Homosexuality is a sexual relationship between two members of the same sex. It is a controversial issue today, especially as it relates to marriage and to serving in the ministry. Several key biblical texts stand at the center of interpreting the Bible’s stance and teachings on this subject.

The Biblical Texts

Genesis 19 (with Ezek. 16:49–50; Jude 7). The biblical narrative regarding the degradation and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah indicates that their sin was grievous (Gen. 18:20; see also Gen. 13:13). When the two angelic visitors arrived, the men of the city, both young and old, asked to “know” (Heb. yada’) them. As an alternative, Lot offered his two virgin daughters, intended as sexual substitutes. While the Hebrew verb used here occurs frequently and characteristically simply means “to know,” ten times in Genesis it has strong overtones of sexual union. This narrative is sometimes dismissed as a case of gang rape, whereby power over foreigners was demonstrated in sexual terms. Likewise, some suggest that because no father in contemporary Western culture would ever offer his daughters to maintain the honor of guests, what this passage says about homosexuality also reflects cultural remnants of a bygone age. Thus, the incident would have nothing to do with homosexuality as demonstrated in consensual, committed same-sex relationships. In light of these alternative interpretations, it is necessary to investigate further the implications of this event and its subsequent interpretation in Scripture.

There are two explicit commentaries on the Genesis narrative later in the biblical canon. The first is provided by Ezekiel, from whom we learn that Sodom and the surrounding cities were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and they did detestable things before [God]” (Ezek. 16:49–50). The clause “they did detestable things” must be translated that way. The interpretation “it [i.e., the arrogance] was detestable” is unacceptable because the Hebrew verb is third-person feminine plural (“they did”), and the subject is Sodom and her sisters (the surrounding towns). Clearly, homosexual practice was not one singular sin there. It was one in the midst of a culture rife with things that were “detestable” in God’s eyes. “Detestable” is used over a hundred times in the Hebrew Bible of things that run absolutely counter to the nature of God. It also appears in Lev. 18; 20, addressed further below. The second direct response to the incident is Jude’s condemnation of the sexual license in Sodom and Gomorrah: the towns “gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion” (Jude 7).

In sum, Sodom and Gomorrah became the paradigm for comprehensively destructive evil (cf. Isa. 1:10; Jer. 23:14; Matt. 10:5–15; 11:20–24; Luke 10:1–15), representing societies entirely corrupt and hardened beyond repentance. This sobering characteristic is particularly evident in Jesus’ references to the cities. Furthermore, what we cannot ignore is that the Genesis narrative of that pervasive evil centers on the perversion of sexuality, starting with men wanting men, followed by Lot’s offering his daughters, and then Lot’s daughters engaging their father in sexual activity.

Judges 19. Tragically, this narrative thread is not isolated in Genesis. The same activity appears again in Judg. 19, where some of God’s people had adopted the ways of the debased Canaanite culture around them. In the narrative, a Levite stopped for the night in the town of Gibeah, a city of the tribe of Benjamin. Some men of the city demanded that his host give them access to him, and again a virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine were offered in his place. Human sexuality and life itself were being abused in the most heinous ways; the narrative is a shocking testimony to the depths to which humankind can descend, as the Levite’s concubine was raped to death over a long night.

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. The first of these passages forbids a man to “have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman,” indicating that it is “detestable,” or an “abomination” (KJV; Heb. to’ebah). It is not limited to the violent homosexual activity that characterized the previous narratives; rather, it is a general and blanket prohibition. Leviticus 20:13 pronounces the death penalty for that act.

Because these are in the so-called Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26), significant parts of which deal with ritual matters, some interpretations view these statements as merely addressing outdated purity issues, not sin. Furthermore, because the death penalty is indicated, they are dismissed as no longer relevant for the church. Nevertheless, the great majority of the other prohibitions and infractions noted in these chapters address troubling sexual activities (“uncovering the nakedness [’erwat] of . . .”), including incest, adultery, and bestiality, all of which are still clearly unacceptable. Furthermore, Lev. 19 contains significant ethical instructions, many of which reiterate the Ten Commandments. Thus, these texts must not be dismissed too hastily. Outside Leviticus, to’ebah is used of idolatrous worship, sexually immoral acts, and ethical infractions. Activities that are “detestable” cannot be dismissed as simply referring to uncleanness. Finally, the wages of all sin is (not was) death (Rom. 6:23), and that lesson is soberly evident in Lev. 20.

Romans 1:24–32. Paul commences his comprehensive presentation of the saving work of Christ and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit by declaring that humankind stands utterly condemned (Rom. 1–3). The order that God intended for all creation has been disrupted because the creatures made in his image neither worship nor obey him, exchanging “the truth about God for a lie” (1:25). Thus, God gave them over to sexual impurity that explicitly includes homosexual activity on the part of both genders (1:26–27). Furthermore, the list that follows condemns every reader in every time and place. In every respect, what is commensurate with the knowledge of God has been intentionally rejected. None of these is in any way restricted in its meaning by cultural assumptions.

It is exegetically indefensible to state that Paul here refers only to women and men who are by nature heterosexual but have chosen to engage in homosexual activity. Further, to claim that this has to do only with certain kinds of sexual offenses (child molestation or ritual pagan rites), or that Paul could not have known about loving, committed same-sex relationships, is to underestimate Paul’s grasp of his own culture. There is a significant body of Hellenistic literature that recognizes nurturing homosexual relationships and explores the possible reasons for homoerotic impulses; Paul most likely knew it well. More significantly, these limited interpretations misread the intent of Paul in these chapters and seriously trivialize the matters of sin and grace. The fundamental message toward which Paul moves and that is the source of hope for all humankind is that the terrible price of human sin has been paid in the sacrificial blood of Christ, so that God became both just and the one who justifies (Rom. 3:26).

First Corinthians 6:9–11 (1 Tim. 1:10). The 1 Corinthians passage states that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God and then lists categories of offenders: the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, “those who are soft” (malakoi), homosexual offenders (arsenokoitai), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers. The word arsenokoitai is made up of two Greek words that indicate “male” and “to lie with sexually.” Because these two words are used in the LXX of Lev. 18:22 (and 20:13), it is quite likely that Paul was specifically interpreting the Leviticus passages for his own audience, indicating that he saw them as still applicable. This clearly indicates that the behavior is reprehensible. The same term reappears in 1 Tim. 1:10 in a list of those who are ungodly and sinful. Again, however, what Paul goes on to say is most important in terms of his message of much needed grace: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11).

Hermeneutical Considerations

Instruction regarding homosexual practice transcends specific chronological periods and genres of text. It is not only in the narrative and warning parts of the Torah; Paul repeatedly addresses the issue, particularly as he describes fallen humankind (Rom. 1; 1 Cor. 6; 1 Tim. 1). He does not qualify his descriptions to include only certain kinds of homosexual activity; instead, they are comprehensive. Homosexual practice is without exception represented in the text as morally offensive in God’s sight.

It is often claimed that “Jesus never condemned homosexuality,” and therefore we should not do so. He also, however, never addressed abortion, incest, or other contemporary ills that are reprehensible. On the other hand, he repeatedly affirmed traditional marriage by his references to Gen. 1:27 (“male and female he created them”) and 2:24 (“a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife”) when asked about issues of marriage and divorce (Matt. 19:1–12).

It is essential to note the deep ethical foundation that must shape the lives of all believers. God’s people are “to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8). This injunction refers to the redemptive community that enfolds sinners of all stripes. In fact, the truth of the Gospel is a message of hope; it has everything to do with transformation and new life.

One of the things that make Israel a “good land” (Gen. 43:11; Deut. 8:7–10; Prov. 24:13), honey is a sweet aliment produced by bees or derived from flowers, and it has the unique quality of never spoiling (Ps. 19:10; Prov. 27:7; Ezek. 3:1; Rev. 10:9). The psalmist compares God’s word to the sweetness of honey (Ps. 119:103), and the sages liken the words of an adulteress to honey (Prov. 5:3). The biblical expression “land of milk and honey” refers to uncultivated land, which was ideal for the free growth of flowers and grazing (e.g., Exod. 3:8; Lev. 20:24; Num. 13:27). John the Baptist incorporated wild honey, along with locusts, into his diet, perhaps as a way of avoiding tithes to the temple, which were levied upon all cultivated food, but also to demonstrate God’s provision even in the wilderness (Matt. 3:4, 7).

In the ancient world, shame and honor are two binary opposites used to depict one’s status or behavior, which a culture approves or disapproves. The system of honor and shame serves as a primary means of social control. Thus, knowing how to act to conform to the code of social behavior expected by one’s group is essential to the maintenance of that community.

In the Bible, the noun “honor” is represented by kabod (from the verb “to be heavy”) in the OT, and by timē (from the verb “to honor”) in the NT. The reverse of honor is shame, which is represented by a variety of Hebrew and Greek terms, such as boshet in the OT, and aischynē in the NT.

In Israel, the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26; cf. Num. 5:2–3; 8:6–7, 14–15) is comparable to the code of honor and shame. As a covenant community, Israel has the obligation to abide by the 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. 2 Chron. 26:18; Pss. 8:5; 62:7; 84:11; Rom. 2:7–11). Israel is honored (Exod. 32:11–12; Deut. 32:26–27) before the nations when God’s honor is upheld (Exod. 7:5; 10:1–2; 14:4, 17–18). Violation of covenantal stipulations—for example, 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).

The status of honor can be ascribed to an individual. A person is more honorable who is the firstborn (Gen. 49:3), comes from an esteemed family (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 of the 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 privilege granted to them (Prov. 8:15–16; Dan. 2:21; Rom. 13:1–5)—for example, 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 (1 Pet. 2:9).

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

The status of honor can also be achieved by an individual’s merits (cf. Rom. 2:7–11). Certain types of behavior are honorable—for example, humility (Prov. 15:33; 18:12; 29:23), taking care of one’s master (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 (2 Sam. 23:19–23; cf. 2 Chron. 32:21), almsgiving and justice (Prov. 21:21). One important aspect of achieving honor is the pursuit of wisdom. The ways of wisdom are honorable (Prov. 3:16–17; 4:8; 8:18), preserving a person from dishonor (Prov. 3:16–17, 31–33, 35; 24:14), but the ways of folly, such as injustice (Prov. 1:22; 14:31) and dishonoring parents (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 perform one’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 of social 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; 1 Cor. 1:18–25). In a patriarchal society, the status of women is obtained through their sexual exclusiveness. Their chastity (Gen. 38:24; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:13–21; cf. 2 Sam. 13:13; Song 8:8–9) and fertility (Gen. 16:2; 30:2; 1 Sam. 1:3–8) become indicators of family and social worth.

(1) A son of Lotan, a Horite chief of the land Seir, the land which was later taken over by descendants of Esau (Gen. 36:22; 1 Chron. 1:39). (2) The father of Shaphat, a leader from the tribe of Simeon who was one of the twelve spies sent out to explore the land of Canaan (Num. 13:5).

The inhabitants of the Mount Seir region. The etymology of their name has often been related to the Hebrew term for “cave dweller,” but this is incorrect. “Horites” may be the biblical name for the Hurrians. The Hurrians were Semites. They were one of the people groups defeated by Kedorlaomer in the time of Abraham (Gen. 14:6). Egyptian sources and name etymology indicate that the Hurrians were in the area of Palestine by the fourteenth century BC. As indicated by the LXX, and no doubt due to changes in words moving from one language to another, the biblical designation “Hivite” most likely refers to the same people group (Gen. 34:2; 36:2).

Esau and his descendants, the Edomites, conquered the Mount Seir region and forcibly removed the majority of the Horite people in a manner that paralleled the conquest of the Canaanites by the Israelites (Deut. 2:12, 22). However, some early intermarriage apparently took place between Esau and the Horites (Gen. 36:2). Apparently, some of the Horites (Hivites) were living in the area of Canaan (Exod. 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:2; 34:11; Deut. 20:17; Josh. 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11). Genesis 10:17 lists the Horites (Hivites) as descendants of Canaan. Shechem, who raped Jacob and Leah’s daughter Dinah, is said to be a Horite (Hivite; Gen. 34:2).

The Hebrew term for “horn” (qeren) refers to a bony protrusion on an animal’s head, like those belonging to the ram (Gen. 22:13), ox (Deut. 33:17), and goat (Dan. 8:5). More broadly the term indicates any hornlike projection, as in “ivory tusks” (qarnot shen, lit., “horns of tooth” [Ezek. 27:15]). It may also indicate an object fashioned from or resembling an animal’s horn—for example, a shopar, or “trumpet” made from a ram’s horn (qeren hayyobel [Josh. 6:5]); a receptacle for oil (1 Sam. 16:1, 13; 1 Kings 1:39); and, notably, the protrusions at the corners of an altar (Exod. 27:2; 30:2). In Israel’s worship, blood was dabbed on the horns of the altar to purify it (Lev. 8:15; 16:18) and to make atonement for sin (Lev. 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34). This came to be regarded as a place of refuge (1 Kings 1:50, 51; 2:28).

In the OT, horns are emblematic of vitality and strength. David praises Yahweh as “the horn of my salvation”—that is, a mighty deliverer (2 Sam. 22:3 = Ps. 18:2). The appellation evokes Yahweh’s special commitment to uphold the king’s horn (see 1 Sam. 2:10; Pss. 89:24; 132:17). The king is similarly identified as the horn of his people (Pss. 89:17–18; 148:14), denoting both his role as protector and his duty to uphold justice. As instruments of defense and dominance among animals, horns especially symbolize martial prowess (Deut. 33:17; 1 Kings 22:11). This sense figures in pronouncements of judgment upon Israel (Lam. 2:3, 17) and hope for Israel’s restoration (Mic. 4:13).

In reference to human beings, qeren connotes demeanor. To bury one’s horn in the dust is to affect mourning and abasement (Job 16:15 [NIV: “brow”]). Conversely, to elevate one’s horn is to place confidence in one’s own strength in defiance of God (Ps. 75:4–5). Righteous persons look to Yahweh to strengthen and vindicate them (Ps. 92:10; cf. 75:10).

In Daniel’s visions, “horn” designates rulers (7:24), and kingdoms (8:22), which figure in the schematized portrayal of history. Among them, the “large horn” (8:8, 21) signifies Alexander the Great, while the four horns (8:22) represent the dissolution of his empire following his death. The “little/small horn” (7:8; 8:9–12) signifies Antiochus IV Epiphanes (see 8:23–25). In Zechariah’s vision (1:18–21), “horn” generally indicates nations that oppress Judah.

In the NT, the Greek word keras exhibits a semantic range similar to Hebrew qeren. Jesus is “a horn of salvation” for all Israel (Luke 1:69). Revelation 9:13 mentions “the four horns of the golden altar” that stands before God; elsewhere, “horn” symbolizes the power of the Lamb or of the red dragon (5:6; 12:3) or designates eschatological rulers (17:12).

Also known as the desert horned viper, a venomous snake (Cerastes cerastes) found in North Africa, the Sinai Peninsula, Israel, and Arabia. Its name comes from its horny protrusions above each eye. A few versions render the Hebrew term shepipon as “horned snake” in Gen. 49:17 (NASB, REB), though most translate it as “viper.”

A large, four-legged mammal with a continuous hoof, domesticated by humans as early as the second millennium BC. Horses appear throughout the Bible as an asset among pastoral flocks used for transportation and as a beast of war used to pull chariots. Horses did not hold a central place in the life of the ancient Near East, as the ox dominated agricultural work, and the donkey was available to more people. One reason for this was that a crucial piece of technology, the stirrup, did not reach Israel’s area until the late seventh century AD and was entirely unknown to the ancient Near East and to Greco-Roman society. Along with other uses of horses, armed cavalry was not an option, as it was easy to unseat any rider without a secure saddle. Horses were suited for pulling light loads quickly, however, which meant that drawing the chariot was its first natural use. Many cultures and civilizations used them in this fashion, including the Roman Empire in the time of the early church. The evidence indicates that the people of Israel did not appropriate their use until around the time of the monarchy.

Horses first appear in the Bible in Gen. 47:17 as a part of the livestock traded for grain under Joseph’s supervision during a time of famine. Due to the military role of horses and the need to depend on God alone, the king of Israel was forbidden to hold great numbers of horses (Deut. 17:16), and the people were commanded not to obtain horses from the principal supplier of the time, Egypt, which happened despite the prohibition (2 Chron. 1:16). King David first introduced chariots to the armies of Israel when he kept one hundred chariot horses out of a large number he had captured from the kingdom of Zobah (2 Sam. 8:3–4). The use of chariots expanded under Solomon, and he is said to have owned as many as twelve thousand chariot horses (1 Kings 4:26). He also built specific chariot cities in order to solidify Israel’s defenses (1 Kings 10:26). This move was deeply unfaithful, however, and was denounced by the prophets as an indulgence in pagan luxury and sinful self-reliance. Isaiah proclaimed, “Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, who rely on horses, who trust in the multitude of their chariots and in the great strength of their horsemen, but do not . . . seek help from the Lord” (Isa. 31:1). The very real military advantages that came from chariot warfare gave God’s people a reason, however false, to trust their own power rather than the provision of God.

A gate in Jerusalem was called the Horse Gate (Neh. 3:28; Jer. 31:40), and the royal palace near the city had a gate devoted to horses (2 Chron. 23:15).

Horses are often mentioned as a literary image meant to evoke speed, energy, and strength (Ps. 20:7). Jesus’ own entry into Jerusalem was on a donkey rather than a horse, emphasizing the nonmilitary nature of his messiahship (Matt. 21:5). In Rev. 6:1–8 horses of different colors represent four judgments of God upon the earth.

The practice of receiving strangers in order to offer provision and protection was an important concept in many of the cultures throughout the time period of both Testaments.

Hospitality first appears in Abraham’s care of the strangers who visit him in Gen. 18. The strangers in turn reveal God’s imminent fulfillment of his promise to provide a child to Abraham and Sarah. Thus, they return the good favor and kindness that they have received, which is the expected pattern of mutual goodwill that characterizes hospitality.

The unusual hospitality of Rebekah in offering water for Abraham’s servant’s camels distinguishes her as the wife whom God had appointed for Isaac (Gen. 24:1–49).

Part of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the men violate hospitality norms by demanding that the visiting angels have sex with them, which is in deep contrast to Lot’s attempt to welcome and protect the visitors (Gen. 19:1–9; see also Ezek. 16:49–50).

A conviction of the people of Israel is that God is their host in the promised land (Lev. 25:23). Jesus frequently is the beneficiary of the hospitality of others in the Gospels, and he sends out his disciples relying on it (Luke 9:1–4; 10:1–9). The messianic banquet is a theme of Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God (Matt. 8:11; 22:1–14; Luke 14:16–24). Hospitality is also commanded to be an aspect of early Christian communities, and it is a spiritual gift (Rom. 12:8, 13; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 4:9).

The act of cutting the large tendon in the back of a horse’s hind leg (also oxen in Gen. 49:6) in order to make the animal unusable for combat. Joshua obeyed God’s command to hamstring captured horses (Josh. 11:6, 9 [so as not to rely on military ability?]), but David was less thorough (2 Sam. 8:4; 1 Chron. 18:4).

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

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 was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice 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. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

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

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. 18:6–17). 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.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

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 Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

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.

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

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent 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.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. 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 prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

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 second son of Aram, and a grandson of Shem (Gen. 10:23; 1 Chron. 1:17). The geographic location of his descendants is currently unknown.

The act of killing a human being as an offering to a deity in a religious ritual.

In the OT, human sacrifice is most closely associated with the worship of Molek, a Canaanite deity of Phoenician origin. Molek’s name in Scripture is derived from the Hebrew word for “king,” melek, but using the vowel pattern of bosheth, which means “shame.” Human sacrifice was not limited to Molek; it was also part of Chemosh (Moabite) and Baal (Canaanite) worship (2 Kings 3:27; Jer. 19:5), as well as rituals practiced before other regional gods. There is enough fluidity in names and details to suggest that these traditions were somewhat intertwined.

The practice of sacrifice to Molek is literally described as causing one’s son or daughter “to pass through the fire.” Such a thing was forbidden to Israel (Lev. 18:21; 20:2–5) and was called both a “detestable practice” and “detestable to the Lord” (Deut. 18:9–12). The shedding of innocent blood, a broader category of sin, was also prohibited (Deut. 19:10). Despite its gross offense, human sacrifice became a snare for Israel because it was so routine in Canaan, even though it was among the reasons given to them for driving the Canaanites out of the land (Ps. 106:34–39).

Indeed, like the Canaanites, the Israelites did sacrifice their children to idols. Solomon built high places for Chemosh and Molek (1 Kings 11:7). Ahaz sacrificed his son to Molek in Judah (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chron. 28:1–4) according to the practices of the kings of Israel (2 Kings 17:17–18). So too did Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chron. 33:6), whose sins also more broadly included shedding innocent blood (2 Kings 21:6, 16; 24:4; 2 Chron. 33:6).

The Valley of Ben Hinnom in Jerusalem, located below the south wall of the city, extending from the base of Mount Zion eastward to the Kidron Valley, was a site for human sacrifices (Isa. 57:5). The specific place was called “Topheth,” either from a Hebrew word meaning “drum,” a reference to the priests of Molek banging instruments to drown out the screams of the child victims, or from an Aramaic loanword for “hearth,” communicating burning. In NT times, the same valley was known in Greek as Gehenna (geenna) and was used as a dump for burning refuse and a metaphor for hell.

After the fall of the northern kingdom, Josiah’s reforms included desecrating Topheth to stop the heinous idolatry (2 Kings 23:10). It did not last, however, as Jeremiah later prophesied on location that the Valley of Ben Hinnom would be renamed the “Valley of Slaughter” as a result of the despicable burning of children, and that the nation would be smashed for its great sins (Jer. 7:31–32; 19:1–14; 32:35). His prophecies were echoed by Ezekiel, whose passionate anger at Judah spilled over into shocking, attention-grabbing rhetoric as Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians (Ezek. 16:20–21; 20:26, 31; 23:37–39).

Elsewhere, the Bible alludes to human sacrifice before God. God commanded the offering of Isaac by Abraham as a test of Abraham’s devotion and obedience; and once Abraham passed the test, God stopped the sacrifice. A ram served as the substitute (Gen. 22:1–18). One possible reason for the matter-of-fact tone of the story is that Abraham lived in a context where such demands were not unexpected. What made Abraham’s God different was that he stopped the sacrifice.

A more difficult event is Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter in keeping with a rash vow that he made to God before battling the Ammonites (Judg. 11:30–40). There is no easy explanation for his gruesome vow fulfillment, which, this time, God did not miraculously stop. However, Jephthah’s actions are consistent with the book of Judges’ presentation of the Israelites as progressively descending into Canaan-like depravity because they had forgotten both God and his covenant.

Other instances that have been cited as examples of human sacrifice are more consistent with divine justice and retribution than with expiation (1 Sam. 15:17–21, 32–33; 2 Sam. 21:1–14).

Origins, Composition, and Constitution

Origins. The Bible is not unique in offering an account of human origins. Interesting accounts are found in Sumerian (Enki and Ninmah, Hymn to E-engurra), Akkadian (Atrahasis Epic, Enuma Elish), and Egyptian texts (Pyramid Texts, Instruction of Merikare). These texts provide a helpful window into the biblical world and show the common concern to explain the origin and role of humanity in the world.

One distinct feature of ancient Near Eastern texts is that they generally speak of human origins in a collective sense. Specialists refer to this phenomenon as polygenesis. Such a collective creation better serves the purpose of the gods, who have made the human race as a labor force. In the Bible, however, the book of Genesis describes an original human pair who are the progenitors of the human race. This phenomenon is referred to as monogenesis. Humanity is not merely created to serve and do the work of the gods. Instead, it is a special creation of God, intended to bear his image.

Composition. The composition of humanity is described in Gen. 2:7: “The Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Humanity is not distinct from animals in having the breath of life (1:30). Indeed, the description of the composition of humanity is also quite, well, human. Genesis describes humans as made from the dust. Dust is not fertile, nor is it pliable. It refers to the earth and that which is dead. The wordplay between “man” (’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah) appears to be a major focus of the text (2:7) and suggests that the major connection being established concerns the first humans as archetypes.

Constitution. Certain passages of Scripture have led interpreters to posit a trichotomous nature of humanity (i.e., mind, body, soul; cf. 2 Cor. 4:16; 5:1–9; 1 Thess. 5:23). Likewise, even though the Greek language can bifurcate the soul (psychē) and the body (sōma), a kind of dualism should not be inferred from this (cf. Matt. 6:25; 27:50; Luke 10:27; 2 Cor. 4:11). Either approach is foreign to the unified biblical mind-set. The only dualism in the anthropological perspective of the NT is in the nature of humanity in relation to Christ’s new creative work.

Form and Function

Form: male and female. Just as God created man (’ish), he also created woman (’ishah) (Gen. 1:26–27). Although woman is initially created as a “suitable helper” (2:18), it should be noted that the underlying Hebrew term (’ezer) is used almost exclusively in reference to God elsewhere. This suggests that “suitable helper” does not indicate a difference of essence, value, or status.

The Bible describes woman as coming from the “side” of man, probably communicating something about their equality (Gen. 2:21–22). Thus, it should be understood that just as all humanity shares a connection to the ground, so also a man shares an intimate connection with a woman. Although the phrase “one flesh” often is taken as a euphemism, it probably is a remarkably descriptive statement of the archetypal nature of Adam and Eve (cf. 2:24).

Function: image of God. The distinction between humanity and the other animals created by God is that humans are created in God’s image. The concept of the image of God, however, is not unique to the biblical text (Gen. 1:26–27; cf. Instruction of Merikare). Throughout the ancient Near East, kings were thought to actually be the image of a god. In the Christian understanding, only Christ is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4), whereas humanity is created in the image of God. Although this may imply a kingly role with regard to humanity’s function over the rest of creation, the main parallel should be seen in how images are meant to represent a god’s presence.

Humanity in Pauline Thought

Paul’s conception of humanity is thoroughly eschatological insomuch as his vision of Christ as the image of God is identified with Christ as “risen Lord.” Christ as the image of God is the final destiny of the humanity that is “in Christ” (1 Cor. 15:23–28; 44–49; Eph. 1:9–10). Because of the effects of sin, creation has been subjected to futility (Rom. 8:19–22), and humanity to death (Rom. 5:12–14; 1 Cor. 15:21–22). Yet Paul’s outburst of “new creation” (Gal. 6:15; cf. 2 Cor. 5:17) indicates his understanding of the cosmological, and therefore anthropological, effects of being united with Christ. Indeed, if God is making the “former things” into “new things” (2 Cor. 5:17; cf. Isa. 65:17–19), this new creative act certainly impacts humanity. That reality is already partially realized in the elimination of distinctions in this present “evil age” (Gal. 1:4), for in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one” (Gal. 3:28; cf. 1 Cor. 12:12–13; Gen. 17). Until the end, the Christian lives in the tension of already beginning to experience the act of new creation and not yet completely disinheriting the effects of sin (Rom. 8:18–30; 2 Cor. 12:5–10).

In the OT, humility often refers to people of low social status, the disenfranchised, and those who suffer oppression and poverty (e.g., Prov. 22:22–23; Amos 2:7; Zech. 7:10). Such people often are referred to as the ’anawim (e.g., Ps. 9:12, 18; Isa. 32:7; 61:1; Amos 2:7; 8:4). The Hebrew word ’anah is frequently translated by the English words “oppress” and “afflict.” The word denotes the sexual humiliation of women (Gen. 31:50; Ezek. 22:10–11), military oppression (Judg. 16:5–6, 19), and oppression that comes with slavery (Gen. 15:13; Exod. 1:12; Deut. 26:6). As a social status, humility is synonymous with those marginalized by society.

Scripture sometimes associates those socially marginalized with the ethical dimension of humility, thus making the social status equivalent to a subjective spiritual quality (Pss. 22:26; 37:11–17; 146:7–9; Zeph. 3:11–13). Social humiliation, however, does not necessarily lead to humility as a virtue. In a number of instances in the OT, the two remain distinct. In its subjective quality, humility involves submission to one in authority, usually to God (Exod. 10:3; Deut. 8:2–3, 16; Ps. 119:67, 71, 75). On some occasions humility is related to the act of repentance before God (e.g., Zeph. 2:1–3). When paired with “fear of the Lord,” humility implies a person who lives in a posture of pious submission before God (Prov. 15:31–33; 22:4).

Such is the case with Moses, whom the writer of Numbers describes in the following way: “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3). Moses’ humility in this situation is displayed in his intimate relationship with, and by his submissive attitude toward, the sovereign God (12:4–9).

In the NT, Christians take Christ as their model of humility (Matt. 11:29; Phil. 2:6–11). The NT writers also call on Christians to humble themselves before God (James 4:10; 1 Pet. 5:5–6) as well as others, including their enemies (Rom. 12:14–21; Phil. 2:3).

In the OT, humility often refers to people of low social status, the disenfranchised, and those who suffer oppression and poverty (e.g., Prov. 22:22–23; Amos 2:7; Zech. 7:10). Such people often are referred to as the ’anawim (e.g., Ps. 9:12, 18; Isa. 32:7; 61:1; Amos 2:7; 8:4). The Hebrew word ’anah is frequently translated by the English words “oppress” and “afflict.” The word denotes the sexual humiliation of women (Gen. 31:50; Ezek. 22:10–11), military oppression (Judg. 16:5–6, 19), and oppression that comes with slavery (Gen. 15:13; Exod. 1:12; Deut. 26:6). As a social status, humility is synonymous with those marginalized by society.

Scripture sometimes associates those socially marginalized with the ethical dimension of humility, thus making the social status equivalent to a subjective spiritual quality (Pss. 22:26; 37:11–17; 146:7–9; Zeph. 3:11–13). Social humiliation, however, does not necessarily lead to humility as a virtue. In a number of instances in the OT, the two remain distinct. In its subjective quality, humility involves submission to one in authority, usually to God (Exod. 10:3; Deut. 8:2–3, 16; Ps. 119:67, 71, 75). On some occasions humility is related to the act of repentance before God (e.g., Zeph. 2:1–3). When paired with “fear of the Lord,” humility implies a person who lives in a posture of pious submission before God (Prov. 15:31–33; 22:4).

Such is the case with Moses, whom the writer of Numbers describes in the following way: “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3). Moses’ humility in this situation is displayed in his intimate relationship with, and by his submissive attitude toward, the sovereign God (12:4–9).

In the NT, Christians take Christ as their model of humility (Matt. 11:29; Phil. 2:6–11). The NT writers also call on Christians to humble themselves before God (James 4:10; 1 Pet. 5:5–6) as well as others, including their enemies (Rom. 12:14–21; Phil. 2:3).

A transliteration of a Greek word, kenōsis, meaning “emptying.” “Kenosis” has come to characterize a hymnlike unit in Paul’s letter to the Philippians (2:5–11), in which the apostle says Christ Jesus “emptied himself” (v. 7 NASB, NET, NRSV). Some have interpreted this to mean that Jesus surrendered certain or all of his divine attributes at the incarnation (cf. John 1:14). Others claim that these attributes continued in a “potential” reality. But it is probably best to look at the immediate context for the significance.

Paul presumes that the self-emptying of Christ is to some degree a communicable practice: we are to meditate on how to empty ourselves like Christ (Phil. 2:5). There were two extreme positions of status in the Roman world: Caesar, who was worshiped as a god, and the slave, who could be crucified at the whim of the master. Jesus, while being much greater than the former, willingly took on the status of the latter, humbling himself to the point of dying on a cross (Phil. 2:8). He put God’s interest—our salvation—before his own. Paul’s readers would have made an immediate comparison with the current emperor, Nero, who gladly embraced his own deification and lived only for the gratification of his own pleasure. But the desire to become like God goes back to the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:5). According to Jewish and Christian tradition, this vaulting ambition led to Satan’s fall. However, the Son did not become something else but rather emptied himself of the form or appearance of God. In other words, people did not know that Jesus was God by looking at him (cf. Isa. 53:2). But Peter, James, and John were allowed to see the glorified nature of the Son at the transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–9 pars.; see also John 1:14; 2 Pet. 1:16–21).

Paul’s hymnic reflection ends with the Father placing Jesus over all authority, at the right hand of his throne in heaven (Phil. 2:9–11; see also Eph. 1:20–21). Although people important by worldly standards ignored Jesus during his ministry, dismissing him as a Jewish peasant in a dusty corner of the Roman Empire, the apostle maintains that one day they will bow before Jesus’ glory. The kenosis is intended to exhort Christians to imitate the humility of Christ, putting the needs of others before themselves, so that they might also participate in his glory (see Eph. 2:1–20).

In the OT, humility often refers to people of low social status, the disenfranchised, and those who suffer oppression and poverty (e.g., Prov. 22:22–23; Amos 2:7; Zech. 7:10). Such people often are referred to as the ’anawim (e.g., Ps. 9:12, 18; Isa. 32:7; 61:1; Amos 2:7; 8:4). The Hebrew word ’anah is frequently translated by the English words “oppress” and “afflict.” The word denotes the sexual humiliation of women (Gen. 31:50; Ezek. 22:10–11), military oppression (Judg. 16:5–6, 19), and oppression that comes with slavery (Gen. 15:13; Exod. 1:12; Deut. 26:6). As a social status, humility is synonymous with those marginalized by society.

Scripture sometimes associates those socially marginalized with the ethical dimension of humility, thus making the social status equivalent to a subjective spiritual quality (Pss. 22:26; 37:11–17; 146:7–9; Zeph. 3:11–13). Social humiliation, however, does not necessarily lead to humility as a virtue. In a number of instances in the OT, the two remain distinct. In its subjective quality, humility involves submission to one in authority, usually to God (Exod. 10:3; Deut. 8:2–3, 16; Ps. 119:67, 71, 75). On some occasions humility is related to the act of repentance before God (e.g., Zeph. 2:1–3). When paired with “fear of the Lord,” humility implies a person who lives in a posture of pious submission before God (Prov. 15:31–33; 22:4).

Such is the case with Moses, whom the writer of Numbers describes in the following way: “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3). Moses’ humility in this situation is displayed in his intimate relationship with, and by his submissive attitude toward, the sovereign God (12:4–9).

In the NT, Christians take Christ as their model of humility (Matt. 11:29; Phil. 2:6–11). The NT writers also call on Christians to humble themselves before God (James 4:10; 1 Pet. 5:5–6) as well as others, including their enemies (Rom. 12:14–21; Phil. 2:3).

God’s interaction with humans all through history includes humor as a part of that story. Humor is a genuine expression of what it means to be human. It cannot be dismissed as simply trivial or mere entertainment. Humor pervades Scripture from beginning to end, but readers miss much of it due to a limited understanding of the language, context, and culture of the Bible.

Genesis records both Abraham and Sarah laughing at the unexpected news that Sarah at age ninety would give birth to a son (Gen. 17:15–17; 18:9–15; 21:1–7). Amos sarcastically tells northern Israel to come to the place of worship at Bethel and sin (Amos 4:4). The humor used to describe the lazy person in Prov. 26:13–16 cannot help but bring a chuckle. Jesus frequently uses hyperbole to communicate his message (Matt. 7:3–5). It is especially in reading Scripture out loud that one discovers its humor.

Humor is a Christian virtue when used with prudence. It helps put life and mistakes in perspective. Humor helps individuals endure tragedy. It reminds us of the fragile nature of life. When we laugh, we acknowledge our humanness and our imperfections. In a real sense, it is a preparation phase for faith. When we can laugh at ourselves, we are saying, “I am not God; I do not run the world.” In Christian life, humor puts humans in their place and celebrates the sovereignty and goodness of God.

Hunting for food is a postdiluvian activity. In the original creation, humankind was allowed to eat only of plant life (Gen. 1:29); it was only with the re-creation of the earth that humans were explicitly permitted to eat animals: “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything” (9:3). Therefore, it may be concluded that hunting as a means of survival had no significance for prediluvian humanity.

Nimrod was “a mighty hunter before the Lord; that is why it is said, ‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord’ ” (Gen. 10:9). However, for many ancient interpreters, the proverbial saying was viewed with suspicion and was interpreted negatively as opposition against God (Philo, QG 2.82; L.A.B. 4:7; 6:13; Josephus, Ant. 1.113–14; Tg. Neof. 10:9; Frg. Tg. 10:9; Augustine, Civ. 16.4; Jerome, Qu. hebr. Gen. 10.18). Another memorable hunter is Esau, “a skillful hunter, a man of the open country” (Gen. 25:27). Before Esau could receive a blessing, his father requested that he go hunt game for him; however, the old and blind Isaac was tricked into blessing the wrong son (27:1–40).

In ancient times, hunting was not an activity limited to providing food or acquiring other resources such as materials for clothing. There is evidence of hunting as a royal sport. The Assyrian kings were famous hunters of lions, wild bulls, elephants, and other animals. By the seventh century BC, Assyrian kings hunted in special game reserves. For the Assyrians, the killing of wild beasts such as lions symbolized the duty of the king as a guardian of civilization. Royal hunting does not appear to have been a practice in Israel, although such a possibility may not be completely ruled out. The young David’s encounter with lion and bear is cited to some extent for self-exaltation purposes and even more so to portray him as a fearless shepherd worthy of shepherding Israel (1 Sam. 17:34–37).

Hunters used various methods to catch or kill their prey: weapons such as quiver, bow, spear, sling, and club (Gen. 27:3; cf. Isa. 7:24), pits and various snares and gins (Pss. 35:7; 91:3; 2 Sam. 23:20; Isa. 24:17; Jer. 48:43; Amos 3:5). Bird hunting was also a common practice, and snares often were used to make a catch (Pss. 91:3; 124:7; Prov. 1:17; 6:5; Eccles. 9:12; Amos 3:5).

Hunting for food is a postdiluvian activity. In the original creation, humankind was allowed to eat only of plant life (Gen. 1:29); it was only with the re-creation of the earth that humans were explicitly permitted to eat animals: “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything” (9:3). Therefore, it may be concluded that hunting as a means of survival had no significance for prediluvian humanity.

Nimrod was “a mighty hunter before the Lord; that is why it is said, ‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord’ ” (Gen. 10:9). However, for many ancient interpreters, the proverbial saying was viewed with suspicion and was interpreted negatively as opposition against God (Philo, QG 2.82; L.A.B. 4:7; 6:13; Josephus, Ant. 1.113–14; Tg. Neof. 10:9; Frg. Tg. 10:9; Augustine, Civ. 16.4; Jerome, Qu. hebr. Gen. 10.18). Another memorable hunter is Esau, “a skillful hunter, a man of the open country” (Gen. 25:27). Before Esau could receive a blessing, his father requested that he go hunt game for him; however, the old and blind Isaac was tricked into blessing the wrong son (27:1–40).

In ancient times, hunting was not an activity limited to providing food or acquiring other resources such as materials for clothing. There is evidence of hunting as a royal sport. The Assyrian kings were famous hunters of lions, wild bulls, elephants, and other animals. By the seventh century BC, Assyrian kings hunted in special game reserves. For the Assyrians, the killing of wild beasts such as lions symbolized the duty of the king as a guardian of civilization. Royal hunting does not appear to have been a practice in Israel, although such a possibility may not be completely ruled out. The young David’s encounter with lion and bear is cited to some extent for self-exaltation purposes and even more so to portray him as a fearless shepherd worthy of shepherding Israel (1 Sam. 17:34–37).

Hunters used various methods to catch or kill their prey: weapons such as quiver, bow, spear, sling, and club (Gen. 27:3; cf. Isa. 7:24), pits and various snares and gins (Pss. 35:7; 91:3; 2 Sam. 23:20; Isa. 24:17; Jer. 48:43; Amos 3:5). Bird hunting was also a common practice, and snares often were used to make a catch (Pss. 91:3; 124:7; Prov. 1:17; 6:5; Eccles. 9:12; Amos 3:5).

The ancestor of a clan, the Huphamites, of the tribe of Benjamin, who are counted in the second census account in the wilderness (Num. 26:39). He may be the same person as Huppim, one of the sons of Benjamin (Gen. 46:21).

The ancestor of a clan, the Huphamites, of the tribe of Benjamin, who are counted in the second census account in the wilderness (Num. 26:39). He may be the same person as Huppim, one of the sons of Benjamin (Gen. 46:21).

One of Benjamin’s ten sons (Gen. 46:21). He may also be called “Hupham” in Num. 26:39.

The inhabitants of the Mount Seir region. The etymology of their name has often been related to the Hebrew term for “cave dweller,” but this is incorrect. “Horites” may be the biblical name for the Hurrians. The Hurrians were Semites. They were one of the people groups defeated by Kedorlaomer in the time of Abraham (Gen. 14:6). Egyptian sources and name etymology indicate that the Hurrians were in the area of Palestine by the fourteenth century BC. As indicated by the LXX, and no doubt due to changes in words moving from one language to another, the biblical designation “Hivite” most likely refers to the same people group (Gen. 34:2; 36:2).

Esau and his descendants, the Edomites, conquered the Mount Seir region and forcibly removed the majority of the Horite people in a manner that paralleled the conquest of the Canaanites by the Israelites (Deut. 2:12, 22). However, some early intermarriage apparently took place between Esau and the Horites (Gen. 36:2). Apparently, some of the Horites (Hivites) were living in the area of Canaan (Exod. 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:2; 34:11; Deut. 20:17; Josh. 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11). Genesis 10:17 lists the Horites (Hivites) as descendants of Canaan. Shechem, who raped Jacob and Leah’s daughter Dinah, is said to be a Horite (Hivite; Gen. 34:2).

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

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 was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice 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. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

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

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. 18:6–17). 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.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

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 Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

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.

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

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent 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.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. 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 prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

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 successor to Jobab as king of Edom (Gen. 36:34; 1 Chron. 1:45–46) in the period before the Israelite monarchy (Gen. 36:31). Husham was from the land of the Temanites, and so apparently he was a non-Edomite.

(1) A variant of “Shuham,” the only descendant of Dan (Num. 26:42) listed in Gen. 46:23. Since the list in Numbers mentions a tribe, the Shuhamites, it may be that the form in Numbers is original and that “Hushim” in Gen. 46:23 is the result of metathesis, with the scribe inverting the order of the letters het and shin, possibly because of familiarity with the tribe in 1 Chron. 7:12. (2) Descendants of Aher from Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:12 [NIV: “Hushites the descendants of Aher”; NRSV: “Hushim the son of Aher”]). (3) The divorcée of Shaharaim from Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:8), who bore to him Abitub and Elpaal (1 Chron. 8:11).

(1) A variant of “Shuham,” the only descendant of Dan (Num. 26:42) listed in Gen. 46:23. Since the list in Numbers mentions a tribe, the Shuhamites, it may be that the form in Numbers is original and that “Hushim” in Gen. 46:23 is the result of metathesis, with the scribe inverting the order of the letters het and shin, possibly because of familiarity with the tribe in 1 Chron. 7:12. (2) Descendants of Aher from Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:12 [NIV: “Hushites the descendants of Aher”; NRSV: “Hushim the son of Aher”]). (3) The divorcée of Shaharaim from Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:8), who bore to him Abitub and Elpaal (1 Chron. 8:11).

(1) The homeland of Job (Job 1:1), its location is uncertain. According to Lam. 4:21, the land of Uz is equivalent to Edomite territory (probably also Jer. 25:20). The geographical designations of Job’s companions (particularly Eliphaz the Temanite) suggest a setting in Transjordan rather than northern Mesopotamia (Aram). (2) The oldest of the four sons of Aram and a grandson of Shem, he appears in the genealogy of the Arameans (Gen. 10:23; 1 Chron. 1:17). (3) The son of Abraham’s brother Nahor and Milkah, also associated with Arameans (Gen. 22:21). (4) The first of the two sons of Dishan son of Seir the Horite, among the people of Seir in Edom (Gen. 36:28; 1 Chron. 1:42).

In the subtropical climate of Israel, ice inspired both fear and wonder. When God hurls bits of ice from heaven (i.e., hail), the psalmist asks, “Who can withstand his icy blast?” (Ps. 147:17), and the Hebrew term qerakh, also translated as “cold” or “frost,” is associated with the discomfort of nighttime exposure (Gen. 31:40; Jer. 36:30). However, the term is also used to describe the sparkling beauty of the expanse above the living creatures in Ezekiel’s vision of God (Ezek. 1:22). Like other meteorological occurrences, such as rain (Jer. 14:22) and wind (Amos 4:13), ice is considered the work of God (Job 37:10; 38:29).

A transliteration of Idoumaia, the Greek name for Edom (e.g., Gen. 36:16 LXX; Mark 3:8), the land given by God to Esau (Gen. 32:3), whose descendants were called “Edomites.” In NT times this was the homeland and critical power base of Herod the Great. After his death, Idumea was ruled by Archelaus and then Agrippa I. After Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, Idumea was absorbed into the province of Judea and ceased to exist as such.

That humankind has been created in the image of God indicates its unique status above the animals because of a special similarity with God. This status authorizes humankind to rule the earth and requires respect toward people. The particulars of what the phrase “image of God” means have been understood in many ways.

The phrase is rather rare. It first appears in Gen. 1:26–27, and the same or similar phrases occur in five more verses (Gen. 5:1, 3; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9) that refer back to it. The NT also refers to Christ as the image of God and to believers becoming like the image of Christ.

Understanding Genesis 1:26–27

This makes Gen. 1:26–27 the starting point for understanding the phrase. Several factors come into play: the contrast with the creation of animals on the same day; the connection with humankind ruling the other creatures; other elements of the broader context; the meaning of the words “image” (tselem) and “likeness” (demut); the meaning of the preposition “in”; and the meaning and use of images in the ancient Near East.

In the immediately preceding context, animals are made “according to their kinds,” whereas humans are made “in the image of God.” The context directly following also makes a distinction between the two, granting humans rule, or dominion, over the animals. Being in the image of God certainly involves what makes humans unique in contrast to the rest of the animal kingdom.

The history of interpretation of the phrase “image of God” is long and voluminous. Just about anything from the broader context that seems important to the interpreter might be selected as the key meaning; or whatever philosophical system is dominant at the time when the interpreter writes might be tapped as the “obvious” explanation of what being in the image of God means; or perhaps the insights of a particular academic discipline or systematic theological system might be given preference. Thus, the meaning of being created in the image of God has been associated with many things, such as language, eternal soul, rationality, relationality, being male and female (often compared to the Trinity), physical appearance, dominion, and personhood. The wide variety is possible because the text of Scripture does not spell it out, and the options seem reasonable to their various proponents as explaining the uniqueness of humanity, something that clearly serves the context.

Although many of these insights may be reasonable and relevant, it can be problematic to select one as the key element. For example, to support the suggestion that being in the image of God means walking erect on two feet, one could point out that (1) humankind’s “walking” is in the broader context, (2) human beings “walking” with God uniquely contrasts to the circumstances of other animals, and (3) standing erect on two feet is a dominance move in the animal kingdom. But this is unlikely to be convincing to anyone, for good reason. And the many options offered by interpreters often look equally out of place from another’s perspective. For example, the text emphasizes that God created them “male and female,” a unity with a difference. God is a trinity, a unity with a difference. Is this, then, the image of God? Someone might point out that the animals are also male and female, and that the text does not necessarily have the Trinity in view (there are other explanations for the plural “us” in Gen. 1:26, which many consider better explanations).

Studying the words “image” and “likeness” does not quickly clarify the issue. “Image” normally refers to a statue, typically of a god. And “likeness” normally refers to similar physical appearance. The true God is a spirit, lacking a particular physical form, and he forbids making a statue of himself. If the three-dimensional human physique is not the point, what remains of the terms “image” and “likeness” is simply some notion of similarity. It is this vagueness that has promoted diverse understandings.

The preposition “in” is also much discussed, for it might mean “in” or “as.” Thus humanity is perhaps made in a like appearance to God, or in an unspecified similarity to God. Or humanity has been created as God’s image on the earth. The first emphasizes what humanity is (being), the second what humanity is to do (function). Yet the two, being and function, certainly are related, so the difference between them may be overstated.

The surrounding cultures of the ancient Near East made images of their gods. They believed not that the statue actually was the god but rather that it invoked the presence of the god and represented the god to the people as a central location for interaction. The Babylonian word for “image” is similar to the Hebrew and also usually refers to a statue or artistic representation. It is sometimes used figuratively about a king being the image of a god. And in Egypt we find the idea that humanity is the image of gods. This conceptual backdrop aligns with an understanding that being in the image of God relates to the function of ruling.

Additionally, the phrase “and let them rule over” occurs in a sequence that can indicate purpose or result. Thus, the passage may be rendered, “Let us make man as our image, as our likeness, so that they may rule.” That is, God set up human beings with a distinct nature for a distinct task, which he expressly includes when blessing them (Gen. 1:28). We might still infer from general revelation some of the details that are relevant to that uniqueness, but we should avoid elevating them in importance.

Other Biblical Passages

The passages that refer back to Gen. 1:26–27 emphasize honor and respect for human individuals. Humans are to dominate the earth, not one another. They should not kill one another; otherwise they become subject to the death penalty (Gen. 9:6), and they should not curse others but instead treat them with honor (James 3:9). But the motif has no real prominence other than being in the beginning of the Bible. After Gen. 9:6, the OT does not use the phrase “image of God.” The concept of human rule appears (e.g., Ps. 8), but the expression “image of God” is more a subpoint under a larger topic than it is a heading for biblical teaching.

In the NT, Jesus is twice identified by the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew phrase “image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). Especially in the context of Col. 1:15, the emphasis is on Christ’s deity and so part of a different topic, despite the similar wording. The two verses about believers that refer to the likeness of God and the image of the Creator (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24) deal with moral behavior and the sanctification of the believer (cf. Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18). Although they do not directly refer to Gen. 1, they do address the common metaphor that humankind, by sinning, marred its imaging of God. To be conformed to the image of Christ restores how humanity images God in the world.

Often used in a negative sense, the words translated “imagine” and “imagination” relate to the ability to think with the mind, to devise or construct a plan, or one’s own thoughts in contrast to God’s thoughts (Ezek. 13:2, 17). In the OT, imagination is often related to plans with evil intent (Gen. 8:21; Deut. 31:21; Jer. 3:17; 7:24 KJV). Occasionally it refers to using one’s imagination to remain focused on God’s plans (1 Chron. 28:9; 29:18; Isa. 26:3). The NT word is concerned with the product of reasoning and is used negatively (Matt. 9:4; 12:25; Col. 1:21), positively (2 Pet. 3:1), and neutrally (Heb. 4:12). When it derives from the human ability to reason, the end product seems to more consistently lead to negative outcomes (Gen. 6:5).

The quality of being not mortal, living forever. The OT cryptically mentions Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:1–12) ascending into heaven without passing through death or Sheol. Otherwise, mortality is presented as part of the universal human condition, a result of Adam and Eve’s disobedience (Gen. 2:17; 5:1–32).

Eventually, two solutions were embraced. Some Jews appropriated the Hellenistic concept of the immortal soul. But this is not clearly taught in the Bible, which furthermore claims that only God has the power to bestow immortality (e.g., Pss. 49; 73). The modern Western mind often views death as a sudden happening, the ceasing of brain functions, whereas other cultures regard dying as a process advancing from the moment of birth and continuing beyond the grave. In the creation story, God warns Adam that if he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will die that very day (Gen. 2:17). But despite eating from the tree, Adam lives on physically for almost a millennium (Gen. 5:5), and so this sin-begotten death describes separation from God. Jesus will overcome this separation at the cross (Luke 23:43; cf. Matt. 10:28 par.). For those who trust this work—believe in his name—death is already overcome because they are reconciled with God. Life is no longer bound, as it were, to brain activity, but rather is unbound in the immortal being of God. By reconciling others to God, Jesus is able to promise eternal life (John 3:15, 36; 5:24). Indeed, John writes his Gospel to advance this promise (20:31).

Three NT assertions need to be taken into account in ascertaining biblical perspectives on immortality: (1) God is immortal (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17); (2) God alone is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16); (3) God grants immortality to those who seek him (Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Tim. 1:10). These assertions are important in distinguishing immortality from the idea of the continued existence of some part of the human makeup after the death of the body. The word “immortality” should be reserved to refer to the existence of body and soul together for eternity. Human beings, therefore, do not intrinsically possess immortality; it must be granted by God.

This distinction, however, does not in any way negate the abundant biblical evidence that the human soul or spirit continues in some form after the death of the body. In the OT, that continuation is usually conceived of as a vague, shadowy existence in a place called “Sheol.” In the NT, for the Christian, that continuation is envisioned as being in the presence of Christ (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23). But immortality is the eternal life of body and soul together. Whatever view one takes of the eternal state of the wicked, their existence should not be regarded as one of immortality. Rather, it is the “second death” (Rev. 21:8).

The quality of being not mortal, living forever. The OT cryptically mentions Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:1–12) ascending into heaven without passing through death or Sheol. Otherwise, mortality is presented as part of the universal human condition, a result of Adam and Eve’s disobedience (Gen. 2:17; 5:1–32).

Eventually, two solutions were embraced. Some Jews appropriated the Hellenistic concept of the immortal soul. But this is not clearly taught in the Bible, which furthermore claims that only God has the power to bestow immortality (e.g., Pss. 49; 73). The modern Western mind often views death as a sudden happening, the ceasing of brain functions, whereas other cultures regard dying as a process advancing from the moment of birth and continuing beyond the grave. In the creation story, God warns Adam that if he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will die that very day (Gen. 2:17). But despite eating from the tree, Adam lives on physically for almost a millennium (Gen. 5:5), and so this sin-begotten death describes separation from God. Jesus will overcome this separation at the cross (Luke 23:43; cf. Matt. 10:28 par.). For those who trust this work—believe in his name—death is already overcome because they are reconciled with God. Life is no longer bound, as it were, to brain activity, but rather is unbound in the immortal being of God. By reconciling others to God, Jesus is able to promise eternal life (John 3:15, 36; 5:24). Indeed, John writes his Gospel to advance this promise (20:31).

Three NT assertions need to be taken into account in ascertaining biblical perspectives on immortality: (1) God is immortal (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17); (2) God alone is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16); (3) God grants immortality to those who seek him (Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Tim. 1:10). These assertions are important in distinguishing immortality from the idea of the continued existence of some part of the human makeup after the death of the body. The word “immortality” should be reserved to refer to the existence of body and soul together for eternity. Human beings, therefore, do not intrinsically possess immortality; it must be granted by God.

This distinction, however, does not in any way negate the abundant biblical evidence that the human soul or spirit continues in some form after the death of the body. In the OT, that continuation is usually conceived of as a vague, shadowy existence in a place called “Sheol.” In the NT, for the Christian, that continuation is envisioned as being in the presence of Christ (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23). But immortality is the eternal life of body and soul together. Whatever view one takes of the eternal state of the wicked, their existence should not be regarded as one of immortality. Rather, it is the “second death” (Rev. 21:8).

The biblical writers assure us that God does not change. The psalmist contrasts the perishable cosmos with the Creator himself: “But you remain the same, and your years will never end” (Ps. 102:27). In Mal. 3:6, God says that Jacob’s sons will not be consumed, because “I the Lord do not change.” James has the same objective: to reassure his people that God will remain the source of good things, since God “does not change like shifting shadows” (James 1:17). This doctrine of God’s unchangeableness, or immutability, should comfort his people because it implies that he is ever willing and able to keep his promises. A changeable God might decide not to honor his commitments or become powerless to do so. In the first case, he loses his moral perfection; in the second, he ceases to be omnipotent.

God’s status as a perfect being makes this doctrine difficult to formulate, based on the worry that perfect things cannot change without becoming imperfect. Thus, Aristotle’s God, the “Unmoved Mover,” could do nothing but contemplate his own excellence, since all other topics would be lesser. Similarly, such a “god” could not even monitor the goings-on of human existence, since this activity would change the content of his own mind. Aristotle’s God is “self-actualized” in every imaginable sense. But while the Bible says that God does not change, it also tells us that he relates to human beings and their lives in all sorts of ways. He enjoys fellowship with Adam before the fall and gets angry when his people sin. God loves us, and he has worked in history to show us who he is and to redeem us. The incarnation of Christ, the Son, is the prime example of God’s apparent mutability or changeableness on some level, however one describes it. At the very least, he changes with respect to his temporal relationships every time a sinner repents: the latter was lost, and now is found.

The doctrine of the immutability of God must come to grips with passages like Gen. 6:5–7; Exod. 32:14; Jer. 18:7–10; 26:19; Amos 7:3; and Jon. 3:10, which suggest that God sometimes regrets past decisions, changes his mind, and reverses himself in response to human actions, whether positive or negative. Some Christians respond to these passages by asserting that God is semidependent on creation (“process theology”) or mutable in his knowledge and purposes (“open theism”). A better solution is to distinguish between (1) God’s essential nature and eternal purposes, which cannot change, and (2) his contingent relationships. God never retreats and never improvises, nor can he become “ungodlike.” Nevertheless, he is a real person, fully able to experience anger, joy, love, and longing—not less because he is God, but rather far more so.

(1) The first son of Asher and the ancestor of the Imnites (Gen. 46:17; Num. 26:44; 1 Chron. 7:30). (2) The Levite father of Kore, who was keeper of the East Gate of Jerusalem and appointed by Hezekiah and Azariah to manage freewill offerings to God (2 Chron. 31:14).

(1) The first son of Asher and the ancestor of the Imnites (Gen. 46:17; Num. 26:44; 1 Chron. 7:30). (2) The Levite father of Kore, who was keeper of the East Gate of Jerusalem and appointed by Hezekiah and Azariah to manage freewill offerings to God (2 Chron. 31:14).

Imprisonment of Criminals

In comparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is important to acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modern societies. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposing incarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregating dangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime by imposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so that they can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern law imposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblical law imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment (beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of the biblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modern society would be considered political rather than criminal incarceration.

The story of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph was falsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’s wife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned for the otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king (40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of a predetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of the king (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himself hundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Joseph imprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for the crime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certain prisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly (Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed for failure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison as a guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen. 42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could also be confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).

Political Imprisonment

In a number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what we would today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson was imprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that he had wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents (Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. Several Israelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamian overlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt, including Hoshea (2 Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27–29), Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer. 52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal and involved torture (2 Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachin was later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivity in some comfort (2 Kings 25:27–29).

In the NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbas was imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating in an insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number of Christians, apparently without what we would today recognize as any criminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod for political gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned for disturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).

Imprisonment of Prophets

A special case of political incarceration is the imprisonment of prophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophets were imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who did not want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power, imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinions that could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment of dissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John the Baptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediate execution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers toward controversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move about freely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet that prevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed to confront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was a certain level of tolerance for them even when they were not supportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed to the use of imprisonment instead of execution.

Ahab imprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorable oracle (1 Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani the seer (2 Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that such treatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer. 37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned for delivering unwelcome messages to those in power.

Theological Significance

In both Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’s salvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7: “The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6; 107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinely sent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison and identified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological terms to a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7).

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

The word “impute” means “to think of, regard, reckon, or credit something to someone that comes from another.” The language comes from the business world, where records are kept indicating credits and debits to a person’s account. This nontheological sense of imputation is found in Philem. 18–19, where Paul tells Philemon that if his slave Onesimus, who apparently had stolen from his master before running away, owes Philemon anything, “Charge it to me.” But the dominant use of imputation in the Bible is with reference to sin and righteousness.

Although imputation is most clearly taught in the NT, it is present in the OT as well. A prime example is the Day of Atonement ritual, in which Aaron lays his hands on the scapegoat and confesses the sins of the people before releasing it into the wilderness (Lev. 16:20–22). The act of laying his hands on the scapegoat imputes the sins of the people onto the goat.

In the NT, the clearest passages teaching imputation are found in Paul’s writings. Drawing upon Gen. 15:6 and Ps. 32:1–2, he asserts that God imputes righteousness to the believer apart from works (Rom. 4:1–8). Because of Adam’s rebellion, sin and guilt were imputed to all humankind, while at the same time Christ’s obedience is imputed to all his people (5:12–21). Paul summarizes the same idea elsewhere as follows: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). The believer’s sin is credited to Jesus, while Jesus’ righteousness is credited to the believer. In the account ledgers that determine a person’s standing in God’s court of law, God transfers to the believer the complete obedient righteousness of Jesus while at the same time transferring to Jesus the sinful rebellion of the believer. Imputation even extends beyond righteousness: Jesus “has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30).

Imputation makes it clear that salvation is entirely the work of God. It is only on the basis of Christ’s righteousness that the believer can be justified in God’s court of law. Far from being an abstract theological concept, it is the very basis upon which the believer relates to God.

The word “impute” means “to think of, regard, reckon, or credit something to someone that comes from another.” The language comes from the business world, where records are kept indicating credits and debits to a person’s account. This nontheological sense of imputation is found in Philem. 18–19, where Paul tells Philemon that if his slave Onesimus, who apparently had stolen from his master before running away, owes Philemon anything, “Charge it to me.” But the dominant use of imputation in the Bible is with reference to sin and righteousness.

Although imputation is most clearly taught in the NT, it is present in the OT as well. A prime example is the Day of Atonement ritual, in which Aaron lays his hands on the scapegoat and confesses the sins of the people before releasing it into the wilderness (Lev. 16:20–22). The act of laying his hands on the scapegoat imputes the sins of the people onto the goat.

In the NT, the clearest passages teaching imputation are found in Paul’s writings. Drawing upon Gen. 15:6 and Ps. 32:1–2, he asserts that God imputes righteousness to the believer apart from works (Rom. 4:1–8). Because of Adam’s rebellion, sin and guilt were imputed to all humankind, while at the same time Christ’s obedience is imputed to all his people (5:12–21). Paul summarizes the same idea elsewhere as follows: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). The believer’s sin is credited to Jesus, while Jesus’ righteousness is credited to the believer. In the account ledgers that determine a person’s standing in God’s court of law, God transfers to the believer the complete obedient righteousness of Jesus while at the same time transferring to Jesus the sinful rebellion of the believer. Imputation even extends beyond righteousness: Jesus “has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30).

Imputation makes it clear that salvation is entirely the work of God. It is only on the basis of Christ’s righteousness that the believer can be justified in God’s court of law. Far from being an abstract theological concept, it is the very basis upon which the believer relates to God.

A compound of aromatic spices closely related to the daily life of Israel. It became synonymous with “frankincense” at a later time. Aromatic spices were used in Israel for cosmetics (Prov. 7:17; Song 5:5) and for medical (Jer. 8:22; 46:11; 51:8) purposes but occupied a special place in Israelite worship when used as incense. Incense was professionally compounded (Exod. 30:34–35) and was offered on the golden altar by the high priest twice a day (Exod. 30:7–8; cf. Luke 1:8–11) and on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:12–13; cf. 10:1–2). As the incense burned, its sweet fragrance filled the sanctuary, forming an atmospheric curtain to protect the sanctuary and to characterize it as God’s private domain (Isa. 6:4). Prayers offered with the smoke of the incense guaranteed acceptance by God (Deut. 33:10; cf. Gen. 8:21; Exod. 29:18; Ezek. 20:41). In Ps. 141:2, prayers are said to ascend to God like incense, providing a background to the book of Revelation, where incense represents the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8; 8:3–4).

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

Old Testament

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

Abram built altars “to the Lord” at places where God appeared and spoke to him (Gen. 12:7) and where he encamped (12:8; 13:3–4, 18). No sacrifice is explicitly mentioned in association with these altars. Thus, they may have had the character of monuments or memorials of significant events. In association with Abram’s altars, he is said to have “called on the name of the Lord” (12:8)—that is, to pray. The elaborate cultic procedures associated with later Israelite altars (e.g., the mediation of priests) were absent in the patriarchal period. Succeeding generations followed the same practices: Isaac (26:25) and Jacob (33:20; 34:1, 3, 7). God’s test of Abraham involved the demand that he sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering. In obedience, Abraham built an altar for this purpose, but through God’s intervention 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).

Moses and the tabernacle. In the context of making the covenant with Israel at Sinai, God gave Moses instructions on how to construct an altar (Exod. 20:24–26; cf. Josh. 8:31). It could be “an altar of earth” (of sun-dried mud-brick construction?) or else made of loose natural stones. The Israelites were expressly forbidden to use hewn stones, perhaps for fear of an idolatrous image being carved (making this prohibition 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 for the priest to ascend, lest his nakedness be shown to God. The requirement that priests wear undergarments reflects the same concern (Exod. 28:42–43). An altar made of twelve stones, the number representing the number of the tribes of Israel, was built by Moses for the covenant-making ceremony (Exod. 24:4), in which half the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the altar (representing God?) and the other half on the people, the action symbolizing the covenant bond created (24:6–8).

For the tabernacle, a portable “altar of burnt offering” was made (Exod. 27:1–8; 38:1–7). It had wooden frames sheathed in bronze and featured a horn at each corner. There was a ledge around the altar halfway up its sides, from which was hung bronze grating, and it had four bronze rings into which poles were slipped for transport. As part of the cultic ritual, blood was smeared on the horns (29:12). This altar stood in the open air in the courtyard of the tabernacle, near the entrance to the tabernacle. Included among the tabernacle furnishings was a smaller “altar of incense,” with molding around the top rim (30:1–10; 37:25–28). This altar was, however, overlaid with gold, for it stood closer to God’s ritual presence, inside the tabernacle, “in front of the curtain that shields the Ark of the Covenant law,” the curtain that separated the most holy place from the holy place. The high priest placed fragrant incense on this altar every morning and evening. The fact that this was a daily procedure and the description of the positioning of the tabernacle furnishings in Exod. 40:26–28 (mentioning the altar of incense after speaking about the lampstand) might be taken as implying that the incense 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 the ark.

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

Solomon’s temple and rival worship centers. In the temple built by Solomon, the altar of incense that belonged to the “inner sanctuary” was overlaid with gold (1 Kings 6:20, 22). Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple was made before the bronze altar in the courtyard (1 Kings 8:22, 54). The altar for sacrifices was much larger than the one that had been in the tabernacle (1 Chron. 4:1 gives its dimensions).

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

After the division of the kingdom, Jeroboam offered sacrifices at the rival altar that he set up in Bethel (1 Kings 12:32–33). An unnamed “man of God” (= prophet) predicted Josiah’s desecration of this altar, which lay many years in the future (1 Kings 13:1–5). Amos and Hosea, who prophesied in the northern kingdom of the eighth century BC, condemned this and the other 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 the suppression of Yahwism by Jezebel included the throwing down of the Lord’s altars in Israel (19:10, 14). The competition on Mount Carmel between Elijah and the prophets of Baal involved rival altars (1 Kings 18), and Elijah’s twelve-stone altar recalls that of Exod. 24, for he was calling the nation back to the exclusive monotheism preached by Moses (1 Kings 18:30–32).

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

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

The second temple. The Israelites’ return from Babylonian exile was with the express aim of rebuilding the temple. The first thing that the priests did was to build “the altar on its foundation” (i.e., its original base; Ezra 3:2–3). The returnees placed the altar on the precise spot that it had occupied before the Babylonians destroyed it along with the temple. They took such care because they wanted to ensure that God would accept their sacrifices and so grant them protection. At the very end of the OT period, the prophet Malachi condemned the insincerity of Israel’s worship that was manifested in substandard sacrifices being offered on God’s altar (Mal. 1:7, 10; 2:13).

New Testament

In the NT, the altar is mentioned in a number of Jesus’ sayings (e.g., Matt. 5:23–24; 23:18–20). In the theology of the book of Hebrews, which teaches about the priesthood of Jesus Christ (in the order of Melchizedek), the role of the priest is defined as one who “serve[s] at the altar” (7:13), and Christ’s altar (and that of Christ’s followers) is the cross on which he offered himself as a sacrifice for sin (13:10). Another argument of Hebrews is that since on the most important day in the Jewish ritual calendar (the Day of Atonement), the flesh of the sacrifice was not eaten (see Lev. 16:27), the eating of Jewish ceremonial foods is not required, nor is it of any spiritual value. The altar in the heavenly sanctuary 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 altar of incense and is related to the prayers of God’s persecuted people, which are answered by the judgments of God upon the people of the earth.

Incest can be defined as sexual intercourse or sexual contact between close relatives that is considered by society to be illegal, immoral, or socially taboo. The Bible has no term analogous to the English word “incest.” Instead, the OT uses numerous verbal idioms to denote defilement, such as “perversion” (Lev. 20:12) or “wickedness” (18:17; 20:14). What emerges is a catalog of forbidden pairings (Lev. 18:6–18; 20:11–12, 17, 19; Deut. 22:30; 27:20, 22–23; Ezek. 22:10–11), not unlike the ancient Hittite laws or the Code of Hammurabi.

The strongest prohibitions against incest are in Lev. 18; 20; Deut. 27. What Israelite society could not control, God oversaw. In Lev. 18:16–23 the entire unit moves gradually from incestuous unions to other illicit expressions. The consequences of incest are, according to OT legislation in Leviticus, the defilement of the land itself (18:24–30), death (20:11–12), childlessness (20:21), and banishment from the covenant community (20:17; cf. Matt. 18:15–18; 1 Cor. 5:2, 5, 13).

OT narratives, however, often describe the fallout from incestuous unions: father and daughters (Lot and his daughters [Gen. 19:30–35]), older brother and sister (Amnon and Tamar [2 Sam. 13:14–15]), son and father’s wives (Absalom and David’s concubines [Gen. 35:22; 2 Sam. 16:22]), father-in-law with daughter-in-law (Judah and Tamar [Gen. 38:15]). The sole NT reference is in 1 Cor. 5:1–5, a son engaging in sexual relations with his stepmother, which Paul calls porneia (KJV: “fornication”; NIV: “sexual immorality”). This man’s actions also violated Roman law (Gaius, Inst. 1.63).

In contemporary times, the most common type of incest is between father and daughter. Such sexual activity between an adult and a prepubescent or adolescent inflicts some of the most extreme trauma and long-term psychological damage. Modern notions of “consent,” vis-à-vis adult and adolescent, do not avoid various forms of damage to the child. Sibling incest is most prevalent in families where one or both parents are largely absent or emotionally unavailable. Incest perpetrated by an adult against a child is called “intrafamilial child sexual abuse.”

Nine characteristics of incestuous families have been identified: (1) shame, (2) abuse of power, (3) distorted communication, (4) social isolation, (5) denial, (6) lack of intimacy, (7) blurred boundaries, (8) dependency/emotional neediness, (9) and lack of forgiveness. According to the Mayo Clinic, approximately 95 percent of child sexual abuse cases are committed by 88 percent of child offenders who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.

Incest by a parent, the guardian figure in particular, may be the most profound illustration of malicious leadership. Incest comprises the vast majority of child sexual abuse (80 percent). Creation intended a conferred authority for a dependent’s growth, but incestuous acts within a family epitomize the corruption of social order through control, perversion, and unpredictability.

Incest far exceeds Paul’s injunction that fathers not “exasperate” their children (Eph. 6:4). A child victim of incest begins to wonder if the abusing father, mother, or older sibling is guardian or lover. Incest further counters the creation design because a child cannot give or receive as an equal. A son or a daughter represents the union of mother and father; as such, children are not sufficiently “other” to be an object of sexual love. Thus, incest destroys family ties because it disregards created boundaries.

The fundamental damage caused by incest stems from the child’s developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency, and sexuality. Many adult mental health problems are second-order effects, tied to the person’s history of sexual abuse, incest or otherwise. In the United States alone, estimates point to about twenty million persons victimized by parental incest as children.

The incorporation or integration of multiple and diverse groups into one. God promised that all peoples would be blessed in Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). Israel, as the recipient of God’s blessing, was to be a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6), a kingdom of priests mediating God’s presence to the surrounding peoples (Exod. 19:6; Ps. 67:1–2). The prophets anticipated a glorious day when the nations would flow into God’s house and his word would go out from Jerusalem to the nations (Isa. 2:1–5). In Christ, Gentiles have been included in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and Paul longed for the fullness (ESV: “full inclusion”) of the Jewish people through faith (Rom. 11:12–17). Ultimately, people from every tribe, language, people, and nation will together worship Christ forever (Rev. 5:9).

Jesus embodied the inclusive nature of the kingdom of God in his practice of table fellowship with the socially marginalized or despised (Luke 15:2). His ministry included women, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Luke 8:2–3; John 4:40; 12:20). Christ commissioned his Jewish followers to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), in fulfillment of OT expectation (Luke 24:47). In the church, differences in ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status continue, but believers are called to a profound unity amid diversity because of the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26–28) and the gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11).

Gender inclusiveness is an important consideration for modern Bible translations. It concerns the question of whether to use language that is not gender specific instead of masculine language when the context calls for it (e.g., “people” rather than “men,” and “brothers and sisters” rather than “brothers”). Some versions (e.g., TNIV, NRSV, NET, NLT, REB) prefer gender-inclusive language, while others (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV) do not.

The incorporation or integration of multiple and diverse groups into one. God promised that all peoples would be blessed in Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). Israel, as the recipient of God’s blessing, was to be a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6), a kingdom of priests mediating God’s presence to the surrounding peoples (Exod. 19:6; Ps. 67:1–2). The prophets anticipated a glorious day when the nations would flow into God’s house and his word would go out from Jerusalem to the nations (Isa. 2:1–5). In Christ, Gentiles have been included in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and Paul longed for the fullness (ESV: “full inclusion”) of the Jewish people through faith (Rom. 11:12–17). Ultimately, people from every tribe, language, people, and nation will together worship Christ forever (Rev. 5:9).

Jesus embodied the inclusive nature of the kingdom of God in his practice of table fellowship with the socially marginalized or despised (Luke 15:2). His ministry included women, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Luke 8:2–3; John 4:40; 12:20). Christ commissioned his Jewish followers to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), in fulfillment of OT expectation (Luke 24:47). In the church, differences in ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status continue, but believers are called to a profound unity amid diversity because of the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26–28) and the gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11).

Gender inclusiveness is an important consideration for modern Bible translations. It concerns the question of whether to use language that is not gender specific instead of masculine language when the context calls for it (e.g., “people” rather than “men,” and “brothers and sisters” rather than “brothers”). Some versions (e.g., TNIV, NRSV, NET, NLT, REB) prefer gender-inclusive language, while others (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV) do not.

The incorporation or integration of multiple and diverse groups into one. God promised that all peoples would be blessed in Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). Israel, as the recipient of God’s blessing, was to be a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6), a kingdom of priests mediating God’s presence to the surrounding peoples (Exod. 19:6; Ps. 67:1–2). The prophets anticipated a glorious day when the nations would flow into God’s house and his word would go out from Jerusalem to the nations (Isa. 2:1–5). In Christ, Gentiles have been included in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and Paul longed for the fullness (ESV: “full inclusion”) of the Jewish people through faith (Rom. 11:12–17). Ultimately, people from every tribe, language, people, and nation will together worship Christ forever (Rev. 5:9).

Jesus embodied the inclusive nature of the kingdom of God in his practice of table fellowship with the socially marginalized or despised (Luke 15:2). His ministry included women, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Luke 8:2–3; John 4:40; 12:20). Christ commissioned his Jewish followers to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), in fulfillment of OT expectation (Luke 24:47). In the church, differences in ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status continue, but believers are called to a profound unity amid diversity because of the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26–28) and the gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11).

Gender inclusiveness is an important consideration for modern Bible translations. It concerns the question of whether to use language that is not gender specific instead of masculine language when the context calls for it (e.g., “people” rather than “men,” and “brothers and sisters” rather than “brothers”). Some versions (e.g., TNIV, NRSV, NET, NLT, REB) prefer gender-inclusive language, while others (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV) do not.

In the OT, increase at times refers to a harvest’s yield (Ps. 67:7) but more commonly to numerical growth. In Gen. 1 God’s creation blessing is expressed in the imperative “be fruitful and increase in number” (1:22, 28). Even after the fall in Genesis, God reiterated his intention to bless and increase Noah (9:1, 7), Abraham (17:2), Ishmael (17:20), Isaac (26:24), and Jacob (35:11). This blessing was fulfilled initially when Israel increased greatly in Egypt (47:27).

Moses stressed God’s intention to further increase his people if they would obey God (Deut. 6:3; 8:1), and he warned that disobedience would bring about ruin and destruction (28:63). According to Hosea, when Israel prospered, it increased in sin and idolatry (Hos. 4:7; 10:1). Yet God restated his intention to increase the remnant of his people following exile (Jer. 23:3; Ezek. 37:26).

The NT records prayer for increased faith (Luke 17:5) and love (1 Thess. 3:12) and stresses the increase of God’s grace (Rom. 5:20) and the advancement of the word of God (Acts 6:7; 12:24).