Flour and water were kneaded in a shallow bowl or trough to form dough. Kneading was a woman’s work (Jer. 7:18), as in the stories of Sarah (Gen. 18:6), the medium at Endor (1 Sam. 28:24), and Tamar (2 Sam. 13:8). Two of these women (Sarah and Tamar) were of high social status, yet they still performed this quotidian chore. In all three cases, bread was baked as part of a hospitality ritual, explaining why powerful women performed the task.

Flour and water were kneaded in a shallow bowl or trough to form dough. Kneading was a woman’s work (Jer. 7:18), as in the stories of Sarah (Gen. 18:6), the medium at Endor (1 Sam. 28:24), and Tamar (2 Sam. 13:8). Two of these women (Sarah and Tamar) were of high social status, yet they still performed this quotidian chore. In all three cases, bread was baked as part of a hospitality ritual, explaining why powerful women performed the task.

A sharp-edged cutting tool made of flint, bronze, copper, or iron. A number of Hebrew words refer to this implement, which typically was used for killing an animal and preparing it for food (Gen. 22:6, 10; Judg. 19:29). Abraham raised a knife when preparing to slay his son Isaac, but God stayed his hand (Gen. 22:9–14). Knives were used for the ceremonial killing of sacrificial animals. Joshua used flint knives in reinstituting the practice of circumcision (Josh. 5:2–3). Knives at the time of Joshua were not commonly made of flint, so this may reflect the antiquity of the practice. There is some overlap in biblical references to swords and knives. Knives may have been used by the prophets of Baal to cut themselves to gain their god’s attention (1 Kings 18:28); such practices were prohibited in Levitical law (Lev. 19:28). In most English translations, knives are not mentioned in the NT (MSG uses “knife” occasionally in reference to circumcision; e.g., Rom. 2:28–29).

The Bible regularly states that people know some things but not others. In English versions of the Bible, “knowledge” is usually a translation of the Hebrew noun da’at or the Greek noun gnōsis. Similarly, “know” is usually a translation of the Hebrew verb yada’ or the Greek verb ginōskō. Within each language, the noun and the verb share related forms.

God offers everyone knowledge to guide how one should live, but if spurned, the offer may be withdrawn (Prov. 1:28; Matt. 7:7–8; John 7:17; Phil. 3:15). Some people love simplistic thinking more than knowledge (Prov. 1:22), but fools who spurn knowledge in order to follow their own ways are warned that their complacency “will destroy them” (1:29–32). People are similarly warned not to value their own wisdom too highly (Prov. 3:7).

The Bible indicates that a basic knowledge of God is possible simply from observing the world. Genesis 1 states that God created light, land, stars, plants, animals, and people. The existence of the Creator provides an explanation for the existence of each and every thing, and for the world as a whole. Paul accordingly wrote that God’s eternal power and divine nature “have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Rom. 1:19–21).

Beyond this, a more substantial knowledge of God is possible because God has sometimes spoken or acted in history. God communicates using the limited forms that people can hear or perceive. The assembled people of Israel hear God speak at Mount Sinai from the midst of fire when he gives the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5:4–27). God likewise speaks to Moses from a burning bush (Exod. 3). God speaks in a particular place and speaks using the words of a language. This does not deny God’s transcendence. It instead affirms it by showing that God is unlike idols made by humans, idols that “cannot speak” or act (Ps. 115:5).

In the Bible, God normally speaks to people indirectly through prophets. Ancient people did not believe every prophet’s testimony, so God gives Moses miracles to substantiate his claims (Exod. 4:1–9, 27–31). God likewise comes to Mount Sinai so that the people of Israel would trust Moses forever (19:9). Because the nation hears God speak, failure to believe Moses is considered unjustifiable. Eventually, the entire law and covenant are known through Moses. The written record of these events and the law, as validated by historic community practice, are considered sufficient basis for each later generation to believe Moses’ law. After Moses’ death, God speaks through other prophets. There are no grounds to reject their testimony, for they do not deny the law and commandments that God has given through Moses, make false predictions (Deut. 13:1–5; 18:20–22), or contradict each other.

In the NT, Jesus, like Moses, is a prophet (Matt. 21:11; John 7:40; 12:40), authenticated by miracles. He observes the law (Matt. 5:17; John 8:46), unlike his opponents (John 5:45–47). In turn, Jesus sends out disciples with his message and says, “Whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16). Consequently, the Bible gives knowledge of God largely through Moses and the prophets, and in the NT through the prophet Jesus, God’s Son, and the disciples whom he sends out with his message. Those who receive God’s Spirit will understand them more deeply (1 Cor. 2:9–16).

One of Levi’s three sons (Gen. 46:11; Exod. 6:16). His descendants, the Kohathites, were Levites who worked within the tabernacle. They had very specific duties, including one of their primary tasks, which was to hand carry the most important furnishings of the tabernacle (Num. 4).

(1) The third of three sons born to Esau and his Canaanite wife, Oholibamah (Gen. 36:5, 14, 18; 1 Chron. 1:35), he was chief of a clan of the Edomites. (2) A son of Eliphaz and a grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:16, but not in the parallel list in 1 Chron. 1:36), he was chief of a clan of the Edomites. Some suggest this is the same person as in Gen. 36:5, 14, 18; 1 Chron. 1:35. (3) The first of Hebron’s four sons, he was a descendant of Caleb (1 Chron. 2:43).

(4) A Levite, the son of Izhar, of the family of Kohath (Exod. 6:21; Num. 16:1). Numbers 16 tells how Korah, along with the Reubenites Dathan, Abiram, and On, led a rebellion of 250 Israelite chiefs against Moses and Aaron. They challenged the validity of the Aaronic priesthood and claimed that the entire congregation was holy and fit to perform the priestly functions. They also questioned the authority of Moses over all the tribes because he was not from the tribe of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel. In response, Moses said that Yahweh himself would show who is holy and who could approach him. Moses instructed Korah that on the next day each of the 250 leaders should take a censer and put fire and incense on the censer and bring it before Yahweh; Aaron was to do the same. Moses called for Dathan and Abiram to do likewise, but they would not come up, refusing to acknowledge his authority to call them up.

On the next day Korah assembled the entire congregation at the entrance of the tent of meeting. Yahweh directed Moses and Aaron to separate themselves from the congregation so that he might destroy the people due to his anger against them, but Moses interceded. Moses was then directed by Yahweh to have the congregation move away from the dwellings of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Moses went to Dathan and Abiram, and they came out and stood at the entrance of their tents along with their households. Then the ground opened up and swallowed Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and all that belonged to them (their households and their goods). The sons of Korah, however, did not die (see Num. 26:11). Fire came down from Yahweh and consumed the 250 men with the censers. The censers were taken by Eleazar, the son of Aaron, and hammered into plates to cover the altar as a sign to the Israelites that only the descendants of Aaron should draw near to burn incense before Yahweh. See also Korahites.

The descendants of the Le-vite Korah, grandson of Kohath (Exod. 6:24; Num. 16:1; 26:11, 58), not the Edomite Korah (Gen. 36:5, 16). They were a guild of temple singers during the monarchic period, residing certainly in the southern kingdom but also possibly in the northern kingdom. They appear in the superscriptions of Pss. 42–49; 84–85; 87–88, which focus on the themes of Zion, rescue from trials and estrangement from God, and God’s faithfulness as a refuge for his people. In postexilic times they were gatekeepers at the temple and bakers of the sacred bread (1 Chron. 9:19, 31).

The descendants of the Le-vite Korah, grandson of Kohath (Exod. 6:24; Num. 16:1; 26:11, 58), not the Edomite Korah (Gen. 36:5, 16). They were a guild of temple singers during the monarchic period, residing certainly in the southern kingdom but also possibly in the northern kingdom. They appear in the superscriptions of Pss. 42–49; 84–85; 87–88, which focus on the themes of Zion, rescue from trials and estrangement from God, and God’s faithfulness as a refuge for his people. In postexilic times they were gatekeepers at the temple and bakers of the sacred bread (1 Chron. 9:19, 31).

The descendants of the Le-vite Korah, grandson of Kohath (Exod. 6:24; Num. 16:1; 26:11, 58), not the Edomite Korah (Gen. 36:5, 16). They were a guild of temple singers during the monarchic period, residing certainly in the southern kingdom but also possibly in the northern kingdom. They appear in the superscriptions of Pss. 42–49; 84–85; 87–88, which focus on the themes of Zion, rescue from trials and estrangement from God, and God’s faithfulness as a refuge for his people. In postexilic times they were gatekeepers at the temple and bakers of the sacred bread (1 Chron. 9:19, 31).

There are different Hebrew words rendered as “Libya.” Classical writers used “Libyan” to refer to any African except an Egyptian. In the Bible, Libya is sometimes referred to as “Put” (KJV: “Phut”) (Gen. 10:6; Ezek. 27:10). Libyans served in the army of Egypt and Ethiopia (2 Chron. 12:3; 16:8; Nah. 3:9). Ezekiel prophesied that Libya (KJV: “Chub”) and other nations would be ruined (Ezek. 30:3–5). One of its cities was Cyrene, home of Simon who was forced to carry the cross of Christ (Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26). Libyans were present at Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:10).

(1) Rebekah’s brother (Gen. 24:29) and Rachel and Leah’s father (29:16). Laban is involved in the betrothal of Rebekah to Isaac (24:29–51), but he is best known for his deceitfulness and trickery, especially in his dealings with his nephew Jacob (29:1–31:55). Jacob, following his own crafty acquisition of Esau’s birthright and Isaac’s blessing, fled to Laban’s home in Harran, located in Paddan Aram. After his arrival, Jacob agreed to serve Laban for seven years in order to marry his younger daughter, Rachel. Similar to Jacob’s deception of his blind father, Laban secretly gave Jacob his oldest daughter, Leah, instead of Rachel on his wedding night. To justify his actions, Laban appealed to the societal custom that the oldest must be married first, and he demanded seven more years of labor from Jacob in order for him to marry Rachel.

Laban is characterized by this type of self-centeredness throughout the narrative. He continued to cheat Jacob, knowing that Jacob was the key to his own prosperity. Jacob remained in Laban’s home for twenty years (Gen. 31:41) but afterward fled with his family and possessions. Laban stopped Jacob on the way, and the two made a covenant (31:43–54).

(2) One of the places named to identify the location of Moses’ speech to the Israelites concerning God’s commands (Deut. 1:1).

God the Worker

A biblical theology of work starts with God as the creator of all things. In the OT, the verb bara’ (“to create”) is used only with God as subject. The first verb in the Bible (Gen. 1:1), it occurs also in many other texts that describe God accomplishing what only God can do. Other terms such as yatsar (“to form, fashion”) and ’asah (“to make, do”) are used numerous times throughout the OT with either God or humans as subjects.

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

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

Human Labor

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

But work now has negative aspects. In response to Adam’s sin, God curses the ground, introducing “painful toil” into the work cycle (Gen. 3:17–19; 5:29). We now eke out our living by hardship, finding frustration instead of bounty—a lifelong reminder that we are made of dust and will return to dust. The book of Ecclesiastes echoes this note of futility and raises sharp questions about the lasting value of human labor (1:2–3, 14; 2:4–11, 17–23; 3:9; 4:4–6; 8:16–17). Sin and death haunt the unfolding occupations in Gen. 4, and the episode of the tower of Babel in Gen. 11 signals God’s judgment on human pretension (cf. James 4:13–16). Excessive toil (workaholism) is a pitfall, not a virtue, for it expresses reliance on self rather than on God, who builds, protects, and gives rest (Ps. 127:1–2). Oppressive, unjust working conditions are cause for lament, and they incur God’s judgment (Exod. 5:6–19; Prov. 14:31; James 5:4–6).

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

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

Public labor issues increase in complexity when Israel adopts human kingship and engages in international trade (e.g., 1 Sam. 8; 1 Kings 9:15–23). Babylon deals a decisive blow to Judah’s statehood by deporting leaders and skilled workers. Many of these establish such viable, productive new lives in Babylon that when Cyrus later allows the exiled Judeans to return, they choose to remain.

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

While sleeping at Bethel, the patriarch Jacob had a dream in which a “ladder” (NRSV, KJV, NASB) or “stairway” (NIV, NET) extended from earth to heaven. In Jacob’s dream, angels of God were ascending and descending the ladder, and God himself stood atop the ladder as he blessed Jacob (Gen. 28:10–15). Jesus alluded to this incident, likening himself to the ladder in Jacob’s dream (John 1:51).

A place in the Negev whose exact location and meaning are uncertain. It appears first in the narrative of Gen. 16, where Hagar is fleeing from Sarai, her mistress. After the death of Abraham, Beer Lahai Roi becomes the residence of Isaac (Gen. 24:62; 25:11). All three narratives that speak of this place support a location toward the Egyptian border (between Kadesh and Bered). The water source that gave rise to the name was located on the way to Shur (Gen. 16:7). The most likely translation is “well of the Living One who sees me.”

(1) A descendant of Cain and the husband of both Adah and Zillah, and thus the first polygamist (Gen. 4:18–24). After killing a man who had wounded him, he sings to his wives, boasting of his violent deed. He has three sons: Jabal, the first herdsman; Jubal, the first to play the harp and the flute; and Tubal-Cain, the first metalworker. (2) A descendant of Seth, a son of Methuselah, and the father of Noah (Gen. 5:25–31). He prophesied that Noah would bring relief from the curse on the ground. Genesis records his life span as 777 years. He is listed as an ancestor of Jesus (Luke 3:36).

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

The Hebrew word ’erets occurs 2,505 times in the OT and is most frequently translated “country” or “land.” “Earth” renders the Greek word gē in the NT. Not surprisingly, ’erets appears 311 times in Genesis alone, the book that initiates Israel’s landed covenant (Gen. 15:18). The primary uses of ’erets are cosmological (e.g., the earth) and geographical (e.g., the land of Israel). Other uses of ’erets include physical (e.g., the ground on which one stands) and political (e.g., governed countries) designations. Less frequently, “earth” translates the Hebrew word ’adamah (“country, ground, land, soil”).

Heaven and Earth

Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12–13). Similarly, the Akkadian text Hymn to the Sun-God states, “You [Shamash] are holding the ends of the earth suspended from the midst of heaven” (I:22). The earth’s boundaries were set against chaos (Ps. 104:7–9; Isa. 40:12). In this way, the Creator and the Savior cannot be separated because, taken together, God works against chaos in the mission of redemption (Ps. 74:12–17; Isa. 51:9–11). The phrase “heavens and earth” is a merism (two extremes representing the whole) for the entire universe (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 102:25). Over the earth arched a firm “vault” (Gen. 1:6). Heaven’s vault rested on the earth’s “pillars,” the mountains (Deut. 32:22; 1 Sam. 2:8). Below the heavens is the sea, part of the earth’s flat surface.

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

The Theology of Land

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

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

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

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

Inheritance

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

It was Israel’s redefinition of land through the exile that prepared the way for the incorporation of the Gentiles (Ezek. 47:22–23), an integration already anticipated (Isa. 56:3–7). The prophets saw a time when the nations would share in the inheritance of God previously guarded by Israel (Isa. 60; Zech. 2:11; cf. Gen. 12:3). Viewed as a political territory, land receives no substantial theological treatment in the NT; rather, inheritance surpasses covenant metaphor. Using the language of sonship and inheritance, Paul develops this new Gentile mission in Galatians (cf. Col. 1:13–14). The OT land motif fully flowers in the NT teaching of adoption (cf. 1 Pet. 1:3–5). Both curse and covenant are resolved eschatologically (Rom. 8:19–22). Inheritance is now found in Christ (Eph. 2:11–22; 1 Pet. 1:4). In the economy of the new covenant, land tenure has matured in fellowship (koinōnia). Koinōnia recalibrates the ethical significance of OT land themes, reapplying them practically through inclusion, lifestyle, economic responsibility, and social equity.

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

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

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

Second, it is used in the context of God’s judgment (Isa. 13:13; Amos 9:1; Nah. 1:5). It becomes the symbol of God’s anger and wrath (Ps. 18:7). God brought earthquakes upon the people to destroy evil in the world and to punish those who had sinned against him (Num. 16:31–33; Isa. 29:6; Ezek. 38:19). Earthquake activity possibly explains the background to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24).

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

A region generally identified with the landmass between ancient Syria and Egypt, including parts of the Sinai Peninsula, Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, and southern Phoenicia (modern Lebanon). Although there is some discussion about the origin of the name “Canaan” and its meaning, the name apparently arises from the primary inhabitants of the region prior to Joshua’s incursion into the land, since it is primarily used in connection with the phrase “the land of,” indicating that the descendants of Canaan possess it. Because the identity of the land of Canaan was linked as much to its inhabitants as it was to any sort of fixed borders, the boundaries are identified in various ways throughout the biblical text. Such descriptions vary from a rather limited area of influence (as suggested by Num. 13:29) to a larger land spanning an area from the Euphrates to the Nile (Gen. 15:18; Exod. 23:23). Because of its strategic position as a buffer between Egypt and Mesopotamia and between Arabia and the sea, it served as a primary trading outpost and the location of numerous important historical events both prior to and after Israel’s appearance in the land.

In the Bible, the geographical reference “the land of Canaan” finds primary expression, not surprisingly, in Genesis through Judges. The promise to Abraham that his descendants would inherit the land of the Canaanites (Gen. 15:18–21) is the theological focal point of the uses of the term “Canaan” throughout these biblical books. Once that inheritance was achieved and Israel became a viable state, the term’s use seems to serve the double purpose of being both a geographical marker and a reminder of the nature of its former predominant inhabitants. The prophets drew upon the term to remind Israel of the land’s former status, both in its positive (Isa. 19:18) and negative (Isa. 23:11; Zeph. 2:5) connotations. The term is transliterated twice in the NT in the recounting of OT history (Acts 7:11; 13:19). One further connection between Canaan and the perspectives communicated concerning it in the OT is the apparent association of the land with corrupt trade practices. That is, while some believe that the word “Canaan” always meant “merchant” or some similar word, its use in Scripture suggests that the tradesmen of Canaan were of such disrepute in the recollection of ancient Israel that the term became a synonym for “unjust trader” (Job 41:6; Ezek. 16:29; 17:4; Zeph. 1:11; Zech. 14:21).

History

The proximity of Canaan to Egypt meant that from its earliest periods it found itself beholden to the pharaohs of Egypt. The Egyptian Execration texts from the Old Kingdom era tell of Egypt’s influence over Canaan in the early second millennium. After the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, the pharaohs of the New Kingdom asserted their control over the land. Most famous among these records is Thutmose III’s account of his defeat of Megiddo through the implementation of both cunning and skill. This same pharaoh would establish a system of dividing Canaan and its inhabitants for taxation and administration that would be so successful that Solomon would reimplement the same system during his reign (1 Kings 4:7–19). Even in the weaker days of Egypt following the New Kingdom, pharaohs such as Necho and Shishak and their successors the Ptolemies would often seek to revisit the days of glory in campaigns into Canaan.

In addition to Egypt, other outside forces found their way into Canaan and exerted influence on its development. The earliest settlers seem to have come from Mesopotamia, and Semitic influence is witnessed as early as 3000 BC. In the period between Egypt’s control of Canaan during the Old Kingdom and its later reassertion after expelling the Hyksos, Canaan witnessed a massive influx of Amorites from the north and also incursions by the Hittites and the Hurrians. As Egypt’s power waned toward the end of the New Kingdom, the Philistines came in from the sea and the Israelites from across the Jordan. All these societies were absorbed into the Canaanite culture or were themselves modified by the Canaanites. Israelite success in removing mention of the Canaanites as an identifiable entity would not be firmly established until late in the eighth century under Hezekiah.

The story of Israel’s predominance in the area of Canaan begins, of course, with the infiltration into the land under Joshua and persists until the fall of the temple in AD 70 at the hands of the Romans. During that period, Canaan endured as a place of importance as a staging ground for controlling both Mesopotamia and Egypt and therefore witnessed campaigns by most of the great leaders of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Of course, with each campaign came alterations in both the political and the cultural landscape of the land and reinforcement of the view that the area was the center of the world. Indeed, it is in Canaan, in the Jezreel Valley, that Scripture turns its focus for the final battle between God and the forces of Satan at Armageddon.

Geography and Climate

Geography. Though small in scope, the region of Canaan encompassed a surprisingly wide variety of environments. Within its topography one could find perilous deserts, snow-capped mountains, thick forests, lush plains, coastal beaches, rugged hills, deep valleys, and separate water sources full of both life and minerals. The Shephelah, or coastal plain, lacks any natural harbor areas that would have led to the early exploitation of the Mediterranean in the south that is so well known in the northern areas of Phoenicia. It does, however, provide wide-open, fertile areas fed by the rain runoff from the central hill country, which allowed it to be a useful source of farming and civilization from a very early period.

The central hill country is essentially a ridge that runs parallel to the coast and undulates in elevation from the mountainous north to the rugged but less elevated regions of the south. This ridge served as a natural barrier against travel from west to east, so it is not surprising that important military towns such as Hazor cropped up in places where valleys in this ridge allowed travelers to move from the coast to the inland regions as necessary to reach Mesopotamia from Egypt. One such valley of significance through the history of the land of Canaan is the Esdraelon or Jezreel Valley. It provides a wide swath of land that moves from Akko in the west (  just north of the Carmel Range) to the Sea of Galilee in the east, with access points in the north and south. Within this valley were settlements such as Megiddo and Hazor in earlier times, and Nazareth and Tiberias in later times.

Along the eastern edge of the central hill country is the Jordan Rift Valley. The elevation drops dramatically from cities in the hill country, such as Jerusalem at about 2,500 feet above sea level, to cities in the valley, such as Jericho at about 1,000 feet below sea level, within the span of about fifteen miles. The valley itself is part of a much larger rift that starts in southeast Turkey and continues all the way to Mozambique in Africa. Waters from snowy Mount Hermon and a couple of natural springs feed into the Sea of Galilee and then flow into the Jordan River, which snakes its way down into the Dead Sea. The lands around the Jordan River were once very fertile in the north and probably included abundant forests and wildlife. Toward the south of the Jordan River, one approaches the wilderness surrounding the Dead Sea, a region well known for its mineral contents.

The southernmost section of Canaan, known as the Negev, is an unforgiving region with mountains, deserts, and interspersed oases throughout. It opens up into the Arabian Desert to the east and the Sinai Peninsula to the southwest. Its primary cities of importance in biblical times were Beersheba and Raphia. As the gateway from Egypt to Canaan, the Negev played a significant role in biblical history.

Climate. The climate of Canaan played a significant role in its religion and history. It is generally recognized that climate change played a rather momentous role in population movements by nomads, in destabilization of powerful governments, and in the capability, or lack thereof, of nations to participate in the trade that was at the heart of Canaan’s growth, spread of influence, and success. Within Canaan itself, because the natural water sources were on the wrong side of the central hill country, most of its water came from rainfall. It is not surprising, therefore, that many of the discussions that take place in both Canaanite and Israelite religious expressions concerning the power of their gods found utterance in terms of a god’s ability to grant rain (see 1 Kings 17–18). The rainy season began in October and typically continued through April. The other months of the year witnessed little or no rainfall. Although in a temperate zone within which one might expect high temperatures, the coastal plains were kept relatively cool by winds coming in off the sea. The coastal mountain areas, such as Carmel, were the most likely to receive rainfall, so when they were without it, all the land suffered (Amos 1:2).

Culture and Politics

The history of Canaan begins with an archaeological record that travels back into the first signs of human settlement anywhere in the world. Such early attestation exists within the confines of Palestine itself at Jericho and Megiddo, both sites of natural springs that would have attracted settlers. The pre-Israelite civilizations of Canaan are well attested during the Bronze Age (c. 3300–1200 BC). Their culture as represented in the art and architecture of the land demonstrates a developed people who were metropolitan in taste and gifted in style. Furthermore, because of the placement of the land between Egypt and Mesopotamia and the numerous incursions by outside forces throughout its history, Canaan reveals a people with a high tolerance for change and a willingness to absorb other viewpoints into their perspectives and practice. Archaeological finds reveal a mixture of Egyptian, Sumerian, Amorite, Hittite, and Akkadian influences in their literature, material wealth, and religion.

Though unified in terms of a worldview and religious expression, the people of Canaan were politically committed to independent expressions of their power and influence. The greater cities seem to have served as hubs around which smaller communities and cities organized and remained separate from each other. The Amarna letters of the fourteenth century BC reveal leaders who did not trust each other and who sought the Egyptian pharaoh’s favor as they vied for position and strength. As one would expect, different city-states held more sway in different eras. Ebla flourished in the period of 2500–2000 BC and then again around 1800 BC. Likewise, Byblos flourished in the period of 2500–1300 BC. It is in the Middle Bronze Age (2200–1550 BC) that cities more directly involved with the biblical narrative started to flourish. For instance, Jerusalem, Jericho, Hazor, and Megiddo reached their height of power and influence around 1700–1500 BC, and each of these is mentioned in various texts of the time that give us some insight into Canaan’s role in the greater political history. It is Ugarit/Ras Shamra, which flourished in 1400–1200 BC, however, that has granted us the greatest amount of textual knowledge and information about the religion and literature of Canaan.

Religion

The excavations of Ras Shamra (beginning in 1929), and the accompanying discovery of its archive of clay tablets, granted modern scholars a perspective into Canaanite religion that had been hinted at in the biblical text but previously had remained somewhat of a mystery. The tablets themselves date between 1400 and 1200 BC. They reveal a highly developed religion with identifiable, well-defined deities. These deities represent religious practice and thought in the region that go back to at least 2000 BC, and the Mesopotamian religions they are dependent on go back well beyond that.

Canaanite deities. The primary gods identified in the text include El, Baal, Asherah (at Ugarit, Athirat), Anath (at Ugarit, Anat), and Ashtoreth (at Ugarit, Astarte). El was the supreme Canaanite deity, though in popular use the people of Canaan seem to have been more interested in Baal.

The relationship between the Canaanite use of the name “El” for their supreme god and Israel’s use of the same in reference to its own God (Gen. 33:20; Job 8:3; Pss. 18:31, 33, 48; 68:21) is something that biblical authors used at various points in their writings (Ps. 81:9–10; Nah. 1:2), never in the sense of associating the two as one and the same, but solely for the purpose of distinguishing their God, Yahweh, from any associations with the descriptions and nature of the Canaanite El (Exod. 34:14). Practically speaking, the coincidence probably resulted from the fact that the Hebrew word ’el had a dual intent in its common usage, similar to the way a modern English speaker will sometimes use “god” as either a common or a proper noun.

Like “El,” the term “Baal” had a dual function in its use. Because the word means “master” or “lord,” the people of Canaan could apply “Baal” to either the singular deity of the greater pantheon or to individual gods of a more local variety. Local manifestations included Baal-Peor, Baal-Hermon, Baal-Zebul, and Baal-Meon. The OT acknowledges the multiplicity of Baals in some places (Judg. 2:11; 3:7; 1 Sam. 7:4) but also seems to allude to a singular ultimate Baal (1 Kings 18; 2 Kings 21:3), called “Baal-Shamen” or “Baal-Hadad” elsewhere. The fact that Baal was recognized in the Ugaritic texts as the god of the thunderbolt adds an interesting insight to the struggle on Mount Carmel, in which one would suppose that had he been real, the one thing he should have been able to do was bring fire down from the sky; but he could not (1 Kings 18). Recognition that the term “Baal” could refer to a number of gods or to one ultimate god may also help one understand the syncretism that took place in Israel between Yahweh and Baal addressed by the prophet Hosea (Hos. 2:16). To the common person who recognized the multiplicity of the term “Baal” and yet also heard of his supremacy, the assignment of the name to Yahweh and the resulting combining that would occur would seem a natural progression, though still sinful in the eyes of God.

The synthesis of Baal and Yahweh is demonstrated in Scripture as being a temptation from national Israel’s earliest encounters with Baalism. The events at Peor (Num. 25) demonstrate a propensity toward this type of activity, but the confusion between Yahweh and Baal became strongest once Israel entered into the land. Gideon had a second name, “Jerub-Baal” (Judg. 6:32), and the people themselves worshiped Baal-Berith (“Baal of the covenant”) as an indication that they believed their covenant to be with Baal, not Yahweh. Saul, Jonathan, and David all had sons named for Baal: Esh-Baal, Merib-Baal, and Beeliada respectively. Jeroboam I made the connection even more explicit in his setting of shrines at Dan and Bethel with the golden calves that were common icons for Baal in the era, but that he apparently viewed as being appropriate representations of Yahweh. By the time of the prophets, such confusion evidently was entrenched into the very heart of both Israel and Judah; however, Yahweh was able to utilize the false assessments of his character to clarify his true character and ultimately bring Israel back to him.

Asherah was the wife of El in Ugaritic mythology, but apparently because of Baal’s accessibility and ubiquitous nature, she was ultimately given to Baal as a consort among Canaanites in the south. Apparently, her worship was also linked to trees, and the mentioning of “Asherah poles” (Exod. 34:13; Deut. 7:5; Judg. 6:25) in Scripture suggests that such a linkage had been stylized into representative trees at sacred locations. Asherah had prophets (1 Kings 18:19) and specific instruments of worship in Israel (2 Kings 23:4) and became so ensconced in practice and thought that her form often was replicated in the form of items known as Asherim. The previously mentioned synthesis between Baal and Yahweh seems also to have found expression regarding Asherah within Israel. At Kuntillet Ajrud a famous graffito reads “Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah.” This example of the people granting a consort to Yahweh is yet another instance where the biblical revelation is so distinct among surrounding cultures because of the absence of such imagery regarding God.

Anath was understood as both Baal’s sister and his lover in Canaanite mythology. Given her apparent replacement in the thought of the southern Canaanite tribes by Asherah, it is not surprising that the only place we find Anath mentioned is in appellations, such as “Beth Anath” (lit., “the house of Anath” [Josh. 19:38; Judg. 1:33]). She also seems to have played a role in the tone of Baal worship in that she functioned as a goddess of both warfare and sexuality. Her portrayal in Ugaritic texts and in inscriptions from Egypt suggests a lasciviousness that has become the defining characteristic of Canaanite worship and also seems to be at the center of the methodology implemented by Hosea to reach Israel, which had become ensnarled in a similar outlook regarding Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).

The descriptions of Ashtoreth at Ugarit portray her in much the same light as Anath. Some cultures such as Egypt and later Syria seem to have even melded them together into one being. Whether this combining was a part of the Israelite conceptions is difficult to determine, although such a combination may explain why only Ashtoreth is mentioned in the biblical text as an individual deity and not Anath. In any case, Ashtoreth apparently was a primary figure in the corruption of worship during the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2 Kings 23:13).

Summary. By the time the Israelites entered the land, they found a religion that was already well established and accustomed to absorbing various viewpoints into its expression and practice. Additionally, they found a religion that catered to the more base and animalistic tendencies to which all humanity is drawn since the fall. The commonality of such practices among almost all ancient cultures serves as a potent reminder of the distinctiveness and power of the biblical worldview. The narratives, poems, and prophetic oracles of the OT demonstrate a knowledge of these beliefs and an acknowledgment of their place in the lives of everyday Israelites, but they never demonstrate a submission to them in their portrayal of the true God and his expectations of his people.

The land of Israel is strategically located on a land bridge between significant geopolitical powers. About the size of New Jersey, it is geographically diverse, ranging from fertile mountains in northern Galilee to the arid Negev steppe. It was indeed the “testing ground of faith” in which God planted his people.

The “Land Between”

The Mediterranean Sea to the west and the great Arabian Desert to the east confined the flow of military and commercial traffic to this land bridge. Throughout most of Israel’s history, Egypt and the succession of political entities in Mesopotamia were intent on expanding their empires; Israel was in between. To a lesser extent, this also involved invaders coming from or through Anatolia (modern Turkey).

The sea and the desert also affect the weather patterns as Israel is dependent on rainfall in the winter months and dew in the summer for its continued agricultural fertility. The promises regarding the “early and latter rains” (autumn and spring) indicate blessing (Deut. 11:14; Jer. 5:24; Joel 2:23). The prospects of drought and famine hover over the land. These vulnerabilities to enemy attack and potential lack of rainfall figure prominently in God’s challenge to faithful obedience (Deut. 11:10–17; 28:25).

Geographical Regions

There are four north-south longitudinal zones that help to define the geography of Israel. From west to east, they are the coastal plain, the hill country, the Jordan Rift Valley, and Trans-jordan. South of these zones lies the Negev, a marginal region between Israel proper and Sinai.

Coastal plain. The coastal plain extends almost the entire length of Israel, with the exception of Mount Carmel’s promontory, jutting out into the Mediterranean Sea. Because of the straight coastline, there are no natural good harbors as there are farther north in Lebanon. This region characteristically was controlled by more cosmopolitan and generally hostile non-Israelites, the most notable being the Philistines in the south. As a result of these factors, the Israelites generally were not a seafaring people, and in fact they seemed to view the sea as a place of chaos and danger (e.g., Pss. 42:7; 74:13–14; Jon. 2:2–7).

Much of the coastal plain was swampy in antiquity due to calcified sandstone ridges along the coastline that prevented runoff from the hills from flowing unimpeded into the sea. In addition, sand dunes along the coast were obstacles to travel. Because this region was relatively flat and easily traversed along the eastern edge, the International Coastal Highway skirted the swamps and dunes and carried the major traffic through the land. Erosion from the hill country to the east brought excellent soil to the plain. Once the swamps were drained in the twentieth century, the plains became fertile farming areas.

The coastal plain has significant subdivisions. To the north of Mount Carmel, the Plain of Akko includes a crescent-shaped area around the city of Akko and extends to Rosh HaNikra, a promontory at the boundary with Lebanon. Immediately south of Mount Carmel is the small Plain of Dor, generally under the control of foreigners and not significant in the biblical text. The Crocodile River separates the Plain of Dor from the Sharon Plain. In the early first century AD, Herod the Great built Caesarea Maritima on the site of Strato’s Tower along the coast of the Sharon Plain and constructed an immense artificial harbor (Josephus, Ant. 15.331–41). It was Herod’s intent for Caesarea to serve as the entry point for Roman culture into what he considered to be the backwaters of Palestine. In God’s plan, however, the process was reversed: Caesarea became a major Christian center, and the gospel went out through the entire Roman Empire.

The Yarqon River, with its source at Aphek, separates the Sharon and the Philistine plains. Because this created a bottleneck for the International Coastal Highway, whoever controlled Aphek had a military and commercial advantage. It is significant that the Philistines were at Aphek when the Israelites took the ark of the covenant to battle (1 Sam. 4). The Philistine Plain extends fifty miles south to Besor Wadi (dry riverbed) in the western Negev (see below). Its width ranges from about ten miles in the north to twenty-five miles in the south. The five significant Philistine cities were Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron.

Hill country. A mountainous spine runs from the north to the south, with several aberrations due to seismic activity in the distant geologic past. The hill countries of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh are in the southern two-thirds of the country. Because the terrain is rugged, with steep V-shaped valleys, these regions are somewhat more isolated and protected, especially in Judah and Ephraim. Travel in the interior is along the north-south ridge, often called the “way of the patriarchs” because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob journeyed this route, stopping at Shechem, Bethel, Salem (Jerusalem), Hebron, and finally Beersheba at the southern end of the mountain range. Agriculture in the hill country is excellent when there is sufficient rainfall. The hard limestone bedrock means that springs are bountiful and the eroded terra rossa soil is productive. The triad of crops that appears in the Bible includes grain (“bread”), new wine, and oil (Deut. 11:14; Joel 1:10), noted in the order in which they are harvested.

West of the Judean hill country are lower, rolling foothills known as the Shephelah. Cut through by five significant east-west valleys, this region was a buffer zone between the people living in the hill country and the Philistines or other foreign forces passing through on the International Coastal Highway. When Israel was particularly vulnerable, these valleys served as invasion routes into the heartland of Judah. The most famous of these, the Elah Valley, was the site of the face-off between David and the Philistine warrior Goliath (1 Sam. 17).

On the eastern side of the hill country, especially in the tribal areas of Judah and Benjamin, lies the wilderness. Because most of the precipitation falls on the western slopes of the mountain range, rainfall for the regions right around the Dead Sea (in the “rain shadow”) is less than four inches per year. Sparsely inhabited, the wilderness was occasionally a place of refuge, as when David was fleeing from Saul (1 Sam. 23–26). Generally, it was viewed as a place to pass through. When the Israelites conquered the land, they traversed the wilderness to get to the central Benjamin Plateau (Josh. 10:9–10). David fled through the wilderness when Absalom took over the kingdom (2 Sam. 15–16). When Jesus traveled from Jericho (below sea level) to Jerusalem, he climbed through the wilderness to an elevation of about twenty-five hundred feet above sea level. Shepherds grazed their flocks in this area during the winter wet months and then migrated farther north and west as the dry season advanced. Some chose to withdraw into the wilderness, most notably the Qumran community along the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea and the later monastic communities.

The major city in the rugged hill country of Ephraim was Shiloh, a well-protected location for the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant early in Israel’s history (Judg. 18:31; 1 Sam. 1–4). In fact, the decision to take the ark out to battle against the Philistines at Aphek was catastrophic. The tribal territory of Manasseh, north of Ephraim, was more open to foreign influence. The major cities were Shechem, lying between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, locations for the renewal of the covenant (Josh. 8:30–35; 24:1), and Samaria, eventually the capital of the northern kingdom. When Omri moved the capital west to Samaria (1 Kings 16:24), it was a bid for more connection with cosmopolitan coastal communities and particularly with the nation of Phoenicia to the northwest. Omri’s son Ahab married the Phoenician princess Jezebel, cementing the alliance and bringing Baal worship to Israel with even greater force.

Mount Carmel, to the northwest of Samaria, served as the effective boundary between Israel and the expanding power of the Phoenicians. It was the perfect stage for the confrontation between Elijah and the prophets of Baal and Asherah (1 Kings 18). Due to its elevation (over seventeen hundred feet at its highest point), it normally receives about thirty-two inches of rain per year. At Elijah’s word, however, the rain had ceased for more than three years (1 Kings 17:1; James 5:17), and the glory of Carmel had withered (cf. Isa. 33:9; Amos 1:2; Nah. 1:4). This was a direct challenge to the supposed powers of Baal, the god of storm and rain. The contest apparently took place near the heights of the promontory overlooking the Mediterranean Sea (1 Kings 18:42–43). There are, however, three sections in the entire twenty-four-mile range, each separated from the next by a chalk pass, providing access through the mountain range. At the southeastern end of Mount Carmel lies the Dothan Valley, location of one of the routes connecting the International Coastal Highway with the major Transjordanian highway (see Gen. 37; 2 Kings 6:8–23).

The Dothan Valley rests between Mount Carmel and Mount Gilboa to the east. These two mountains, along with the Jezreel and Harod Valleys on their northern flanks, create a natural barrier between the central hill country and Galilee. Because of the strategic importance of this region, the Israelites fought early defensive battles against the forces of Jabin king of Hazor (Judg. 4) and against the Midianites camped in the Jezreel Valley (Judg. 7). Later, the Philistines swept through this valley, dividing the southern tribes from those in the north. Saul and his sons lost their lives on Mount Gilboa in this confrontation (1 Sam. 31). The night before the battle, Saul was so troubled by God’s silence that he ventured behind enemy lines on Mount Moreh (directly north of Mount Gilboa) to the town of Endor and requested a medium to summon the prophet Samuel (1 Sam. 28). The city of Megiddo, situated on the edge of the Jezreel Valley at the base of Mount Carmel, guarded the most important pass through the mountain and was the site of numerous battles. It may be the basis for the name “Armageddon,” “Har Megiddo” in Hebrew (Rev. 16).

North of the Jezreel and Harod Valleys, Galilee can be divided into lower and upper Galilee. The latter is called “upper” because it is both farther north and significantly higher in elevation. Upper Galilee is rugged and relatively isolated. As a result, few biblical events unfolded there. In fact, Galilee is seldom mentioned in the OT, with the exception of Isa. 9:1, the passage that Matthew quotes in speaking of the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee (Matt. 4:13–16).

The western part of lower Galilee has ridges that run east to west, providing natural conduits for the winds from the Mediterranean Sea as they sweep eastward. This contributes to sudden and strong storms on the Sea of Galilee. The town of Nazareth is nestled near the top of the southernmost ridge, overlooking the Jezreel Valley from the north. This would have afforded Jesus a panoramic view of a historical stage as he was growing up. Nearby was Gath Hepher, hometown of the prophet Jonah (2 Kings 14:25). As Jesus looked east, he would have seen Mount Tabor (Judg. 4–5) and Mount Moreh (Judg. 7; 1 Sam. 31). The “brow of the hill” at Nazareth (Luke 4:29) is a sharp precipice overlooking the Jezreel Valley. Although not mentioned in the Gospels, the Roman city of Sepphoris was only about three miles northwest of Nazareth, and it might have been the place where Joseph was employed as a builder. Eastern lower Galilee is characterized by beautiful rolling hills and valleys that slope down toward the Jordan Valley. Just west of the Sea of Galilee are the cliffs of Arbel, past which the International Coastal Highway made its way as it ran from the Jezreel Valley around Mount Tabor and down into the Jordan Rift Valley.

Jordan Rift Valley. The Jordan Rift Valley, ranging in width from about four to fourteen miles, is a remarkable geological cleft in the earth that extends well beyond the immediate area of Israel. The Arabah, the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee, and the Huleh Valley north of the Sea of Galilee lie in the Jordan Rift Valley. In modern times, the Arava (Arabah) refers to the wasteland between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Eilat (Aqaba), but in the OT the term also included the barren desert north of and around the Dead Sea (Josh. 8:14; 11:2; 1 Sam. 23:24; 2 Sam. 2:29; 4:7). The Dead Sea was called the “Sea of the Arabah” in texts that indicate its role as a boundary marker (Deut. 3:17; 4:49; Josh. 12:3; 2 Kings 14:25).

In the Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea is called the “Sea of Salt.” The mineral content exceeds 30 percent, compared to normal sea salinity of 3–5 percent. These minerals include calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium chlorides. Nevertheless, some algae and bacteria do survive in the sea. Bitumen (asphalt) also seeps from the sea floor, especially when there is more seismic activity in the region. The salinity varies, depending on the level of the Dead Sea, which does fluctuate with variations in rainfall. The level is currently receding rapidly, at a rate of almost three feet per year. One reason for this is the increasing demand for water from the headwaters of the Jordan River. The north end of the sea, at about thirteen hundred feet below sea level, is the lowest place on earth, and the depth of the water at that point is more than one thousand feet.

The Jordan River Valley north of the Dead Sea is approximately sixty-five miles long, and the Jordan River winds for over 120 miles. The name “Jordan” comes from the Hebrew word yarad, which means “to descend.” The Sea of Galilee is 690 feet below sea level, so there is a significant drop between that point and the north end of the Dead Sea.

Key cities in the Jordan Valley include Jericho, just north of the Dead Sea, and Beth Shan, at the junction of the Harod and Jordan valleys. The first city to be conquered (Josh. 6), Jericho represented the vulnerable “underbelly” of Canaan and paved the way for the campaigns that swept first through the south and then the north (Josh. 9–11). Beth Shan was under Philistine control in the early Israelite period. Later, it became the one Decapolis city west of the Jordan River and was known as Scythopolis.

The Jordan Valley has three sections. The entire expanse is called the “Ghor,” an Arabic name. The river valley itself is called the “Zhor,” and it includes the “pride” or thickets of the Jordan, a dense tangle of lush underbrush in which lions could be found in the biblical period (Jer. 12:5; 49:19; 50:44; Zech. 11:3). In between the Ghor and the Zhor is the Qatarra, lifeless marl terraces. In antiquity, during flood stage the Jordan River could be a mile wide. The Israelites crossed the Jordan in the springtime, near Passover, when the river was at flood stage (Josh. 3:15; 5:10).

The Jordan River has its headwaters north of the Sea of Galilee at the base of Mount Hermon. It provides a constant source of freshwater coming into the seven-by-thirteen-mile body of water. In addition, there are salt springs in the northwestern corner. These contribute to the good fishing in that part of the sea. The Hebrew name is “Yam [Sea of] Kinnereth” (Num. 34:11; Josh. 12:3; 13:27). It was also known as the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1; 21:1) and the Lake of Gennesaret (Luke 5:1). This last name comes from the fertile plain around the northwestern corner of the lake and the city of Gennesaret on that plain.

The ministry of Jesus unfolded around the Sea of Galilee after he moved his base of operations from Nazareth to Capernaum (Matt. 4:13), at the northern end of the sea. Nearby were the cities of Bethsaida and Chorazin, which, along with Capernaum, Jesus condemned for not believing even though he worked miracles in their midst (Matt. 11:20–24). The city of Capernaum profited from the industries of fishing and oil pressing. It was also a likely place for a tax collector, as it was close to the border between Herod Antipas’s Galilee and Herod Philip’s territories to the east. Across the lake, in non-Jewish territory, was the town of Gergesa, perhaps the site where Jesus sent the legion of demons into a herd of pigs (Mark 5:1–20 pars.).

Just north of the Sea of Galilee is an elevated sill, formed by a basalt flow across the Golan Heights and over this section of the Jordan Rift Valley. Hazor, a major site of some two hundred acres, sat astride the sill and dominated the northern region in the Late Bronze and Israelite periods. Hazor is mentioned in texts from both Mari in Mesopotamia and El Amarna in Egypt.

The Huleh Valley, north of the sill, is twenty miles in length and receives about twenty-four inches of rain per year, making it a marshland swamp in antiquity that was called “Lake Semechonitis.” The International Coastal Highway made its way along the western edge of the valley, turned eastward past Mount Hermon, and continued to Damascus.

Transjordan. On the eastern side of the Jordan Rift Valley, at the very northern extent of Israel, Mount Hermon rises to nine thousand feet. Abundant precipitation percolating through the limestone results in prolific springs at its base. These are the headwaters of the Jordan River, the two most important of which are at Dan and Caesarea Philippi. With the abundance of water and lush surroundings, it is not surprising that Dan was a tempting location for the tribe of Dan to resettle, given their precarious position between the tribe of Judah and the Philistines to the west. The idols set up at that point (Judg. 18:30–31) established a precedent for Jeroboam’s choice to position one of the golden calves there as an alternative to worship in distant Jerusalem (1 Kings 12:29–30). Another name for Caesarea Philippi is “Panias” (modern Arabic, “Banias”), in celebration of the god Pan. The rock face from which the spring poured forth is covered with niches for pagan gods; Herod the Great also built a temple to Augustus. In this context, Peter declared that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the “living” God (Matt. 16:16).

The region south of Mount Hermon was Bashan in the OT period. In the NT era it consisted of a number of small provinces. One of those was Gaulanitis, which is recognizable in the modern name “Golan.” With significant annual rainfall (about forty inches per year), the natural vegetation includes trees and rich pasture that supports large herds (cf. the “bulls of Bashan” in Ps. 22:12; Ezek. 39:18).

Separating the region of Bashan from Lower Gilead is the Yarmuk River Gorge, a significant natural boundary. There was an ongoing contest between the northern kingdom of Israel and Syria to the northeast to control the key site of Ramoth Gilead (1 Kings 22; 2 Kings 9). Cutting through the elevated Dome of Gilead is the Jabbok River, the site of Jacob’s wrestling match with God (Gen. 32).

The area to the east and south of the Dead Sea includes the plains of Moab (Mishor), extending north of the Arnon River Gorge; geopolitical Moab, between the Arnon and the Zered rivers; and Edom, reaching from the Zered down to the northern end of the Gulf of Eilat (Aqaba). To the east of the Mishor lay the kingdom of Ammon. According to Gen. 19, Moab and Ammon were descendants of Lot by his daughters. When they fled eastward from Sodom and Gomorrah, this was the general area they settled.

Transjordan was significant in the OT as the Israelites skirted Edom, conquered the cities of the Amorites and the king of Bashan, and encountered Moab en route to the promised land (Num. 20–25). The tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh requested the right to settle in Transjordan after the conquest of the land was completed (Num. 32). In the ensuing centuries these tribes suffered the ravages of war on the eastern front (Judg. 10:8; 1 Sam. 11:1; 2 Kings 15:29; 1 Chron. 5:23–26). In the intertestamental period most of northern and central Transjordan came under Hellenistic control. Decapolis cities were located in Bashan, Gilead, and as far south as Philadelphia, at the site of modern Amman.

Negev. To the south of the Judean hill country lies the Negev, whose name means both “dry” and “south.” The biblical Negev is a smaller region shaped somewhat like a bowtie, with Beersheba at the center, Arad in the eastern basin, and Gerar controlling the western basin. The south end of the Philistine plain merges with the western Negev. In the patriarchal period there were tensions over water rights between the herdsmen of Abraham and Isaac and those of the Philistine king Abimelek (Gen. 21:22–34; 26:12–33). Although the region only receives eight to twelve inches of rainfall per year, this was sufficient to sustain small populations, especially if they conserved water. The soil of the Negev is loess, a windblown powder from which the water simply runs off unless catch basins are constructed.

The biblical Negev is bounded by the greater Negev to the south, where rugged limestone ridges predominate. An artificial line drawn from Gaza to Eilat, at the northern end of the Gulf of Eilat, defines the southwestern boundary of the greater Negev; the Jordan Rift Valley is the eastern boundary. The Negev was historically a corridor for spice trade coming from southwestern Arabia and India on the “ship of the desert” (the camel) to reach the Mediterranean markets. The Nabateans, Arab commercial nomads who knew the secrets of the desert, flourished in the spice trade from the fourth to the first centuries BC. Once the Romans co-opted the spice trade, the Nabateans built cities, developed water conservation techniques, and grew extensive vineyards.

The Testing Ground of Faith

Because the land is marginal in terms of both sufficient rainfall and national security, God’s covenant people faced the constant challenge of obedience. The temptations to worship the Canaanite gods for agricultural fertility and to form alliances with more-powerful neighbors instead of putting their trust in God were powerful. Often they succumbed and then experienced God’s chastisement that they might return to him (Lev. 26). Even the land itself would experience pollution due to the sins of its inhabitants (Lev. 18:25). In sum, the land was much more than living space; it was an integral part of the Israelites’ identity as God’s covenant people. When it was flowing with “milk and honey,” the people experienced the shalom of God.

Scripture is written in three languages: Hebrew and Aramaic, two related Semitic languages, in the OT; and Koine (common) Greek in the NT. From the sixth century to the end of the fourth century BC, Aramaic was the lingua franca (trade language) of major portions of the ancient Near East, until Greek became the major trade language, from the end of the fourth century BC through the first century AD and beyond. Modern versions and dialects of all three languages are spoken today. Hebrew has been the national language of Israel since its re-creation in 1948. Aramaic dialects are spoken by small pockets of people—certain villages in the Anti-Lebanon area, groups in Azerbaijan and Kurdistan, and remnants of the gnostic sect of the Mandaeans. Greek is spoken by more than fifteen million Greeks, Cypriots, and others. Even though each language has changed and adapted over the centuries, most modern speakers would still recognize much of their language’s ancient forms. The main differences are in grammar, vocabulary, and, for Hebrew, writing script.

Hebrew is a North Semitic language written from right to left, having twenty-two consonants, and originally written without vowels. It is difficult to know how long Classical (or biblical Hebrew) was used, but the earliest extant Hebrew texts come from the twelfth (’Izbet Sartah Abecedary) and tenth centuries (Gezer Calendar) BC and extend at least until about AD 132–35 (manuscripts from Murabba’at caves).

Aramaic is also a North Semitic language, is very similar to Hebrew, and uses the same alphabet and often the same writing script. There are very few portions of the OT written in Aramaic (Dan. 2:4b–7:28; Ezra 4:8–6:18; 7:12–26; and a few phrases in Gen. 31:47; Jer. 10:11). It was most likely the common language spoken by Jesus and the disciples.

Following the conquests of Alexander the Great, Koine Greek became the lingua franca to help unify the Greek Empire. This highly inflected language (i.e., changes to words indicate grammatical function) is complex and precise, capable of expressing fine nuances and abstract ideas. The verb system has three voices (active, middle, passive), six aspects that convey the time of action (past, present, future) and the kind of action (durative: “I was eating”; completed: “I have eaten”; undefined: “I ate”), four moods that denote actuality or potentiality (indicative, subjunctive, imperative, optative), and participles and infinitives. See also Aramaic; Greek Language; Hebrew Language.

A town on the border of the early Canaanite settlements. Lasha appears last in the description of Canaan’s borders, being preceded by Sidon in the northwest, Gerar and Gaza in the southwest, and Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboyim in the southeast near the Dead Sea (Gen. 10:19). Lasha’s exact location is unknown, but the geographical sequence of the preceding cities indicates that it was on the northeastern extremity of Canaan.

A window through which air could pass but was protected by a structure of criss-crossed wood or metal strips. As elsewhere in the ancient Near East, window scenes in biblical literature often forebode ill fate. The motif of the woman at the window is commonly attested in the ancient Near East, and there are several biblical examples of such women and their perils (Josh. 2:15–21; Judg. 5:28; 1 Sam. 19:12; 2 Sam. 6:16–23; 2 Kings 9:32). The window portends danger for men also, though not in forms as tragic as those that women faced (Gen. 8:6; 26:8; 2 Kings 1:2; 13:17; Prov. 7:6; Acts 20:9).

In the Bible, “laugh” rarely denotes a response to humor. Most prominent in the Scriptures is the laugh of scorn or derision. Animals and humans can laugh at danger (Job 5:22; 39:7; Prov. 31:25). God laughs at those who oppose him (Pss. 2:4; 37:13; 59:8), and Wisdom laughs at those who ignore her (Prov. 1:26). People can become laughingstocks to others (Exod. 32:25; Lam. 3:14). Jesus was laughed at in ridicule (Matt. 9:24; Mark 5:40; Luke 8:53).

Laughter is prominent throughout the narrative of Isaac’s birth. Both Abraham (Gen. 17:17) and Sarah (18:12) laughed when they heard that Isaac would be born to them in their old age. When Isaac, whose name means “he laughs” (see 17:19 NIV mg.), was born, Sarah spoke of the laughter that God had brought to her and that others would have (21:6).

Furthermore, the biblical writers often contrast laughter with mourning. In such instances, laughter represents feelings of happiness or joy (Eccles. 3:4; Luke 6:21, 25; James 4:9).

Terminology

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

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

The OT employs a number of close synonyms for “law,” including “commandments,” “testimony,” “judgments,” “statutes,” “ordinances,” “decrees,” and “precepts.” Each of these terms reflects varying nuances or particular aspects of the divine instruction. Unfortunately, all these words as translated into English subtly misrepresent the “law” as an odious external set of rules that inhibit human freedom and require punishment for disobedience. This perspective suggests that obedience to the divine law was coerced by the threat of divine judgment. Contrary to this misconception, the people of Israel rejoiced in following Yahweh’s instructions because their greatest desire was to please and live in harmony with him. Yahweh’s people enjoyed the privilege of receiving divine revelation consisting of directions that assured divine favor. Although perfect adherence to these instructions proved to be an impossible task, Yahweh’s covenant stipulations provided an ideal toward which his people were expected to make progress as they constantly strived to fulfill that ideal. The Torah in its broadest sense reflects a verbal expression of the character, nature, and will of God.

Types of Law

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

More specifically, the word “law” often denotes the Ten Commandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “ten words”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered to Moses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandments reflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided into two parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which they were first recorded: the first four address the individual’s relationship to God, and the last six focus on instructions concerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplistic expression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelines extends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any and all incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thing forbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing the prohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice its opposite good in order to be in compliance.

Judicial law. The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), closely associated with the Ten Commandments, immediately follows the Decalogue and may be subdivided into casuistic, or “case,” law (21:2–22:17) and a variety of miscellaneous laws, many which are apodictic, or absolute, commands. The divine instructions cannot address an infinite range of circumstances; consequently, the casuistic laws describe the judicial process in light of general situations, which form the precedence upon which future specific judgments can be made. Apodictic instructions, generally identified by imperatives or volitional forms, set forth a strict prohibition followed by the consequences of disobedience. Government in early Israelite history revolved around the authoritative decisions of judges, who declared a verdict based on custom or precedent (Exod. 18:13–27). The moral emphasis of the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant provides the underlying theological reasons for obeying God’s law and forms an important part of the ethical foundation of pentateuchal discussions and elaborations of law.

Ceremonial law. Ceremonial, or cultic, law includes the instructions guiding the construction and preparation of the tabernacle for worship combined with the Levitical guidelines dictating the proper execution of ritual sacrifice and cultic practice. The significance of the tabernacle as a portable sanctuary of Yahweh and its integral connection with God’s promise to dwell among the Israelites are reinforced by the tabernacle’s association with the appearance of Yahweh at Sinai and the inauguration of the covenant. The tabernacle becomes the place where the people meet God through a mediator and seek continued divine favor through ritual purification, sacrifice, and atonement.

Leviticus systematically outlines the procedure for priestly selection and succession, details the consecration of cultic vessels and priests, describes conditions for participation and the celebration of sacred festivals (Lev. 16; 23–25), and addresses other issues such as blasphemy, sexual behavior, and false prophecy. The sacrificial regulations cover sin offerings (6:25), guilt offerings (7:1, 7), burnt offerings (6:9), grain offerings (6:14), and fellowship offerings (7:11). The book of Leviticus also provides extensive instruction concerning the designation of “clean” (consecrated) and “unclean” (profane), reinforcing the separateness of God’s chosen people (e.g., 11:46; 12:7; 13:59; 14:2, 32; 15:32–33). Uncircumcised foreigners were excluded from participation in Israel’s sacred assemblies.

Moral law. Economic hardship presented numerous challenges in Israelite society that were resolved through laws concerning debt and slavery. A series of laws sought to protect the property and rights of those indebted to creditors (Exod. 22:25–27; Deut. 24:6, 10–13; 2 Kings 4:1; Amos 2:8). Those who were enslaved in order to compensate for their debts had to be released after six years of service (Exod. 21:2, 11; Deut. 15:12–18). Property and persons who were turned over to creditors could often be redeemed (Lev. 25:25–28, 47–55). Those who harvested crops were instructed to leave the corners of fields and the remnants of crops for gleaning by the poor (Deut. 24:19–22; Ruth 2:2–6). The systematic mistreatment of the marginalized in society led to widespread corruption among the judiciary, angering Yahweh and leading to the exile (Isa. 1:15–17; Amos 2:6–7; 11–13). It is clear that this type of law was reenacted during the postexilic period (Neh. 5:1–13; Jer. 34:8–16).

Torah in Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

OT wisdom literature develops the concept of Torah as human instruction for daily living, underscoring the dynamic character of the law and its permeation of all areas of life. Vigilant obedience to the law results in wise and godly conduct. In Proverbs, the son is admonished by the father to obey the Torah (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 6:23), and the pupil is instructed by the teacher to respect the law (13:13) and to resist the company of those who do not obey the Torah (28:4), with such observance resulting in God’s blessings (29:18) and answers to prayer (28:9). The wise woman familiarizes herself with the Torah because the responsibility for instruction of her household lies with her (31:26).

The book of Psalms contains three compositions typically classified as Torah psalms (1; 19; 119). In Ps. 1 continual reflection on the Torah manifests itself in the prosperity and the wisdom of the obedient. Psalm 19 celebrates the benefits of keeping the Torah, including wisdom, joy, enlightenment, life, and moral discernment. In a lengthy acrostic arranged according to the Hebrew alphabet, Ps. 119 exploits the attitudes, effects, and practicality of the Torah as exemplified in the life of the faithful.

In the prophetic material, Torah refers to teaching administered in the name of Yahweh, either by the priests or the prophets. Moral decline, manifested by the social injustice of Israel’s leader-ship coupled with idolatry and syncretistic worship, was directly attributed to the failure of the priests to uphold the Torah and their negligence in instructing the community (Jer. 2:8; 8:8; Ezek. 7:26; 22:26; Hos. 8:1–12; Amos 2:4). The prophetic emphasis on justice and righteousness as characteristic qualities of God’s people highlights the importance placed on fair and equitable treatment (e.g., Isa. 5:23–24; 26:1–11; 48:17–19; 58:6–9; 59:9–14). The Torah provided the authoritative point of departure in the composition of prophetic messages and teachings, undergirding the authority and genuineness of the prophetic proclamations and exhortations to the contemporary audience. The messages of the prophets were in fact not new, but were simply the adaptation and transformation of pentateuchal texts already generally accepted by the community as authoritative.

Biblical Law and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

Biblical law did not develop in isolation from other legal systems; rather, it appears to follow long-established, widespread, and standardized patterns of Mesopotamian law. A persuasive number of parallels between customs and familial relationships addressed in the Nuzi tablets and archaic elements in the patriarchal narratives seem to suggest that the patriarchs operated under Hurrian law. The Nuzi tablets clarify the subjects of adoption, marriage, and economic transactions, apparently exerting an influence on the lives of the early OT patriarchs. The wife-sister accounts of Abram and Isaac, in which the marriage eligibility of Sarai and Rebekah arise (Gen. 12; 26), as well as Abraham’s proposed adoption of his servant Eliezer as an heir (Gen. 15:2–4) and his siring of Ishmael through Sarai’s servant Hagar (Gen. 16), reflect customary practice described in these documents.

A vast range of legal documents regulating judicial procedures provides material for comparative analysis with biblical texts. Included among these discoveries are a number of law collections, generally named after the ruler who commissioned them. Archaeologists have uncovered evidence, from as early as the twenty-first century BC, of two surviving Sumerian legal collections affirming the ancient origins of societal governance. The Laws of King Ur-Nammu, recorded during the last great period of Sumerian literacy (2111–2095 BC), are preserved in scribal copies from Nippur dated between 1800 and 1700 BC and consist of a fragment and two partial stone tablets. Written in a casuistic format, the texts attest to twenty-nine stipulations, including legislation addressing weights and measures; protections for widows, orphans, and the impoverished; sexual offenses; marital laws; slavery; false testimony; and property abuses.

A second Sumerian law collection dating from the nineteenth century BC, that of King Lipit-Ishtar, the fifth ruler of the Isin dynasty in lower Mesopotamia, consists of a prologue, thirty-eight wholly or partially restored laws, and an epilogue. These laws, bequeathed to Lipit-Ishtar by the Sumerian deities Anu and Enlil in order to “establish justice in the land,” represent civil laws governing business practices, slavery, property, family, and inadvertent injury to an individual. What appear to be an additional thirty-eight laws, comprising the second half of the code, have been destroyed along with part of the prologue. All these laws were recorded in a casuistic format.

The Laws of Eshnunna, written in Akkadian, consist of two tablets containing approximately sixty different laws. The authorship and date of origin remain unknown, but historians suggest that this law collection, which has no prologue or epilogue, was contemporary with the Code of Hammurabi (1728–1686 BC). Though written in a casuistic format, this artifact assigns penalties on the basis of social status.

The Code of Hammurabi, named for the sixth of eleven kings of the Old Babylonian dynasty, is perhaps the most famous and most complete of the ancient Mesopotamian collections. In 1902, French archaeologists discovered the code on a black diorite stela, nearly eight feet tall, in what was ancient Susa. Multiple copies of the code have been preserved. Written in Akkadian cuneiform, the law collection consists of 282 legal paragraphs created to promote public welfare and the cause of justice. The format of the code, which includes a prologue, an epilogue, and a category of cursings for disobedience and blessings for obedience, closely mirrors the structure of the book of Deuteronomy. The casuistic format addresses laws governing public order and individual private law. The penalties prescribed for capital offenses, of which there were thirty, were harsh and often cruel, including bodily mutilation, multiple punishments, and vicarious punishment. Retaliatory consequences for the protection of private property were exceptionally cruel, taking the form of torture or excessive fines. Often, those who were presumed guilty would be thrown into the river; survival indicated innocence, while drowning demonstrated guilt. A predominant feature was the lex talionis (the law of retaliation, or measure for measure), whereby a corresponding penalty was exacted against the offender based on the crime. For instance, if a child was killed, the death of the offender’s child was required. Capital crimes included theft of property and adultery. Contrary to biblical law, Hammurabi’s code made financial provision for the loss of life, whereas in the OT the value of life was immeasurable.

The argument from silence suggests that in the absence of a full biblical law code, legal instructions and stipulations in the biblical text consist primarily of codicil emendations, that is, additions and innovations to already existing laws. For example, the discussion on divorce in Deut. 21 describes the execution of a document without giving details concerning the content or form of such a document. The passage also mentions a yet undiscovered “book of divorce.” The absence of legal material on commercial and business law as well as specifics concerning inheritance and other common subjects points to a more comprehensive body of unwritten law reflecting preexisting societal norms. Israelite society was therefore indebted to its Mesopotamian predecessors for its implementation of law as a means of protecting citizens, and for many legal provisions eventually adapted by the biblical text.

The Character of Biblical Law

Although Israelite law was in some ways influenced by the legal codes of other ancient Near Eastern cultures, biblical law retained a distinct identity centered on the relationship between Yahweh and his chosen people. Law in the OT is presented not as secular instruction but rather as divine pronouncement, receiving its authority as an expression of the divine will. The entirety of the divine instruction originates with God, and he is both author and guarantor of the covenant with his people. The people of Israel, then, are held responsible to God for their actions and not just to a legislative body or human ruler. The will of the Israelite is wholly surrendered to the will of God to such a degree that every aspect of an individual’s life is inextricably connected to the divine teachings. God assigns the stipulations and requirements of the law to the entire corporate body of Israel. The responsibility for covenant fidelity does not lie solely with the community leadership; rather, it is shared by every individual in the community, whose dual role includes ensuring both the fair execution of justice in the community and personal observance of the law. God’s instructions are proclaimed publicly and apply equally to all social strata without distinction, apart from specific direction concerning slaves.

Torah becomes the corpus of teaching directed toward the entire community. The didactic purpose of the law is evident by the motive clauses appended to many apodictic and casuistic instructions that elaborate on the ethical, religious, or historical reasons for covenant faithfulness. The pedagogical aim serves to appeal to the Israelite conscience as a means of motivating obedience. In addition, the teaching that humanity is created in the divine image reinforces the sacredness of human life as a foundational concern of the law. Religious rather than economic values prevail, eliminating the death penalty for all property crimes. Individual culpability predominates in the biblical corpus, abolishing the notion of vicarious punishment advocated in extrabiblical legislation. Each offender pays the consequences of his or her behavior. Each person, created by God and enjoying equal status with all others, receives fair and equitable treatment.

The Law and the New Testament

The contemporary significance of the Torah is recognized in the NT by Jesus’ declaration that his incarnation served to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17). He affirms the continued legitimacy of the law (Matt. 5:19) and appeals to the law as the governing authority for proper practice and behavior (Matt. 12:6, 42; Luke 4:1–11; Mark 7:9–12; 10:17–19).

The relationship between gospel and law in both Testaments demonstrates far greater continuity than is recognized by many Christians. Covenant theologians affirm that the Mosaic law described a “covenant of works,” which functions differently from the NT’s “covenant of grace,” while dispensationalists often teach that grace supersedes and abolishes the demands of the law. The conditional nature of the Mosaic covenant differs from that of the Abrahamic covenant, since the unconditional promise of the Abrahamic covenant suggests that the blessings promised to Abraham and his seed would be realized not because of human obedience but rather through divine fidelity (Gal. 3:15–27). The Mosaic covenant, or covenant of law, is not contrary to the promises of God (Gal. 3:21); instead, God graciously entered into relationship with the people of Israel, redeemed them from Egypt, and then gave them the law so that they would respond in humble obedience to his redeeming work. Thus, Mosaic law provided through a mediator a way for God to reveal himself to Israel. Consequently, the idea that Israelite religion was legalistic is mistaken. It did not teach that one could earn salvation by “keeping the law”; rather, an individual entered into the covenant with God by grace. When God established the covenant with his people, he forgave their sins. He did not demand a certain level of attainment as a prerequisite for entering into that relationship, nor did Israel have to obey the law perfectly in order to achieve salvation. Instead, the covenantal arrangement instituted a means of forgiveness through the sacrificial system, making the removal of the barrier of sin available to the people. Israel’s obedience to the law was a response to God’s gracious and redeeming work. Law and covenant were complementary.

Ongoing discussions explore the question concerning the relevance of the law for Christians today. Many scholars from past centuries, such as Martin Luther, claimed that the believer is freed entirely from the law of Moses, including its moral requirements. The OT law is binding only insofar as it agrees with the NT and mirrors natural law. John Calvin, on the other hand, maintained that the moral laws of the OT are obligatory for the believer, and he asserts that this is the principal function of law. Calvin’s sense of keeping the moral law does not compromise the message of grace, for keeping the moral law, as opposed to the ceremonial or civil law, does not earn salvation but instead forms the acceptable response of the believer to God’s grace. Other Reformation scholars suggested that the law was abolished with the coming of Christ, and, as a result, while the moral norms remain in effect, the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled with the coming of Christ. Although the penalties originally prescribed for disobedience are no longer effective, keeping the moral law reflects the proper outcome of a life lived by the Spirit of God. See also Ten Commandments; Torah.

Terminology

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

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

The OT employs a number of close synonyms for “law,” including “commandments,” “testimony,” “judgments,” “statutes,” “ordinances,” “decrees,” and “precepts.” Each of these terms reflects varying nuances or particular aspects of the divine instruction. Unfortunately, all these words as translated into English subtly misrepresent the “law” as an odious external set of rules that inhibit human freedom and require punishment for disobedience. This perspective suggests that obedience to the divine law was coerced by the threat of divine judgment. Contrary to this misconception, the people of Israel rejoiced in following Yahweh’s instructions because their greatest desire was to please and live in harmony with him. Yahweh’s people enjoyed the privilege of receiving divine revelation consisting of directions that assured divine favor. Although perfect adherence to these instructions proved to be an impossible task, Yahweh’s covenant stipulations provided an ideal toward which his people were expected to make progress as they constantly strived to fulfill that ideal. The Torah in its broadest sense reflects a verbal expression of the character, nature, and will of God.

Types of Law

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

More specifically, the word “law” often denotes the Ten Commandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “ten words”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered to Moses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandments reflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided into two parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which they were first recorded: the first four address the individual’s relationship to God, and the last six focus on instructions concerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplistic expression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelines extends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any and all incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thing forbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing the prohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice its opposite good in order to be in compliance.

Judicial law. The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), closely associated with the Ten Commandments, immediately follows the Decalogue and may be subdivided into casuistic, or “case,” law (21:2–22:17) and a variety of miscellaneous laws, many which are apodictic, or absolute, commands. The divine instructions cannot address an infinite range of circumstances; consequently, the casuistic laws describe the judicial process in light of general situations, which form the precedence upon which future specific judgments can be made. Apodictic instructions, generally identified by imperatives or volitional forms, set forth a strict prohibition followed by the consequences of disobedience. Government in early Israelite history revolved around the authoritative decisions of judges, who declared a verdict based on custom or precedent (Exod. 18:13–27). The moral emphasis of the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant provides the underlying theological reasons for obeying God’s law and forms an important part of the ethical foundation of pentateuchal discussions and elaborations of law.

Ceremonial law. Ceremonial, or cultic, law includes the instructions guiding the construction and preparation of the tabernacle for worship combined with the Levitical guidelines dictating the proper execution of ritual sacrifice and cultic practice. The significance of the tabernacle as a portable sanctuary of Yahweh and its integral connection with God’s promise to dwell among the Israelites are reinforced by the tabernacle’s association with the appearance of Yahweh at Sinai and the inauguration of the covenant. The tabernacle becomes the place where the people meet God through a mediator and seek continued divine favor through ritual purification, sacrifice, and atonement.

Leviticus systematically outlines the procedure for priestly selection and succession, details the consecration of cultic vessels and priests, describes conditions for participation and the celebration of sacred festivals (Lev. 16; 23–25), and addresses other issues such as blasphemy, sexual behavior, and false prophecy. The sacrificial regulations cover sin offerings (6:25), guilt offerings (7:1, 7), burnt offerings (6:9), grain offerings (6:14), and fellowship offerings (7:11). The book of Leviticus also provides extensive instruction concerning the designation of “clean” (consecrated) and “unclean” (profane), reinforcing the separateness of God’s chosen people (e.g., 11:46; 12:7; 13:59; 14:2, 32; 15:32–33). Uncircumcised foreigners were excluded from participation in Israel’s sacred assemblies.

Moral law. Economic hardship presented numerous challenges in Israelite society that were resolved through laws concerning debt and slavery. A series of laws sought to protect the property and rights of those indebted to creditors (Exod. 22:25–27; Deut. 24:6, 10–13; 2 Kings 4:1; Amos 2:8). Those who were enslaved in order to compensate for their debts had to be released after six years of service (Exod. 21:2, 11; Deut. 15:12–18). Property and persons who were turned over to creditors could often be redeemed (Lev. 25:25–28, 47–55). Those who harvested crops were instructed to leave the corners of fields and the remnants of crops for gleaning by the poor (Deut. 24:19–22; Ruth 2:2–6). The systematic mistreatment of the marginalized in society led to widespread corruption among the judiciary, angering Yahweh and leading to the exile (Isa. 1:15–17; Amos 2:6–7; 11–13). It is clear that this type of law was reenacted during the postexilic period (Neh. 5:1–13; Jer. 34:8–16).

Torah in Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

OT wisdom literature develops the concept of Torah as human instruction for daily living, underscoring the dynamic character of the law and its permeation of all areas of life. Vigilant obedience to the law results in wise and godly conduct. In Proverbs, the son is admonished by the father to obey the Torah (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 6:23), and the pupil is instructed by the teacher to respect the law (13:13) and to resist the company of those who do not obey the Torah (28:4), with such observance resulting in God’s blessings (29:18) and answers to prayer (28:9). The wise woman familiarizes herself with the Torah because the responsibility for instruction of her household lies with her (31:26).

The book of Psalms contains three compositions typically classified as Torah psalms (1; 19; 119). In Ps. 1 continual reflection on the Torah manifests itself in the prosperity and the wisdom of the obedient. Psalm 19 celebrates the benefits of keeping the Torah, including wisdom, joy, enlightenment, life, and moral discernment. In a lengthy acrostic arranged according to the Hebrew alphabet, Ps. 119 exploits the attitudes, effects, and practicality of the Torah as exemplified in the life of the faithful.

In the prophetic material, Torah refers to teaching administered in the name of Yahweh, either by the priests or the prophets. Moral decline, manifested by the social injustice of Israel’s leader-ship coupled with idolatry and syncretistic worship, was directly attributed to the failure of the priests to uphold the Torah and their negligence in instructing the community (Jer. 2:8; 8:8; Ezek. 7:26; 22:26; Hos. 8:1–12; Amos 2:4). The prophetic emphasis on justice and righteousness as characteristic qualities of God’s people highlights the importance placed on fair and equitable treatment (e.g., Isa. 5:23–24; 26:1–11; 48:17–19; 58:6–9; 59:9–14). The Torah provided the authoritative point of departure in the composition of prophetic messages and teachings, undergirding the authority and genuineness of the prophetic proclamations and exhortations to the contemporary audience. The messages of the prophets were in fact not new, but were simply the adaptation and transformation of pentateuchal texts already generally accepted by the community as authoritative.

Biblical Law and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

Biblical law did not develop in isolation from other legal systems; rather, it appears to follow long-established, widespread, and standardized patterns of Mesopotamian law. A persuasive number of parallels between customs and familial relationships addressed in the Nuzi tablets and archaic elements in the patriarchal narratives seem to suggest that the patriarchs operated under Hurrian law. The Nuzi tablets clarify the subjects of adoption, marriage, and economic transactions, apparently exerting an influence on the lives of the early OT patriarchs. The wife-sister accounts of Abram and Isaac, in which the marriage eligibility of Sarai and Rebekah arise (Gen. 12; 26), as well as Abraham’s proposed adoption of his servant Eliezer as an heir (Gen. 15:2–4) and his siring of Ishmael through Sarai’s servant Hagar (Gen. 16), reflect customary practice described in these documents.

A vast range of legal documents regulating judicial procedures provides material for comparative analysis with biblical texts. Included among these discoveries are a number of law collections, generally named after the ruler who commissioned them. Archaeologists have uncovered evidence, from as early as the twenty-first century BC, of two surviving Sumerian legal collections affirming the ancient origins of societal governance. The Laws of King Ur-Nammu, recorded during the last great period of Sumerian literacy (2111–2095 BC), are preserved in scribal copies from Nippur dated between 1800 and 1700 BC and consist of a fragment and two partial stone tablets. Written in a casuistic format, the texts attest to twenty-nine stipulations, including legislation addressing weights and measures; protections for widows, orphans, and the impoverished; sexual offenses; marital laws; slavery; false testimony; and property abuses.

A second Sumerian law collection dating from the nineteenth century BC, that of King Lipit-Ishtar, the fifth ruler of the Isin dynasty in lower Mesopotamia, consists of a prologue, thirty-eight wholly or partially restored laws, and an epilogue. These laws, bequeathed to Lipit-Ishtar by the Sumerian deities Anu and Enlil in order to “establish justice in the land,” represent civil laws governing business practices, slavery, property, family, and inadvertent injury to an individual. What appear to be an additional thirty-eight laws, comprising the second half of the code, have been destroyed along with part of the prologue. All these laws were recorded in a casuistic format.

The Laws of Eshnunna, written in Akkadian, consist of two tablets containing approximately sixty different laws. The authorship and date of origin remain unknown, but historians suggest that this law collection, which has no prologue or epilogue, was contemporary with the Code of Hammurabi (1728–1686 BC). Though written in a casuistic format, this artifact assigns penalties on the basis of social status.

The Code of Hammurabi, named for the sixth of eleven kings of the Old Babylonian dynasty, is perhaps the most famous and most complete of the ancient Mesopotamian collections. In 1902, French archaeologists discovered the code on a black diorite stela, nearly eight feet tall, in what was ancient Susa. Multiple copies of the code have been preserved. Written in Akkadian cuneiform, the law collection consists of 282 legal paragraphs created to promote public welfare and the cause of justice. The format of the code, which includes a prologue, an epilogue, and a category of cursings for disobedience and blessings for obedience, closely mirrors the structure of the book of Deuteronomy. The casuistic format addresses laws governing public order and individual private law. The penalties prescribed for capital offenses, of which there were thirty, were harsh and often cruel, including bodily mutilation, multiple punishments, and vicarious punishment. Retaliatory consequences for the protection of private property were exceptionally cruel, taking the form of torture or excessive fines. Often, those who were presumed guilty would be thrown into the river; survival indicated innocence, while drowning demonstrated guilt. A predominant feature was the lex talionis (the law of retaliation, or measure for measure), whereby a corresponding penalty was exacted against the offender based on the crime. For instance, if a child was killed, the death of the offender’s child was required. Capital crimes included theft of property and adultery. Contrary to biblical law, Hammurabi’s code made financial provision for the loss of life, whereas in the OT the value of life was immeasurable.

The argument from silence suggests that in the absence of a full biblical law code, legal instructions and stipulations in the biblical text consist primarily of codicil emendations, that is, additions and innovations to already existing laws. For example, the discussion on divorce in Deut. 21 describes the execution of a document without giving details concerning the content or form of such a document. The passage also mentions a yet undiscovered “book of divorce.” The absence of legal material on commercial and business law as well as specifics concerning inheritance and other common subjects points to a more comprehensive body of unwritten law reflecting preexisting societal norms. Israelite society was therefore indebted to its Mesopotamian predecessors for its implementation of law as a means of protecting citizens, and for many legal provisions eventually adapted by the biblical text.

The Character of Biblical Law

Although Israelite law was in some ways influenced by the legal codes of other ancient Near Eastern cultures, biblical law retained a distinct identity centered on the relationship between Yahweh and his chosen people. Law in the OT is presented not as secular instruction but rather as divine pronouncement, receiving its authority as an expression of the divine will. The entirety of the divine instruction originates with God, and he is both author and guarantor of the covenant with his people. The people of Israel, then, are held responsible to God for their actions and not just to a legislative body or human ruler. The will of the Israelite is wholly surrendered to the will of God to such a degree that every aspect of an individual’s life is inextricably connected to the divine teachings. God assigns the stipulations and requirements of the law to the entire corporate body of Israel. The responsibility for covenant fidelity does not lie solely with the community leadership; rather, it is shared by every individual in the community, whose dual role includes ensuring both the fair execution of justice in the community and personal observance of the law. God’s instructions are proclaimed publicly and apply equally to all social strata without distinction, apart from specific direction concerning slaves.

Torah becomes the corpus of teaching directed toward the entire community. The didactic purpose of the law is evident by the motive clauses appended to many apodictic and casuistic instructions that elaborate on the ethical, religious, or historical reasons for covenant faithfulness. The pedagogical aim serves to appeal to the Israelite conscience as a means of motivating obedience. In addition, the teaching that humanity is created in the divine image reinforces the sacredness of human life as a foundational concern of the law. Religious rather than economic values prevail, eliminating the death penalty for all property crimes. Individual culpability predominates in the biblical corpus, abolishing the notion of vicarious punishment advocated in extrabiblical legislation. Each offender pays the consequences of his or her behavior. Each person, created by God and enjoying equal status with all others, receives fair and equitable treatment.

The Law and the New Testament

The contemporary significance of the Torah is recognized in the NT by Jesus’ declaration that his incarnation served to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17). He affirms the continued legitimacy of the law (Matt. 5:19) and appeals to the law as the governing authority for proper practice and behavior (Matt. 12:6, 42; Luke 4:1–11; Mark 7:9–12; 10:17–19).

The relationship between gospel and law in both Testaments demonstrates far greater continuity than is recognized by many Christians. Covenant theologians affirm that the Mosaic law described a “covenant of works,” which functions differently from the NT’s “covenant of grace,” while dispensationalists often teach that grace supersedes and abolishes the demands of the law. The conditional nature of the Mosaic covenant differs from that of the Abrahamic covenant, since the unconditional promise of the Abrahamic covenant suggests that the blessings promised to Abraham and his seed would be realized not because of human obedience but rather through divine fidelity (Gal. 3:15–27). The Mosaic covenant, or covenant of law, is not contrary to the promises of God (Gal. 3:21); instead, God graciously entered into relationship with the people of Israel, redeemed them from Egypt, and then gave them the law so that they would respond in humble obedience to his redeeming work. Thus, Mosaic law provided through a mediator a way for God to reveal himself to Israel. Consequently, the idea that Israelite religion was legalistic is mistaken. It did not teach that one could earn salvation by “keeping the law”; rather, an individual entered into the covenant with God by grace. When God established the covenant with his people, he forgave their sins. He did not demand a certain level of attainment as a prerequisite for entering into that relationship, nor did Israel have to obey the law perfectly in order to achieve salvation. Instead, the covenantal arrangement instituted a means of forgiveness through the sacrificial system, making the removal of the barrier of sin available to the people. Israel’s obedience to the law was a response to God’s gracious and redeeming work. Law and covenant were complementary.

Ongoing discussions explore the question concerning the relevance of the law for Christians today. Many scholars from past centuries, such as Martin Luther, claimed that the believer is freed entirely from the law of Moses, including its moral requirements. The OT law is binding only insofar as it agrees with the NT and mirrors natural law. John Calvin, on the other hand, maintained that the moral laws of the OT are obligatory for the believer, and he asserts that this is the principal function of law. Calvin’s sense of keeping the moral law does not compromise the message of grace, for keeping the moral law, as opposed to the ceremonial or civil law, does not earn salvation but instead forms the acceptable response of the believer to God’s grace. Other Reformation scholars suggested that the law was abolished with the coming of Christ, and, as a result, while the moral norms remain in effect, the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled with the coming of Christ. Although the penalties originally prescribed for disobedience are no longer effective, keeping the moral law reflects the proper outcome of a life lived by the Spirit of God. See also Ten Commandments; Torah.

Laying hands on someone/something has two literal uses and two with symbolic significance. (1) Literally, to take something (e.g., Exod. 22:8–11; Esther 9:10–16; Matt. 26:51; Luke 9:62) or someone—that is, to make an arrest (e.g., Neh. 13:21; Matt. 26:50; Mark 14:46; Luke 20:19; 21:12; 22:53; John 7:30, 44; Acts 4:3; 5:18; 12:1; 21:27). (2) Literally, to lay hands on persons (or things) so as to hurt or destroy them (e.g., Gen. 22:12; 37:22; 1 Sam. 22:17; 24:5–13; 26:9–23; Job 1:12; 9:33; Isa. 11:14; Jer. 15:6; Ezek. 39:21). (3) Laying a hand over one’s mouth as a symbolic gesture of amazement (Mic. 7:16) or humility (Job 40:4). (4) A gesture to symbolize the transfer of something from one person to another. Transfer symbolism applications include the transfer of representative identity in sacrificing (e.g., Exod. 29:10–19; Lev. 1:4; 16:21; Num. 8:10–12; 2 Chron. 29:23–24), of authority in commissioning (ordination) (e.g., Num. 27:18–23; Deut. 34:9; Acts 6:6; 13:3), of blessing (e.g., Gen. 48:13–20; Matt. 19:13–15), of life and health (e.g., Matt. 8:3, 15; 9:18, 25, 29; 20:34; Mark 6:5; 7:32–33; 8:22–26; 16:18; Luke 4:40; 7:14; 13:13; 22:51; Acts 8:17; 9:12, 17; 28:8), and of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifting (Acts 8:17–19; 9:17; 19:6; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6).

Three additional things should be noted about this transfer symbolism. First, the laying on of hands is symbolic rather than purely causative. This is evidenced when Jesus and the apostles credit faith, and not mere touch, for healings (e.g., Matt. 9:22, 29–30; Luke 17:19; Acts 3:12–16; 14:9; cf. Matt. 13:58), when healings occur from a distance (e.g., Matt. 8:5–13; 15:21–28; John 4:46–54) and/or with no apparent touch involved (e.g., Matt. 8:28–34; 9:1–8, 32–33; 12:22; 17:14–21; Mark 1:23–28; Luke 17:11–19; John 5:1–9; 11:1–44; Acts 5:15; 9:32–35, 40–41; 14:8–10; 16:18), when the Holy Spirit comes upon people without touch (e.g., Acts 10:44–45), and when Peter strongly rebukes Simon Magus for assuming that the Holy Spirit is dispensed by mere touch (Acts 8:17–24).

Second, the early church used the laying on of hands for commissioning church workers (Acts 6:6), missionaries (Acts 13:3), and elders (Acts 14:23 [the Greek word used for “appointing,” cheirotoneō, is derived from the words for “extend,” teinō, and “hand,” cheir; cf. 2 Cor. 8:19). Since the act was conducted by apostles (Acts 6:6), by prophets and teachers (Acts 13:1–3), by Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:23; 2 Tim. 1:6), and by church elders (1 Tim. 4:14), we may conclude that the early church had no established hierarchy for ordination.

Third, the NT has some guidelines for commissioning Christian workers (cf. Heb. 6:2). Church leaders have weighty responsibilities (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim. 3:1–13; 5:17; Titus 1:5–9; 1 Pet. 5:1–4), so it is not surprising that a church elder/overseer must not be a recent convert (1 Tim. 3:6) or hastily ordained (1 Tim. 5:22), and that a deacon must first be tested (1 Tim. 3:10).

Outgrowth(s), usually green, of the stem of a plant. In Gen. 8:8–11, an olive leaf in the beak of a dove signals to Noah that the waters of the flood are receding. Many OT passages contain references to leaves as a metaphor for prosperity (Ps. 1:3; Prov. 11:28) as well as for destitution (Job 13:25; Isa. 1:30; 34:4; 64:6). A key difference between the two metaphors depends on whether the leaf is withered. The righteous will thrive like a green leaf (Prov. 11:28), whereas Job, discussing his suffering, refers to himself as a windblown leaf (Job 13:25). In the NT, Jesus curses a fig tree that has leaves but no fruit, immediately causing it to wither (Matt. 21:18–22; Mark 11:13–14, 20–25). Leaves are also used as an illustration by which Jesus teaches about expectations for the Son of Man to return (Mark 13:26–28). In Revelation, the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations (22:2).

The older of Laban’s two daughters (Gen. 29:16) and a wife of Jacob (29:23). The biblical description of Leah, whose name means “cow,” is not altogether flattering. Her marriage to Jacob resulted from Laban’s deception of Jacob, who expected to marry Laban’s younger, more attractive daughter, Rachel, which he did soon thereafter (29:26–28). Genesis explicitly says that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah (29:30). However, God, because Leah was less loved, opened her womb (29:31). As a result, she bore six of Jacob’s sons, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun (35:23), and also a daughter, Dinah, who is the subject of Gen. 34. Leah’s fertility was the cause of the barren Rachel’s strife (Gen. 29–30). Needless to say, a palpable tension is depicted between the two sisters, who also relinquished their maidservants to Jacob as secondary wives for the purpose of having more children. Leah was buried in the cave at Machpelah with Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Rebekah (49:30–31).

Outgrowth(s), usually green, of the stem of a plant. In Gen. 8:8–11, an olive leaf in the beak of a dove signals to Noah that the waters of the flood are receding. Many OT passages contain references to leaves as a metaphor for prosperity (Ps. 1:3; Prov. 11:28) as well as for destitution (Job 13:25; Isa. 1:30; 34:4; 64:6). A key difference between the two metaphors depends on whether the leaf is withered. The righteous will thrive like a green leaf (Prov. 11:28), whereas Job, discussing his suffering, refers to himself as a windblown leaf (Job 13:25). In the NT, Jesus curses a fig tree that has leaves but no fruit, immediately causing it to wither (Matt. 21:18–22; Mark 11:13–14, 20–25). Leaves are also used as an illustration by which Jesus teaches about expectations for the Son of Man to return (Mark 13:26–28). In Revelation, the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations (22:2).

The ancient Near Eastern world was oriented toward the east. Thus, in the Bible “left” sometimes means “north” (as the NIV translates the Hebrew word semo’l in Gen. 14:15). Often, “left” has a negative connotation. In Eccles. 10:2 a fool is inclined to the left, and in Matt. 25:33 the goats are separated from the sheep by being put on the left. However, in many texts “left” has no negative association. For example, in Prov. 3:16 Wisdom holds riches and honor in her left hand.

The ancient Near Eastern world was oriented toward the east. Thus, in the Bible “left” sometimes means “north” (as the NIV translates the Hebrew word semo’l in Gen. 14:15). Often, “left” has a negative connotation. In Eccles. 10:2 a fool is inclined to the left, and in Matt. 25:33 the goats are separated from the sheep by being put on the left. However, in many texts “left” has no negative association. For example, in Prov. 3:16 Wisdom holds riches and honor in her left hand.

One of the seven groups of descendants of Noah through Mizraim. “Lehabite” presumably comes from “Lehab,” their eponymous ancestor, who is known only through the reference to his descendants (Gen. 10:13; 1 Chron. 1:11).

One of the seven groups of descendants of Noah through Mizraim. “Lehabite” presumably comes from “Lehab,” their eponymous ancestor, who is known only through the reference to his descendants (Gen. 10:13; 1 Chron. 1:11).

One of the seven groups of descendants of Noah through Mizraim. “Lehabite” presumably comes from “Lehab,” their eponymous ancestor, who is known only through the reference to his descendants (Gen. 10:13; 1 Chron. 1:11).

Leisure time offers a respite from work, those essential duties of life such as paid employment and maintaining a household, to pursue other activities. Such nonobligatory pursuits range from entertainment to fine art, from peaceful relaxation to physical activity.

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

Indeed, every good thing is a gift from the Father (James 1:17), including time off from daily duties. How one uses leisure time is thus a matter of stewardship, much like one’s use of money and working time (cf. Matt. 25:14–30). Thus, although the Bible does not discuss playing sports or writing poetry, it does proclaim Christ as Lord over all spheres of life. Therefore “whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).

The basic activities of banking include amassing capital and deposits, extending credit, and brokering the transmission of funds. The Bible describes and comments on such practices in both Testaments but ascribes them to bankers only in the NT.

In ancient Israel trading and mercantilism were facilitated by the use of silver, gold, and livestock as stores of value, media of exchange, and means of payment (Gen. 13:2; 17:12; 23:15). Buying and selling among individuals with payment in silver was particularly common (Gen. 37:28; 1 Sam. 13:21), as was exporting and importing among nations (1 Kings 10:28–29; 2 Chron. 1:16–17; Neh. 13:16). However, livestock was acceptable currency in the settlement of taxes, sacrifices, and other obligations (Num. 31:28–40). What it lacked in portability it made up for in practicality; unlike precious metals, herds grew and multiplied.

By the time of the monarchy, not only was there a treasury of wealth dedicated to God and funded through offerings (Josh. 6:19, 24; 1 Kings 7:51), but also the king maintained his own treasury (1 Kings 15:18; 2 Kings 12:18; 14:14; 16:8; 18:15; 20:13). From both, Judah paid tributes and fines. In times of subjugation both were plundered.

The OT stresses honesty in commercial dealings, which requires both fair scales (Lev. 19:36; Prov. 11:1; 16:11; Hos. 12:7; Amos 8:4–6) and an established system of weights and measures. The basic unit of weight for precious metals was the sanctuary shekel, which equaled twenty gerahs, about ten grams (Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25). The largest unit of measurement was the talent, which equaled three thousand shekels (Exod. 38:24–26; Ezra 7:22; 8:26).

The law regulated lending practices primarily to protect the poor against exploitation. It did not permit the charging of interest by Israelite lenders to fellow Israelites, and it set up rules regarding the taking, holding, and return of collateral (Exod. 22:25; Deut. 23:19; 24:6, 10–13, 17; Neh. 5:1–13; Ezek. 33:15). Every seven years creditors were required to release obligors from their debts (Deut. 15:1–3). However, these rules did not apply when the borrowers were foreigners.

By NT times, banking activities were more developed and formalized. The NT describes the depositing of money for interest (Matt. 25:27; Luke 19:23). Coins were in widespread use in the Roman Empire, but locally minted and diverse. For example, the denarius was Roman, and the drachma Greek (Luke 20:24; Matt. 17:24). Thus, the services of money changers were commonplace. They usually set up their distinctive, grid-marked tables in and around temples and public buildings. The NT Greek word for “banker,” trapezitēs, comes from the word for “table,” trapeza. At the Jerusalem temple, the practices of the money changers famously provoked the righteous anger of Jesus, causing him to overturn their tables (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15).

The Letter of James has been hailed as possibly the earliest, most Jewish, and most practical of all NT letters. James 3:13 aptly communicates the book’s theme: “Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in humility that comes from wisdom.” The terms “wise” and “wisdom” occur five times in the book (1:5; 3:13 [2×], 15, 17). Hence, the author instructed his readers on leading a life of faith that was characterized by a wisdom expressed through speech and actions (2:12).

Literary Features

The author’s employment of picturesque, concrete language has close affinities to OT wisdom literature and reflects Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.

James 1:2 – Matthew 5:10-12

James 1:4 – Matthew 5:48

James 1:5; 5:15 – Matthew 7:7-12

James 1:9 – Matthew 5:3

James 1:20 – Matthew 5:22

James 1:22 – Matthew 7:21

James 2:5 – Matthew 5:3

James 2:13 – Matthew 5:7; 6:14-15

James 2:14-16 – Matthew 7:21-23

James 3:12 – Matthew 7:16

James 3:17-18 – Matthew 5:9

James 4:4 – Matthew 6:24

James 4:10 – Matthew 5:3-4

James 4:11 – Matthew 7:1-2

James 5:2 – Matthew 6:19

James 5:10 – Matthew 5:12

James 5:12 – Matthew 5:33-37

Like the OT wisdom literature, the teaching in James has a strongly practical orientation. Although the book contains some lengthier paragraphs, much of it consists of sequential admonishments and ethical maxims that in some cases are only loosely related to one another. The sentences generally are short and direct. There are fifty-four verbs in the imperative. Connection between sentences is sometimes created through repeated words. Yet the overall topic of practical faith and wisdom links these exhortations together.

Background and Occasion

After the death of Stephen, many disciples were scattered into the regions of Judea and Samaria (Acts 7:54–8:3). In Acts 11:19 the narrator notes, “Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews.” James may have written this letter to instruct and comfort those scattered believers, as he addressed his letter to “the twelve tribes dispersed abroad” (1:1 NET). These Jewish Christians no longer had direct contact with the apostles in Jerusalem and needed to be instructed and admonished in their tribulations. Apparently, the rich were taking advantage of them (2:6; 5:1–6), and their trials had led to worldliness, rash words, and strained relationships (2:1; 4:1, 11; 5:9). In view of persecution, some may have been tempted to hide their faith (5:10–11). James exhorted them to demonstrate a lifestyle that would reflect their faith.

James’s View on Works and Salvation

Some readers of this letter have observed a seeming contradiction between James’s call for good works and Paul’s insistence on salvation by grace through faith apart from works (cf. James 2:14–26 with Eph. 2:8–10). The discussion is complicated by James’s argument that a faith without works cannot “save” and by his observation that Abraham was justified by what he did, not by faith alone (James 2:14, 20–24). Paul, by contrast, maintains that Abraham was justified exclusively by faith (Rom. 4:1–3).

Referring rhetorically to people who claim to have faith but have no deeds, James asks, “Can such faith save them?” (2:14). That is, can the kind of faith that results in no works be genuine? The expected answer is no. The kind of faith that produces no works cannot be genuine faith; rather, it is “dead” (2:17, 26) and “useless” (2:20). This kind of faith is “by itself,” meaning that it produces no lasting fruit (2:17). James’s point is that genuine faith will produce good works in the believer’s life. By way of contrast, a mere profession is not necessarily an indication of genuine faith. Even demons believe in God, but they are not saved; the kind of belief that they exhibit is merely an acknowledgment of God’s existence (2:19).

According to James, Abraham was justified not in the sense of first being declared righteous, but rather in the sense that his faith was demonstrated as genuine when he offered up Isaac (2:21). Paul, on the other hand, argues that salvation is obtained not through works but rather by faith alone. He quotes Gen. 15:6 to show that Abraham trusted God and was declared righteous several years before he offered up Isaac (Rom. 4:3).

According to Paul, Abraham was justified (declared righteous) before God when he believed God’s promise (Gen. 15:6), but for James, he was justified in the sense of giving observable proof of salvation through his obedience to God. Whereas Paul refers to the point and means of positional salvation, James refers to a subsequent event that confirmed that Abraham was justified.

I. Faith

A. Paul (Romans 4:1-3):

1. Is personal trust in God

2. Justifies one before God

3. Is not proof of Salvation

B. James (2:14-26)

1. Is a mere claim if there is no resulting fruit

II. Works

A. Paul (Romans 4:1-3):

1. Precede salvation

2. Attempt to merit salvation

3. Cannot justify before God

B. James (2:14-26)

1. Follow conversion

2. Are evidence of salvation

3. Confirm one’s salvation

It is important to keep in mind that each author wrote with a different purpose. Paul wrote against Judaizers, who taught that a man had to be circumcised and keep the OT law to be saved. James was warning against a mere profession of faith that leads to self-deception (1:22). John Calvin correctly expressed the biblical teaching that faith alone saves, but that kind of faith does not remain alone; it produces good works (cf. Rom. 3:21–6:14; Eph. 2:8–10; Titus 2:11–14; 3:4–7).

Authorship

The author identifies himself as “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1). The NT mentions five persons having the name “James”: (1) James the son of Zebedee and the brother of John (Matt. 4:21); (2) James the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3); (3) James “the younger” (Mark 15:40); (4) James the father of the apostle Judas (not Judas Iscariot; Luke 6:16); and (5) James the brother of Jesus (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19).

James the brother of John was executed by Herod Agrippa I, who died in AD 44 (Acts 12:2). Since the Letter of James probably was written after this date, the brother of John could not have written it. Neither James the son of Alphaeus, James the younger, nor James the father of Judas was as prominent in the early church as the writer of this letter, who simply identified himself and assumed that his readers would know him (1:1). James the son of Alphaeus is mentioned for the last time in Acts 1:13, and nothing is known of James the father of Judas apart from the listing of his name in Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13. (It is uncertain whether James the younger should be identified with one of the other four or is a separate figure.) Thus, it is unlikely that any of them wrote the book. James the brother of Jesus is most likely the author of this letter.

James the Brother of the Lord

At the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, James, as well as his brothers Joses (Joseph), Judas, and Simon, did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 7:5). However, they came to believe in him after the resurrection (Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 15:7). Paul called James, along with Peter and John, the “pillars” of the church (Gal. 2:9). James does not claim to be an apostle in this letter; however, he is identified as one in Gal. 1:19. But there the term “apostle” probably refers to a group of leading disciples outside the Twelve (cf. Acts 14:4, 14; 1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 2:9). Since the author of this letter employed many imperatives, his readers clearly accepted his authority. James, the brother of Jesus, who also became a key leader of the church in Jerusalem, possessed such authority (Acts 12:17; 15:13, 19; 21:18; Gal. 1:18–19; 2:9).

Date

Some scholars hold that the Letter of James was written around AD 62, while others argue that James wrote this letter sometime in AD 45–50. Those who favor the earlier dates point out that the Jewish character of this letter fits with this period when the church was mainly Jewish, based on the following criteria: (1) There is no mention of Gentile Christians in the letter. (2) The author does not refer to the teachings of the Judaizers. If the letter had been written at a later date, we would expect the author to address the issue of circumcision among Christians. (3) The mention of “teachers” (3:1) and “elders” (5:14) as the leaders in the church reflects the structure of the primitive church. (4) The word “meeting” in 2:2 is the same Greek word as for “synagogue.” It describes the gathering place of the early church. This implies a time when the congregation was still primarily Jewish (Acts 1–7).

Outline

I. Introduction (1:1)

II. The Wise Christian Is Patient in Trials (1:2–18)

A. How the Christian should face trials (1:2–12)

B. The source of temptations (1:13–18)

III. The Wise Christian Is a Practical Doer of the Word (1:19–2:26)

A. Hearers and doers of the word (1:19–25)

B. True religion (1:26–27)

C. Prejudice in the church (2:1–13)

D. Faith that works (2:14–26)

IV. The Wise Christian Masters the Tongue (3:1–18)

A. The power of the tongue (3:1–12)

B. The wisdom from above (3:13–18)

V. The Wise Christian Seeks Peace in Relationships (4:1–17)

A. The cause of quarrels (4:1–3)

B. Warning against worldliness (4:4–10)

C. Warning against slander (4:11–12)

D. Warning against boasting and self-sufficiency (4:13–17)

VI. The Wise Christian Is Patient and Prays When Facing Difficulties (5:1–20)

A. Warning to the rich (5:1–6)

B. Exhortation to patience (5:7–12)

C. The power of prayer (5:13–18)

D. The benefit of correcting those in error (5:19–20)

Galatians is often understood as the great letter teaching justification by faith in Christ alone. Paul inveighs against false teachers who teach Christians to supplement the work of Christ with their own keeping of the law as part of earning salvation.

This traditional reading has been powerful and edifying. However, setting Galatians within a plausible ancient social setting reveals further powerful functions of the letter. Galatians turns out to be more than a container delivering the timeless and vital doctrine of salvation by believing and not by doing. The approach to Galatians in this article seeks to establish plausible ancient social settings primarily through exploring a constellation of ancient Mediterranean cultural codes. This contextual orienting helps modern readers appreciate how issues that seem to us bizarre or insignificant might have been issues of life and death to people in different contexts.

Setting and Message

Cultural context. By the time of Galatians (mid-first century AD), a relatively common moral sensitivity existed among the diverse spectrum of Greco-Roman (pagan, Jewish, and Christian) intellectuals: self-mastery (enkrateia). The ideal person led a life of virtue by mastering powerful irrational passions, which led to excessive, weak, irrational, and evil behavior. Although people differed on the means to self-mastery, this general ideal defined broader notions about the successful life. Elites represented the ideal leader as one defined by self-mastery. This qualified such a person to rule others whose capacity for and attainment of self-mastery were inferior, to rule those who cannot even rule themselves. Authority figures projected this characteristic and perpetuated social worlds in which prestige and authority were bound up with the ideal of self-mastery. Many average people also made self-mastery an ideal, whether striving for it in their own lives or allocating authority and prestige to those perceived to have attained it. Various Jewish teachers presented Judaism, especially keeping its laws and studying its sacred writings, as the premier path to self-mastery and thus a happy life. Some pagans also conceived of Judaism, especially some of its laws, along these lines.

Certain Jewish views of Gentiles constitute another important cultural code. Many Jews read the OT as depicting the following concerning Gentiles: They were separated from Israel’s God and his promises for his people, the Jews (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were idolaters controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18). Jews, on the other hand, were by definition God’s special people, whom he had chosen over other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). He had watched over them and would ultimately rescue them. Gentiles would experience covenant blessing in and through Israel if they functionally became Jews by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law was that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God had revealed to Israel, which defined Jews as Jews (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21). Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God had planned to restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God would bless the nations in Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). Various passages depict this happening as the nations were subjected to Israel, came to Israel, served Israel, presented Israel with their own wealth and possessions, and/or feared Israel’s God (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 54:3; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Gen. 17:9–14; Exod. 12:48; Isa. 2:2–5; 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Mic. 4:1–5; Zech. 14:16–21). God would condemn Gentiles who remain separate from Israel, especially Gentiles who harm Israel. For many Jews around the time of Galatians, salvation for Gentiles thus remained Israel-centered.

Many ancient Jews also construed the world through apocalyptic views of reality. This understanding conceived of the present visible world as characterized by the influence of evil supernatural beings (demons), suffering, and evil. One day God and his angels would completely triumph in the invisible heavenly reality; the events in this reality determine life in the lower visible world. Then the evil age of the present world of suffering would be over. Evil and suffering would be vanquished, God’s people would be rescued, the agents of suffering in the old age would be judged, the Spirit would be poured out, the nations would come to Israel’s God, and the heavenly reality would fully break in and renew the visible world. God’s people, Israel, would experience ultimate salvation, having been rescued from the evil age. The law remained a defining reality in God’s plans to rescue the world in most Jewish apocalyptic scenarios. Experiencing this salvation remained a matter of being part of God’s righteous people, Israel.

Situation of the letter. With these cultural codes in view, the following situation for the letter of Galatians seems plausible. Paul proclaimed to some of the predominantly Gentile population of Galatia the good news (“gospel”) of the God of Israel’s salvation through Jesus the Messiah (Gal. 1:8–9, 11; 4:13). Some accepted this message of faith and devoted themselves to Jesus and the God of Israel (1:2, 9; 3:1–6; 4:14–20). After Paul left, other Christian teachers came to Galatia. They possibly claimed association with the Jerusalem church and, perhaps, with Peter and James. In line with some of the Jewish views of Gentiles discussed above, they taught that the Gentile Christians in Galatia must functionally become Jews and keep the law (for other examples of such early Christian teachers, see Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5). These other teachers probably drew on Scriptures and traditions about Abraham to make their arguments. The God of Israel would save his people, “the righteous,” and through them the rest of the world, through the relationship that he had initially established with Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). The teachers could easily show from the Scriptures that circumcision and the law defined God’s relationship with Abraham and were always intended to do so (17:9–14; 26:5). They, like most contemporary Jewish writers, thought that obedience to the law (26:5) defined Abraham’s faith toward God (15:6). If the Galatians were to be Abraham’s descendants, they too must keep the law and be circumcised like their new father, Abraham. The teachers could also deploy passages from the Scriptures to the effect that everyone who did not keep the law was cursed (Deut. 27:26; cf. Gal. 3:10), but that everyone who kept the law would live (Lev. 18:5; cf. Gal. 3:12). For these teachers, Jesus the Messiah was part of the final stage in the God of Israel’s law-shaped apocalyptic plan to rescue his people (the Jews) and, through them, the nations.

It seems that the teachers also capitalized on the moral sensitivity of self-mastery and the not uncommon understanding of the Jewish law as an ideal means for attaining it. Thus, they also urged the Galatians to keep the law through representing it as a means to attaining the prestigious moral and social ideal of self-mastery. Furthermore, the Galatians may have thought that the law offered them a concrete guide to life because of its numerous detailed prescriptions. It also provided substantive ways for the Galatians to reinforce their identity in the midst of their villages, especially because it commanded practices that could set them apart. As a result, at least some of the Galatian Christians decided to keep the law, perhaps seeking circumcision. They were persuaded that the God of Israel and Jesus only save those within the Jewish space defined by the law. These Galatians sought to keep the law, looking to its power for self-mastery.

Outline

I. Greeting (1:1–5)

II. The Law-Defined Gospel Is a Different Gospel (1:6–10)

III. Paul’s Gospel Is Straight from God (1:11–24)

IV. The Jerusalem Apostles Recognize Paul’s Law-Free Gospel (2:1–10)

V. Paul and Peter on Whether Gentiles Should Live Like Jews (2:11–21)

VI. Works of the Law or Christ’s Faithfulness? (3:1–5)

VII. Paul Addresses the Situation in Galatia (3:6–4:31)

A. Scriptural arguments to answer Paul’s question (3:6–14)

B. Incorporation into Christ means incorporation into Abraham (3:15–29)

C. Heirs versus slaves (4:1–11)

D. The Galatians’ past experience with Paul and the gospel (4:12–20)

E. Heirs versus slaves: Sarah and Hagar (4:21–31)

VIII. Summary and Restatement of Paul’s Argument (5:1–12)

IX. The Faithfulness of Christ and Communal Living (5:13–6:10)

A. Freedom in Christ (5:13–15)

B. Self-mastery (5:16–24)

C. The way of the Spirit and Christ’s cruciform faithfulness (5:25–6:10)

X. Conclusion and Summary (6:11–18)

Structure and Contents

I. Greeting (1:1–5). When Paul hears of this situation among the Galatian churches, he writes them a frustrated letter. He commences by stressing how Jesus, through giving himself for our sins, is God’s means for delivering us from the present evil age (1:3–4). As Paul will make clear, Jesus and the law represent mutually exclusive means of deliverance (3:21–22). In contrast to most Jews, Paul will thus shockingly dissociate the law from the God of Israel’s apocalyptic deliverance.

II. The law-defined gospel is a different gospel (1:6–10). Paul continues by making clear his point of view: despite what the other teachers say, their law-defined gospel is in fact a damnable “different gospel” (1:6–10).

III. Paul’s gospel is straight from God (1:11–24). While the other teachers may claim that their gospel comes from the authoritative Jerusalem church, Paul explains that his gospel comes straight from God and not from other men (1:11–24).

IV. The Jerusalem apostles recognize Paul’s law-free gospel (2:1–10). However, when he had met with the Jerusalem apostles, they had recognized his law-free gospel (1:18–2:10). Indeed, they had not forced Titus to be circumcised (2:3). Also, 1:18–2:10 represents Paul as an embodiment of the radical transforming power of the gospel. Whereas Paul previously had advanced far and zealously “in Judaism,” persecuting the church, now he steadfastly serves the church and boldly stands against Jews who zealously seek to impose the law (“Judaism”) on Gentile Christians.

V. Paul and Peter on whether Gentiles should live like Jews (2:11–21). Paul then narrates an account of an incident that speaks directly to the Galatian situation (2:11–21). Previously in Antioch Peter had acted so as to imply that Gentiles would have to live like Jews (e.g., keep the law) in order to truly be unified with God’s people (2:11–14). Paul, however, has rebuked Peter (2:14). Paul continues with a speech about how Gentiles are made righteous (“justified”) not within the space demarcated by the “works of the law,” but rather within the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah (2:15–16). The works of the law, or the duties commanded by the law, do not define those who are “righteous”—that is, God’s true people who will be saved. Rather, the faithfulness of Christ defines God’s true people, the ones who believe in Jesus. Here Paul for the first time explicitly dissociates the law from the God of Israel’s apocalyptic salvation in Jesus (the) Christ. The law, which defines Gentiles as “sinners,” has been torn down in Christ’s crucifixion (2:17–18). Paul then presents himself as an embodiment of God’s saving work in Christ. In being crucified with Christ, he has died to the law. Paul no longer lives, but now Christ lives in him. The faithfulness of Christ, who loves him and has given himself for him, now defines Paul’s life, not the law (2:19–20). From a more traditional Jewish perspective, Paul has undermined God’s grace because he has marginalized the law, the premier means of grace and life that God has given to his people. In fact, however, the law is utterly opposed to Christ’s faithful saving death, which is the true means of God’s ultimate saving and gracious actions toward his people (2:21).

This understanding of 2:11–21 revolves around how Paul considers his entire discussion of justification, the faithfulness of Christ, and the words of the law to be dealing with the issue of whether Gentiles should be forced to live like Jews (2:14). This might seem surprising to us. Does this not reduce Paul’s discussion of the great doctrine of justification to dealing merely with social and identity issues? Within the logic of Jewish apocalyptic thought, however, issues of the identity of God’s people and what defines them are by definition ultimate salvation issues, not merely social issues. The God of Israel will rescue only his true people. Thus questions of who really constitutes his true people and how they are defined are paramount, life-and-death, salvation issues. Paul never abandons Jewish apocalyptic salvation logic; he simply redefines it around Christ and not the law.

This reading understands the phrase pistis Christou as “the faithfulness of Christ,” a shorthand reference to Jesus’ faithful saving death on the cross. Traditionally people translate the phrase as “faith in Christ.” In line with much recent scholarship, however, this discussion understands the phrase differently, while still recognizing that Paul considers belief in Christ to be of paramount importance: “so we also have believed in Christ Jesus in order to be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law” (2:16 [all translations are the author’s]).

VI. Works of the law or Christ’s faithfulness? (3:1–5). So far, Paul has not addressed the powerful scriptural arguments and appeals to the law as a means to self-mastery through which the opposing teachers have gained influence. As becomes clear from the rest of the letter, Paul does not anchor his counterarguments ultimately in interpretations of the Jewish Scriptures, possibly because the scriptural arguments of the opposing teachers would have more cogency. Again, they draw on understandings about Gentiles that they can easily ground in the God of Israel’s sacred writings. Paul instead appeals directly to how the Galatians have experienced salvation initially. Have they received and experienced the workings of the Spirit “out of/from the works of the law, or from the message of (Christ’s) faithfulness” (3:1–5)? Paul, of course, knows that the answer is “from the message of Christ’s faithfulness” (often translated as “hearing with faith”) apart from the works of the law. Paul thus plays a trump card that undercuts the opposing teachers. The Galatians have received the Spirit, a classic end-time blessing for the God of Israel’s people, apart from the law. Thus, in Christ, God’s people clearly cannot be defined by the law (see also Acts 10:44–11:18; 15:6–11). The law-defined gospel of the opposing teachers simply cannot be right, since the Galatians have received the Spirit and experienced salvation apart from the law. One cannot overstate the importance of this obvious argument from the Galatians’ experience for Paul. This settles the entire issue within the logic of his letter. All of Paul’s following arguments using the Jewish Scriptures presuppose that his readings of them, depicting Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s people apart from the law, must be correct, and that the opposing teachers’ arguments from Scripture also must be wrong.

VII. Paul addresses the situation in Galatia (3:6–4:31). For the rest of 3:6–4:31, Paul continues to address the situation in Galatia within the cultural codes and kinds of concerns sketched above. In 3:6–13 Paul launches into a densely packed excursus of scriptural arguments to set up an answer to his rhetorical question “Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so out of/from the works of the law, or from the message of (Christ’s) faithfulness?” (3:5). He sets up the answer to his question, which comes in 3:14, by focusing on the nature of the Galatians’ Abra-hamic sonship—that is, the nature of their identity as the God of Israel’s special people. Paul argues that Christ’s faithfulness, and not the law, defines their Abrahamic sonship. Within this excursus it seems plausible that Paul draws upon and undercuts texts that the opposing teachers have used (Lev. 18:5; Deut. 27:26). In 3:15–29 Paul elucidates how the Galatians’ incorporation into Christ through his faithfulness can actually mean that they are incorporated into Abraham, become his descendants, and thus become “heirs according to promise” (3:29).

In 4:1–7 Paul restates parts of his preceding discussion in a different way, introducing the language of slavery. In 4:12–20 Paul returns to reminding the Galatians of their past experience with himself and the gospel. Paul has embodied Christ to them, and they to him. He has brought them Christ in his weakness, and they have accepted him as such. Their turn to the opposing teachers marks a departure from how they first received Paul.

VIII. Summary and restatement of Paul’s argument (5:1–12). In 5:2–6 Paul quickly summarizes the substance of his arguments thus far, while in 5:7–12 he resummarizes the situation.

IX. The faithfulness of Christ and communal living (5:13–6:10). In 5:13–6:10 Paul finally depicts the positive content of the faithfulness of Christ for the Galatians. This section, in which Paul focuses on how the Galatians live communally, has been his driving focus all along. Not only must he offer something in place of the law for self-mastery in order to wrench the Galatians from the influence of the opposing teachers, but also Paul considers it absolutely necessary for the Galatians to live together in ways embodying Christ’s other-oriented, cross-shaped faithfulness (2:19–20; 4:19; 5:13–6:10). Paul does not view the law simply as a neutral, ineffectual means to self-mastery; rather, he thinks that the law will positively work death, slavery, and irrational passions, the things that would bar the Galatians from inheriting the kingdom of God (5:22). Thus, 5:13–6:10 is the most important part of the letter for Paul. All his earlier arguments serve his purposes here.

Paul begins his positive sketch of the faithfulness of Christ in 5:13–15 by talking about their freedom in Christ (5:1). This freedom from the law by no means implies freedom from the obligation to live faithfully. In fact, this freedom paradoxically means freedom for the Galatians to become slaves to one another through love (5:13). This is what Paul means by the cross-shaped faithfulness of Christ defining God’s people. This is what Paul means when he writes that he longs for Christ to be formed in them (4:19). Christ’s faithfulness redefines the law itself, such that becoming slaves to one another through love by loving your neighbor fulfills the whole law (5:14; 6:2). In 5:13–14 Paul thus surprisingly informs the Galatians that freedom in Christ means other-oriented, love-driven (cf. 5:6), cross-shaped freedom. Cross-shaped faithfulness leading them to become slaves to one another through love is the only antidote to their biting and devouring one another (5:15), classic Greco-Roman language for describing the control of irrational passions.

Paul gets more specific in 5:16–25, explicitly moving his discussion within the discourse of self-mastery. His earlier arguments dissociating the Spirit and Christ’s faithfulness from the law inform this passage, as does Paul’s implicit association of the law and the opposing teachers with “flesh” in 4:29. Only by the Spirit can the Galatians overcome the desires of the flesh (5:16–17). In 5:18–19 Paul makes clear his association of the law with the desires of the flesh, especially in 5:19, where he speaks of the “works of the flesh,” an obvious play on his frequent phrase “works of the law.” The works of the flesh in 5:19–21 read like a catalog of the vices with which broader Greco-Roman moral discourse characterizes people who lack self-mastery. People who engage in such vices, who lack the struggle to self-mastery empowered by the Spirit, “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (5:21). Paul then spells out the positive content of the faithfulness of Christ for the Galatians in terms of the fruit of the Spirit. He concludes this list of virtues, which characterize people who have the Spirit, with enkrateia, “self-mastery” (5:22–23). He continues, “And the ones who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh, with its passions and desires” (5:24). Paul’s language here seems reminiscent of his earlier self-representation as one who has been crucified with Christ (2:19–20; see also 6:14–15). The Spirit, who belongs exclusively to those who are God’s children through Christ’s faithfulness and not the law (3:14; 4:4–6), empowers the Galatians to attain self-mastery. Not only does the law fail to help them attain self-mastery, but also, as part of the old “evil” age, it works with the desires of the flesh to produce everything contrary to self-mastery, everything that disqualifies people from inheriting the kingdom of God.

Paul continues in 5:25–6:10, stressing the way of the Spirit and Christ’s cruciform faithfulness. In 6:6–10 Paul underlines the ultimate importance of the Galatians living in accordance with the Spirit and not the flesh. For Paul, this does not imply that salvation and self-mastery result from the Galatians’ own autonomous effort. That would miss the point entirely. Only Christ’s faithfulness and the Spirit can bring about the cross-shaped lives and self-mastery of which Paul speaks. Apart from Christ’s faithfulness and the Spirit, the Galatians would remain people mastered by their passions and desires and cut off from God’s salvation and blessings, since they would not be Abraham’s descendants in Christ. At the same time, Paul writes the letter with such passion because he is convinced that where Christ’s other-oriented, cross-shaped faithfulness and self-mastery do not characterize people, God’s saving blessings are absent as well. Thus Paul “is again in the anguish of childbirth” until Christ is formed in them (4:19).

X. Conclusion and summary (6:11–18). Paul concludes in 6:11–18, summarizing most of his main points. The law and circumcision now count for nothing; only faithfulness working through love and new creation in Christ count for anything (5:6; 6:15).

For Paul in Galatians, the other-oriented, cross-shaped faithfulness of Christ offers a more concrete communal identity and practical way to life than the law ever could. The faithfulness of Christ and Spirit define the Galatians as a people of the new creation. Justification in Galatians involves more than the traditional doctrine. It involves the unification associated with the fruit of the Spirit, not the division and strife of the works of the flesh/law. It relates to and establishes the conditions for the radical and tangible other-oriented and cross-shaped communal faithfulness (of Christ) that must define God’s people.

The Letter to the Hebrews and the Letter to the Romans constitute the two great pillars of theology in the NT. Hebrews brings a high Christology and increases Christian understanding of Christ’s role as priest and pioneer of faith. From this book, deductions can be made regarding the early church’s understanding of OT interpretation and its view of typology.

Hebrews ends like a letter, but it does not begin like one. In particular, it lacks the names of the writer and the recipients. From the content, though, it is evident that this work is meant for a certain audience, familiar with the author. The author shows a loving pastoral concern for his readers, teaching them, exhorting them, and rebuking them when necessary. He gives them models of faith to encourage them and instructs them to encourage one another. The author describes the work as “my word of exhortation” (13:22). The book is often identified as a sermon.

Author

The letter is, strictly speaking, anonymous. No author is mentioned, and few clues as to his identity exist. He is known by his readers (13:19) and has a pastor’s heart for them (6:9). He and his audience are second-generation Christians; that is, they did not hear Jesus during his ministry but rather are dependent upon those who did (2:3). He is a companion of Timothy (13:23) and thus possibly in the circle of Paul. The letter shows that he has great organizational and rhetorical skills; he is intelligent and well educated; his writing indicates that he is likely from a Greek-speaking culture and is a converted Hellenistic Jew familiar with the Greek version of the OT. And he is a creative theologian with perspectives found nowhere else in the NT.

Early church tradition offers no name for the author. The letter’s later attribution to the apostle Paul probably granted it the authority necessary for canonicity, though problems with that view were readily apparent. The Greek is unlike Paul’s, and the rhetoric and theology are much different as well. The themes present in Hebrews are of only tangential interest to Paul. All the Pauline Epistles bear his self-identification, because he felt that his status as an apostle added authority to his words. And Paul did not consider himself to be a second-generation Christian, since he had seen the Lord himself (Gal. 1:12). Although the Catholic and Eastern Churches continue to ascribe the work to Paul, the Protestant Church has almost completely abandoned that idea.

In the absence of a known author, almost every name in the NT has been suggested, including Apollos, Barnabas, Luke, and Silas. While each name has merits and problems, too little is known to prove or disprove any prospective author. Yet, even without Pauline or other known authorship, the book maintains its authority.

Audience

The original readers almost certainly were a house church, part of a network of churches in an urban setting, likely either Jerusalem or Rome, with Rome being slightly preferred. The recipients were a specific group rather than the church at large as in the General Epistles (James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude); the author knew their circumstances (Heb. 10:32; 12:4; 13:17, 24). They were Jewish Christians who, possibly because of persecution, were in danger of drifting back into the Judaism they had left (see 10:32–39). The letter was written probably in the late 60s, as evidenced by the fact that there is no mention of the temple’s destruction, which occurred in AD 70. Given the reasoning of the author, it is quite hard to imagine that he would not mention this event were he writing after that date.

Themes

Hebrews presents two main themes. The first is faith and perseverance, especially in the face of persecution. Jesus is the pioneer of salvation through suffering (2:10) and can help those being tempted (2:18); he has been faithful to the one who appointed him (3:2) as the Son over God’s house (3:6), which is Christians who hold firmly to their confidence and hope (3:6). Christians share in Christ, if they hold their convictions firmly to the end (3:14). This is possible because Jesus is the great high priest, having ascended into heaven (4:14). A person falling away, not holding firmly, cannot be brought back again to repentance (6:4–6). Jesus has sacrificed himself once for all (7:27). Christians must hold unswervingly to the hope they profess, for the one who promised is faithful (10:23). Those who do will be richly rewarded (10:35–36).

Role models of faith are portrayed in chapter 11, the so-called Faith Chapter. The author presents Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and other OT figures as examples of living by faith. These serve as a “cloud of witnesses,” demanding “perseverance [in] the race marked out” for Christians (12:1). Jesus is the “pioneer and perfecter” of faith, enduring the cross and shame (12:2). Christians should endure hardship as discipline (12:7), which will produce a “harvest of righteousness” (12:11).

The second theme is the superiority of Christ, presented in a series of escalating comparisons between Jesus and every aspect of Judaism. The Son is a superior revelation from God (1:1–2). He is superior to the angels (1:4–14) and even to Moses (3:2–6). The Son’s Melchizedekian priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood (7:1–25). The new covenant brought by the Son is superior to the Mosaic covenant (8:6–13); the Son’s sacrifice is superior to the sacrifices offered under the Mosaic law (9:1–10:18).

Theology

The author brings his unique perspective to the work of Christ—his special roles as both high priest and sacrifice. Because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood (7:24), which is not a function of his ancestry but rather is “on the basis of the power of an indestructible life” (7:16). He meets the requirements of a priest, being “holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens” (7:26). He is a “priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek” (7:17, quoting Ps. 110:4). Melchizedek is a once-mentioned figure from Gen. 14:18. He was the king of Salem, a “priest of God Most High.” Abraham, and by extension Levi, paid him a tithe and received a blessing from him. Therefore, Melchizedek is superior to Levi, and his priestly order is superior to Levi’s. This priesthood, in fact, replaces the Levitical priesthood because the earlier priesthood could not produce perfection (Heb. 7:11), being “weak and useless” (7:18).

The Levitical priests had offered their sacrifices repeatedly, year after year, first for their own sins, then for those of the people. They had used the blood of bulls and goats to cleanse the tabernacle and accessories, because without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin (9:22). There had been many priests, as death claimed each one. The priests, in all their weaknesses, had been appointed by the law. The sanctuary in which they serve is a “copy and shadow” of what is in heaven (8:5).

In contrast to the Levitical high priest, Jesus sits at “the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven” (8:1) and serves in the true tabernacle not made by human hands. He has been appointed not by the law but by the oath of God, which came after the law. He has no need to offer sacrifices day after day; his sacrifice was “once for all” (7:27), coming at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin (9:26). In fact, the repeated nature of the Levitical sacrifices serves as proof of their ineffectiveness. Had they been effective, they would have ceased. But “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (10:4), even when offered in accordance with the law (10:8). The worshipers had been left with the same guilty consciences. Christ had “entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood” and obtained eternal redemption for all believers (9:12), sprinkling their hearts to cleanse them from guilty consciences (10:22)

Because of this, Christ is the mediator of the new covenant, prophesied in Jer. 31:31, which is superior to the Mosaic covenant. The first covenant has been made obsolete and will soon disappear (Heb. 8:13), as the new covenant is “established on better promises” (8:6). The tabernacle had been designed to demonstrate that there was no way into the most holy place for anyone but the high priest. Now, the blood of Jesus has opened a way through the curtain, allowing believers to “draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance of faith” (10:22).

Exhortations

Hebrews consists of theology interspersed with exhortations to the readers to persevere in the face of persecution, not to drift away from their new faith. These hortatory passages also serve as warnings. Because the new covenant is superior to the old one, its violation carries proportional penalties: since every violation of the old covenant had been met with its just punishment, “how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?” (2:3). Believers must encourage one another, so that no one becomes “hardened by sin’s deceitfulness” (3:13). As recipients of new access to God, Christians must hold unswervingly to the hope, because God is faithful. This new access has completely replaced the old; there is no sacrifice remaining to forgive deliberate sinning. As those rejecting the law of Moses had died without mercy, those insulting the Spirit of grace will be punished more severely (10:29). Christians should consider “him who endured such opposition” so as not to “grow weary and lose heart” (12:3).

The author rebukes his readers for being lazy: “We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand” (5:11); but he patiently moves on beyond elementary teaching to teaching of Christian maturity (6:1). He warns them sternly that there is no reverse gear: those who have entered the sphere of Christian faith cannot fall away and then reenter at will; apostates would be “crucifying the Son of God all over again” (6:6). But then he softens the rebuke as a pastor: “Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case— the things that have to do with salvation” (6:9).

The author also shows great interest in the Sabbath rest promised to Moses. Those who had disobeyed were denied the rest (3:18), but the promise of entering his rest still stands (4:1). In fact, the Sabbath rest that remains is superior, or else it would not still be offered (4:8), and Christians must make every effort to enter that rest so that no one will perish (4:11).

Outline

The Letter to the Hebrews is very organized yet difficult to outline, owing to the manner in which the author handles his transitional material. The main theological argument (the superiority of the Son) is presented as a series of overlapping and interlocked comparisons interspersed with pastoral exhortations to perseverance. The connection between sections is often a keyword used in one section and then picked up and expanded in the next.

I. Introduction (1:1–4)

II. The Son Is Superior to the Angels (1:5–14)

III. Warning: Do Not Reject the Word Spoken through God’s Son (2:1–4)

IV. Jesus Is the Perfect Pioneer of Salvation because of His Suffering (2:5–18)

V. The Son Is Superior to Moses (3:1–19)

VI. The Sabbath Rest Is Still Available and Is Superior to the OT Rest (4:1–13)

VII. The Son Is a Superior High Priest (4:14–5:10)

VIII. Rebuke: You Are Still Spiritual Children (5:11–6:3)

IX. Warning: There Is No Return to the Former Covenant (6:4–12)

X. Jesus Completes the Oath God Gave Abraham (6:13–20)

XI. Jesus Is a Priest of Melchizedek’s Order, Superior to Levi’s Priesthood (7:1–25)

XII. The Priestly Function of Jesus Is Superior to That of the OT Priest (7:26–8:6)

XIII. The New Covenant of Jesus Is Superior to the Mosaic Covenant (8:7–13)

XIV. The Tabernacle of the New Covenant Is Superior to the Old (9:1–7)

XV. The Sacrifice of Christ Is Superior to the OT Sacrifices (9:8–10:20)

XVI. Exhortation to Persevere (10:21–39)

XVII. Faith Models (11:1–40)

XVIII. Exhortation to Righteous Living (12:1–13:17)

XIX. Closing Personal Greetings (13:18–25)

Romans is a letter sent by Paul from Corinth to the house churches in Rome. The letter is unique in several ways. It is the longest of all Pauline letters, which explains why it appears first in the NT canon (Paul’s letters are arranged in length from longest to shortest and divided into two groups: to churches and to individuals). Romans is one of the last letters Paul wrote while he was a free man. Shortly after sending it, Paul traveled to Jerusalem, where he was arrested, and subsequently spent several years in prison in Caesarea and Rome. Romans is one of two letters Paul sent to churches that he had never visited (the other is Colossians, a church started by Paul through one of his missionary associates, Epaphras). But what sets Romans apart from the rest of his letters is this: it is the only letter Paul sent to establish contact with a church that he did not start. Since letter production was so expensive, why did Paul send this, his lengthiest letter, to a group of people he did not know? It seems perfectly reasonable for Paul to send letters to straighten out problems among his own converts while he was absent, but it seems odd that he would send a very long, sophisticated theological argument (with several warnings) to a group of house churches that did not know him, much less ask for his advice. Why did he do it?

Paul’s Purpose

Rome and Spain. Paul states his purpose for sending Romans at the beginning and toward the end of the letter. At first, he explains why he had not visited Rome, even though he wanted to come in order to “impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong” and “that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles” (1:11–13). Paul’s intentions are revealing. He believes that since God has called him to be the apostle to the Gentiles (1:1), it is his duty to impart spiritual gifts to churches with Gentile members as well as add to their number by converting Gentiles in their region. In other words, although Paul had never visited Rome or had a hand in starting or guiding the Roman church to this point, he believes that he is responsible for it by virtue of his calling. Therefore, since he has been unable to do the work of an apostle by coming to them, he sends the Roman house churches a letter (15:14–16). But this is not the only reason for Romans. At the end of the letter Paul asks the Roman Christians to support his upcoming mission to Spain (15:22–29) and to pray that God will protect him during his visit to Jerusalem, for he expects trouble when he arrives there (15:30–32).

Paul’s request for financial support is a little unusual. Only a few churches helped him financially (Philippi and probably Antioch), and as far as we know, he did not ask for this assistance (Phil. 4:15–17; 2 Cor. 11:9). He preferred to support himself by working (1 Cor. 9:6–18; 2 Thess. 3:7–10). In Paul’s day, money came with strings attached; clients were obligated to “obey” their patrons—an arrangement that Paul would find intolerable. So, in light of Paul’s practice of self-support, why did he ask the Roman house churches for assistance with his planned mission to Spain? And if that were his primary purpose in writing, why did he send such a lengthy letter containing arguments that seem to have little to do with his request? A simple letter asking for help would have sufficed. Besides breaking from his usual practice of self-support, why would he ask the Roman church for help? Why not send a letter to churches that he himself had started and ask for their help? Paul had recently finished collecting a relief offering from his churches to help the poor in Jerusalem. Why did he not collect additional funds (or use part of the money) to expand his missionary efforts to Spain? If he was willing to be indebted to someone, why not let it be his own converts (especially the Philippians)? Indeed, there seems to be more to Paul’s letter than a request for financial aid. Apparently, Paul’s reasons for writing Romans go beyond his stated purposes.

The Roman churches. Paul’s relationship with the Roman house churches may have been more involved than what might be presumed. At the end of the letter Paul greets at least five house churches, naming several individuals (16:5, 10–11, 14–15). It is a long list of names, especially compared to other Pauline letters. These are persons Paul knew very well, not only Prisca and Aquila (cf. Acts 18:2; 1 Cor. 16:19), but also Epenetus, Ampliatus, and Stachys, whom Paul calls “my dear friend” (16:5–9) as well as Andronicus, Junia, and Herodion, who are called “my relatives” (16:7, 11; NIV: “my fellow Jews”). He even referred to a member of the church as “a mother to me” (16:13). Paul also knew about the problems in Rome (14:1–15:13) and felt obliged to clear up what others were saying about him in Rome (3:8). In other words, Paul and the Roman church were not strangers. He did not send the Roman letter to introduce himself in order to ask for help. Even though the apostle to the Gentiles had never visited Rome, Paul and the Roman church knew each other. He obviously had many friends among their number; several were key leaders (a group to which Paul was trying to add Phoebe [16:1–2]). Perhaps Paul’s influence in the church was so significant that he was compelled to send the Roman letter for the same reason he sent other letters: they needed his help in straightening out their problems. In particular, Jewish Christians were not getting along with Gentile Christians—a situation that Paul had faced several times before—which the apostle addresses in the last half of the letter (9:1–15:13). But if that is the main reason for Romans, what is the purpose of the first half of the letter—a lengthy, sophisticated theological argument concerning the righteousness of God that seems to have little to do with ethnic divisions among Roman Christians?

Theology. Since Romans contains the clearest and most substantive theological argument of all of Paul’s letters, scholars wonder why he wrote it. Some have thought that Paul was trying to get his beliefs down on paper before facing perilous times in Jerusalem. Others have argued, based on Paul’s appeal for financial support, that Romans is a condensed version of his gospel—a “this is what I preach so you can support me” letter. Recently, scholars have been emphasizing the correlation between chapters 1–8 and 9–16. That is to say, the first half of Romans is the theological foundation upon which Paul builds his argument for a unified church threatened by ethnic, social, and economic divisions. But what is the evidence of ethnic strife in the Roman letter? First of all, when Paul greets certain house churches, the grouping of names reveals that “birds of a feather flocked together.” Persons with Jewish names appear together (16:1–7), separated from those with slave names (16:8–10a), and distinguished from those with high-status Greek names (16:14–15). This conforms to the demographics of the first-century city, where Jews were segregated from their neighbors and the poor lived together in the least desirable part of Rome. The contentious debate over food and calendar between the “weak” and the “strong” reveals fault lines that conform to ethnic and social divisions within the church: weak = Jews, strong = Gentiles (14:1–15:13). At one point, Paul even singles out his Gentile readers by issuing a specific warning about ignoring the Jewish roots of their faith (11:13–24). With these issues in mind, scholars see how Paul front-loaded his warnings about ethnic strife with the theological argument of 1:1–8:39. Indeed, Romans is a pastoral letter with theological purpose.

Outline

I. Introduction (1:1–17)

A. Greeting (1:1–7)

B. Thanksgiving and prayer (1:8–15)

C. Thesis: the righteousness of God by faith (1:16–17)

II. The Righteousness of God by Faith (1:18–8:39)

A. Judgment of God against ungodliness and unrighteousness (1:18–3:20)

B. Righteousness of God in Christ by faith (3:21–5:11)

C. Questions regarding the righ-teous-ness of God in Christ by faith (5:12–8:39)

III. Living Righteously by Faith (9:1–15:13)

A. What about Israel? (9:1–11:36)

B. Present the body as a sacrifice (12:1–21)

C. Submit to God (13:1–14)

D. Accept one another (14:1–15:13)

IV. Conclusion (15:14–16:27)

A. Paul’s purpose (15:14–33)

B. Final greetings (16:1–27)

Paul’s Argument

The main point of Paul’s letter to the Romans is that the righteousness of God has been fully revealed in Christ Jesus. According to Paul, this is “good news” (gospel) for Jews and Gentiles. In fact, the entire letter is Paul’s explanation of why he believes that this new revelation of God’s righteousness in Christ is good news for all people, even his own kin. But what does Paul mean by “the righteousness of God”? Is he talking about how God makes individuals right by faith in Christ? Or is he defending God’s way of saving the world, saying that God is right to bring salvation to all people through the gospel? Does the phrase “righteousness of God” mean “personal justification that comes from God” or “the justice of God”? What makes Paul’s meaning even more confusing for speakers of English is that one Greek word (dikaiosynē) can be translated three ways: “righteousness,” “justice,” or “justification.” Thus, there are those who argue that Paul emphasizes personal righteousness—that is, how a person can have right standing with God. Others, however, maintain that Paul is arguing for his gospel as an undeniable demonstration of God’s justice—that is, how God’s character as a just God is revealed through the salvation of the world through Christ (not only sons of Abraham, not only sons of Adam, but all creation). The different emphases have significant implications for Paul’s argument.

Judgment of God against ungodliness and unrighteousness (1:18–3:20). Take, for example, Paul’s view of the law and how it functions in the first part of Romans (1:18–3:20). Some take 3:20 as the climax of this part of the argument, where Paul assigns one purpose to the law: to define sin. So according to this line of interpretation, Paul believes that God gave the law in order to show humanity’s need of Christ. Since no one is able to keep the whole law, especially those to whom it has been given, the Jews, then “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23). The implication, of course, is that God gave the law in order to reveal to people Israel’s failure so that Israel would recognize their need for a righteousness that depends not on obedience but on God’s free gift through Christ. But there are two problems with this approach: Paul is offended by the idea that God gave the law to the Israelites in order to cause them to “stumble so as to fall” (11:11–12), and he also maintains that there were some who kept the law (Gentiles!), proving that “doers of the law will be justified” (2:13–14 NASB, NKJV). In other words, the law is God’s gift to Israel that is supposed to give it an advantage when it comes to righteousness (3:1–2). But the Jews disobeyed God (2:17–24), incurring his wrath ( just like the Gentiles [1:18–32]). So Paul makes the argument that God is right to punish Israelites (as well as the Gentiles) for their disobedience (2:1–12): “There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (2:9). In other words, 1:18–3:20 is not only an argument for the universality of sin (which neither Jew nor Gentile would deny) but also a justification of the revelation of God’s righteous wrath against all ungodliness and disobedience, even for the Jewish people. Paul is pointing out the justice of God by emphasizing his impartial punishment of sin.

But this is where an interlocutor (a hypothetical opponent of Paul) could raise an objection: “But we Jews have the covenant with God, consisting of laws and promises from God. God promised to bless the sons of Abraham and gave us the law—with all the prescriptions for sacrifices and atonement—to deal with sin. We will escape God’s wrath because God is faithful even though we are not.” Even though Paul’s interlocutor does not use these words, this is the basis of the argument that Paul puts into the mouth of his imaginary opponent in 3:1–8. The interlocutor essentially says, “If our sin reveals the righteous wrath of God, then Paul is saying that our disobedience serves his purpose. Why should we be judged as sinners?” In other words, what is the point of the covenant if God’s chosen people are no better off than pagans on the day of judgment? But this is the very point that Paul will contend with on two counts. First, who says that God’s chosen people do not have an advantage in preparing for the day of judgment (an argument that he will come back to in 9:1–11:32)? Second, who says that the law is God’s only requirement of the covenant (a question that he answers in 3:21–5:21)? Throughout the entire Roman letter Paul holds two seemingly contradictory ideas in tension: the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to Abraham is not contingent upon Israel’s obedience (God is faithful), and not every descendant of Abraham will realize the covenant promises of God (only those who have faith like Abraham). The reason for the tension is that a new kind of righteousness has been revealed apart from the law (although predicted by the Law and the Prophets), fulfilling the salient requirement of the covenant. Those who believe that the righteousness of God is found in Christ will inherit the promises of God to Abraham, whether Jew or Gentile. Therefore, Christ’s followers are the sons of Abraham, the children of the covenant, justified by faith, not by law. All of this is by divine design—what Paul calls “predestination.”

Righteousness of God in Christ by faith (3:21–5:11). According to Paul, sacrifices prescribed by the law only deferred the wrath of God. “In his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” (3:25). On the other hand, Jesus’ sacrificial death, a public display of God’s righteousness, atones for the sins of Jews and Gentiles “at the present time” (3:25–30). To describe the justification of Christ’s death as an act of redemption, Paul uses a technical word, “propitiation” (v. 25 [NIV: “sacrifice of atonement”]), which has two meanings: either God’s righteous requirement was “satisfied” by the blood of Christ, or God’s wrath was “appeased” by the blood of Christ. Either way, at this point we might have expected Paul to explain how Christ’s death satisfied the requirements of the law by offering the perfect sacrifice (much like the argument of Hebrews). Instead, he emphasizes the role of faith in this new revelation of God’s righteousness: both the faith(fulness) of Jesus and the faith of those who believe in him (the phrase often translated “faith in Jesus Christ” might also mean “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” [3:22, 26]). This does two things at once: it makes the righteousness of God available to Gentiles as well as Jews because it is based on faith (“Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too” [3:29]), and it elevates the role of faith above works of the law in the story of God’s covenant with Israel (“For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” [3:28]). In other words, by privileging faith over works of law, Paul has made a way for Gentiles to realize the promises God made to Abraham and has established the supreme requirement of the Abrahamic covenant for Jews. This is why scholars say that 4:1–25 (Paul’s interpretation of God’s covenant with Abraham) is crucial to his argument for the righteousness of God in Christ.

Abraham was God’s first Gentile convert. That is to say, Abraham was an uncircumcised Chaldean when God established his covenant with the father of Israel. For Paul, the sequence of the story is pivotal to his argument. In 4:3 he quotes Gen. 15:6, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and points out that God’s righteousness was “credited” or “reckoned” to the patriarch because of his faith while he was still uncircumcised (Rom. 4:10–12). Abraham believed God’s promise of making him the father of many nations even though he had no son. Faith in God’s promise is what made this uncircumcised man righteous. Furthermore, because of his faith, the promise of God was fulfilled: Abraham not only became the father of Israel; he became the father of all nations (Gentiles) who have faith like Abraham. And what kind of faith is that? It is a resurrection faith—one who believes that God gives life to the dead, not only dead loins and a dead womb, but also a dead man (4:16–25). So the righteousness of God is “reckoned” for “us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (4:24–25). Faith in the promise of God is the requisite of covenant blessing. For if the covenant were based on works of law, then Israel would be the only beneficiary of God’s grace, and the promises God made to Abraham—that he would be the father of many nations—would be made void (4:13–15). “Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all” (4:16).

The death and resurrection of Jesus changed everything. It turned God’s enemies into friends. It brought peace to those who deserved God’s wrath. In Christ’s death, God loves the ungodly. In Christ’s resurrection, hope befriends the helpless. When Paul spells out the advantages of the righteousness of God in Christ in 5:1–11, it reads like a condensed version of all that is right with the gospel according to Paul. His favorite triad is there: faith, hope, love. He employs his favorite metaphors to explain the meaning of the sacrifice of Christ: justification and reconciliation. He writes of salvation in every tense: past, present, and future. In fact, the rest of the argument in 5:12–8:39 is Paul’s explanation of what he means in these few verses, gathering up issues raised at the beginning of the letter—the problem of sin, the law, and the righteousness of God.

Questions regarding the righteousness of God in Christ by faith (5:12–8:39). Paul once again begins with the human condition: the law of sin and death reigns in the world because of Adam. But where the first Adam failed, the second Adam (Christ) has succeeded: because of his obedience, grace reigns eternally through his righteousness (5:12–21). How does this righteousness apply to Christ believers, especially Gentiles without law? Sin was crucified with Christ so that believers can be slaves of righteousness, freed from the bondage of sin (6:1–23). Furthermore, believers have been freed from the law, a spiritual and holy gift that sin used to arouse the flesh, effecting death (7:1–25). What the law could not do (bring life) because of the weakness of the flesh, God did by sending his Son in human flesh in order to condemn sin, bring about justice/righteousness required by the law, and provide his Spirit to enable believers to have resurrection life (8:1–27). This has been God’s plan from the beginning (predestination): he will have a people (election) like Jesus Christ ( justification), who will share in his resurrection (glorification). And what God starts, he finishes. Nothing can frustrate the plans of God. His love is too great; his power is irrepressible (8:28–39). Since God is the one who justifies the “elect,” no charge can be brought against them (8:33).

Paul’s Advice

The conclusion to Paul’s argument—believers in Christ can do nothing to jeopardize God’s love for them as his “elect”—brings to mind the problem of Israel’s rejection of the gospel (9:1–11:32). If Paul believes that God’s promises are irrevocable, should not the same apply to Israel? If the righteousness of God is found in Christ, what does this mean for Jews who do not believe in Jesus? Does their unbelief undermine God’s faithfulness? This was more than a theological problem for Paul. Ethnic issues threatened to divide the church in Rome. Evidently, Gentile believers were displaying an arrogant attitude toward Jewish members of the church (11:13–24), contemptuous of their dietary restrictions and Sabbath observances (14:3–6). Perhaps Paul’s notorious reputation as a lawbreaker (3:8) added fuel to the fire of ethnic strife and emboldened Gentile believers to disregard Jewish sensibilities with smug confidence, especially in a place such as Rome, where tensions between Jews and Gentiles were prevalent. Or, maybe Paul had nothing to do with it; Gentile contempt for Jewish people and their ways was an unfortunate by-product of the argument for Gentile inclusion: the law no longer defined righteousness (“Who needs the Jews and their law?”). Whatever the cause, Israel’s rejection of the gospel coupled with the historical problem of Jew versus Gentile was a delicate issue that required a carefully nuanced answer from Paul (9:1–11:32), setting up his advice for house churches that needed to learn how to get along with one another (12:1–15:13).

What about Israel? (9:1–11:36). Paul uses Isaiah’s idea of a faithful remnant to explain how God’s promises to Abraham are fulfilled despite Israel’s disobedience (9:27–11:10). In this case, the disobedient of Israel are made evident by their refusal to believe in the gospel according to Paul (10:5–21). Because they prefer a righteousness of their own (a Jewish kind of righteousness), zeal for the law has made them ignorant of the righteousness of God in Christ (9:30–10:4). But does Jewish unbelief compromise God’s faithfulness, jeopardizing God’s promise to Abraham? No, for according to Paul, not every descendant of Abraham inherits the covenant blessings (e.g., Ishmael and Esau [9:6–26]). So, if Gentiles are grafted into the tree of Abraham’s descendants by faith, and Jews who deny the righteousness of God in Christ are branches broken off the tree of promise, does this mean that God has given up on Israel (11:11–24)? No, because Paul believes that “Israel has experienced a hardening in part” (11:25). Eventually, the hearts of the Jews will soften to the gospel, because they will be jealous of God’s covenant blessing extended to Gentile believers, and “all Israel will be saved” in the end; the natural branches cut off from the olive tree will be grafted back into Abraham’s family tree (11:11–15, 24–32). Here Paul inverts the Jewish eschatological expectation that Gentiles will be saved before the end of the world because of their jealousy of God’s blessings for his people, Israel (Isa. 19:23–25; 49:6–7). In the end, then, God’s mercy triumphs over all disobedience (whether Jewish or Gentile) because “God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29).

Present the body as a sacrifice (12:1–21) and submit to God (13:1–14). Because of God’s mercies for Jews and Gentiles, Paul appeals to the house churches in Rome to sacrifice themselves for the cause of Christ (12:1–2). What does a life of surrender look like? It means keeping overinflated self-esteem in check (12:3) and affirming the diversity of the body of Christ, meeting the needs of all members, and overcoming evil with good by avoiding revenge, helping enemies, and submitting to Roman law (12:4–13:7). Love is the key to this life of sacrifice, in which the believer wears the Lord Jesus Christ like an armor of righteousness, knowing that the day of salvation draws near (13:8–14). In the meantime, believers must accept one another “just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God” (15:7). Indeed, for Paul, Christ is the supreme example of sacrifice because he “did not please himself” but rather took on the sins of the circumcised and the uncircumcised (15:3–9).

Accept one another (14:1–15:13). Thus, since Christ was a servant to Jews and Gentiles, how much more Jewish and Gentile Christ believers should serve one another. Jewish members of the Roman church should quit judging believers who eat meat, drink wine, and recognize every day as a holy day (14:1–12). Gentile members should stop parading their freedom to eat and drink whatever they want (14:13–23): “If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died” (14:15). Regarding these gray areas, each person should operate according to his or her own conviction before God (14:22–23). But when it comes to the bonds of fellowship, Paul encourages them to have “the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had” (15:5). So Paul’s innocuous request of the segregated house churches may reveal a unifying strategy: “Greet one another with a holy kiss” (16:16).

The descendants of Abraham through his wife Keturah and their grandson Dedan, as were the Ashurites and the Leummites. The tribal name is derived from the name of their forefather, Letush (Gen. 25:3).

The descendants of Abraham through his wife Keturah and their grandson Dedan, as were the Ashurites and the Leummites. The tribal name is derived from the name of their forefather, Letush (Gen. 25:3).

The descendants of Abraham through his wife Keturah and their grandson Dedan, as were the Ashurites and the Letushites. The tribal name is derived from the name of their forefather, Leum (Gen. 25:3).

The descendants of Abraham through his wife Keturah and their grandson Dedan, as were the Ashurites and the Letushites. The tribal name is derived from the name of their forefather, Leum (Gen. 25:3).

(1) A great-grandson of Abraham, grandson of Isaac, and the third son of Jacob by Leah (Gen. 29:34). Levi’s sons were Gershon, Kohath, and Merari (46:11). The Israelite Levites were descended from Levi. Levi’s only notable act was a brutal slaughter to avenge his sister Dinah’s honor. When Shechem “violated” Dinah (34:2), Levi and his brother Simeon duped all the males of the city in which Shechem lived by suggesting that they will be able to marry Israelite women, such as Dinah, if they will first be circumcised. As the men of the city lay in pain from the procedure, the two brothers killed the unsuspecting men (Gen. 34). From his deathbed, Jacob cursed Levi and his brother Simeon for their actions (49:5–7). (2) The great-grandfather of Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father (Luke 3:24). (3) A descendant of David through Simeon, also an ancestor of Joseph (Luke 3:29). (4) Also known as Matthew, Levi son of Alphaeus was one of Jesus’ twelve apostles and a tax collector by trade (Mark 2:14).

A custom whereby the brother of a man who died without sons married the man’s widow (Gen. 38; Deut. 25:5–10). The firstborn son from the union became the dead man’s heir. If the brother refused, he took part in a ceremony that released him from his obligation. Ruth 4 most likely describes a levirate marriage, although it is Ruth who marries Boaz, not Naomi, who is Elimelek’s widow. Levirate marriage is used by the Sadducees in their attempt to trap Jesus with a question about the law (Matt. 22:23–33 pars.).

A custom whereby the brother of a man who died without sons married the man’s widow (Gen. 38; Deut. 25:5–10). The firstborn son from the union became the dead man’s heir. If the brother refused, he took part in a ceremony that released him from his obligation. Ruth 4 most likely describes a levirate marriage, although it is Ruth who marries Boaz, not Naomi, who is Elimelek’s widow. Levirate marriage is used by the Sadducees in their attempt to trap Jesus with a question about the law (Matt. 22:23–33 pars.).

One of the twelve tribes of Israel, descended from Jacob’s third son, Levi. The smallest of the tribes during the wilderness wanderings, the Levites provided Israel with the priests who offered sacrifices to God and other ministers who cared for the tabernacle and its sacred furnishings. The term “Levite” is somewhat fluid in meaning, sometimes referring solely to the nonpriestly descendants of Levi and other times including the Aaronic priests. When used in the first manner, the Levites are almost always portrayed as assisting the priests in the service of the tabernacle or temple.

Old Testament. The Bible consistently states that only the priests could offer sacrifices to God and draw near to the ark and other holy items in the tabernacle. The other Levites were warned, on pain of death, not to come into contact with the holy things (Num. 18:3). Divided into three kinship groups—Kohathites, Gershonites, Merarites—they joined the priests in camping around the tabernacle in order to guard against anyone entering it, thus protecting it and their fellow Israelites from God’s wrath. Their duties included dismantling the tabernacle whenever Israel broke camp and transporting the tent, the ark of the covenant, and other sacred items to a new location, where they would reassemble the tabernacle.

Apparently the Levites were given their special realm of service in part due to their diligence in purging the camp of sinners after the episode of the golden calf (Exod. 32:26–29), and in part because at the time of the exodus their population was roughly equivalent to the number of firstborn males in all Israel, for whom they served as substitutes (Num. 3:39–43).

The Levites uniquely received no inheritance when the land of Canaan was divided. Their dispersal in forty-eight cities throughout Canaan and the Transjordan (Num. 35:1–8), while linked to Jacob’s curse against Levi and Simeon for acts of murder and cruelty (Gen. 49:5–7), positively allowed the Levites to represent God among the other tribes. Lacking their own land, they were dependent upon their fellow Israelites, who supported them with their tithes. The Levites in turn gave a tithe of their tithe to the priests.

During the time of David and Solomon, when worship was centralized in Jerusalem, the Levites received new roles because there was no longer any need to transport the tabernacle (1 Chron. 23:2–5, 25–32). Temple duties included purifying the sacred objects, providing the showbread and flour for the grain offerings, and bringing thanks and praise to God during the morning and evening sacrifices and at the festivals. Some Levites were appointed as prophets and musicians (1 Chron. 25:1). Others served the king as gatekeepers, treasurers, judges, scribes, and other officials. On occasion, Levites made up the king’s bodyguard (2 Chron. 23:7).

At various times during Israel’s history, certain Levites assumed the role of priest even though it was usually reserved for Aaron’s descendants. Judges tells how one man, Micah, hired a Levite as his personal priest. The context, which tells how Micah made a shrine, ephod, and some idols, makes it clear that this was inappropriate, as it took place when “everyone did as they saw fit” (Judg. 17:5–12). Micah’s mistake was multiplied when the tribe of Dan seized his idols and ephod and took the Levite to be their priest (18:14–21). Anticipating the reestablishment of worship in Israel after the exile, Ezekiel recounts that the Levites formerly abandoned worshiping Yahweh and led the nation in worshiping idols. Although they will no longer serve as priests, they will be allowed to perform other duties in the temple. Only Levites descended from Zadok could serve as priests (Ezek. 44:10–16).

New Testament. The NT says little about the Levites. Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan castigates both Levites and priests, as representatives of Jewish religion, for failing to aid the robbed and injured man. The book of Hebrews demonstrates that Jesus’ priestly role is essential because the work of the Levitical priesthood is imperfect. It also insists that Christ’s work can be understood only in the context of the priests. Whereas the Levites as a class are occasionally portrayed negatively, Barnabas the Levite became an important leader in the early church (Acts 4:36).

Forty-eight cities allocated to the Levites in lieu of a larger inheritance of land like those afforded the other tribes of Israel (Josh. 13:1–14:5). The cities are listed in Josh. 21:1–42; 1 Chron. 6:54–81.

Included with the cities on the lists are six cities of refuge designated for fugitives from violent reprisal—the designated duty of the nearest male relative to the deceased—in cases of homicide without intent (Num. 35:6, 13–15). However, in cases of murder the boundaries of these cities offered no protection from the penalty of death. The cities of refuge were located on either side of the Jordan Valley (three on each side), facilitating access from the various parts of the nation.

In view of the absence of a substantial allotment of territory, there has been speculation concerning the Levites’ economic sustenance. It has been noted that, in addition to the Levitical cities, the Levites received from the other tribes parcels of land for pasture (Num. 35:1–8; Josh. 14:4). Beyond the raising of cattle (as suggested in the aforementioned texts), the Levites supported themselves with offerings from the other tribes (Num. 18:21–32; Deut. 18:1–5). Additional offerings may have been received by their being included with “the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows” as recipients of tithing (Deut. 14:27–29; 26:13).

The stated reason for excluding the Levites from a larger inheritance of land is their designation as servants in the sanctuary, assistants to the Aaronide priesthood (Num. 18:24; Deut. 10:8–9; Josh. 18:7). As such, God himself is their “inheritance.” This understanding comes to expression in the divine claim to the Levites as the “firstborn” among the tribes of the nation, a substitute for the divine claim to the firstborn, human and animal, from every Israelite household (Num. 3:11–13, 40–42). Another possible explanation, albeit one less prominent in the OT, is the scattering of Levi as a consequence of its eponymous ancestor’s affinity for (unjust) violence, so portrayed in the blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49:5–7). The reference is to Levi’s part in hostilities against the household of Hamor (Gen. 34:25–31).

Lex talionis is a Latin term meaning “law of retribution.” The principle is that the penalty should equal the crime. As expressed in the Torah (“eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . .”; Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20), it sounds brutal, but in reality it restrains excessive punishment (see Gen. 4:23–24).