Teraphim are household idols that varied in size and purpose. Rachel hid them from Laban by sitting on them (Gen. 31:19–35). It is clear that Laban valued them highly, possibly because of their perceived powers of divination (30:27). When David fled from Saul’s men, Michal put teraphim in his bed with goats’ hair at the head (1 Sam. 19:11–16), indicating substantial size and raising the question as to why David possessed teraphim. The details of both incidents suggest that these objects were viewed by the authors with contempt.

Teraphim were associated with false worship and divination (2 Kings 23:24; Ezek. 21:21; Zech. 10:2). When Samuel condemned Saul’s disobedience, he likened teraphim to the sin of divination (1 Sam. 15:23). The Ephraimite Micah’s shrine included an ephod and teraphim (Judg. 17:5; 18:14–31). Hosea also linked teraphim with the ephod (Hos. 3:4) in the list of cultic and national icons of which Israel would be deprived.

A tree species used to translate the Hebrew ’elah, often translated as “oak.” Both the oak and the terebinth are large trees that live a very long time. Under this type of tree Jacob buried the idols of Laban’s household (Gen. 35:4), God appeared to Abraham (Gen. 18:1), the angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon (Judg. 6:11), the bones of Saul and his sons were buried (1 Chron. 10:12), and various pagan gods were worshiped (Hos. 4:13; Ezek. 6:13).

Fear, as it appears in Scripture, is a response ranging from respect and reverence to sheer panic and absolute terror.

Proper and Improper Fears

There are both proper, godly fears and improper, sinful fears. On the one hand, God has given us the ability to respond to rightly perceived fears. When Joseph heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea, he “was afraid” to go there with Mary and Jesus (Matt. 2:22), and God directed him to go to Nazareth instead. On the other hand, Scripture gives us many examples of people who were overcome by sinful fear. After Adam had sinned, he heard God coming to him in the garden, and he said, “I was afraid . . . so I hid” (Gen. 3:10). Abraham was afraid for his life, so he pretended that Sarah was his sister (Gen. 20:2). King Saul disobeyed God’s explicit commands because he “was afraid of the men” (1 Sam. 15:24). Fear can be both sinful in and of itself and something that leads to other sinful responses.

God understands our struggle with sinful fear and knows that we need someone who is stronger than our fears: God himself. David says, “When I am afraid, I put my trust in you” (Ps. 56:3). Ultimately, our hope is in Jesus Christ, who came to “free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death” (Heb. 2:15). The author of Hebrews goes on to tell us how we are to experience this victory through Christ: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Heb. 4:15–16).

Paul asks the question “Who [or, we could add, ‘what’] shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?” (Rom. 8:35), and then gives his classic answer: “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (8:38–39). The reality of a sovereign, loving God rules out any possibility that his people will ever find themselves in situations outside of his love and control. For the believer, “We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (8:28).

Fear of God

There is a popular saying: “The fear of God is the one fear that removes all others.” God wants to free people from wrong fears so that they can fear the one person really worth fearing: God himself. Jesus warned, “But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him” (Luke 12:5). Indeed, the one appropriate fear mentioned well over a hundred times in Scripture is a proper fear of God. The author of the book of Ecclesiastes concludes his wrestling to find meaning and purpose in life with these words: “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind” (12:13).

God’s frame of reference. What can a proper fear of God do for us? The answer from the book of Proverbs is that a proper fear of God is foundational to everything else in life: “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (1:7) and “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (9:10). Every area of life needs to be lived under the direction of God and for his glory, and without a proper fear of God, living a life pleasing to God becomes impossible. Having a proper fear of God involves seeing and responding to all the daily circumstances of life from God’s frame of reference. It is this proper fear of God that involves catching a glimpse of life as it truly is, and especially of God as he is in all his glory and splendor, that gives people the strength and encouragement they need to go through all the difficult experiences of life. Although there are many unanswered questions regarding the various tragedies and difficulties we experience, life does not begin to make sense until a person catches a glimpse of who God is and how he is at work behind the scenes in history and world events. No one can ever go far in a relationship with God apart from a proper fear of him. Instead, “the fear of the Lord is a fountain of life” (Prov. 14:27) that strengthens and sustains us.

Knowing and seeking God. What does fear of God look like? Proverbs 9:10, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding,” places “fear” and “knowledge” in poetical parallelism. Apparently, knowing God and fearing him are really one and the same, like two sides of a coin describing the same reality. Similarly, not fearing God is simply another way of saying that a person does not know him. It is no surprise to discover that to fear God or be a “God-fearer” is one of the standard biblical descriptions for being a follower of God (Acts 10:2). In one sense, having a proper fear of God is simply one way of describing how one is in a proper relationship with God. Scripture is clear that for the ungodly, or even for the disobedient believer, there is a fear in the sense of terror or panic as one contemplates the coming judgment of God (Heb. 10:27, 31). But the believer should have confidence in God’s love and in the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, so that this kind of negative fear is out of place. For the believer, the fear of the Lord is a respectful, reverential awe of God’s glory and majesty, leading inevitably to a changed life. This positive kind of fear should involve a positive seeking out of God and a new desire to please him, combined with a new dread of displeasing him. Proverbs is also very explicit about this purifying aspect of the fear of the Lord: “Through the fear of the Lord evil is avoided” (16:6).

Having a proper fear of God has an ongoing, moment-by-moment quality in much the same way that a spouse or parent naturally thinks about others in the family and wonders how they are doing. Whereas the wicked person does not seek God, and “in all his thoughts there is no room for God” (Ps. 10:4), the opposite is true of those who fear God: they regularly and inevitably find themselves thinking about God, reflecting upon him, respecting him, looking to him for his help and sustenance, valuing his view of things, and actively seeking to please and obey him in everything they do. Fearing God means that we trust him more than we trust ourselves or anyone else. Fearing God is both deciding for (Prov. 1:29 speaks of those who “did not choose to fear the Lord”) and living out an ongoing commitment of giving God the place he deserves in our lives. As Paul tells us, “Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). A person who has come to fear the Lord is never the same afterward.

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in the biblical material that affects our understanding of God, his relationship with his people (past, present, and future), and the structure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is not a unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of the Scriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and the function of covenant. This article highlights the covenant concept and the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the major biblical covenants.

Terminology

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

If the concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, then the covenant is something that binds parties together or obligates one party to the other. Although there are legal implications associated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant should not be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationship with related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant that establishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why God chose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenant metaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-human relationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God and people is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

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

The most significant covenant relationship in the biblical material is the one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surrounding nations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. Although Yahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for his own personal care; he established a relationship with the nation independent of and prior to the nation’s association with his land. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counter to the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities to specific geographic territories first and was concerned with the inhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OT believers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimed him as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa. 40).

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

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

The word “testimony” refers to the contents of the two tablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at Mount Sinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “ark of the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimony in the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed upon the nation in covenant with Yahweh.

The term “word” can be understood in connection with covenant communication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) is viewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). The phrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and “perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideas within the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of the Lord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted with worthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God (Hos. 10:4).

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

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

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

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

Covenant infidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant” (Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “not faithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant” (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant” (Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

The Covenant Genre

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

1. The intertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clans for various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, or peaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format were equally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is the arrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 or the arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2. The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princes who were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involved mutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationship established between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings 5:1–12.

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

There are six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholars believe that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structure of the book of Deuteronomy.

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

(b) The second part is the prologue, which contains a review of the past relationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an “I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7; 4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previous acts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal. The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instill some measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. In Hittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology that characterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal for obedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation for conquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing them limited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic that motivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and even death. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace of redemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and the privilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

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

(d) The deposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. This section instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary and directs the vassal to publicly read the document from one to four times per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regular reading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal in order to nurture respect for the suzerain.

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

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

4. The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature, is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctive difference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassal but rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. In this format the curse is directed against any third party that would oppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfully against the vassal.

Covenants in the Bible

Types of covenants. The material on covenant form, content, and structure comes into play when attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded in the Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initial discussions usually revolve around whether these covenants are conditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to this discussion, covenants should also be understood in light of which party is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, the obligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill the expectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation is placed upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to the vassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality in both treaty forms.

On this basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in light of the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinai established Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended to create a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant. Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate his relationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciously redeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelite life. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’s transgressions were considered covenant violations.

The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In the Abrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel with land, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animals in Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in which Yahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals, obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provide David and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant is first referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed more extensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate the nature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Some define it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, while others view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenant anticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimately facilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happening in connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a future time.

Covenant leadership positions. In addition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God in the OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, God established three key covenant leadership positions for the nation: prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection with the covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and function are detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

God provided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that it would not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surrounding nations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people and established the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded (Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit a Moses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwriting prophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did this by using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thus establishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case made by God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge, jury, and lawyer.

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

The king was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship was not a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8) but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed to Abraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen. 35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of the kingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf. Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenant in the Old Testament. Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structure of the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase “covenant history” can be used to describe the biblical literature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life. It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives of the OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrative shares a covenant perspective, the individual books within the narrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to various aspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50 develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a number of subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on the other hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tension between the promise of land occupation and the responsibility of Israel to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realistic presentation of the tensions associated with the covenant relationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

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

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

The third of the four sons of Nahor and his concubine Reumah (Gen. 22:24).

(1) Judah’s daughter-in-law who bore him twin sons, Perez and Zerah, thus carrying on the family of Judah (1 Chron. 2:4). In Gen. 38, Tamar, after being married to Judah’s first son, Er, and then his second son, Onan (both killed by God for their wickedness), was to marry Judah’s third son, Shelah, according to Israelite custom. Afraid that Shelah too would die, Judah resisted this duty and instructed Tamar to live as a widow at her father’s house.

When Tamar saw that she would not be allowed to marry Shelah, she disguised herself as a prostitute and was approached by Judah. Providing her with a pledge, Judah impregnated Tamar. Tamar, when found to be pregnant, was accused of acting unscrupulously. But upon revealing Judah’s pledge, Tamar was declared by Judah to be “more righteous than I” (Gen. 38:26). Tamar is mentioned later in Scripture in a blessing (Ruth 4:12) and holds a place in the genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:3).

(2) The daughter of King David who was raped by her half brother, Amnon. The violence done to Tamar was later avenged by her brother Absalom, who killed Amnon (2 Sam. 13). (3) The beautiful daughter of Absalom (2 Sam. 14:27), perhaps named after her aunt. (4) A location on the southeastern boundary of Judah (Ezek. 47:18–19; 48:28). This may be Hazezon Tamar (Gen. 14:7), which became En Gedi (2 Chron. 20:2). See also Baal Tamar.

The Hebrew word tarshish refers to a precious stone (NIV: “topaz”; Exod. 28:20; Ezek. 1:16). The name of the stone probably comes from its place of origin (see #4, below). “Tarshish” is also used as a name. (1) A son of Javan, grandson of Japheth, and great-grandson of Noah (Gen. 10:4; 1 Chron. 1:7). (2) A son of Bilhan, grandson of Jediael, and great-grandson of Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:10). (3) One of the seven princes of Persia and Media who had access to the presence of King Ahasuerus and advised him to put away Queen Vashti because of her refusal to obey the king’s command to appear before the banquet (Esther 1:14).

(4) A place frequently mentioned in the OT. Solomon engaged in trade with Tarshish (1 Kings 10:22 NRSV, NASB; 2 Chron. 9:21 NRSV, NASB), and it is described as a source of precious metals such as gold and silver (Jer. 10:9; Ezek. 27:12). Its location is unknown, but it is associated with islands (Ps. 72:10 NRSV, NASB) and with Jonah’s flight by ship from Joppa on the Mediterranean (Jon. 1:3). Both Tartessus in southwest Spain and the island of Sardinia have been suggested as possible sites.

The phrase “ships of Tarshish” (Ps. 48:7; Isa. 23:1) may refer to a fleet originating from Tar-shish or more generally to a type of seaworthy merchant vessel. It is thus sometimes translated by the NIV as “trading ships” (1 Kings 10:22; 22:48).

“The deep” (Heb. tehom; Gk. abyssos) refers to the deep sea or the depths of the sea, in particular to the primeval sea that was understood to exist prior to God’s creative work, which brought order to the chaotic initial state of the world (Gen. 1:2), and that re-covered the earth as creation was reversed in the flood (Gen. 7:11; 8:2). The Hebrew term is etymologically related to the primeval Babylonian goddess who, according to the creation myth in the Mesopotamian text known as the Enuma Elish, was slain by the god Marduk and from whose carcass the universe was formed. In spite of this, there is no indication that the term as used in the Bible was in any way associated with the Babylonian deity, particularly given that the root itself was also used at Ugarit and Ebla to mean “the deep.”

Although the OT does not import the mythological and religious ideas associated with the deep from Mesopotamia, the deep nevertheless often represents a somewhat ominous place, a fearful place of chaos (e.g., Ps. 148:7; Jon. 2:5), sometimes symbolically representing the depths of despair (Ps. 71:20). Yet the OT affirms God’s complete control and sovereignty over the deep (Pss. 33:7; 77:16; 135:6; Isa. 51:10). Elsewhere, however, the term can simply refer to the source of springs and appears to reflect an abundant supply of water (Deut. 8:7; Ps. 78:15).

In the NT, the deep (or the abyss) is presented as a place of the dead (Rom. 10:7) or a prison for demons (Luke 8:31; Rev. 9:1–11) from which opposition to God arises. Revelation also continues the view that the deep sea is a place of darkness and opposition to God with the pronouncement that in the new heaven and new earth there is no longer any sea (Rev. 21:1).

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

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

Capital Crimes

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

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

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

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

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trials and Judgments

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

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

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

(1) A town assigned to Judah located on the northern boundary of Judah between Beth Shemesh and north of Ekron. It is the same Timnah originally assigned to Dan (Josh. 15:10; 19:43). In the time of judges it belonged to the Philistines, and here Samson took his first wife (Judg. 14). In the time of King Ahaz it belonged to Judah but was taken by the Philistines (2 Chron. 28:18). It is identified as modern Tell el-Batashi, three miles south of Gezer, or Khirbet Tibneh (two miles southeast). (2) A village in the southern hill country of Judah located southeast of Hebron and stated to be near Gibeah (Josh. 15:57). This is where the patriarch Judah met his disguised daughter-in-law, Tamar, on the way to Timnah (Gen. 38:12–14).

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).

An appearance by God. The word “theophany” is not found in the Bible; however, by the early fourth century AD, the term had come to be used in reference to God. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea at that time, uses the term (Gk. theophaneia) in reference to God’s appearances to people as these are recounted in Gen. 18:1–5, 25; 32:28–30; Exod. 3:4–6; Josh. 5:13–15 (Hist. eccl. 1.2.10). This meaning of “theophany,” referring to the biblical phenomenon of God’s appearing, is the sense of the word considered here.

“Theophany” is a compound word, related to the Greek words theos (usually translated as “god” or “God”) and phainō (often translated as “to appear”). The Bible says in many places that God “appeared” (e.g., Gen. 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 26:2, 24; 35:9; 48:3; Exod. 3:16; 4:5; Deut. 31:15). For example, Gen. 18:1 says that “the Lord appeared” to Abraham. Several other passages say that people saw God (Gen. 32:30; Exod. 24:10; Isa. 6:1). For example, Isa. 6:1 says that Isaiah “saw the Lord.” “Appeared” and “see” usually reflect different forms of the same Hebrew verb.

Closely related to these appearances are statements describing God’s presence and glory within a cloud and at God’s tent or temple. During the exodus of Israel from Egypt, “by day the Lord went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud,” leading them (Exod. 13:21). When Moses later constructs the tabernacle or tent of meeting, a cloud covers it, and the glory of God fills the tabernacle (40:34). God typically speaks to Moses from the tabernacle (Exod. 33:7–9; Num. 1:1; 7:89).

Later, when the temple is dedicated, “the cloud filled the temple of the Lord” (1 Kings 8:10). This cloud is associated with God’s glory, and where God says he would dwell (8:11–12). In the book of Ezekiel, God forsakes the temple because of the sins of Israel, so the cloud and God’s glory depart (Ezek. 10:4). Throughout the Bible, the local presence of God is regularly indicated by the tabernacle and later by the temple, for this is the place where all offerings are given to God, and where people come before God.

In the Bible, an appearance by God does not limit God to one place. Solomon says during the dedication of the temple that even heaven cannot contain God, much less the temple that Solomon has built (1 Kings 8:27). God’s omnipresence is likewise expressed by the psalmist (Ps. 139:7–8).

God does not always appear in the same form in theophanies. The angel of the Lord appears in the fire of a burning bush, saying that he is the God of Abraham (Exod. 3:2–6). Elsewhere, the angel of the Lord is described as a man, but then ascends to heaven in the flame of an altar (Judg. 13:3–13, 20). John describes God sitting on a throne (Rev. 4:2; 5:1). In other passages God is locally present and speaks, yet without explicitly appearing, which might be classified as a theophany (Num. 22:9, 20; 23:16; Mark 1:11; 9:7; John 12:28).

Despite these examples of theophanies, some biblical passages state that people cannot see God. However, these passages may refer to practical human limitations rather than any inherent characteristic of God himself. In Exodus, for example, God tells Moses that no one seeing God’s face can live (33:20). However, God then says that Moses, without seeing God’s face, “will see my back” (33:23). The entire passage indicates that God can be seen more fully, but only with fatal results. Several NT passages similarly indicate that God cannot be fully seen (John 1:18; 4:24; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15–16; Heb. 11:27).

Just as God dwelled within the tabernacle, at times showing his glory, the NT says that the Word of God was made to dwell in flesh (incarnate) as Jesus Christ and so revealed God’s glory (John 1:14). This Word of God is the same word that created all things in Gen. 1 and so is genuinely God (John 1:1–3).

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

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

Capital Crimes

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

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

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

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

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trials and Judgments

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

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

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

(1) A town assigned to Judah located on the northern boundary of Judah between Beth Shemesh and north of Ekron. It is the same Timnah originally assigned to Dan (Josh. 15:10; 19:43). In the time of judges it belonged to the Philistines, and here Samson took his first wife (Judg. 14). In the time of King Ahaz it belonged to Judah but was taken by the Philistines (2 Chron. 28:18). It is identified as modern Tell el-Batashi, three miles south of Gezer, or Khirbet Tibneh (two miles southeast). (2) A village in the southern hill country of Judah located southeast of Hebron and stated to be near Gibeah (Josh. 15:57). This is where the patriarch Judah met his disguised daughter-in-law, Tamar, on the way to Timnah (Gen. 38:12–14).

The city where David took a great amount of spoils of bronze, which Solomon later used in the temple (1 Chron. 18:8). The city is called “Betah” in the parallel account (2 Sam. 8:8 NASB, NRSV, KJV; see NIV mg.). Some scholars associate it with Tebah (Gen. 22:24), and the NIV uses “Tebah” in both 1 Chron. 18:8 and 2 Sam. 8:8. See also Tebah.

The king of Goyim, one of four kingdoms that raided Canaan during the time of Abraham (Gen. 14:1, 9). After they plundered the region and kidnapped Lot, Abraham successfully defeated them and regained what they had taken. His name has been connected with the name of four Hittite kings (Tudhaliya). See also Goyim.

The two rivers between which Mesopotamia (“between rivers”) is located. The Euphrates and the Tigris originate in the mountains of modern Turkey and run through Syria and Iraq, each for more than a thousand miles, before meeting and emptying into the Persian Gulf. Like today, the two rivers gave life to many people, running through major centers of ancient civilization.

The Euphrates and the Tigris are mentioned together only once in the Bible (Gen. 2:10–14), where they are two of the four rivers stemming from the garden of Eden. The Euphrates itself figures prominently in the biblical narrative. It is also known as “the great river” or simply “the river.” Besides its role in Gen. 2, it is frequently mentioned as a border of the land that God promised to Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 15:18; Josh. 1:4), a land that Israel acquired during the united monarchy (2 Sam. 8:3; 1 Kings 4:24). King Josiah met his death here at the battle of Carchemish in 605 BC (2 Chron. 35:20–27; cf. Jer. 46:1–10). The Euphrates also functions as a symbol of Israel’s idolatrous past (Josh. 24:2–3) and as a symbol of freedom from the exile (Isa. 11:15; 27:12). In the NT, the Euphrates is the place where the four angels are bound (Rev. 9:14) and where the sixth angel pours out his bowl. Moreover, the Tigris appears in only one other place in the Bible (Dan. 10:4), where Daniel receives a vision on its banks. Some dispute the validity of this occurrence because certain manuscripts (i.e., the Peshitta) here replace “Tigris” with “Euphrates.”

A small, handheld musical instrument, probably a small hand drum that may have had bells or small pieces of metal around its perimeter. It was used as part of the music and dancing that accompanied festivals (Isa. 5:12), farewells (Gen. 31:27), worship (Pss. 81:2; 149:3; 150:4), songs of triumph (Exod. 15:20), prophetic ecstasy (1 Sam. 10:5), and the procession of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:5). Some English versions (e.g., KJV, ESV, NRSV) use the terms “tabret” and “tambourine.” See also Music, Instruments, Dancing.

(1) A concubine of Eliphaz (Esau’s son by Adah) and the mother of Amalek (Gen. 36:12; 1 Chron. 1:36 may also refer to this woman). (2) A sister of Lotan and daughter of Seir the Horite (Gen. 36:22; 1 Chron. 1:39). She may be identical with the Timna of Gen. 36:12. Seir fathered the inhabitants of Edom who preceded Esau (Gen. 36:20). (3) An Edomite chief (Gen. 36:40; 1 Chron. 1:51), perhaps descended from Eliphaz (cf. 1 Chron. 1:36). Alternatively, the references in Gen. 36:40–43 (// 1 Chron. 1:51–54) may pertain to geographical areas occupied by Esau’s clan.

(1) A town assigned to Judah located on the northern boundary of Judah between Beth Shemesh and north of Ekron. It is the same Timnah originally assigned to Dan (Josh. 15:10; 19:43). In the time of judges it belonged to the Philistines, and here Samson took his first wife (Judg. 14). In the time of King Ahaz it belonged to Judah but was taken by the Philistines (2 Chron. 28:18). It is identified as modern Tell el-Batashi, three miles south of Gezer, or Khirbet Tibneh (two miles southeast). (2) A village in the southern hill country of Judah located southeast of Hebron and stated to be near Gibeah (Josh. 15:57). This is where the patriarch Judah met his disguised daughter-in-law, Tamar, on the way to Timnah (Gen. 38:12–14).

(1) A town assigned to Judah located on the northern boundary of Judah between Beth Shemesh and north of Ekron. It is the same Timnah originally assigned to Dan (Josh. 15:10; 19:43). In the time of judges it belonged to the Philistines, and here Samson took his first wife (Judg. 14). In the time of King Ahaz it belonged to Judah but was taken by the Philistines (2 Chron. 28:18). It is identified as modern Tell el-Batashi, three miles south of Gezer, or Khirbet Tibneh (two miles southeast). (2) A village in the southern hill country of Judah located southeast of Hebron and stated to be near Gibeah (Josh. 15:57). This is where the patriarch Judah met his disguised daughter-in-law, Tamar, on the way to Timnah (Gen. 38:12–14).

The last of the seven sons of Japheth and the clan name of his descendants (Gen. 10:2; 1 Chron. 1:5). These descendants are thought to be part of the Sea Peoples (known as the Turscha in Egyptian inscriptions) who sailed and attacked throughout the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean.

An offering of a tenth of the whole. Abram gives Melchizedek a tenth (Gen. 14:20; Heb. 7:2–9), and Jacob promises God a tenth (Gen. 28:22). These occasions reflect a practice already established in patriarchal times.

Under Moses, Israel is to give God a tithe of all its crops, flocks, and herds (Lev. 27:30–32). These tithes are received by the Levites for their sustenance; they in turn tithe from all that they have received (Num. 18:25–32). Deuteronomy specifies a yearly tithe eaten by the worshipers and every three years a storehouse tithe to provide for the Levites and for aliens, the fatherless, and widows (Deut. 14:22–29). Hezekiah (2 Chron. 31:5–8) and, later, Nehemiah (Neh. 10:37–38; 12:44–47; 13:10–13) reestablish this system. Malachi warns against slackness in tithing (Mal. 3:8–10).

Amos uses irony to underline that tithing cannot replace righteousness (Amos 4:4). Similarly, Jesus condemns scribes and Pharisees for neglecting justice, mercy, and faithfulness while tithing meticulously; instead, they should practice all of these (Matt. 23:23; cf. Luke 11:42; 18:11–12).

(1) A village in the territory of the descendants of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:32 [KJV: “Tochen”]). The location is unknown. (2) In the KJV, “token” is used to indicate what is, in most modern translations, a “sign” (e.g., Gen. 9:12–17; Ps. 86:17; Mark 14:44).

(1) The third of Gomer’s three sons and a grandson of Japheth (Gen. 10:3; 1 Chron. 1:6). (2) Beth Togarmah was a region inhabited by the descendants of Togarmah; it was known for its war horses (Ezek. 27:14; 38:6). See also Beth Togarmah.

(1) A village in the territory of the descendants of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:32 [KJV: “Tochen”]). The location is unknown. (2) In the KJV, “token” is used to indicate what is, in most modern translations, a “sign” (e.g., Gen. 9:12–17; Ps. 86:17; Mark 14:44).

(1) One of the four sons of Issachar, he was the ancestor of the Tolaite clan and of 22,600 warriors during the reign of David (Gen. 46:13; Num. 26:23; 1 Chron. 7:1–2). (2) A minor judge from the tribe of Issachar. He was the son of Puah and lived in Shamir, in the hill country of Ephraim. He ruled for twenty-three years (Judg. 10:1–2).

The word “tongue” has several senses in both Testaments. In the OT, lashon refers to the physical organ (Judg. 7:5; Job 20:12; 41:1), the physical tongue that creates speech (2 Sam. 23:2; Job 6:30), and the physical organ in reference to individuals as they profess before God (Isa. 45:23; cf. Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:11).

The word “tongue” frequently refers to language (Gen. 10:5; Neh. 13:24; Isa. 28:11; cf. 1 Cor. 14:21). Related to this, the word refers to speech as deceitful (Ps. 52:2), as speaking strife (31:20 KJV, RSV), or as that which praises God (35:28). The tongue sings (Ps. 51:14) and extols (66:17).

The tongue is able to produce very powerful speech that can bring life and death (Prov. 18:21). To guard one’s speech is to be trouble-free (21:23). Soft and forbearing speech is persuasive and wins the day rather than aggravates (25:15). Flattering speech seems favorable but will be disregarded in the end (28:23).

The speech of God is a consuming fire (Isa. 30:27). The mute will have speech when all things are set right in the eschaton (35:6).

In the OT, the word “tongue” is used in parallel with several other words. The physical organ is parallel to lips (Ps. 12:4), mouth (Job 33:2; Pss. 10:7; 50:19), or throat (Ps. 5:9, where the tongue is the source of flattery).

A similar Hebrew word, sapah, has several senses, among them “lip” (and so also often of the edge or shore of a body of water), and can refer to the language produced by lips. It is sometimes placed in parallel with lashon (Ps. 12:4).

In the NT, the word glōssa refers to the physical organ (Mark 7:33–35) and language (Acts 2:11; 1 Cor. 14:21 [heteroglōssos]) and can refer to the miraculous gift of languages (Mark 16:17; Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor. 12–14). Luke also uses the word in the unusual description of the gift of languages coming on the disciples—tongues of fire resting on each one of them (Acts 2:3).

Finally, James, writing in the style of OT wisdom literature, notes that an uncontrolled tongue—unbridled speech—is not indicative of the people of God (James 1:26–27) and is ultimately destructive (3:5–10). See also Speech Impediment.

Implements utilized for the purpose of craftsmanship in some manner, whether in agriculture, commerce, or artistry.

Materials

It can be assumed that early Israelites used tools made of wood, bones, and ivory for the handles, and stone for the working part of the tool. Stone tools were utilized for pounding, grinding, and cutting. Many examples of stone tools have been discovered throughout the ancient Near East. Early farmers and workers used some of the more basic tools, such as hammers, pestles, knives, and chisels.

Some tools were used almost exclusively for the construction of other tools. Spherical instruments made out of diorite or some other very hard substance were used to fashion an instrument into a usable shape. Thanks to their hardness and round shape, they rarely splintered and could be used with reasonable force.

Only certain types of stone could be turned into a cutting utensil. The stone had to have both a requisite hardness and a crystalline nature to be transformed into a blade. Only chert and flint meet such criteria, but only flint was readily available to the nomad, being found in the form of nodules and small cobbles in deposits of limestone. Because of flint’s brittleness, the artisan had to take great care in the amount of pressure applied in making a knife. The fact that so many examples of flint knives are no larger than a few centimeters suggests that this was easier said than done. Flint knives were used by the Israelites in sacred rituals, including circumcision (Josh. 5:2).

Metals began to be used for utensils at roughly the same time Israel entered the promised land. Bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, was used for weaponry and for everyday utensils. The molten alloy was poured into molds made from stone and then shaped and formed by a smith. A similar process was used for iron in the periods following the institution of the monarchy. Early Israel apparently had few if any blacksmiths capable of such work, since the Scriptures record that the Israelites went to the Philistines for production of their iron tools (1 Sam. 13:19). Even after the advent of alloys, however, there seems to have been a preference for the more primitive flint knives, especially in sacred ceremonies, possibly because flint maintained a sharper edge longer, or perhaps because there was a certain taboo associated with the mixing of metals. The application of the profane to the sacred would have rendered the ceremony unfit for God.

Types of Tools

Knives. Knives were made in various sizes. The smallest version is referred to in Jehoiakim’s destruction of Jeremiah’s manuscript in Jer. 36:23 (some English versions distinguish it as a “scribe’s knife” [NIV] or “penknife” [NRSV]). This same knife (Heb. ta’ar) also was used for shaving (Num. 6:5) and appears in imagery related to sharpness or exactness (Ps. 52:2; Isa. 7:20). Between six inches and a foot long would have been the more normal length of knives used for everyday tasks such as butchering (Gen. 22:6).

Agricultural tools. The plow came in various sizes and forms. In the more fertile areas, plowshares were unnecessary, and a smaller utensil similar to a hoe was used simply to break up the topsoil (1 Sam. 13:21). The instrument also was used on more uneven terrain, where a typical animal-drawn plowshare would not work. It was actually this instrument that would have been turned into a weapon of war or, in the case of everlasting peace, transformed back into a farming utensil (Isa. 2:4; Mic. 4:3). In more arid regions, where the soil was more hardened and difficult to break up, the larger plowshare was used. In a fashion well known in the Western world, the larger plowshare was harnessed to a beast of burden and guided through the farmer’s field to prepare the land for sowing.

Harvesting involved the utilization of various tools. Grain was first cut with a sickle (Jer. 50:16). In the ancient Near East, the sickle handle typically was short and could be held in one hand. The blade usually was composed of a jawbone or curved shaft fitted with pieces of flint or other sharp objects. As an instrument of harvest, the sickle also became a picture of judgment and ingathering (Joel 3:13; Mark 4:29). For harvesting grapes, a pruning hook, which was very similar in appearance to a sickle but smaller, was used (Isa. 2:4).

Hand tools. Several small hand tools were similar to their modern expressions but were used for different purposes. An awl is used to bore holes. In the ancient Near East, this tool was made of stone, bone, or metal. One of the more distinctive uses for this tool in ancient times was to pierce ears (Exod. 21:6; Deut. 15:17). Saws were made with a wooden handle on either one end or both ends. An ancient tradition says that Isaiah was sawn in two (cf. Heb. 11:37). Axes were used for felling trees (Deut. 19:5; Matt. 3:10) but also for cutting stones and removing them from quarries (1 Kings 6:7). Early models were crafted from stone, but by the time of Israel’s nationhood the implement was almost always made of iron. This is demonstrated at places where an ax head is referred to with barzel, the Hebrew word for “iron” (Deut. 19:5; 2 Kings 6:5).

Construction and craftsmanship tools. When it came to building and craftsmanship, the Israelites again used instruments quite similar to those employed by modern counterparts. The Israelites used hammers (Isa. 44:12) made of stone, with wooden handles, for large construction jobs. They also had several types of chisels and other carving utensils (Exod. 32:4; Deut. 15:17). For hammering these chisels and carving utensils, a large wooden mallet, similar to those used by craftspeople today, probably was used. A plumb line was used for ensuring that walls were straight. This simple device consisted of a length of string with a weight tied to the end. The plumb line was held up against a wall as it was being built in order to determine if the wall was consistently vertical. As such, it served as an appropriate image for whether Israel was straight in relation to its covenant with God (Amos 7:7–9). Potters used a pottery wheel (Jer. 18:3), and weavers used a loom with a web in order to create intricate patterns of cloth (Judg. 16:13–14). Blacksmiths used bellows, tongs, and hammers designed especially for their work (Isa. 44:12).

By the time of the NT, artisans were far more dependent on iron for most of their tools. Advances in smelting and in the manipulation of the alloys allowed the crude iron of previous eras to begin approaching the tempered steel of the Middle Ages. This permitted more flexibility in how utensils such as hammers could be used and allowed for more effective chisels to be created. As a result, craftsmanship in stone, marble, and other hard surfaces became more prevalent, and ossuaries, statues, and building facades became more ornate and intricate in design. Multiple examples of such craftwork have been unearthed in archaeological digs.

The Hebrew word torah most broadly means “teaching” or “instruction.” In the OT, torah most commonly refers to the collection of teachings divinely revealed to Moses by God. This collection of teachings preserved in the Pentateuch became authoritative and binding, not only for the community of Hebrews wandering in the Sinai Desert, but also for each successive generation with whom the covenant with Yahweh was renewed (Exod. 24; Deut. 4:5–14, 44).

The Torah of Moses

Thus, torah occurs often in combination with Moses’ name (“torah of Moses”), particularly in the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy, Joshua through Kings), and Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. Perhaps the use of Moses’ name in this way emphasizes the authority of the teachings by reminding readers of their connection to him. In the prophetic literature and Psalms, however, torah is more commonly used in combination with the special name for God revealed to Moses at the burning bush (“torah of Yahweh”). Perhaps the use of Yahweh’s special name in this case emphasizes the divine nature of the teachings given to Moses by God.

The meaning of torah in the OT is not uniform, however, and encompasses a range of related meanings. Torah sometimes refers to a more specific set of teachings within the corpus of Mosaic instructions. In some cases, torah seems to refer only to the Ten Commandments (Exod. 24; Deut. 4:44). In other cases, particularly in Leviticus and Numbers, torah can refer to a specific instruction pertaining to the people’s worship and service to God. For example, the specific regulation for how to carry out a burnt offering is a torah for the burnt offering (Lev. 6:9), and the instruction for how to carry out a Nazirite vow is a torah for the Nazirite vow (Num. 6:13).

A great deal of the Mosaic teaching in Exodus through Deuteronomy focuses on the community’s worship, offering specific instruction on things such as offerings, sacrifices, the distinction between clean and unclean, as well as instructions for constructing the ancient sanctuary, the tabernacle. Because the Levitical priests were leaders in the Israelite community’s worship, they were specifically charged with careful transmission and interpretation of torah (2 Kings 22:8; Mal. 2:7–8). Indeed, Levitical priests held an authoritative position in the Israelite community with regard to interpretations of torah. Accordingly, sometimes torah refers to a decision rendered by a priest, on behalf of Yahweh, when the application of an individual instruction is unclear. For example: “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Ask the priests what the law [torah] says: If someone carries consecrated meat in the fold of their garment, and that fold touches some bread or stew, . . . does it become consecrated?’ ” (Hag. 2:11–12 [cf. Deut. 17:8–13]). Priests who fail in their duties of transmission and interpretation of torah are charged with doing “violence to the law [torah]” and corrupting the people (Zeph. 3:4; see also Jer. 2:8; Ezek. 7:26; 22:26; Hos. 4:6).

Other Uses of Torah

Torah can also be a more general term for the direct command of God, apart from the teachings of Moses. For example, God said of Abraham that he “obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions [torot]” (Gen. 26:5). Since Abraham died before the time of Moses, this reference to torah likely emphasizes Abraham’s faithful obedience to God’s specific instructions to him (cf. Gen. 12:1–4; 15:1–21).

Particularly in the prophetic literature, torah often refers to the standard of behavior with which Israel will be judged: “The people have broken my covenant and rebelled against my law [torah]” (Hos. 8:1 [cf. Isa. 1:10; 5:24; 8:16, 19–20; 30:9; Zech. 7:12]). In the prophetic texts, torah is often the basis for God’s indictment of the people, and yet torah also holds promise for the redemption of God’s people, when “I [God] will put my law [torah] in their minds and write it on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33).

In the book of Proverbs, torah usually refers to instructions given by a parent to a child: “Listen, my son, to your father’s instruction and do not forsake your mother’s teaching [torah]” (1:8). In this case, torah represents practical parental wisdom to direct everyday living. While the use of torah in Proverbs is not directly associated with the Mosaic teachings in the Pentateuch, the content of the teaching (torah) of the parent to the child in Proverbs is in alignment with the teachings of Moses to the Israelite community, particularly with the Ten Commandments. Indeed, parental instruction (torah) in the book of Proverbs includes a prohibition against dishonoring one’s parents (1:8; 10:1), violence or murder (1:11–12; 3:29), stealing (1:13; 10:2), adultery (2:16–19; 5:3–20), and lying (3:30; 6:12–15).

Overall, torah is presented not as a stale collection of restrictive rules in the OT, but rather as a joy and a delight: “The law [torah] of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. . . . They are sweeter than honey” (Ps. 19:7–10). See also Law.

A highly combustible wooden stick, or an absorbent combustible material tied on the end of one and ignited. A torch can signify Yahweh’s covenant commitment (Gen. 15:17), be used to win an incredible victory (Judg. 7:16), picture revenge (Judg. 15:4), and assure Zion’s redemption (Isa. 62:1); it can describe four heavenly creatures (Ezek. 1:13), Jerusalem as God’s instrument (Zech. 12:6), an angelic warrior (Dan. 10:6), and a large star (Rev. 8:10). Soldiers and guards carried torches to find Jesus in the garden at night (John 18:3).

A tower whose construction was begun in a town on the plain of Shinar (Gen. 11:1–9), although it is never actually called the “tower of Babel” in the Bible. The name “Babel” (Gen. 11:9) is likely a pun involving the Akkadian word for “gate of god” and the Hebrew word for “confuse.” Some scholars believe that “Babel” alludes to the city of Babylon. Most ancient structures described as towers would have been ziggurats, which are terraced pyramids with steps. Ziggurats were designed to be places where the gods could access land, much like a staircase. Interestingly, the builders’ plan in Gen. 11:1–9 actually worked, since God did come down into the city; however, they did not anticipate the consequences of their actions. Some commentators have suggested that this story is an etiology explaining the beginning of languages.

Cities, towns, and villages were essential parts of a common civilization pattern shared by the ancient Near East and the Bible. Towns and cities were designed to provide the basic needs of security, shelter, and sustenance to enable their populations to engage in a variety of social, economic, religious, and political activities.

The urban picture of the biblical world is complicated by several factors. The first is the large span of time covered in the Bible. The urban chronology of Scripture begins at the moment of the first attempt at city building (Gen. 4:17) and ends with the revelation of the new Jerusalem, the city of God (Rev. 3:12; 21:2).

Moreover, the Bible is not concerned with providing a detailed commentary on the expansion of city and urban life. It is true that several of the great cities of the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world are mentioned in the pages of the Bible; however, many of the religious, social, economic, and political factors involved in the development of urban life are not identified or discussed. The archaeological record often suggests a more complex picture.

In addition, a wide variety of terms are used broadly and interchangeably in the Scriptures to describe settlement patterns and socio-urban structures. For example, the specific differences between a city, a town, and a village are not clearly identified in the biblical text. Normally, a city had a fortified wall or other type of defensive enclosure, while a town or village did not.

Furthermore, city status was not necessarily determined by size. Ancient cities were much smaller. During the reign of Solomon, Jerusalem covered about thirty-three acres. But by the time of Jesus it measured nearly two hundred acres. Jericho, the oldest city in Palestine, was no larger than ten acres. The archaeological record suggests that Jericho was occupied by at least 7000 BC. Hazor, one of the largest cities in the upper Galilee, covered 175 acres. The dimensions of Palestinian cities were minuscule compared to the great pagan cities such as Nineveh, Babylon, and Rome.

Archaeological Evidence

Archaeological evidence suggests that some of the chief concerns of city building remained constant over time. Cities were planted along main highways or trade routes. Often a city sat at important crossroads or intersections. An adequate water supply was necessary, as were raw materials for shelter and industry. The site had to be easy to defend and surrounded by adjacent agricultural land sufficient to sustain the population. All cities in the ancient Near East built walls and city gates. Most featured an acropolis or citadel and a working system of city streets. Many cities contained a sanctuary or high place where individuals could worship.

At least four major phases of urbanization in Palestine occurred during the biblical period.

Early Bronze Age II (3000–2700 BC). Although Jericho and other cities had their origin in the Chalcolithic period, the Early Bronze Age produced a significant expansion of urban life. Cities in this period included Megiddo, Ai, Gezer, Arad, Jericho, and others. Larger sites protected by fortifications with gates are characteristic of this period. Temples, fortified citadels, and residential houses were found arranged along streets and thoroughfares inside the city. The water supply became a community concern, and steps were taken to conserve runoff water into large reservoirs or cisterns. Such urban planning presupposes a social hierarchy in the differentiation of labor and need. Farmers, craftsmen, and traders, as well as priests and rulers, worked and lived side by side in the city.

Middle Bronze Age IIB (1750–1650 BC). In the second wave of urbanization, the Canaanites refortified and rebuilt older settlements such as Dan, Hazor, Megiddo, and Shechem. Other sites, such as Bethel and Beth Shemesh, were established as new settlements. Distinctive walls, fortifications, gates, and cultic architecture characterized this period. Mud-brick was a common construction material. Larger city-states controlled agricultural resources and ruled numerous villages and settlements within their immediate vicinity. These city-states often joined together in political alliances. Cuneiform documents from Mari and Hazor provide a glimpse into the social, cultural, and political life in the cities of this period. This wave of urbanization began to decline by the Late Bronze Age.

Iron Age II (1000–586 BC). Early Iron Age settlements developed alongside the declining Late Bronze cities as rough camps, simple enclosures, and villages in the highlands of Palestine. Later, during the monarchial period, some of the villages and cities expanded into full urban centers, following royal hierarchical and administrative blueprints. Cities contained administrative buildings, enhanced fortifications and gates, new water systems, and planned street systems offering systematic drainage. Housing generally followed a typical pattern. Stone became the construction material of choice. Both the united monarchy and the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah established royal cities, administrative centers, fortified border cities, and fortresses. Urban life gravitated toward the upkeep of a central religious and economic royal administration.

Roman period. As a champion of all things Hellenic, Alexander the Great introduced the Greek city, or polis, into the oriental culture of the Levant. This new type of city, with its theaters, gymnasia, statues, and colonnades, served as a beacon of Greek civilization. Such cities attracted Greek settlers, traders, and local natives (Acts 18:1–3, 18–28; Rom. 16:3–5; 1 Cor. 16:19). The Greek agora (marketplace) replaced the Palestinian city gate as the center of trade and commerce. Sepphoris and the towns of the Decapolis were examples of this type of city in Palestine. The Romans imitated the Hellenistic city plan but emphasized one main north-south thoroughfare (cardo) and east-west streets. Building activity in Palestine flourished under Herod the Great (37–4 BC). He rebuilt, expanded, and renamed many Palestinian sites, such as Caesarea, Sebaste, and the Tower of Antonia in Jerusalem. Herod radically changed the landscape of Jerusalem, rebuilding there on a massive scale not only the palace but also the temple.

Old Testament

The common Hebrew word for “city,” ’ir, occurs 1,093 times in the OT. English versions normally translate the word as “city,” but sometimes “town” is used. The same term is found outside the Bible in one of the Lachish letters and as a cognate in several Semitic languages. The etymology of ’ir is not clear, but it may be related to the Sumerian word for “city,” uru. The word may have originally designated a fortified or protected place.

In the OT, ’ir can be applied to a wide range of settlements, including villages, towns, and capital cities regardless of size or location. For example, Deut. 3:5 speaks of cities fortified with high walls, gates, and bars in the same sentence with “rural towns” or “country settlements” [NIV: “unwalled villages”]. On the other hand, a distinction is made between a “walled city” and a “village” in Lev. 25:29, 31. In Num. 13:19 Moses specifically charges the spies with the task of determining whether the Canaanite cities are fortified or more like camps. Cities given to the Levites in Num. 35:1–8 also included the surrounding pasturelands connected with them. A number of times the OT speaks of the fields associated with a city or village (Lev. 25:34; Josh. 21:12; Neh. 11:25, 30).

Cities were also given special designations or names. Cities of refuge are so designated to provide protection for individuals who have committed accidental manslaughter (Num. 35:11; Josh. 20:2; 1 Chron. 6:57). Jericho was called “the City of Palms” (Deut. 34:3; 2 Chron. 28:15). Jerusalem was known as “the City of David” (1 Kings 3:1; 2 Chron. 5:2), “Zion” (Isa. 33:20; Zech. 8:3; Heb. 12:22), and “the holy city” (Isa. 52:1; Rev. 21:1).

Two other Hebrew terms are often translated “city.” The noun qeret occurs only five times in biblical poetry (Job 29:7; Prov. 8:3; 9:3, 14; 11:11). The noun qiryah is found twenty-nine times. It is sometimes translated “town” in the NIV (Deut. 2:36; Job 39:7; Isa. 25:2; Jer. 49:25; Hos. 7:12). The etymology of either word is uncertain, but both may be derived from qir (“wall”). In many cases qiryah functions as a synonym of ’ir.

In Deut. 2:36 and 3:4 qiryah is used to designate the towns taken by the Israelites in Transjordan. Heshbon is identified in Num. 21:28 as the “town” (qiryah; NIV: “city”) of Sihon. The word qiryah is also found in the names of several towns, such as Kiriath Jearim (Josh. 15:9) and Kiriath Sepher (Josh. 15:15). Hebron was originally Kiriath Arba (Gen. 23:2; 35:27), and Balaam rode to Kiriath Huzoth (Num. 22:39). Shaveh Kiriathaim (Gen. 14:5) and Kiriathaim (Num. 32:37) contain a form of qiryah.

Smaller communities were called “villages” or “settlements” (Gen. 25:16; Lev. 25:31; Deut. 2:23). Some of these were connected to a larger city or provincial center. The book of Joshua commonly speaks of a city or town and “its villages” (Josh. 13–19; cf. 1 Chron. 6:26). In addition, the Hebrew phrase “daughters of” (i.e., settlements) is frequently used to identify smaller villages under the jurisdiction of a larger city and dependent upon it (Num. 21:25, 32; 32:42; Josh. 15:45, 47; Neh. 11:25–31).

New Testament

The Greek word polis occurs 163 times in the NT and is translated as “town” or “city.” Several sites are called polis: Nazareth (Matt. 2:23), Capernaum (Luke 4:31), Arimathea (Luke 23:51), Bethlehem (John 7:42), and others. Jerusalem is called “the holy city” (Matt. 4:5; cf. Rev. 3:12), “the city of the Great King” (Matt. 5:35), and “the city of the living God” (Heb. 12:22). During his ministry, Jesus preached in the towns of Galilee (Matt. 11:1) and Samaria (Matt. 10:5). In the book of Acts, Paul served as an evangelist to the Greek and Roman cities in the Mediterranean world.

The practice of buying, selling, and trading goods is well attested in both Testaments. Listed among the items of trade in the Bible are textiles (Ezek. 27:24), metals (1 Kings 9:28; Ezek. 27:13; Rev. 18:12), spices (Jer. 6:20; Rev. 18:13), corn (1 Kings 5:11; Ezek. 27:17), animals (1 Kings 10:29), and wine (2 Chron. 2:15; Rev. 18:13).

Old Testament

Palestine rests in a strategic position between Egypt and Mesopotamia. Thus, major trade routes that predate the biblical writings are found throughout Palestine. That certain forms of commerce seem to just appear on the scene in the biblical narrative attests to the significance of commerce during the OT era. One such incident involves a caravan of Ishmaelites traveling from Gilead to Egypt (Gen. 37:25). Although the narrative is primarily interested in showing how Joseph ended up in Egypt, the reality that Ishmaelites (later called “Midianites” [Gen. 37:28]) travel at such great lengths for goods attests to the far-reaching impact of commerce at that time.

Traveling by land. By biblical times, three major north-south highways crossed Palestine. On the coast was the international coastal highway, sometimes referred to as the Way of the Sea (Lat. Via Maris) (see Isa. 9:1), although this is somewhat of a misnomer. This route began in Egypt and continued through to Gaza, Aphek, Megiddo, Hazor, Dan, and Damascus. Mentioned three times in the Bible (Num. 20:17; 21:22; Deut. 2:27), the King’s Highway began in the Gulf of Aqaba at Elath (northernmost point of the Red Sea) and ran north to Damascus. A major trade route in ancient times, the road eventually was lined with fortresses and rebuilt by the Roman emperor Trajan during the second century AD. The third major road was interregional but not international. This central interregional route ran from Shechem in the north to Beersheba in the south, making stops in Shiloh, Bethel, Ramah, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Hebron along the way.

The indication that Solomon had “seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines” (1 Kings 11:3) evidences various lines of commerce, both regionally and internationally. Marriage, particularly for kings, was arranged often for strategic purposes. One way to formalize an agreement of peace, safe passage, or commerce agreements was to offer a daughter in marriage. Solomon’s wives from Egypt, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Sidon, and Hittite areas (1 Kings 11:1) probably served both political and economic functions.

Traveling by sea. Although travel and trade by water (rivers and sea) cannot be ruled out, particularly in Egypt, the most significant commercial endeavors in the OT concern the main trade routes through Palestine. However, numerous examples of maritime commerce are evidenced in the OT. Among the most interesting examples of maritime commerce are the ships of Solomon, which would return intermittently with “gold, silver and ivory, and apes and baboons” (1 Kings 10:22). Despite the admonition given to the Israelite kings (Deut. 17:15–20), Solomon acquired horses and chariots from Egypt (1 Kings 10:28–29) by way of Kue (cf. Cilicia in the southeast of present-day Turkey). Thus, trade appeared to be international by both land and sea (cf. Gen. 37:25–28; 1 Kings 10:15; Isa. 23:8; Ezek. 27).

Revelation. The centralized geographical orientation of Palestine ensured that it had a unique role in the commercial trade of the ancient Near East. Perhaps this is why God gave specific revelation to Israel that applied to commercial affairs. The exhortation to “use honest scales and honest weights” when conducting business would have demonstrated the integrity of both Israel and Israel’s God (Lev. 19:35–36).

New Testament

The conquests of Alexander the Great catalyzed trade relationships between West and East (c. fourth century BC). Yet it would not be until the Roman consolidation of power in the western Mediterranean (Third Punic War, 149–146 BC) that commerce was greatly improved. The two-century period of peace, referred to as the Pax Romana (cf. Philo, Embassy 47; Plutarch, Mor. 317B), was one of the abiding legacies of the emperor Augustus (r. 27 BC–AD 14). Among the positive outcomes of Augustus’s rule were economic prosperity, improved communications, and stabilized government. The growing network of Roman roads and strict regulation on the seas improved the quality and conditions of travel between locations, thus improving communications and commercial opportunity throughout the empire (cf. Pliny the Elder, Nat. 14.1.2).

Contributing to the development of commerce was the creation of a fully monetized economy throughout the Roman Empire. Although bartering continued to function, coinage had come into heavy usage after and on account of the policies of Alexander the Great. Strabo even goes so far as to mention that the lack of the use of coinage was a characteristic of barbarism (Geogr. 7.5.5).

Merchants include shippers, entrepreneurs, and their agents, who traveled about making contracts and supervising the shipment of goods. Although the typical source of income for an aristocrat was agriculture, the enticement of potential profits of commerce led some to engage in the merchant trade or appoint their slaves to do so. Jesus seems to allude to the latter practice in Matthew’s Gospel when he tells a parable of a master who goes on a long journey and expects his servants to handle his affairs (Matt. 25:14–27). A slave might be entrusted with a message or a business transaction abroad. Thus, it would not have been uncommon to see a slave traveling and handling his master’s business. Perhaps this gives insight into Onesimus, the slave whom Paul encounters, who belongs to Philemon (see Philem. 10–18).

Due to slow travel times, most foods were not transported very far. But the high demand for grain grew the commerce industry from a generally localized phenomenon to an international operation. Aside from the well-documented import/export of grain, items such as wine, dried fruits, spices, and other luxury items were shipped longer distances. Commerce was undertaken by both land and sea.

Traveling by land. Nothing like the massive infrastructure of modern nations existed in antiquity. Yet, by the time of the NT, Roman roads made shipping and land travel more efficient and possible than ever before. The extent of these road systems expanded from modern-day Scotland to the Euphrates and provided strategic value for the empire but also profoundly revolutionized commerce and travel. Many of these roads are still in use. Even with the improved conditions of the road systems, however, land commerce was slow and costly. Most commercial traffic, therefore, was localized. Maritime commercial enterprise, however, allowed for quicker, more economical shipping.

There were two principal land trade routes in the Roman world. First, the Appian Way (Lat. Via Appia) ran south from Rome to Capua, crossing Italy and extending to Brundisium on the Adriatic coast. Stretches of this road were traversed by Paul and his companions as they went to Rome (Acts 28:15–16). The second, the Egnatian Way (Lat. Via Egnatia), begins in Dyrrachium and spans across Macedonia and eventually to Byzantium (Istanbul). A stretch of Paul’s second and third missionary journeys would have used this path as he traveled to Thessalonica (cf. Acts 17:1).

To the east, in Asia Minor (present-day Turkey), the well-traveled east-west roadway was known as the Common Way. Anyone familiar with Paul’s missionary journeys will recognize some of the stops along the Common Way: Ephesus, Laodicea, Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, and Tarsus (to name a few).

Traveling by sea. The presence of maritime commerce is well documented in the NT. Virtually no travel industry existed in its own right; rather, travel followed the established trade routes. If one wished to travel by sea, one sought a cargo vessel heading to the appropriate locale. Thus, when the NT records sea travel, it is in the context of commerce ships (cf. Acts 27:38). Most ships stayed close to land and ventured between ports (cf. 20:13–15; 21:1–8; 27:2), although if the prevailing western winds could be utilized, a large ship would take to the open sea.

Although commerce was not an industry of the elite (cf. Cicero, Off. 1.150–151; Homer, Od. 8.14ff.), the importance of maritime trade cannot be overlooked. This industry provided a way to redistribute essential resources and goods throughout the Roman world, potentially eliminating temporary shortages. Both Athens and Rome depended highly upon imports of grain from Egypt to feed their urban population and maintain armies. In fact, much of the large commercial travel on the Mediterranean was undertaken to supply grain to Rome. The book of Acts mentions two such grain ships from Alexandria (27:6, 38; 28:11).

Large-scale sea commerce could transport vast amounts of goods between locations. Acts mentions 276 persons traveling on a grain ship destined for Rome (27:37). Likewise, Josephus records his ill-fated journey to Rome on a ship carrying 600 passengers (Life 15). This number of passengers provides some insight into the size of these sea vessels and the amount of cargo that could be carried. It is thought that an Alexandrian commerce ship could be up to two hundred feet long.

There were two principal maritime trade routes in the Roman world. First, the sea route from Puteoli (southeast of Rome) to Alexandria was used by merchant ships that took advantage of the prevailing winds on the Mediterranean as they traveled to Egypt for grain. This passage, of nearly one thousand nautical miles, could be made in less than two weeks. Conversely, the journey back could take up to three months and followed the Palestinian coast north, passing several significant ports: Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea, Ptolemais, Tyre, Sidon, and Antioch.

Although Roman peace ushered in an era of safer travel by land and by sea, maritime transit remained quite dangerous. Paul is recorded to have undergone four shipwrecks (see Acts 27:39–44; 2 Cor. 11:25–26). Josephus records his own journey to Rome “through a great number of hazards, by sea” (Life 14). Weather patterns and sea conditions could change quickly, and it was generally acknowledged that certain times of the year were better for traveling (Cod. theod. 13.9.3.3; Tacitus, Hist. 4.81; Acts 27:9–12; cf. 2 Tim. 4:13). Nevertheless, the Roman imperium offered generous incentives to merchants who risked the season and brought supplies of grain to Rome from Egypt (Suetonius, Claud. 18–19; Cassius Dio, Hist. 60.11). Such a ship provided the context for the apostle Paul’s journey to Rome, which ended in shipwreck and the loss of the grain product, but remarkably without any loss of life (see Acts 27:13–44).

Trade associations. Trade associations of various kinds existed in the ancient world. Such a group consisted of merchants or artisans who shared a common trade. These groups typically exerted no political, social, or economic influence. Rather, they existed to protect the merchants and artisans and their economic interests. Such was the case when the artisans of Ephesus incited a riot over the actions of Paul and his companions when they preached against the idolatry of Artemis worship (Acts 19:26). The statement that “all Asia and the world” worship Artemis (19:27) certainly is hyperbolic; yet the pervasiveness of the Artemis cult is recorded in other sources (Pausanias, Descr. 4.31.8; Strabo, Geogr. 4.1.5) and suggests that the artisans who fashioned these silver shrines made good money in the local economy.

Likewise, the bronze trade from Corinth is well documented in antiquity (e.g., Vitruvius, De arch. 8.41; Pliny the Elder, Nat. 34.6). Bronze was used to produce various goods: bowls, jewelry, and sound-enhancing vessels for the theater at Corinth. The latter may be what Paul alludes to when he writes of a “resounding gong” (1 Cor. 13:1). The recognition of the beauty and value of Corinthian bronze resulted in it being sought after by other markets. Pliny the Elder reports, “There has been a wonderful mania among many people for possessing this metal” (Nat. 34.6). Located on the Greek Peloponnesus, Corinth was in a strategic position to distribute its goods throughout the Roman Empire. It was to this port city that Paul came and spent significant time planting a church (Acts 18:1, 18).

The stretch of land east of the Jordan River extending from Mount Hermon in the north to the Gulf of Aqaba in the south, including the biblical areas of Bashan, Gilead, Ammon, Moab, and Edom. The area is roughly that of the modern country of Jordan. The word “Transjordan” is not found in the Bible but is derived from variations of the Hebrew ’eber hayyarden (e.g., Deut. 1:1) and the Greek peran tou Iordanou (e.g., Matt. 4:25). The NIV variously translates these phrases as “east of the Jordan,” “across the Jordan,” “beyond the Jordan,” “near the Jordan,” “along the Jordan,” and “on the other side of the Jordan.” Occasionally these phrases also refer to the area west of the Jordan.

Description

Transjordan is a high plateau that in general rises in height from north to south, although Mount Hermon, as part of the Anti-Lebanon range, does mark the highest point of elevation at 9,230 feet above sea level. The plateau, bounded by the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan Rift Valley, the Dead Sea, and the Arabah in the west and the desert to the east, is intersected by numerous streams running east to west that have cut deep gorges as they run toward the Jordan. A main trade route, known as the King’s Highway, ran through Transjordan in biblical times, connecting the Gulf of Aqaba and western Arabia with Damascus in the north (Num. 20:17; 21:22).

The area of Bashan, with mountains to the north, is largely a fertile plain known in the OT for its well-fed cattle and large oak trees (Ps. 22:12; Isa. 2:13; Ezek. 27:6). South of Bashan, between the Yarmuk and the Jabbok (modern Nahr ez-Zerqa) rivers, the hills of Gilead rise to more than three thousand feet and were known for their rich pastureland (Num. 32:1). Although Gilead’s boundaries are defined here as between the Yarmuk and the Jabbok, it should be noted that in the OT “Gilead” occasionally referred to a region extending beyond these two rivers. This larger area is also roughly equivalent to the district called “Perea” by the first-century AD Jewish historian Josephus. South of Gilead, between the Jabbok and the Arnon (modern Seil el-Mojib) rivers lay the country of Ammon, although the political borders of this region were also somewhat fluid. Between the Arnon River and the Zered River (probably modern Wadi el-Hesa) lay the country of Moab, with a well-watered plateau rising to about 3,200 feet. This area was highly suitable for raising sheep (2 Kings 3:4). From the Zered River southward to the Gulf of Aqaba, the mountains of Edom rise to about 5,500 feet above sea level.

History

Biblical mention of Transjordan begins in Gen. 13, when Lot saw the fertile valley of the Jordan and chose to settle in Sodom. Although Sodom’s exact location is unknown, it may have been near the Dead Sea. Similarly, the battle of five kings against Kedorlaomer and his allies, which took place in the Valley of Siddim, may have been located near the south end of the Dead Sea (Gen. 14). Later, Jacob’s flight from Laban took him to the hill country of Gilead and eventually to the bank of the Jabbok River, where he wrestled with the angel (Gen. 31:22–25; 32:22–32).

Transjordan took center stage in the events following Israel’s exodus from Egypt. When the Israelites left Kadesh Barnea in Sinai, Moses requested passage through Edom on the King’s Highway, but the Edomite king refused (Num. 20:14–21). So the Israelites took a more easterly route, along the edge of the desert bordering Transjordan, thus bypassing both Edom and Moab (Num. 21). When they reached the Arnon River and attempted to rejoin the King’s Highway, Sihon king of the Amorites refused them passage and engaged them in battle, only to lose his territory to the Israelites (Num. 21:21–32). The Israelites continued farther north to Bashan, where they fought successfully against Og king of Bashan and claimed his land as well (Num. 21:33–35). When Balak king of Moab heard news of Israel’s victories, he feared for his own country and hired Balaam to curse Israel. However, by God’s prompting, Balaam blessed Israel and cursed Moab instead (Num. 22–23).

Before Israel crossed the Jordan to enter Canaan, the tribes of Reuben and Gad, which owned large numbers of livestock and were impressed by the rich pastureland of Gilead, requested that the land east of the Jordan be given to them (Num. 32:1–5). Thus, Reuben took possession of Ammon north of the Arnon River (Josh. 13:15–23), Gad’s tribe settled the northern parts of Ammon into Gilead (13:24–28), and the half-tribe of Manasseh settled in the hills of Gilead northward through Bashan (13:29–31).

Despite the Israelites’ victories over Sihon and Og and their settlement of Transjordan, hostilities continued between Israel and the remaining inhabitants of the land. Jephthah, for example, a Gileadite, fought successfully against the Ammonites, who wanted their land returned to them (Judg. 11:1–34). Saul also successfully fought the Ammonites when they threatened the town of Jabesh Gilead (1 Sam. 11:1–14). Saul’s courage won the gratitude of the town’s inhabitants, and it was they who later recovered Saul’s body from Beth Shan after the Philistines killed him (1 Sam. 31:7–13). During David’s reign, Israel’s territory was expanded throughout Transjordan from Damascus in the north and through Edom in the south (2 Sam. 8:1–14).

Solomon’s reign and the period of the divided kingdom saw ongoing struggles for control over the regions of Transjordan. Damascus, for example, gained independence during Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 11:23–25), and later Hazael of Syria (r. 842–806 BC) extended the Aramean Empire through Bashan and into Gilead (2 Kings 10:32–33). Later Jehoash and Jeroboam II of Israel were able to recapture this territory (2 Kings 13:25; 14:28). And when Ahab of Israel died, Mesha of Moab, who had been paying tribute to Israel, rebelled. This rebellion prompted Jehoram of Israel to invade and attempt to reassert control over Moab, but he was unsuccessful (2 Kings 3).

In 733/732 BC the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III annexed the northern parts of Trans-jor-dan, while Ammon, Moab, and Edom remained semiautonomous, likely paying tribute. The Babylonian and Persian empires also extended throughout Transjordan.

During the Hellenistic and Roman periods (332 BC–AD 324), Transjordan was controlled by the Ptolemies (c. 333–198 BC), the Seleucids (c. 198–153 BC), the Hasmoneans (c. 153–63 BC), and then the Romans. This era saw the emergence of the Decapolis, a confederation of ten cities settled by Greeks, nine of which were located east of the Jordan. The Romans continued dominance through the Byzantine period (AD 324–638).

The region of Transjordan is mentioned a few times in the NT in connection with Jesus’ ministry. The Gospels note that Jesus’ travels took him across the Jordan (Matt. 19:1–2; Mark 10:1), and that among the crowds who followed him were many from the Decapolis and beyond the Jordan (Matt. 4:25; Mark 3:8). Although the location of his healing of the demoniac is uncertain, in the country of either the Gadarenes (Matt. 8:28) or the Gerasenes (Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26), it was in the Decapolis region that the healed man proclaimed what Jesus had done for him (Mark 5:20).

Until the twentieth century, traveling farther than a week’s distance from home was dangerous and expensive. We should not overstate the difficulty or risks of travel then, but certainly it was unlike today. Since virtually every region had its own currency, travelers carried cash and were at risk from thieves, money changers, innkeepers, slavers, and others who preyed upon travelers, as well as from the natural dangers of storms, floods, early snows, and so forth. Outside of cities, there was little law enforcement for the typical traveler (Ezra 8:22). Family was often one’s only defender against injustice (Gen. 14:12–16; Ps. 127:3–5).

For travelers in the biblical world, improvement was slow and gradual. During the time of the patriarchs, travelers faced poor roads, bandits, and no security other than what they could provide themselves (Gen. 14:14). Later Assyrian documents complain of difficult roads. Sargon II (r. 722–705 BC) boasted, “I advanced over inaccessible paths (in) steep and terrifying places” (ARAB 2:25–26). Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC) tells of having to travel on foot because the road was too steep for his litter (ARAB 2:122–23). Persian roads improved modestly, but Herodotus probably is exaggerating the improvements (Hist. 8.98), as Xenophon seems to indicate (Anab. 1.2.25). Many sources speak of bandits (Ezra 8:31; Hos. 6:9). Thus, safe travel or good roads became a metaphor for peace. When ancient kings bragged, it often was about roads they had built or how the roads were now safe. The arrival of the kingdom of God was symbolized by repairing the road (Isa. 40:3–5; Luke 3:4–6).

Major improvements came with the Roman Empire. For the first (and last) time, a traveler could go from the Euphrates to Egypt to Britain on well-policed roads and sea lanes under one’s own government. Enforced law and standardized, trustworthy coinage had distinct advantages (Isa. 33:8; Matt. 22:15–22).

Running empires required traveling. Envoys (Jer. 27:3), tax collectors (Dan. 11:20), and overseers (1 Kings 5:13–17), as well as armies, moved about on imperial business. While farmers and local merchants traveled limited distances to sell their wares (usually to the closest large city), fortunes could be made by the more adventuresome merchant willing to take the greater risks of traveling farther distances (Gen. 37:28; 1 Kings 10; Job 6:19; Prov. 31:14; Isa. 23:8; Matt. 13:45). The ancient world also saw individuals doing a great deal of local travel (less than sixty miles), usually connected to business (Prov. 31:14), religious festivals (1 Sam. 1; John 10), and family (Gen. 50:1–14; 2 Kings 8:29; Luke 1:39; John 2:1); often the three were woven together.

Travel in the ancient world was by sea or land. Except for the wealthy, this meant booking passage or walking. Sentimental images of a pregnant Mary riding a donkey to Bethlehem or of the apostle Paul doing missionary travels on horseback are likely fiction. Although there is some evidence of women traveling on donkeys (Josh. 15:18; 1 Sam. 25:20, 23; 2 Sam. 16:1–2), the stories are of prominent women or unusual occasions; it should not be assumed to be normative. Obviously, the infirm rode when required to travel, but they preferred not to travel (2 Sam. 19:26–37). The wealthiest used private transport (Acts 8:27–28). We have references to travel by donkey, mule, camel, horse, cart, litter, and chariot, but ordinary people walked. Typically, a good day’s walk was twenty miles; sea travel was by daylight and averaged roughly the same. Calculating how long it took someone to travel, though, is not merely a matter of math. Both sea and land travelers were fair-weather travelers, usually between June and September. On a long journey, one had to plan where to “winter.” Ancient travelers had to make their travel plans around the seasons.

Travel by Land

Roads. Until the Romans, a “road” was merely a cleared path. They were ungraded and often impassable in wet weather. Nonetheless, they followed a distinct route, marked by “guideposts” (Jer. 31:21). In the ancient world, major roads ran east-west from Syria into Mesopotamia. North-south roads connected Syria to Egypt, through Palestine. The Assyrian army invaded Israel by traveling west on the road as far as Syria and then turning south. The battles fought in Gen. 14 were to control the north-south road (and thus trade). Solomon built wealth by controlling this trade (2 Chron. 9:14). Three major roads ran north-south through Israel. (1) The King’s Highway (Num. 20:17) ran through the eastern region, from Damascus through the eastern highlands of the Transjordan and down to the Gulf of Aqaba, where Solomon maintained a port (2 Chron. 8:17). (2) The central (or Sinai) road ran from Sidon south to Tyre, Akko, Shechem, Jerusalem, Hebron, Beersheba, Kadesh Barnea, into the Negev, and on to Egypt. (3) The Sea Road (Via Maris) ran from Damascus to Hazor through the Valley of Jezreel (the Plain of Esdraelon through the Megiddo Pass), down the coast of Israel through Gaza and into Egypt. Taking Megiddo meant controlling this road and the trade. The Egyptians (Thutmose III) defeated the Canaanites and took this road around 1468 BC. David captured it about 1000 BC. Josiah died defending this road against the Egyptians (Necho II) in 609 BC.

The Greeks extended a major road connecting through Asia Minor to the ancient road running into Mesopotamia. The Romans built roads of flat stone placed upon foundations. Parts of these roads are still in use today. From Rome they built to the sea (Via Ostiensis, Via Portuensis), to the south (Via Appia), to the west (Via Aurelia), to the north (Via Flaminia), to the Adriatic (Via Salaria, Via Valeria), and to the east (Via Ignatia) connecting Rome to Greece and thus to the rest of the biblical world.

Lodgings. Land travel necessitated lodgings. The wealthy near Rome often had homes along the common routes that they plied. Slaves ran ahead to announce that the master was coming. Friends and those on the master’s business likely used these homes as well when traveling. When off the normal route, an aristocrat traveled with a retinue of servants, wagons, and tents to enable a well-equipped (and secure) camp each evening. The ordinary traveler had no extra homes or entourages. Groups large enough for safety could camp near town. Individuals relied upon hospitality in town. Those individual travelers unfortunate to lack any kinship with townsfolk often had no recourse but inns. Petronius (Sat. 94–97) tells a seamy story of misadventures in the roadside inns of his day. Archaeology and literature describe ill-kept dumps involving disreputable proprietors, questionable guests, and plenty of loose morals. Ancient Hebrews and early Christians emphasized hospitality (Gen. 19:1–2; Judg. 19:11–20; Rom. 12:13; 1 Pet. 4:9; 3 John 8).

Distance and duration. Using the distances between ancient stopping places, travel records, and comments in literary sources, scholars generally agree that a normal walking traveler could expect to cover twenty miles in a day. Peter’s trip from Joppa to Caesarea (about forty miles) took two days (Acts 10:23–30). Travelers using beasts of burden generally covered the same distance. Chariots averaged a bit better, perhaps twenty-five to thirty miles per day. Whether they actually traveled farther or just stopped earlier for the night is debatable. Horseback was intended for speed and could easily average fifty miles per day. Yet we must avoid the mistake of calculating travel time between places by simple math. While such calculations generally hold true for one- or two-day journeys (Acts 10), longer journeys encountered delays. Towns along main roads were commonly spaced a day’s walk apart. Yet it is unwise to assume that a traveler always left the next morning after an overnight stay. Jesus warned his traveling preachers against such rudeness (Luke 10:5–7). Moreover, the host likely provided the food supplies and extra funds for the traveler’s next walk (3 John 5–8; Did. 11.5–6). Certainly, Jewish travelers were affected by Sabbaths and feasts. Not only would they not travel on those days, but also they likely would delay or rush to reach a particular location (Acts 20:2–5, 16; 1 Cor. 16:8). Ancients traveled according to a different tempo than modern Westerners.

Seasons caused more serious delays. When traveling season ended, travelers were forced to spend the winter wherever they were at that time. If possible, they did not leave this to chance but rather planned where to “winter” (Jer. 36:22; Acts 27:12; 1 Cor. 16:6; Titus 3:12). Terrain was a serious consideration. Mountain passes and river fords were obvious factors, and ancients often took the easier (or safer) though longer path. Hence, there were three roads leading from Perga to Pisidian Antioch, the longest (western) being the safest and easiest. Uphill journeys, snow-blocked passes, and flash floods slowed ancient travelers, sometimes stranding them longer than their planned supplies would last (2 Cor. 6:5).

Traveling in groups. Since travelers carried money, they avoided traveling alone or in very small groups. (The so-called wise men of Matt. 2:1–12 almost certainly would have been waylaid had there been only three of them.) Commonly, travelers gathered in the agora (marketplace) early in the morning looking for fellow travelers heading their way, thus making traveling companions of those with whom they might not normally associate (Luke 9:57; 14:25). It was also common for travelers to join others along the road (Luke 24:13–16; Acts 8:27–30).

Travel by Sea

Ships. Almost all ancient ships were wooden. A “fast ship” was not necessarily a sleeker mode, but a dry one. Ideally, ships were stored out of the water during winter. Waterlogged ships were naturally slower.

No biblical empire was worth its salt unless it had naval supremacy in the Mediterranean Sea. Sailing vessels were at the mercy of the wind, so military ships meant galley ships. Rowing allowed captains to move without the wind. Today, we tend to imagine rowers like the “galley slaves” of the Middle Ages. Ancient rowers, however, were honored soldiers. Ships rammed each other in battle, and skill at the oar often meant the difference between victory and death. Once the enemy was rammed, rowers sprang up from their oars and fought hand to hand.

Piracy and commerce. No one could claim dominance of the sea without controlling piracy. The Roman navy, for the first time in history, managed to virtually eliminate piracy. Roman archers and slingers rained destruction as they drew near pirate vessels. Catapults later were added for heavy artillery. Finally, firepots slung out on long poles set fire to the enemy’s ship, which the Romans then rammed and boarded.

With the taming of the Mediterranean, commercial shipping exploded in growth. Transporting cargo, passengers, and dispatches became profitable business. Smaller ships (like a Galilean fishing boat) depended upon oars, with a small sail as an auxiliary. Larger merchant ships depended more on sails. Sailing ships, with favorable winds, probably averaged between two and four miles per hour, but only half that with unfavorable winds. Ancient ships hugged coastlines and avoided bad weather.

Common cargo ships carried an average of about 250 tons of cargo and/or passengers and ranged from 70 to 150 feet in length. Those carrying 350 to 500 tons were considered large but not rare. It is thought that the grain ships in Paul’s day (as in Acts 27) routinely were three-decked, 180 feet long, carried 1,300 tons, and took over a week to unload.

Traveling by ship. Although cargo ships also carried passengers, some ships were primarily for passengers. Josephus, on an unsuccessful attempt to sail to Rome, was on a ship with six hundred passengers (Josephus, Life 15). Sallust, a Roman historian, mentions a cohort (about 600 men) traveling on one transport ship (Hist. 3.8). Paul’s ship to Rome had 276 aboard (Acts 27:37). Acts gives the impression that this ship left too late in the season. Aside from those compelled by Rome, likely only the brave or the desperate would book such passage. Thus, we should not assume that the ship was fully booked.

Like land travel, however, sea travel also was restricted by season. In the eastern half of the Mediterranean, the wind blows from the northwest toward the southeast persistently from June to September, marking the favorable sailing season. Vegetius (Mil. 4.39) writes, “From the 6th day before the kalends of June [May 27] until the rising of Arcturus, that is until the 18th before the kalends of October [Sept. 14], is believed to be the safe period of navigation. . . . From then up to the 3rd before the ides of November, navigation is uncertain. . . . From the 3rd before the ides of November to the 6th before the ides of March, the seas are closed.” Many ancient writers indicated that sea travel in the winter was trecherous.

A person traveling by sea went first to the docks to inquire about ships headed to the desired destination. Harbor managers, dockhands, sailors, or others pointed inquirers toward appropriate ships. After negotiating with a particular ship’s purser, whose job was to book passengers (and guard against stowaways), a passenger was told what day and time to be aboard. The lowest level of ships held the ballast (usually sand or stone) and the bilgewater. Decking over it held cargo. Some ships berthed the cheapest passengers in this area, what we now refer to as steerage (Lucian observes that such passengers were “not even able to stretch their legs on the bare boards alongside the bilgewater” [Jupp. trag. 48]). Larger freighters had another deck above this that may have housed some passengers. In general, however, travelers in Paul’s day (like all travelers up until modern times) camped above deck (some with tents). Only the very wealthy rented cabins (P.Zen. 10). Shipwrecks and pirates were not the only dangers. A man cautioned his wife, “When you come, bring your gold ornaments, but do not wear them on the boat” (P.Mich. 3.214 [see also 8.468]). Then as now, tossing someone overboard left a clean crime scene (Jon. 1:15; cf. Acts 20:3).

Summary

Most biblical characters, like their peers, rarely traveled far from home. It is commonly estimated that Jesus’ ministry encompassed a distance no greater than one hundred miles from his home. His apostles, though, took advantage of the travel benefits of the Roman Empire. Paul was a far more experienced traveler than most, both by land and sea (Acts 27:9–10, 30–32), although he appears to have pushed the limits of safety on occasion. He mentions “sleepless nights and hunger” (2 Cor. 6:5) as well as being “in danger from rivers” and bandits (2 Cor. 11:26). In addition to what is reported in Acts 27, Paul was shipwrecked at least three other times (2 Cor. 11:25). Whether by land or sea, travel in ancient times was not for the fainthearted.

Until the twentieth century, traveling farther than a week’s distance from home was dangerous and expensive. We should not overstate the difficulty or risks of travel then, but certainly it was unlike today. Since virtually every region had its own currency, travelers carried cash and were at risk from thieves, money changers, innkeepers, slavers, and others who preyed upon travelers, as well as from the natural dangers of storms, floods, early snows, and so forth. Outside of cities, there was little law enforcement for the typical traveler (Ezra 8:22). Family was often one’s only defender against injustice (Gen. 14:12–16; Ps. 127:3–5).

For travelers in the biblical world, improvement was slow and gradual. During the time of the patriarchs, travelers faced poor roads, bandits, and no security other than what they could provide themselves (Gen. 14:14). Later Assyrian documents complain of difficult roads. Sargon II (r. 722–705 BC) boasted, “I advanced over inaccessible paths (in) steep and terrifying places” (ARAB 2:25–26). Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC) tells of having to travel on foot because the road was too steep for his litter (ARAB 2:122–23). Persian roads improved modestly, but Herodotus probably is exaggerating the improvements (Hist. 8.98), as Xenophon seems to indicate (Anab. 1.2.25). Many sources speak of bandits (Ezra 8:31; Hos. 6:9). Thus, safe travel or good roads became a metaphor for peace. When ancient kings bragged, it often was about roads they had built or how the roads were now safe. The arrival of the kingdom of God was symbolized by repairing the road (Isa. 40:3–5; Luke 3:4–6).

Major improvements came with the Roman Empire. For the first (and last) time, a traveler could go from the Euphrates to Egypt to Britain on well-policed roads and sea lanes under one’s own government. Enforced law and standardized, trustworthy coinage had distinct advantages (Isa. 33:8; Matt. 22:15–22).

Running empires required traveling. Envoys (Jer. 27:3), tax collectors (Dan. 11:20), and overseers (1 Kings 5:13–17), as well as armies, moved about on imperial business. While farmers and local merchants traveled limited distances to sell their wares (usually to the closest large city), fortunes could be made by the more adventuresome merchant willing to take the greater risks of traveling farther distances (Gen. 37:28; 1 Kings 10; Job 6:19; Prov. 31:14; Isa. 23:8; Matt. 13:45). The ancient world also saw individuals doing a great deal of local travel (less than sixty miles), usually connected to business (Prov. 31:14), religious festivals (1 Sam. 1; John 10), and family (Gen. 50:1–14; 2 Kings 8:29; Luke 1:39; John 2:1); often the three were woven together.

Travel in the ancient world was by sea or land. Except for the wealthy, this meant booking passage or walking. Sentimental images of a pregnant Mary riding a donkey to Bethlehem or of the apostle Paul doing missionary travels on horseback are likely fiction. Although there is some evidence of women traveling on donkeys (Josh. 15:18; 1 Sam. 25:20, 23; 2 Sam. 16:1–2), the stories are of prominent women or unusual occasions; it should not be assumed to be normative. Obviously, the infirm rode when required to travel, but they preferred not to travel (2 Sam. 19:26–37). The wealthiest used private transport (Acts 8:27–28). We have references to travel by donkey, mule, camel, horse, cart, litter, and chariot, but ordinary people walked. Typically, a good day’s walk was twenty miles; sea travel was by daylight and averaged roughly the same. Calculating how long it took someone to travel, though, is not merely a matter of math. Both sea and land travelers were fair-weather travelers, usually between June and September. On a long journey, one had to plan where to “winter.” Ancient travelers had to make their travel plans around the seasons.

Travel by Land

Roads. Until the Romans, a “road” was merely a cleared path. They were ungraded and often impassable in wet weather. Nonetheless, they followed a distinct route, marked by “guideposts” (Jer. 31:21). In the ancient world, major roads ran east-west from Syria into Mesopotamia. North-south roads connected Syria to Egypt, through Palestine. The Assyrian army invaded Israel by traveling west on the road as far as Syria and then turning south. The battles fought in Gen. 14 were to control the north-south road (and thus trade). Solomon built wealth by controlling this trade (2 Chron. 9:14). Three major roads ran north-south through Israel. (1) The King’s Highway (Num. 20:17) ran through the eastern region, from Damascus through the eastern highlands of the Transjordan and down to the Gulf of Aqaba, where Solomon maintained a port (2 Chron. 8:17). (2) The central (or Sinai) road ran from Sidon south to Tyre, Akko, Shechem, Jerusalem, Hebron, Beersheba, Kadesh Barnea, into the Negev, and on to Egypt. (3) The Sea Road (Via Maris) ran from Damascus to Hazor through the Valley of Jezreel (the Plain of Esdraelon through the Megiddo Pass), down the coast of Israel through Gaza and into Egypt. Taking Megiddo meant controlling this road and the trade. The Egyptians (Thutmose III) defeated the Canaanites and took this road around 1468 BC. David captured it about 1000 BC. Josiah died defending this road against the Egyptians (Necho II) in 609 BC.

The Greeks extended a major road connecting through Asia Minor to the ancient road running into Mesopotamia. The Romans built roads of flat stone placed upon foundations. Parts of these roads are still in use today. From Rome they built to the sea (Via Ostiensis, Via Portuensis), to the south (Via Appia), to the west (Via Aurelia), to the north (Via Flaminia), to the Adriatic (Via Salaria, Via Valeria), and to the east (Via Ignatia) connecting Rome to Greece and thus to the rest of the biblical world.

Lodgings. Land travel necessitated lodgings. The wealthy near Rome often had homes along the common routes that they plied. Slaves ran ahead to announce that the master was coming. Friends and those on the master’s business likely used these homes as well when traveling. When off the normal route, an aristocrat traveled with a retinue of servants, wagons, and tents to enable a well-equipped (and secure) camp each evening. The ordinary traveler had no extra homes or entourages. Groups large enough for safety could camp near town. Individuals relied upon hospitality in town. Those individual travelers unfortunate to lack any kinship with townsfolk often had no recourse but inns. Petronius (Sat. 94–97) tells a seamy story of misadventures in the roadside inns of his day. Archaeology and literature describe ill-kept dumps involving disreputable proprietors, questionable guests, and plenty of loose morals. Ancient Hebrews and early Christians emphasized hospitality (Gen. 19:1–2; Judg. 19:11–20; Rom. 12:13; 1 Pet. 4:9; 3 John 8).

Distance and duration. Using the distances between ancient stopping places, travel records, and comments in literary sources, scholars generally agree that a normal walking traveler could expect to cover twenty miles in a day. Peter’s trip from Joppa to Caesarea (about forty miles) took two days (Acts 10:23–30). Travelers using beasts of burden generally covered the same distance. Chariots averaged a bit better, perhaps twenty-five to thirty miles per day. Whether they actually traveled farther or just stopped earlier for the night is debatable. Horseback was intended for speed and could easily average fifty miles per day. Yet we must avoid the mistake of calculating travel time between places by simple math. While such calculations generally hold true for one- or two-day journeys (Acts 10), longer journeys encountered delays. Towns along main roads were commonly spaced a day’s walk apart. Yet it is unwise to assume that a traveler always left the next morning after an overnight stay. Jesus warned his traveling preachers against such rudeness (Luke 10:5–7). Moreover, the host likely provided the food supplies and extra funds for the traveler’s next walk (3 John 5–8; Did. 11.5–6). Certainly, Jewish travelers were affected by Sabbaths and feasts. Not only would they not travel on those days, but also they likely would delay or rush to reach a particular location (Acts 20:2–5, 16; 1 Cor. 16:8). Ancients traveled according to a different tempo than modern Westerners.

Seasons caused more serious delays. When traveling season ended, travelers were forced to spend the winter wherever they were at that time. If possible, they did not leave this to chance but rather planned where to “winter” (Jer. 36:22; Acts 27:12; 1 Cor. 16:6; Titus 3:12). Terrain was a serious consideration. Mountain passes and river fords were obvious factors, and ancients often took the easier (or safer) though longer path. Hence, there were three roads leading from Perga to Pisidian Antioch, the longest (western) being the safest and easiest. Uphill journeys, snow-blocked passes, and flash floods slowed ancient travelers, sometimes stranding them longer than their planned supplies would last (2 Cor. 6:5).

Traveling in groups. Since travelers carried money, they avoided traveling alone or in very small groups. (The so-called wise men of Matt. 2:1–12 almost certainly would have been waylaid had there been only three of them.) Commonly, travelers gathered in the agora (marketplace) early in the morning looking for fellow travelers heading their way, thus making traveling companions of those with whom they might not normally associate (Luke 9:57; 14:25). It was also common for travelers to join others along the road (Luke 24:13–16; Acts 8:27–30).

Travel by Sea

Ships. Almost all ancient ships were wooden. A “fast ship” was not necessarily a sleeker mode, but a dry one. Ideally, ships were stored out of the water during winter. Waterlogged ships were naturally slower.

No biblical empire was worth its salt unless it had naval supremacy in the Mediterranean Sea. Sailing vessels were at the mercy of the wind, so military ships meant galley ships. Rowing allowed captains to move without the wind. Today, we tend to imagine rowers like the “galley slaves” of the Middle Ages. Ancient rowers, however, were honored soldiers. Ships rammed each other in battle, and skill at the oar often meant the difference between victory and death. Once the enemy was rammed, rowers sprang up from their oars and fought hand to hand.

Piracy and commerce. No one could claim dominance of the sea without controlling piracy. The Roman navy, for the first time in history, managed to virtually eliminate piracy. Roman archers and slingers rained destruction as they drew near pirate vessels. Catapults later were added for heavy artillery. Finally, firepots slung out on long poles set fire to the enemy’s ship, which the Romans then rammed and boarded.

With the taming of the Mediterranean, commercial shipping exploded in growth. Transporting cargo, passengers, and dispatches became profitable business. Smaller ships (like a Galilean fishing boat) depended upon oars, with a small sail as an auxiliary. Larger merchant ships depended more on sails. Sailing ships, with favorable winds, probably averaged between two and four miles per hour, but only half that with unfavorable winds. Ancient ships hugged coastlines and avoided bad weather.

Common cargo ships carried an average of about 250 tons of cargo and/or passengers and ranged from 70 to 150 feet in length. Those carrying 350 to 500 tons were considered large but not rare. It is thought that the grain ships in Paul’s day (as in Acts 27) routinely were three-decked, 180 feet long, carried 1,300 tons, and took over a week to unload.

Traveling by ship. Although cargo ships also carried passengers, some ships were primarily for passengers. Josephus, on an unsuccessful attempt to sail to Rome, was on a ship with six hundred passengers (Josephus, Life 15). Sallust, a Roman historian, mentions a cohort (about 600 men) traveling on one transport ship (Hist. 3.8). Paul’s ship to Rome had 276 aboard (Acts 27:37). Acts gives the impression that this ship left too late in the season. Aside from those compelled by Rome, likely only the brave or the desperate would book such passage. Thus, we should not assume that the ship was fully booked.

Like land travel, however, sea travel also was restricted by season. In the eastern half of the Mediterranean, the wind blows from the northwest toward the southeast persistently from June to September, marking the favorable sailing season. Vegetius (Mil. 4.39) writes, “From the 6th day before the kalends of June [May 27] until the rising of Arcturus, that is until the 18th before the kalends of October [Sept. 14], is believed to be the safe period of navigation. . . . From then up to the 3rd before the ides of November, navigation is uncertain. . . . From the 3rd before the ides of November to the 6th before the ides of March, the seas are closed.” Many ancient writers indicated that sea travel in the winter was trecherous.

A person traveling by sea went first to the docks to inquire about ships headed to the desired destination. Harbor managers, dockhands, sailors, or others pointed inquirers toward appropriate ships. After negotiating with a particular ship’s purser, whose job was to book passengers (and guard against stowaways), a passenger was told what day and time to be aboard. The lowest level of ships held the ballast (usually sand or stone) and the bilgewater. Decking over it held cargo. Some ships berthed the cheapest passengers in this area, what we now refer to as steerage (Lucian observes that such passengers were “not even able to stretch their legs on the bare boards alongside the bilgewater” [Jupp. trag. 48]). Larger freighters had another deck above this that may have housed some passengers. In general, however, travelers in Paul’s day (like all travelers up until modern times) camped above deck (some with tents). Only the very wealthy rented cabins (P.Zen. 10). Shipwrecks and pirates were not the only dangers. A man cautioned his wife, “When you come, bring your gold ornaments, but do not wear them on the boat” (P.Mich. 3.214 [see also 8.468]). Then as now, tossing someone overboard left a clean crime scene (Jon. 1:15; cf. Acts 20:3).

Summary

Most biblical characters, like their peers, rarely traveled far from home. It is commonly estimated that Jesus’ ministry encompassed a distance no greater than one hundred miles from his home. His apostles, though, took advantage of the travel benefits of the Roman Empire. Paul was a far more experienced traveler than most, both by land and sea (Acts 27:9–10, 30–32), although he appears to have pushed the limits of safety on occasion. He mentions “sleepless nights and hunger” (2 Cor. 6:5) as well as being “in danger from rivers” and bandits (2 Cor. 11:26). In addition to what is reported in Acts 27, Paul was shipwrecked at least three other times (2 Cor. 11:25). Whether by land or sea, travel in ancient times was not for the fainthearted.

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in the biblical material that affects our understanding of God, his relationship with his people (past, present, and future), and the structure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is not a unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of the Scriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and the function of covenant. This article highlights the covenant concept and the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the major biblical covenants.

Terminology

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

If the concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, then the covenant is something that binds parties together or obligates one party to the other. Although there are legal implications associated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant should not be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationship with related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant that establishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why God chose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenant metaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-human relationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God and people is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

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

The most significant covenant relationship in the biblical material is the one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surrounding nations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. Although Yahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for his own personal care; he established a relationship with the nation independent of and prior to the nation’s association with his land. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counter to the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities to specific geographic territories first and was concerned with the inhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OT believers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimed him as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa. 40).

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

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

The word “testimony” refers to the contents of the two tablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at Mount Sinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “ark of the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimony in the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed upon the nation in covenant with Yahweh.

The term “word” can be understood in connection with covenant communication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) is viewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). The phrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and “perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideas within the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of the Lord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted with worthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God (Hos. 10:4).

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

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

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

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

Covenant infidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant” (Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “not faithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant” (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant” (Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

The Covenant Genre

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

1. The intertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clans for various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, or peaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format were equally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is the arrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 or the arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2. The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princes who were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involved mutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationship established between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings 5:1–12.

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

There are six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholars believe that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structure of the book of Deuteronomy.

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

(b) The second part is the prologue, which contains a review of the past relationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an “I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7; 4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previous acts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal. The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instill some measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. In Hittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology that characterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal for obedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation for conquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing them limited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic that motivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and even death. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace of redemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and the privilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

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

(d) The deposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. This section instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary and directs the vassal to publicly read the document from one to four times per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regular reading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal in order to nurture respect for the suzerain.

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

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

4. The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature, is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctive difference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassal but rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. In this format the curse is directed against any third party that would oppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfully against the vassal.

Covenants in the Bible

Types of covenants. The material on covenant form, content, and structure comes into play when attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded in the Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initial discussions usually revolve around whether these covenants are conditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to this discussion, covenants should also be understood in light of which party is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, the obligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill the expectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation is placed upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to the vassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality in both treaty forms.

On this basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in light of the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinai established Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended to create a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant. Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate his relationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciously redeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelite life. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’s transgressions were considered covenant violations.

The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In the Abrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel with land, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animals in Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in which Yahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals, obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provide David and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant is first referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed more extensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate the nature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Some define it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, while others view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenant anticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimately facilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happening in connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a future time.

Covenant leadership positions. In addition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God in the OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, God established three key covenant leadership positions for the nation: prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection with the covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and function are detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

God provided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that it would not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surrounding nations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people and established the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded (Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit a Moses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwriting prophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did this by using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thus establishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case made by God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge, jury, and lawyer.

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

The king was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship was not a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8) but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed to Abraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen. 35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of the kingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf. Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenant in the Old Testament. Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structure of the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase “covenant history” can be used to describe the biblical literature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life. It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives of the OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrative shares a covenant perspective, the individual books within the narrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to various aspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50 develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a number of subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on the other hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tension between the promise of land occupation and the responsibility of Israel to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realistic presentation of the tensions associated with the covenant relationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

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

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

In Gen. 2:9 the tree of life is at the very center of the lush landscape of the garden of Eden. In Gen. 3:22–24 the man and the woman are exiled from the garden as a consequence of their disobedience, but more specifically they are barred from the immortality granted by eating the fruit of the tree. Humankind “must not be allowed to reach out . . . and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” A tree granting youth into old age is an image found also in other ancient Near Eastern literature (see the Epic of Gilgamesh) and in iconography of the ancient Near East, in which humans and animals are depicted reaching out to grasp for the tree or its fruit.

In the book of Proverbs the tree of life is a symbol of that which brings joy in life: wisdom (3:18), righteousness (11:30), “a longing fulfilled” (13:12), “a soothing tongue” (15:4). In Revelation the tree represents the reversal of the consequences of humankind’s disobedience in the garden. Eternal life is now again offered to those who persevere in Christ (Rev. 2:7; 22:14). And in Rev. 22:2 the tree of life is part of the scenery of the new Jerusalem. Its branches span over the river of the water of life, and its leaves are imbued with healing for the nations (cf. Ezek. 47:12). See also Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

In Gen. 2–3 the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life are the centerpiece of the verdant landscape of the garden of Eden. Before the formation of the woman, the man is explicitly commanded not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for the ensuing result would be death (2:16–17). Thus, the tree of knowledge is contrasted with the tree of life, whose fruit is imbued with immortality (3:22). Under the influence of the serpent’s persuasion, the woman describes the fruit of the tree as “desirable for gaining wisdom,” and the effect of eating the fruit upon the man and the woman was that “the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked” (3:6–7). The “knowledge of good and evil” represented by the fruit of this tree is a wisdom of humankind’s own fashioning, a law independent of the revealed will of God in the commandment not to eat of the fruit. The consequence of eating the fruit is shame and banishment, not only from the garden itself, but also from the eternal life provided by the tree of life. See also Tree of Life.

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

One of the twelve tribes, descended from the eighth son of Jacob, born to Jacob by Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid (Gen. 30:12–13). The tribe of Asher is specifically recorded as participating in the enslavement in Egypt (Exod. 1:4), the rescue from Egypt and the failure to enter the land of promise (Num. 1:40–41; 13:13; 26:44–47), the conquest of the land (Josh. 19:24–31), and the failure to drive out the Canaanites as God had commanded (Judg. 1:31–32). The tribal allotment afforded Asher included the western hills of Galilee and the Phoenician coast north of the Carmel range and south of Sidon. Since the area was coastal, the land there was fertile and used for both olive and grape production (Deut. 33:24). Furthermore, since this area was the only part of Israel’s inheritance that included natural harbors, Asher also seems to have participated in some level of naval trade (Judg. 5:17). Interestingly, some Egyptian texts from the first part of the Nineteenth Dynasty (c. thirteenth century BC) apparently mention an Asher in this very region. In the NT, Asher is listed as the tribe of Anna, the prophetess who blessed the infant Jesus (Luke 2:36–38). Asher is also included among Revelation’s listing of the tribes sealed for protection (Rev. 7:6).

After Genesis, almost every scriptural reference to “Benjamin” is to the tribe of Benjamin, named after the youngest son of Jacob. Jacob’s blessing “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf” (Gen. 49:27) was prophetic, as the tribe of Benjamin came to be known for its prowess in warfare (Judg. 3:15; 1 Chron. 8:40; 2 Sam. 1:22). The land allotted for the tribe of Benjamin was “between the tribes of Judah and Joseph” (Josh. 18:11–20). Although the tribe of Benjamin was the second smallest during the exodus (Num. 1:36–37; Ps. 68:27), several prominent biblical figures are descended from it, including King Saul (1 Sam. 9:1), Queen Esther (Esther 2:5), and the apostle Paul (Rom. 11:1).

One of the twelve tribes of Israel, the descendants of the fifth of Jacob’s twelve sons, Dan, whose mother was Bilhah, Rachel’s servant. Although Dan’s early history included the notable Oholiab, a chief craftsman of the sanctuary built under the direction of Moses (Exod. 31:6; 35:34; 36:1, 2; 38:23), it was otherwise unremarkable. Dan participated with the other tribes in responsibilities shared across all Israel. For example, the camp of Dan is named as rearguard of the wilderness tabernacle (Num. 2:25, 31). Other instances include sending a representative to spy out the land, being counted in the census, and being instructed by Moses to participate in deciding the territorial allotments (Num. 13:12; 26:42; 34:22). However, the harsh nature of Jacob’s blessing for his son Dan, in which he prophesied that Dan will be not only a judge but also a serpent and a viper, rightly suggests that Dan’s future would be troubled (Gen. 49:16–17).

The Territory of Dan

The postconquest tribal allotment to Dan was a roughly U-shaped area to the northwest of Jerusalem, between the allotments of Judah and Ephraim. It included the cities along the northern border of Judah—Zorah, Eshtaol, Timnah, Ekron—and extended to the Mediterranean coast, including Joppa. However, the text immediately notes that Dan was unable to possess its territory. Instead, Dan moved from there to the northern city of Leshem (Laish), situated at the foot of Mount Hermon and near the headwaters of the Jordan. After brutally attacking Leshem, Dan took it over (Josh. 19:40–48).

The book of Judges provides additional insight into these events. Dan had trouble occupying its own territory because of the Amorites, who kept Dan in the hills away from the coastal plain (1:34). Dan was also pressured by the Philistines (13:1). God eventually raised Samson, a Danite, as judge of Israel against the Philistines (13:2–5; cf. Gen. 49:16). In the end, however, rather than defeating the Philistines, Samson was ensnared by them (Judg. 14–16).

The Samson narrative is followed by the detailed story of the Danites’ move to the north (Judg. 17–18). Having concluded that they must relocate in order to settle, the tribe sent out scouts to find a new home. They met Micah’s Levite along the way and eventually came to Laish, where they saw a fertile and prosperous land populated by peaceful, unsuspecting inhabitants under the protection of the Sidonians, a remote distance to the west. After the scouts’ report, the Danites raised an army of six hundred, which returned north via Micah’s house. Taking the Levite and Micah’s idol with them, they proceeded to Laish. Encountering no opposing forces, they attacked and burned the city.

These events help explain an otherwise perplexing verse incorporated into Moses’ farewell blessing to the twelve tribes (Deut. 33:22). Moses refers to Dan as a lion’s cub “springing out of Bashan.” Although “Bashan” is a place name, it is not otherwise associated with Dan. However, bashan also means “snake.” Dan, as a cub rather than a full-grown lion, was not fierce enough to claim its divine allotment and thus was leaping away from its oppressors, the snake. But Dan, a lion nonetheless, was indeed fierce enough to lay waste to the peaceful, isolated Laish.

In due course, the Danites rebuilt Laish, renamed it “Dan,” and set up Micah’s idol as a shrine there. This initiated the city’s long history as a seat of apostasy (Judg. 18:28–31), which was furthered by the sin of Jeroboam, who placed one of his two golden calves there (1 Kings 12:29–30; 2 Kings 10:29).

Dan throughout the Bible

Dan’s extreme northern location as compared to Beersheba in the Negev contributed to the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” as a common description for the entire land of Israel (Judg. 20:1; 1 Sam. 3:20; 2 Sam. 3:10; 17:11; 24:2, 15; 1 Kings 4:25; 1 Chron. 21:2; 2 Chron. 30:5; cf. Amos 8:14).

Dan is mentioned by Ezekiel in his eschatological vision of Israel as receiving its portion of the land (48:1–2, 32). However, Dan is omitted from the list of the twelve tribes in Rev. 7:5–8, where it is replaced by Manasseh. Although lists of the twelve tribes often count Joseph twice (by naming his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, instead), the omitted tribe usually is Levi because of its priestly status. In this case, Dan’s absence is often attributed to the tribe’s persistent apostasy.

Elsewhere in Scripture, the tribe of Dan is listed as one of the tribes, along with Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali, standing on Mount Ebal, the mount from which curses on Israel were pronounced (Deut. 27:13); and it is reported that Dan failed to fight alongside Deborah and Barak (Judg. 5:17), was conquered by Ben-Hadad in the context of his pact with King Asa of Judah (1 Kings 15:20; 2 Chron. 16:4), and produced Huram-Abi, a craftsman for Solomon’s temple (2 Chron. 2:14).

One of the tribes of Israel, descended from Joseph’s second son, Ephraim (Gen. 46:20). Occasionally, the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh were described together as the tribe of Joseph (Deut. 33:13), but usually they were listed separately in censuses, tribal movements, and territorial descriptions (Num. 2:24). The territory of Ephraim included the central hill country, with Manasseh to the north and Benjamin to the south (Josh. 16). The territory of Ephraim played a prominent role during the period of the judges. Deborah held court in the hill country of Ephraim (Judg. 4:5). The Ephraimites contended with Gideon (Judg. 8:1) and later went to war with Jephthah (12:4). Ephraim played a role in the revolts against David, with Absalom being killed in Ephraim (2 Sam. 18:6) and Sheba being from Ephraim (20:21). Ephraim grew in prominence to represent the entire northern kingdom (Isa. 7:2; Ezek. 37:16).

One of the twelve tribes of Israel. Along with Ephraim, it is traced to Joseph rather than Jacob. Manasseh and Ephraim were the two sons of Joseph, each of whom received a tribal portion (resulting in Joseph getting a double portion) along with the sons of Jacob (Gen. 48). At the same time, Manasseh, the older brother, lost his birthright to Ephraim when Jacob crossed his hands and put his right hand on Ephraim when giving the inheritance. This follows the tradition in Genesis of the younger son supplanting the older. The exact status of the tribe of Manasseh is a complex issue, but it is clear that Manasseh and Ephraim were rivals for status and power during the early northern kingdom monarchy. Based on the land descriptions in the book of Joshua, Manasseh would have had the largest tribal territory. It also uniquely had land on both sides of the Jordan River, which may have contributed to Manasseh being one of the least unified tribes in Israel. Many of the most important cities of the northern kingdom were located in Manasseh, including the capital cities of Shechem and Samaria and the major military cities of Megiddo and Jezreel.

In the wilderness, the tribe of Simeon camped between Reuben and Gad. The Simeonites were allotted land within Judah’s territory. Their subsequent absorption fulfilled Jacob’s prophecy of scattering (Gen. 49:5–7).

Sons of Jacob

Genesis 29–30, 35 records the birth of the sons of Jacob, which provides a covenantal and family basis for the later confederation of a dozen independent tribes of Semitic peoples. They shared a common history, culture, religion, and set of traditions that served for a time to bind them together as a single nation. According to the family records, the tribes were named after their forebears, who were born in the following manner. Jacob’s first (and unloved) wife, Leah, bore Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, in that order. Then his beloved Rachel gave him her maid Bilhah, who bore Dan and Naphtali. Leah’s maid then bore Gad and Asher. Then Leah bore Issachar and Zebulun. Finally, Rachel bore Joseph and Benjamin. At root, the later history of the tribes is a family history, traceable to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus, the story of the tribes begins in the early second millennium BC.

Genesis was written at a period considerably after the time of the patriarchs, and thus written with the awareness that the characterizations of the patriarchs reflected in some way the temperament of the individual tribes. The first story told about the actions of Jacob’s sons is how Simeon and Levi took terrible vengeance on the city of Shechem for the rape of their sister Dinah. This brought about Jacob’s rebuke. Jacob feared that this action would bring further retaliation upon his family (Gen. 34). The history of the patriarchs comes to its high point in the story of Joseph, an account that spans Gen. 37–50. Joseph was the brother revealed in dreams to be elected by God to rule. His brothers’ jealousy led them to seek to rid themselves of him. Reuben, the firstborn, is characterized as being the responsible one, wanting to do him no harm. But in Reuben’s absence, Judah led the others in selling Joseph into slavery. God was with Joseph, however, and through a series of events God made Joseph the leader of Egypt, fulfilling the prophetic dreams.

Genesis connects this family story with later tribal history. As prophetic dreams revealed Joseph’s destiny to rule over Egypt, Jacob’s blessing in Gen. 49 reveals the destiny of the later tribes. Reuben lost his double-portion inheritance of the firstborn due to his dishonoring his father (Gen. 35:22). This honor is tacitly conferred on Joseph in Gen. 48. Jacob said that Levi would be dispersed among Israel. As the priestly tribe, Levi inherited no land. Judah was predicted to be the tribe of kings.

Wilderness and Conquest

In the wilderness wanderings of Israel, the campsite was organized by tribe (Num. 2). At its center was the tabernacle. The tribe of Levi formed an inner circle that surrounded it. At the entrance to the tabernacle (facing east) were the priests, the sons of Aaron. The other divisions of Levi were the Merarites, the Gershonites, and the Kohathites. These together formed the inner circle that guarded the holy place. Levi was the holiest tribe of Israel, the only tribe allowed to maintain and service God’s dwelling place. The outer perimeter of the encampment was formed by twelve tribes (the tribe of Joseph counted as two). The eastern front was dominated by Judah and included Issachar and Zebulun. Dan, Asher, and Naphtali were to the north; Reuben, Simeon, and Gad to the south; and to the west were Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) and Benjamin.

When the people were on the move, the priests went in the front carrying the ark of the covenant, following the pillar of cloud. When it came to rest over a place, there the priests would set down the ark. Behind them followed Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. After them came the Gershonites and the Merarites, carrying the bundled tabernacle, which they set up around the ark when the people made camp. Reuben, Simeon, and Gad took their places. Then came the Kohathites, who carried the furnishings and vessels for the tabernacle. Next followed Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) and Benjamin. Finally, as a rearguard, came Dan, accompanied by Asher and Naphtali (Num. 10:11–33).

Once their sojourn in the wilderness was over, the Israelites began to conquer the land of Canaan. Joshua allotted portions of land to each tribe (Josh. 13–21). The descendants of Joseph constituted two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim. Each of those two received an inheritance; thus, Joseph can be said to have received a double portion as though firstborn. The Jordan River formed a natural border down the middle of the land. To its east were parts of Manasseh, Gad, and Reuben. The other tribes were to the west. The southernmost tribe was Judah. Within Judah was Simeon, which over time was absorbed into Judah. Levi had no land for an inheritance, since Yahweh was Levi’s inheritance—fulfilling Jacob’s prophecy of Levi and Simeon being scattered throughout Israel. Immediately north of Judah were Dan and Benjamin. The remaining tribes were more northern still. So that they would not forget Yahweh, the tribes across the Jordan built an alternative altar, not for sacrifice but rather as a reminder of the true and living God (Josh. 22).

Judges

The history of the conquest underscores the fact that the tribes failed to drive out the inhabitants of the land completely. Many cities remained centers for non-Israelite culture and religion. “When Joshua had grown old, the Lord said to him, ‘You are now very old, and there are still very large areas of land to be taken over’” (Josh. 13:1). Judges 1 lists many peoples that continued to live alongside the Israelites.

Some of these peoples became incorporated into the mix of tribes. Rahab and her family from Jericho became integrated into the tribe of Judah (Josh. 2–6). The Gibeonites were a Canaanite people group who were incorporated into Israel (Josh. 9). Ruth the Moabite married into Judah (Ruth 4). Uriah the Hittite is an example of a Canaanite who was fully naturalized, to the extent that he kept himself ceremonially pure and fought in God’s holy wars for Israel (2 Sam. 11:11).

The book of Judges records the relative success or failure of each tribe to subdue and settle its own territory, and Judah consistently stands out as superior in this respect. Judges 1:2 puts Judah first. Judah provided leadership and support to Simeon, helping it to fulfill its own calling (1:17). After describing Judah’s success, Judg. 1 delineates the other tribes’ failures.

Two stories at the end of Judges illustrate the character of Judah in this period. Whenever Bethlehem and the other cities of Judah are the setting, sojourners and others are treated hospitably, have no fears, and prosper. This is true also of the book of Ruth. But when folk travel elsewhere—to Moab or north to Ephraim or Benjamin—they meet only trouble. Ephraim provided no protection to Micah when the lawless Danites overran his house (Judg. 18). Moab brought only famine, barrenness, and death (Ruth 1).

But the worst case of all is the Benjamite city of Gibeah (Judg. 19–20). There, the sin of Sodom was repeated as men surrounded the host’s house and demanded the sojourner. All Israel took up arms to destroy the wicked city and to punish the wicked tribe. As in the first two verses of Judges, God appointed Judah to the leadership position (Judg. 20:18). Judah then did to Benjamin what God had done to Sodom, almost wiping out the tribe.

United Kingdom

Nevertheless, when the tribes came together and demanded a king, the first king whom God gave them, Saul, was from the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam. 9:17). Benjamin was situated midway between Judah of the south and the northern tribes. Saul was successful in leading the army of Israel, and for a time he enjoyed God’s blessing. But in the end, God rejected him and sent Samuel the prophet to anoint a Bethlehemite, David, to become the next king. However, upon Saul’s death, his son Ish-Bosheth (Ishbaal) claimed the throne (2 Sam. 2:8–9), around 1011 BC.

There followed a bitter civil war between the house of Saul, backed by the northern tribes, and the house of David, backed by Judah. After seven years, David had grown stronger and Ish-Bosheth weaker, until at Hebron David was finally acknowledged as king of all Israel (2 Sam. 5:3). David’s throne would last for centuries, until the destruction of Jerusalem. In the NT, David’s greater son Jesus inherited the throne. Thus, Jacob’s prophecy that the tribe of Judah would hold the scepter was fulfilled.

The northern tribes did not forget that they had once fought against David. David was caught in a scandal when his troops were in battle, and this may have further lessened their loyalty to him (2 Sam. 12). When his son Absalom rebelled and proclaimed himself king, the northern tribes once more allied themselves against David, and another civil war ensued. Although David won back his throne, the dissatisfaction of the northern tribes with the house of David continued (2 Sam. 15–19).

After David died, Solomon inherited his throne (971 BC). Throughout his reign, Solomon placed burdens on the tribes. He divided his kingdom into administrative districts that did not exactly correspond to the tribal territories. Dan and Zebulun were folded into other territories, and Asher seemed to have been ceded to Phoenicia (1 Kings 4). Thus, Solomon’s kingdom systematically weakened tribal identities. He laid a levy upon the tribes of Israel of thousands of men to provide a labor force for his building projects (1 Kings 5). Solomon built and consecrated the temple, and Jerusalem thus became both the political and religious center of the nation. The price for this, however, was the exacerbated discontent of the northern tribes.

Upon Solomon’s death, the tribes confronted his son Rehoboam with a demand to lighten Solomon’s “harsh labor and . . . heavy yoke” (1 Kings 12:4). Rehoboam foolishly replied, “My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions” (1 Kings 12:14). The northern tribes finally abandoned David’s house and thus became an independent political and religious state (931 BC).

Divided Kingdom

Throughout the period of the divided kingdom, tribal identities became less important, for their loyalties were now dominated by the reigning king of either nation. The border between the northern and the southern kingdoms was more or less a straight line, from Joppa on the west near the Mediterranean, to the upper tip of the Dead Sea. This cut through Dan, Ephraim, and Benjamin, leaving Simeon surrounded by Judah. Jerusalem was just south of the border. The first king of the north, Jeroboam, placed golden calves just north of the border, in Bethel, and also at the northern end of his kingdom, in the city of Dan. These served as cultic alternatives to the temple in Jerusalem for the duration of the northern kingdom. He also modified the law of Moses to allow for non-Levitical priests and a different liturgical calendar. The northern kingdom was called “Israel” (its capital was Samaria), and the southern kingdom was called “Judah” (1 Kings 12:25–33).

For half a century war ensued between the two kingdoms. The two formed an alliance during the reigns of Ahab and his sons. King Ahab of Israel gave his daughter Athaliah to be married to King Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram. Together the kingdoms fought against common enemies, such as Syria and Moab. They successfully turned back the superpower of the day, Assyria.

Under King Ahab and his wife Jezebel, Baal worship was aggressively promoted at the expense of traditional Yahwism. During this period Elijah and Elisha called the people back to the God of their ancestors, but with little success (1 Kings 17–2 Kings 13). A small group of faithful worshipers called the “sons of the prophets” did remain true to Yahweh, but most of Israel abandoned him. Hosea and Amos later also warned Israel, but their calls went unheeded. Ahab and Jezebel’s daughter Athaliah married Jehoram, and both of them promoted Baal worship in Judah just as in Israel. Thus, the people of Yahweh had become the people of Baal. Jezebel’s son Joram ruled Israel upon Ahab’s death, and Athaliah’s son Ahaziah ruled Judah upon Jehoram’s death.

Elisha secretly anointed one of Joram’s generals, Jehu, to bring the Omride dynasty to an end in Israel and to become the next king (2 Kings 9). Jehu killed both kings and Jezebel, and he destroyed all remnants of Ahab’s family. He also slaughtered the worshipers of Baal: “so Jehu destroyed Baal worship in Israel” (10:28). Upon the death of her son the king, Athaliah seized the throne and did to David’s house what Jehu had done to Ahab’s: she had every family member killed.

But one infant survived: Joash. He was secretly raised in the temple of Yahweh until he was seven years old. Then his supporters proclaimed him king. Athaliah cried out, “Treason! Treason!” (2 Kings 11:14), and the priest Jehoiada had her put to death. The place and objects of Baal worship were destroyed, ending state-sponsored Baalism in Judah (11:17–18).

Fall of Both Kingdoms

After both kingdoms’ period of infatuation with Baal (under the domination of the Omrides), their history as nations continued to their final fall. In Israel, the people never gave up Jeroboam’s perversion of the law of Moses. In Judah, kings varied widely in their regard for the law of Moses; sometimes they were faithful, sometimes very unfaithful. Meanwhile, Assyria was a constant threat. During the reign of the good king Hezekiah, Judah was overrun by the forces of the Assyrian king Sennacherib. God miraculously delivered Jerusalem (2 Kings 18). However, there was no such deliverance for Israel. Samaria was besieged for three years and finally taken (722 BC). Most of the population was deported (17:5–18). Other people groups were transplanted there who learned the law of Moses and feared Yahweh along with their own gods (17:24–41).

At this point in their history, only Judah remained as a political entity; the northern tribes of Israel were lost. After the faithful king Hezekiah, Judah’s next significant king was Manasseh. He is described in 2 Kings as the king most offensive to God. To categorize him, it was not enough to compare him unfavorably with David (see 2 Kings 14:3) or to equate him with Ahab and Jezebel (see 8:18). Rather, Manasseh was compared to the pagan nations that Joshua had driven out of the land, which were destroyed because of their wickedness. Manasseh was the last straw. Because of his complete abandonment to idolatry, God determined to make an end of Jerusalem (21:11–15).

Yet still the judgment was delayed. Two years after Manasseh’s death, Josiah reigned on the throne of David, and early in his career the Book of the Law was rediscovered in the temple. Josiah called for national repentance, and for a time Judah got rid of its idols and returned to God (2 Kings 23). But this repentance was relatively short-lived.

Josiah was the last good king of Judah. God sent Judah prophets such as Jeremiah, but they went unheeded. In the end, God sent King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon up against his own beloved city, Jerusalem. Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed, many of its people killed, and most of those who were left carried into exile to Babylon.

Exile and Restoration

The fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC essentially ended the existence of the tribes as independent political entities. For the remainder of their history they were, almost without exception, under the heel of great foreign powers. At this point, they were called “Jews.” Nebuchadnezzar conscripted some of the younger men to serve in his court (Dan. 1). The deportees remained in Babylon until its empire fell to the Medes and the Persians under Cyrus the Great in 539 BC.

Cyrus issued a decree at that time allowing the Jews to return to their ancestral land and rebuild the temple of Yahweh. They began to migrate back to the land of promise and began their efforts to rebuild the temple and the city of Jerusalem. These efforts continued under a succession of Persian kings. Although the Jews were home and able once again to worship God in the way he had specified in the law, Nehemiah lamented that they were little more than slaves, since they were subject to Persia (Neh. 9:36). Gone was the dynasty of David, gone were most of the tribes, and gone was the greatness of days past. The sins of their fathers had brought them to this sad situation.

In the return to the land, the genealogies of the returnees were very important. These preserved family and tribal identities so that their lineages would not be lost. The books that originated in the restoration period preserve these lists (see 1 Chron. 1–9).

Persia and the entire ancient world eventually were conquered by Alexander the Great. His successors divided the land after his death; two generals controlled Syria to the north and Egypt to the south of Palestine. They constantly squabbled over their borders, which included Palestine. Finally, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (r. 175–164 BC), king of Syria, decided to turn Jerusalem into a Greek city. He brought great pressure on the Jews to abandon their faith. Jews found with a copy of the law were killed, and circumcision of infants was forbidden. He ransacked the temple and placed an idol in it. Some Jews abandoned their faith, but others resisted. Finally, Antiochus died, and the Jews for a short time enjoyed independence. Over time, the Roman Empire engulfed Palestine. Herod the Great ruled as king of the Jews for Rome in the years 37–4 BC. Upon Herod’s death, his kingdom was divided among his sons.

New Testament

The Jews in Judea in Jesus’ day had learned to find their national, ethnic, and cultural identity in the law of Moses. They dutifully followed the purity laws, especially in keeping the Sabbath. Their religion was centered on the temple, and they kept Passover and the other prescribed obligations. Although the one remaining tribe, Judah, no longer could boast of a king on the throne of David or even independence, it was a nation whose people thought of themselves as Yahweh’s people. By Jesus’ time, they anticipated that a descendant of David, a Messiah, would arise to restore the lost kingdom of David.

Although the northern tribes were lost, there was some limited continuing awareness of tribal identity in this period. The book of Esther’s Mordecai is from the tribe of Benjamin, and there are a number of references to Benjamin in the intertestamental literature (e.g., 2 Macc. 3:4). Anna the prophetess was from the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36). Paul knew himself to be from the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5). He used his knowledge of this fact to help bolster his argument that he was truly a Jew. The Levites also survived the exile, and the priestly caste continued. The kingly and priestly tribes remained, with a few others.

Jesus is presented in Matt. 1 as a direct descendant of David through the line of kings. He is the promised Messiah (John 1:41), the “Lion of the tribe of Judah” (Rev. 5:5). Jesus promised his twelve disciples that some day they would rule over the tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). In Christ, the definition of the tribes of Israel had changed. Gentiles were now grafted onto the olive tree of Israel (Rom. 11:17). Revelation 7:4–10 records the number from each tribe who bear the seal of the Lamb. After hearing this, John turned and saw them: they were revealed to be a vast company of the redeemed from every tribe on earth. Thus, the church had spiritually become the twelve tribes of Israel.

In AD 70 the temple was destroyed. Soon afterward, Israel was scattered, not to be a nation again in the promised land until 1948.

The biblical writers proclaim that only one God exists, yet they also refer to three persons as “God.” The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. Furthermore, these three persons relate to one another as self-conscious individuals. Jesus prays to the Father (John 17). The Father speaks from heaven concerning the Son (Matt. 3:17; Luke 3:22). Jesus vows to send the Spirit as “Advocate” after his ascension, and he will do what Jesus himself did while he was among us (John 16:7–8). The challenge of Christian theology, therefore, is to formulate a doctrine of God that captures all these elements, each of which surfaces in both Testaments.

Old Testament

In the OT, evidence for the Trinity appears mostly at the implicit level. Yahweh is called “Father” in Isaiah (63:16; 64:8), Jeremiah (3:4, 19; 31:9), and Malachi (2:10). Isaiah declares, “But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name” (Isa. 63:16). Yahweh identifies himself as “Father” implicitly when he claims Israel as his “son” (Hos. 11:1), and the same principle applies to Ps. 2:7, where God declares to his anointed, “You are my son; today I have become your father.” These cases do not compare in numbers with the NT evidence, but a person thought of as “God the Father” certainly appears in the OT.

Messianic texts of the OT introduce us to God the Son. In Isa. 9:6 a “child is born” who will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” The day of “Immanuel,” or “God with us,” is foreshadowed in Isa. 7:14 (cf. Matt. 1:22), while Isa. 40:3–5 anticipates the appearance of the Lord “in the wilderness” (cf. Matt. 3:3). Daniel sees “one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven” being given “authority, glory and sovereign power” (Dan. 7:13–14). In Ps. 110:1 Yahweh says to David’s “Lord,” “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

Similarly, the OT seems to distinguish the Spirit of God from Yahweh while implying the Spirit’s own personality. Genesis 1:2 makes that case, as does Exod. 31:3, where Yahweh fills Bezalel with the “Spirit of God” (cf. Exod. 35:31; Num. 11:29). In 1 Sam. 16:14 a contrast is made between the “Spirit of the Lord” that leaves Saul and an “evil spirit from the Lord” that torments him; also we find a repentant David pleading that God would not take away his “Holy Spirit” (Ps. 51:11). The Spirit can be put on persons by God, with the result that they prophesy (Isa. 61:1; Joel 2:28–29) and do what pleases him (Ezek. 36:26–27). In the OT, therefore, we see two persons (the Son and the Holy Spirit) who are both God and also distinguishable from one to whom they answer and by whom they are sent.

New Testament

The NT contains abundant evidence for “God the Father,” often because of Jesus’ teaching. The “Father” appears several times in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., Matt. 5:16; 6:6–9, 14, 18, 26, 32; 7:11). Matthew 7:21 stands out because of Jesus’ reference to “my Father who is in heaven,” by which he identifies himself as the Son (see also Matt. 15:13; 16:17; 18:10; and Luke 24:49). Paul’s greetings normally come from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, as seen in Rom. 1:7: “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ” (also 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:1–3; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2). Paul introduces the Father and the Son in 1 Cor. 8:6: “For us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” (see also 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; Phil. 2:22). Other significant texts include Heb. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:2–3; in the latter, the scattered believers are those “who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood. . . . Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” The NT evidence for “God the Father” is clear.

Biblical texts that point to the deity of Christ supply evidence for the second claim: the Son is God. Some of the texts listed above say as much, but one can take this case further. In context, John’s prologue refers to Jesus as the “Word” and proclaims that he was “with God” and “was God” (John 1:1). Jesus also relates to the Father in ways that imply his own deity, as he declares in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” After significant doubting, Thomas confesses the deity of Christ in John 20:28: “My Lord and my God!” NT passages that identify Jesus as the “Son of God” point to his deity, as Peter does in Matt. 16:16: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Even demons identify Jesus as the Son. They call out, “What do you want with us, Son of God? . . . Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?” (Matt. 8:29; cf. Mark 5:7). The so-called Christ Hymn of Phil. 2:6–11 puts Jesus on the level with God, saying that he did not consider “equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.” The author of Hebrews declares that Jesus is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (1:3). Colossians 1:15–16 says that Jesus is the “image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” and the one by whom “all things were created,” and Col. 1:19 states that “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.” According to Titus 2:13, Jesus is “our great God and Savior.” The entire sequence of Rev. 4–5 highlights the deity of Christ, culminating in the praise “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” as both the Enthroned One and the Lamb are worshiped as God (5:13–14).

The NT writers underscore both the deity and the distinctive personality of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is conceived in Mary’s womb by the Spirit’s power (Matt. 1:18–20), and when Jesus is baptized, the Spirit descends upon him as a dove (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10). Jesus drives out demons by the Spirit, and one dare not speak against the Spirit when he does so (Matt. 12:28–32). Luke’s Gospel puts added emphasis on the ministry of the Spirit, as we also see in Acts. He empowers various people to praise and prophesy (Luke 1:41, 67) and to be witnesses for Christ (Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17–18, 38). Sinners can lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3, 9), and the Holy Spirit bears witness along with the apostles to the risen Christ (5:32). In John’s Gospel, the Spirit becomes the counselor and teacher of the disciples, reminding them of their Lord’s instructions (John 14:26; 16:13). The Spirit brings assurance of sonship (Rom. 8:16) and helps disciples when they pray (8:26). This person even knows the very thoughts of God (1 Cor. 2:11). Accordingly, the Great Commission requires baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). All three members of the Trinity have a part in the advancement of the kingdom, the Spirit no less than the Father and the Son.

Relationships between Father, Son, and Spirit

The evidence considered thus far demonstrates that three persons are called “God” in Scripture: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But the Scriptures also point to a chain of command in their relationship to one another. The Son obeys the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son to apply the work of the cross to the church. This “functional subordination” of the Son to the Father, some might argue, would follow simply from the analogy chosen by God to reveal himself to us. The “Son” would obey his “Father,” not vice versa, though they share a common dignity as God, just as a human father and son share a common humanity. But the NT writers expressly tell us that they relate to each other in this way. In Matt. 11:27 (cf. Luke 10:22) Jesus announces, “All things have been committed to me by my Father” (cf. John 3:35; 5:22). The latter transfers authority to the former as his subordinate. The Father even (for a season) knows more than the Son regarding the last days: “About that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matt. 24:36), though he also dignifies the Son: “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does” (John 5:20). The Son’s commitment to please his heavenly Father is a prominent theme of the NT, as Jesus declares in John 5:19: “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” No text brings out this dependence of the Son upon the Father more clearly than Heb. 5:7–8, where the Son is said to have “offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered.” It is debated by theologians whether this functional subordination relates only to the period of the Son’s earthly ministry, or whether it is an eternal subordination.

The Spirit, though equal in personality and dignity with the Father and the Son, proceeds from them to apply the work of the cross and empower the church for ministry. In John 14:26 Jesus says, “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” In John 15:26 Jesus announces that he also sends the Spirit out: “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.” The Spirit only conveys what he has received: “He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come” (John 16:13). The same “chain of command” appears in John 16:15, where Jesus says, “All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

Trinitarian Heresies

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, while being distinguishable persons. The Son obeys the Father; and these two persons of the Trinity send out the Holy Spirit to implement our deliverance from sin. A defensible explanation of the Trinity will respect all these dynamics, taking special care not to illustrate them with misleading images or simply lapse into various forms of polytheism. One of the earliest heresies of the church came from Marcion, a second-century theologian who distinguished the Father of Jesus from the supposedly vindictive God of the OT, which leaves us with more than one God. Later came the heresies of modalism and subordinationism (or Arianism). Modalists claimed that the persons of the Trinity are no more than guises worn by the one person of God. One minute God is the Father, the next he is the Son or the Holy Spirit. Subordinationists such as Arius (died AD 336) went beyond the functionality of the NT’s chain of command, arguing that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not themselves God but are essentially subordinate to him. Jehovah’s Witnesses have fallen into this latter error, suggesting that Jesus is “a god” but not the Creator God.

These early heresies pressed the church to refine its understanding of the Trinity. In his response to Marcion’s error, Tertullian coined precise language to describe the persons of the Godhead, so that God’s “threeness” and “oneness” are preserved. He used the Latin term trinitas to describe the Christian God and argued that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share the same “substance.” The Son (also, then, the Holy Spirit) is not simply of “like substance” (Gk. homoiousios) with God the Father, but rather is “consubstantial” (Gk. homoousios) with him: the Son is God, and so is the Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed of AD 325 incorporated this explanation and, in so doing, also set aside the idea that either the Son or the Holy Spirit was created by God, as the Arian heresy requires. Nicaea also rejected adoptionism, which regards Jesus as a man whom God promoted by endowing him with supernatural powers.

Each of these heresies—plus, say, the strict monotheism of Islam—attempts to relieve the tension seen among the claims that constitute the Trinity; however, orthodox Christians will remember that tensions and paradoxes are not automatic contradictions. No philosopher or theologian has ever expressly demonstrated that the Trinity entails logical nonsense, and Christianity’s detractors carry the burden of proof in this case. It is one thing to allege that an idea is contradictory, and quite another thing to show with an argument that it is so. On the positive side, the Trinity must remain a central doctrine of the church because it affects all the others, especially the entire work of redemption. If God is not triune, then Jesus is not God; and if he is not God, then he cannot save us, nor can we worship him as our Lord. The sacrifice that he offers for our sin would not, in that case, be supremely valuable. Consider also the application to us of what Christ has done. If the Holy Spirit is not God, then he cannot speak for God as one who knows perfectly his thoughts and gives us the word of God, our Bible. Scripture indicates that God is triune, and sinners need him to be so.

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

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

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

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

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