed the transcendent God, who speaks his word to his people fromheaven as the Great King. At this point in redemptive history, Israelwas established as an independent nation, and the mediatorial role ofMoses was confirmed (Exod. 19:9). The declaration of divine law doesnot mean the absence of grace. The grace of redemption in the exoduspreceded the statement of law at Sinai. In both Exodus andDeuteronomy, the Decalogue is prefaced by God’s statement: “Iam the Lord your God” (Exod. 20:2; Deut. 5:6) to underscore theimportance of relationship.

InDeuteronomy, the Ten Commandments function within the overallsuzerainty treaty structure used by Moses to organize the book. Thisstructure is common in the ancient Near East, and the biblicalmaterial bears some similarity to Hittite treaties. In suzeraintreaties, the servants (vassals) are obligated to fulfill the will ofthe king (suzerain), which is reflected in Deut. 4:44–11:32. Asin Exodus, the Decalogue of Deuteronomy (5:6–21) is a summaryof the will of God.

TheDecalogue contains mainly negative commands. There are two positivecommands, those enjoining remembrance of the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8;Deut. 5:12) and honor for parents (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16). Thecommands vary in length, style, and content. Some commands includemotivational or explanatory statements. The first four commands ofthe Decalogue refer to humans’ relationship with God, and theremaining six refer to humans’ relationships with one another,especially with fellow covenant partners.

TheDecalogue is the basis for understanding all other OT laws. Theprophets used the Ten Commandments as a basis of appeal to thenation. Often, the prophetic message of the Major Prophets and theMinor Prophets is an exposition of Israel’s failure to conformto the will of its Great King declared in the law along with anappeal to return to his gracious ways.

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.

Terminology

Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.

Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.

Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).

Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.

“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).

Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.

Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).

Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.

Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).

Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).

Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).

Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

TheCovenant Genre

Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.

1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.

3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.

Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.

(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).

(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.

(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.

(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).

(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).

4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.

Covenantsin the Bible

Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.

Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.

TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.

Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.

Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).

Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.

Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestial*ty (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); hom*osexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Godthe Worker

Abiblical theology of work starts with God as the creator of allthings. In the OT, the verb bara’ (“to create”) isused only with God as subject. The first verb in the Bible (Gen.1:1), it occurs also in many other texts that describe Godaccomplishing what only God can do. Other terms such as yatsar (“toform, fashion”) and ’asah (“to make, do”) areused numerous times throughout the OT with either God or humans assubjects.

Thesethree terms reinforce the portrayal of God as worker in Gen. 1–2(cf. Isa. 45:7). God creates light and darkness; sky and earth; sun,moon, and stars; land and sea; plant and animal life; andhumankind—in sum, all that is. He forms the “man”(Heb. ’adam) from the dust of the ground, bringing him to lifeby breathing into him the breath of life.

Elsewherein the OT God is said to build, build up, or rebuild/restore (Heb.banah [e.g., Pss. 102:16; 147:2; Jer. 24:6; Amos 9:11]).Interestingly, God takes a rib from the man, which he then makes(lit., “builds into” [Heb. banah+ le]) a woman(Gen. 2:22). He founds (Heb. kun) the earth (Isa. 45:18) andstretches out (Heb. natah) the heavens (Zech. 12:1). Further, wisdomis God’s “craftsman” (Heb. ’amon), takingpart in the world’s creation (Prov. 8:30). The NT revealsChrist as the one through whom God creates all things (John 1:1–3;Col. 1:16). This brief sketch suggests the range of ways in whichGod’s work is described.

HumanLabor

Ideally,work is performed as service to God (Col. 3:17, 22–24). Work isone way we express the divine image. God’s creation mandate tofill, subdue, and rule the earth implies work (Gen. 1:26–28),and God places the man in the garden “to work it and take careof it” (Gen. 2:15). The importance of work for human dignity aswell as survival undergirds the laws of gleaning that make provisionfor the poor to gather their own food (e.g., Deut. 24:19–22).The expansion of human technologies and occupations (mela’kah[see Exod. 12:16]) reflects that dignity and God’s own diverseworkmanship. Job 28 celebrates human industry and achievement whilesubordinating all to the prevailing value of wisdom, rooted in “thefear of the Lord.” Given the indispensable role of work withinthe limits of human life, diligence is commended (Eccles. 3:9–10),idleness condemned (Prov. 10:4; 12:24; 21:5; 2Thess. 3:6–10).Work is essentially God’s good gift to us in creation.

Butwork now has negative aspects. In response to Adam’s sin, Godcurses the ground, introducing “painful toil” into thework cycle (Gen. 3:17–19; 5:29). We now eke out our living byhardship, finding frustration instead of bounty—a lifelongreminder that we are made of dust and will return to dust. The bookof Ecclesiastes echoes this note of futility and raises sharpquestions about the lasting value of human labor (1:2–3, 14;2:4–11, 17–23; 3:9; 4:4–6; 8:16–17). Sin anddeath haunt the unfolding occupations in Gen. 4, and the episode ofthe tower of Babel in Gen. 11 signals God’s judgment on humanpretension (cf. James 4:13–16). Excessive toil (workaholism) isa pitfall, not a virtue, for it expresses reliance on self ratherthan on God, who builds, protects, and gives rest (Ps. 127:1–2).Oppressive, unjust working conditions are cause for lament, and theyincur God’s judgment (Exod. 5:6–19; Prov. 14:31; James5:4–6).

Thus,Israel’s labor policy is to reflect God’s covenantfaithfulness, generosity, and concern for the vulnerable. Moses’law places limits on employers/masters to protect employees, slaves,and foreign workers from exploitation. The primary limit is God’scommand that Israel keep the Sabbath holy by a complete cessation oflabor (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). This moveprioritizes God’s covenant above human labor and sets a rhythmof work and rest. Exodus grounds the Sabbath in God’s rest fromhis work of creation on the seventh day. Deuteronomy ties it toIsrael’s history of slavery in Egypt and deliverance by God; bykeeping the Sabbath, Israel shows gratitude to God and guards againstreplicating Egypt’s oppressive policies.

Exodus31–32 portrays work in its best and worst lights. The properinterplay of work and rest is seen in chapter 31, which narrates thedivinely empowered work on the tabernacle, followed by a strongreminder to keep the Sabbath as a “sign” between God andIsrael. In contrast, chapter 32 portrays artisanship put to the worstuse, the making of a golden idol. Aaron fashions gold with a tool andmakes the calf image, but later he tells Moses, “I threw [theirgold jewelry] into the fire, and out came this calf!” (32:24).This remark anticipates the prophets’ later mockery ofidol-makers (e.g., Isa. 44:9–20) and raises the issue ofpersonal responsibility for the outcome of one’s labor: Aaronseeks to avoid being implicated in Israel’s idolatry byconcealing his own role in the project.

Publiclabor issues increase in complexity when Israel adopts human kingshipand engages in international trade (e.g., 1Sam. 8; 1Kings9:15–23). Babylon deals a decisive blow to Judah’sstatehood by deporting leaders and skilled workers. Many of theseestablish such viable, productive new lives in Babylon that whenCyrus later allows the exiled Judeans to return, they choose toremain.

TheNT assumes the legitimacy of work and adopts the OT’s view thatwithin proper limits work is a good gift of God. Jesus, however, hascome to do his Father’s “work” (John 5:16–18),which entails calling some people away from their normal occupationsto follow him, as well as a new approach to Sabbath observance (Mark2:21–27; 3:4). These moves signal the urgency and newness ofthe kingdom of God. Consequently, the apostles are “co-workersin God’s service” (1Cor. 3:9), and Christians are“God’s handiwork” (Eph. 2:10). In light of theresurrection, we offer to God work (Gk. ergon) and labor (Gk. kopos),not in futility but in hope (1Cor. 15:58; cf. Rev. 14:13).

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestial*ty (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); hom*osexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.

Terminology

Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.

Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.

Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).

Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.

“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).

Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.

Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).

Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.

Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).

Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).

Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).

Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

TheCovenant Genre

Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.

1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.

3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.

Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.

(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).

(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.

(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.

(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).

(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).

4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.

Covenantsin the Bible

Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.

Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.

TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.

Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.

Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).

Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.

Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.

Terminology

Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.

Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.

Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).

Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.

“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).

Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.

Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).

Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.

Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).

Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).

Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).

Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

TheCovenant Genre

Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.

1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.

3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.

Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.

(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).

(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.

(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.

(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).

(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).

4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.

Covenantsin the Bible

Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.

Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.

TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.

Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.

Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).

Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.

Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).

A call or calling is God’s summons to live one’s life in accordance with his purposes. At creation God instructed Adam to fill the earth and subdue it, and to have dominion over it. God created Eve to be Adam’s lifelong companion and to help him fulfill this task (Gen. 1:28). Thus, in the broader (universal) sense, the notion of calling includes the ordinances that God established at creation: work (Gen. 2:15), marriage (2:18, 24), building a family (1:28), and Sabbath rest (2:2–3).

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they became alienated from God (Gen. 3:6–19). Their fall brought the same plight of alienation from God upon all humanity. However, it did not abolish the human duty to carry out God’s original creation ordinances. Since God showers his blessings on everyone alike (common grace), all human beings possess gifts and are given opportunities to “fill” the earth and “subdue” it. Thus, everyone participates in the universal call (Acts 17:25–26). This has come to be called the “cultural mandate.”

However, God’s original intention was to have communion with human beings. This could not be realized unless he made provision for human beings to be reconciled with him. Against this backdrop, God initiated his plan to redeem people from their plight of spiritual alienation.

The general call. The promise of God to bring deliverance through a future descendant of Eve established the provision for individuals (e.g., Adam, Abel, Seth, Noah) to be “called” back into a relationship of favor with him (Gen. 3:15). The first occasion when this call is made explicit is in God’s call to Abram to leave his country and go to a land that God would show him (11:32–12:1). God promised that Abram would become the father of a nation (12:2–3). In response to God’s call and his promise, Abram believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness (15:6). Abram’s call was implicitly twofold. First, it was a general call to acknowledge this God as the true God and yield to his lordship. Second, it entailed a specific call to leave his country and journey toward a new country.

Several generations later, God appointed Moses to lead these descendants of Abraham out of Egypt, where they had lived for four hundred years. God’s act of delivering them from slavery in Egypt also symbolized redemption from sin’s bondage (Exod. 20:2). God had called the people by means of a covenant to be his own special people, to serve him as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (19:5–6). This was a call to set their lives apart for God by living according to his commands. This general call was more than a verbal summons; it was also the means God used to bring his people into existence (Hos. 11:1).

The NT indicates there is a general call to all people to believe in Christ (Matt. 11:28; Acts 17:30) that becomes effective in the ones that God has already chosen (Matt. 22:14; Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4–5). The latter, which theologians identify as the “effectual call,” is what Paul refers to when he says, “Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. . . . And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29–30). Thus, this is also a sovereign call.

Particular callings. God has endowed each individual Christian with a particular gift set and calls each one to use those gifts in a variety of ways in service to him (1 Pet. 4:10). These callings include one’s occupation, place of residence, status as married or single, involvement in public life, and service in the local church. In the OT, God gifted Bezalel and “filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills” (Exod. 35:31–32) to beautify the tabernacle. In the parable of the talents, Jesus teaches that God has made each of us stewards of whatever he has entrusted to us; we are to become skilled in the use of our gifts and to seek opportunities to use them in service to him (Matt. 25:14–30). Desire is an important factor in discerning one’s particular callings (Ps. 37:4). One’s particular calling is progressive, unfolding through the different seasons of one’s life (Eph. 2:10; 1 Cor. 7:20, 24). No particular calling is more “sacred” than another in God’s eyes.