According to Gen. 10:13–14; 1 Chron. 1:11–12 (NRSV: “Caphtorim”), a group of people descended from Noah’s son Ham through Mizraim (“Egypt”). Elsewhere they are identified with the Philistines, who inhabited an area north of Egypt on the southern coast of Canaan (Jer. 47:4; Amos 9:7). According to Deut. 2:23, the Caphtorites migrated and dispossessed the land of the Avvites, which reached to the coast of Canaan as far west as Gaza. See also Caphtor.

The government-sanctioned killing of a perpetrator of a serious offense. The biblical portrayal of capital punishment involves the concept as a God-ordained institution related to the value of humanity and the necessary recompense for the corruption or murder of that ideal (Gen. 9:6).

Methods of capital punishment. The methods of capital punishment listed in the Scriptures are several. The most common method was stoning (Lev. 24:16; Num. 15:32–36; Deut. 13:1–10; 17:2–5), and this required that the primary witnesses for the prosecution be the first to take up stones against the accused. The burning of a person was rare, but it was commanded for certain sexual crimes (Lev. 20:14). In the story of Judah and Tamar, before learning the true nature of her pregnancy, Judah ordered his daughter-in-law to be burned to death outside the city (Gen. 38:24). On occasion, the method of punishment involved being run through by a weapon: Phinehas impaled an Israelite and his Midianite lover with a spear in order to soothe the wrath of God and stop a plague (Num. 25:7–8); Canaanites under the kherem (divine command of total destruction) were to be put to the sword (Deut. 13:15), and God commanded that anyone who touched Mount Sinai be shot through with arrows (Exod. 19:13). Beheading seems to have been practiced for crimes against royalty, though there are no mandates concerning it (2 Sam. 16:9; 2 Kings 6:31–32). Other forms of capital punishment included impalement or placement upon a wooden stake (Ezra 6:11; Esther 2:23). Although some understand this to be a form of hanging, archaeological evidence and understandings of the cultures of the time suggest that impalement is more likely. Finally, the Romans took the punishment of crucifixion that they had learned from Carthage and applied it with vigor to those guilty of insurrection (Luke 23:13–33).

Offenses leading to capital punishment. With respect to Israel, the list of offenses deemed worthy of capital punishment primarily focused upon human interrelations, though a few crimes listed did involve the breaking of covenant stipulations involving one’s direct relationship with God. From this latter group, crimes such as witchcraft and divination (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27; Deut. 18:20), profaning the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–17), idolatry (Lev. 20:1–5), and blasphemy (Lev. 24:14–16; Matt. 26:65–66) were included. In these laws one sees the expression of God’s wrath and jealousy for his position in the lives of those who claim to be his. Mandates demanding death in response to some sort of corruption of the human ideal included acts such as costing another person his or her life, sexual aberrations, and familial relationships. Anyone who committed murder (Exod. 21:12), put another’s life at risk by giving false testimony in a trial (Deut. 19:16–21), or enslaved a person wrongfully (Exod. 21:16) could be considered to have cost someone’s life. Sexual aberrations regarded as worthy of death included sexual acts of bestiality, incest, and homosexuality (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:11–17), rape (Deut. 22:23–27), adultery (Lev. 20:10–12), and sexual relations outside of marriage (Lev. 21:9; Deut. 22:20–24). The final group of familial relationships primarily applies to the crass rebellion of children against their parents (Deut. 21:18–21).

At times, the righteous faced capital punishment for their beliefs. For example, at the hands of government faithful saints of God were sawn in two (Heb. 11:37 [a Jewish tradition may indicate that the prophet Isaiah died in such a manner]), stoned (Acts 7:58–59), and beheaded (Mark 6:27; Acts 12:2). At other times, attempts were made to inflict such punishment, but God intervened. In these examples, the punishments that God prevented include consumption by lions (Dan. 6), burning in a fiery furnace (Dan. 3), being thrown over a cliff (Luke 4:29–30), and stoning (Acts 14:19).

Capital punishment today. Several opinions persist regarding the appropriateness of continuing the practice of capital punishment in the modern era. For some, passages expressing a command concerning such types of punishment are either descriptive of what was going on or fall under the principle of a culture that no longer exists, so their laws are no longer relevant. Indeed, few today would enforce capital punishment for the same crimes that Israel punished with death. For these individuals, the question then becomes whether Scripture, which required capital punishment at the time it was written, permits capital punishment today. Those who are consistent will admit that if there is no mandate to require it, it must also be admitted that there is no mandate preventing its use as well.

On the other side are those who argue that while one cannot directly apply the laws of the OT to today’s situation, the principle expressed, particularly as it pertains to value of humanity, demands the continuation of capital punishment at least in response to heinous crimes that cost an individual his or her life, either literally as with murder, or more figuratively (but just as real) as with rape. For these people, it is significant that the requirements of capital punishment for murder precede the giving of the law (Gen. 9:6). Since the status of humanity in the eyes of God has not altered, neither has his prescribed method of dealing with those crimes been lifted; here the principle requires the practice (Rom. 13:4).

The answers are not easy, but they are important. The biblical text itself regularly balances the expected payment for sins worthy of the death penalty with expressions of grace (Gen. 4:15; Josh. 6:22–23). Furthermore, one must account for the perfect knowledge of God and his execution of his fully justified wrath in contrast to the imperfect knowledge of humanity and the inequalities that sometimes find expression in modern court settings. Finding the balance between holding a biblical worldview that appropriately seeks justice and one regulated by grace is difficult enough in terms of interpersonal relationships; when it is moved to the greater scope of society as a whole, the questions are even more significant and even more difficult to answer. See also Crimes and Punishments.

Prior to the rise of Roman roads, travel in the ancient Near East was extremely dangerous. For protection, large groups of people and animals traveled together in caravans, especially for trade purposes. Most OT examples are of Arabian caravans of camels carrying spices and other valuables (e.g., Judg. 6:5; 1 Kings 10:1–2; Isa. 21:13; 60:6). Abram travels from Ur to Canaan in a large caravan (Gen. 12). In Gen. 37:25 an Ishmaelite caravan buys Joseph into slavery.

(1) Son of Reuben (Gen. 46:9; Exod. 6:14; 1 Chron. 5:3) and ancestor of the Carmites (Num. 26:6). (2) A descendant of Judah, son of Zimri (MT: “Zabdi”), and the father of Achan (Josh. 7:1, 18; 1 Chron. 4:1).

A large bird of prey that feeds chiefly on carrion. Other sizable birds of prey include eagles, owls, and falcons. In English Bible versions these birds usually appear as “buzzard,” “carrion bird,” “eagle,” or “hawk.”

The texts emphasize large carrion eaters common to the ancient Near Eastern world. Common among determined scavengers, the vulture has a heavy body, wide wingspan, and the ability to soar at great heights to spot prey. In fact, the Talmud cites an ancient proverb that says of the vulture, “It can be in Babylon and spot a carcass in Palestine” (b. Hul. 63b). This maxim is illustrated in Gen. 15:9–20, a covenant ceremony between God and Abram. At one point, Abram has to drive off vultures that are swooping down on the carcasses of sacrificed animals. Vulnerable Israel will be prone to attack from the surrounding nations, particularly Egypt (cf. Exod. 6:6; 7:4; 12:12; Acts 7:6). In Egypt, the falcon symbolized the god Horus, an image of Pharaoh himself.

In the NT, the same Greek term (aetos) is used for both eagles and vultures. The NIV uses the translation “vulture” to refer to a bird flying over a corpse (Matt. 24:28; Luke 17:37) but uses “eagle” elsewhere (Rev. 4:7; 8:13; 12:14).

According to Gen. 10:13–14 (NRSV: “Casluhim”), a group of people descended from Noah’s son Ham through Mizraim (“Egypt”). They may have originated in Lower Egypt, moved to Crete, and then finally settled on the coast of Palestine (thus ancestors of the Philistines).

A strict division between fortresses and cities was not possible in much of the ancient world, since many major towns were surrounded with protective walls and fortifications. Royal figures, however, did have stand-alone fortresses built within some towns. In 2 Sam. 5:7–9 David captures Zion, a fortress-city, from the Jebusites (see also 1 Chron. 11:5–7). Solomon further enhances the defensive fortifications of Jerusalem (1 Kings 3:1; 2 Chron. 2:1), as do several kings who come after him (e.g., 1 Kings 15:18; 16:18; 18:3; 2 Kings 11:5; 2 Chron. 26:9, 15).

Royal residences, such as those of the pharaohs (Gen. 12:15) and of the kings of Babylon (2 Kings 20:18; Dan. 1:4), Tyre (2 Sam. 24:7), Samaria (2 Kings 15:25), and Persia (Esther 1:5; 5:1; 7:7–8), also served as castles. In Nehemiah’s time, Hananiah is made ruler of the palace fort in Jerusalem (Neh. 2:8; 7:2). Fortified towers also contributed to the defensive equipment of many ancient cities (Gen. 11:1–9; 35:21; Judg. 8:8–9, 17; 9:46, 49; Neh. 3:1; 12:39; Song 4:4; Luke 13:4).

In addition to palaces and fortified cities, numerous smaller castle-type structures are mentioned in the Bible. These forts, usually fairly small, were important for guarding trade routes and major entrance points into a kingdom, and they allowed a ruler to exercise control over a much larger region than would have been possible otherwise. Normally these structures were composed of stone, hardened mud-brick, or a combination of the two, and constituted a tightly packed arrangement of walls, gates, and guard towers. A system of fortresses existed throughout Israel in the time of the unified monarchy, such as those built by David throughout Aram (2 Sam. 8:6) and Edom (2 Sam. 8:14; 1 Chron. 18:13), and those built by Solomon (1 Kings 9:19). Later, Rehoboam expanded this network of forts, which included the strong fortress at Lachish, and further built up the defensive capabilities of many of the towns in Judah (2 Chron. 11:5–11). The later kings Jehoshaphat and Jotham continued this work of fortress building throughout Judah (2 Chron. 17:12; 27:4).

In the four centuries after the conquests of Alexander the Great, new fortresses were built throughout what would become the Roman Empire, including Herod the Great’s palace in Caesarea (Acts 23:35). The Antonia Fortress (see Acts 21:31–37; 22:24; 23:10, 16, 32) overlooked the temple area in Jerusalem and was the headquarters of the Roman army cohort stationed in the city. Herod’s palace on the western hill of Jerusalem may have been the headquarters of Roman governors of Judea, although the Antonia Fortress is also a possible location for this building (see Matt. 27:27; Mark 15:16; John 18:28, 33; 19:9).

The image of a fortress is often invoked in poetic contexts in the Bible to signify God’s unfailing protection (2 Sam. 22:2; Pss. 18:2; 31:2; 46:8; 62:2; 91:2; 144:2; Prov. 14:26; Isa. 25:4; Jer. 16:19). Prophetic denunciation of the fortresses of Israel’s enemies is common in the OT (Isa. 23:11, 13–14; Jer. 49:27; Dan. 11; Amos 1). The destruction of Israel’s own fortresses, especially Jerusalem, is also a common judgment motif in the prophets (Isa. 25:12; Jer. 6:5; 17:27; Hos. 8:14). See also Fort, Fortification.

A collective designation for bovine animals mentioned in passages involving economic, political, military, and religious aspects of life. Cattle are property (Exod. 22:1; 2 Sam. 12:2) and food (Matt. 22:4), with herds of cattle being a sign of wealth and God’s blessing (Gen. 24:35; 1 Kings 4:21–23; cf. Rev. 18:11–13). Cattle are exchanged in business transactions (Gen. 47:16–17) and political treaties (21:27). Military instructions may reference cattle (1 Sam. 15:3). Cattle are to be used for sacrifices (Exod. 22:1; Lev. 22:19; Num. 22:40) unless God says otherwise (1 Sam. 15:14–25). Although kings take the best cattle for themselves (1 Sam. 8:16; 1 Kings 4:21–23), the cattle on a thousand hills belong to God (Pss. 50:10; 104:14). God is concerned for the city of Nineveh based on the number of its people and its cattle (Jon. 4:11). To be called “cattle” is considered an insult to one’s intelligence (Job 18:3; cf. Amos 4:1). King Neb­u­chadnezzar learns humility after experiencing how cattle live (Dan. 4:25–37). Cattle are among the animals that Jesus drives out of the temple courts (John 2:14–15).

In biblical times, caves were used for storage, as tombs (Gen. 23:9–20; 25:9; 49:29–32; 50:13; John 11:38), and as shelter for refugees, warriors, and outlaws (Gen. 19:30; Josh. 10:16–27; Judg. 6:2; 1 Sam. 13:6; 22:1; 24:3–10; 2 Sam. 23:13; 1 Kings 18:4, 13; 19:9, 13; 1 Chron. 11:15; Heb. 11:28). The word “cave” came to be used for a robbers’ den (Jer. 7:11; Matt. 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46), and in poetry the proud live in clefts of rock like eagles (Jer. 49:16; Obad. 1:3). But although God hid Moses in a cleft to protect him from divine glory (Exod. 33:22), caves, when God judges, will offer no escape from divine wrath (Isa. 2:19–21; Ezek. 33:27; Rev. 6:15).

There are several censuses in Scripture, and their concern is not simply to account for the number of people or the number of men available for military service; they also have a literary and theological function.

In the creation narrative in Gen. 1–11 the fulfillment of the creation mandate is accounted for through the genealogy of Adam (Gen. 5) and the genealogy of the sons of Noah (Gen. 9:18–19; 10:1–32), which serve as a type of census. The creation narrative has a universal scope; it attempts to account for the total human population on earth.

Census lists are given for the Abrahamic family (Abraham-Isaac-Jacob line) as it grows to become a nation in accordance with God’s promise to Abraham of a great nation and innumerable offspring (Gen. 12:1–3; 15:5). The total number of Jacob’s descendants who went to Egypt was seventy (Gen. 46:8–27; Exod. 1:1–4). This old generation of Israel passed, and a new generation was born that was fruitful, multiplied, and became exceedingly numerous (Exod. 1:6–7). The total number of men of at least twenty years of age who came out of Egypt was 603,550 (Num. 1:1–46; cf. Exod. 12:37–38), and of the new generation that stood on the verge of entering the Promised Land, 601,730 (Num. 26:1–51).

In the book of Numbers there are two census accounts (actually, military registrations). These are important to the structure and theme of the book. The theme of Numbers has to do with the judgment on the first generation (the object of the census in Num. 1) and the hope for the second generation, which will enter the Promised Land (the object of the second census).

David conducted a census to measure his military power, but this is condemned by God and regarded as satanic (2 Sam. 24:1–17; 1 Chron. 21:1–30). For the Chronicler, any attempt to account for the total number of Israelite men twenty years and older, similar to the census in the book of Numbers, is regarded as challenging God’s promise to make Israel as numerous as the stars (1 Chron. 29:23–26).

Ezra and Nehemiah contain census lists of the returnees from exile: under Zerubbabel, 42,360 men returned (Ezra 2:1–66; Neh. 7:4–73), and under Ezra, 1,496 men (Ezra 8:1–14).

In the NT, Jesus participates in the universal census that encompasses not only Israel but other nations as well—a census of the entire Roman world (Luke 2:1–7). The census motif reaches its fulfillment when a great multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language will stand before the throne and in front of the Lamb, symbolized by the 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel, 12,000 from each tribe (Rev. 7:4–10).

Terminology

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

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

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

Types of Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

Torah in Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

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

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

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

Biblical Law and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Character of Biblical Law

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

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

The Law and the New Testament

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

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

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

Divorce involves the separation of a husband and a wife and the management of children and property, and it raises the question of the right to remarry.

According to Deut. 24:1–4, a man was permitted to divorce his wife if he found in her anything “indecent” (’erwat dabar, lit., “nakedness of a thing,” referring to sexual impropriety; cf. Lev. 18:6–19; 20:11, 17–21; 1 Sam. 20:30 NRSV). The marriage could be restored, but only if the woman had not married anyone else in the meantime.

The rabbis of Jesus’ day debated this law vigorously. Rabbi Hillel’s supporters read “indecent thing” as “anything or obscenity.” So they argued for divorce on the grounds of “any cause” and proceeded to list things such as burning food or developing wrinkles as sufficient cause for a man to divorce his wife. Rabbi Shammai’s school understood the passage to refer only to sexual sin.

Some Pharisees put this question to Jesus in Matt. 19:1–12. Jesus asserted, “What God has joined together, let no one separate” (v. 6). This they countered with the specifics from Deut. 24. Jesus affirmed that divorce was God’s way of limiting the damage caused by “hardness of heart” (ESV, NASB). He then ruled in favor of the view that only the sexual violation of the marriage can justify a man divorcing his wife (Matt. 19:9). Such a divorce gives the innocent party the right to remarry. For a man to divorce his wife while the marriage is sexually pure makes any subsequent marriage an act of adultery, for which he is responsible. Even Jesus’ own disciples were shocked by this statement (v. 10).

It is significant that under biblical law, the innocent party in the event of adultery, whether husband or wife, was free to remarry.

A second divorce law is found in the OT at Exod. 21:7–11. This law concerns the rights of a female slave-concubine. The dignity of such a female slave was to be protected under God’s covenant with Israel. She could not be sold, nor could she be freed in the seventh year, as a male slave would be (Exod. 21:1–6). If the man later wanted to separate from her, he would have to let her go free. This would be the equivalent of a certificate of divorce for a free woman. It is noteworthy that where the slave was purchased as a concubine for a son, she was to have “the rights of a daughter” (Exod. 21:9). She had the right to go free if he married another wife and deprived her of food and clothing or ceased to make love to her. A good example is the experience of Sarai’s slave Hagar (Gen. 16; 21:9–21).

It is difficult to know how to apply this case to the overall biblical teaching on divorce and to different cultural circumstances. This case, though problematic, does speak to modern situations of domestic abuse and desertion (cf. 1 Cor. 7:10–13).

A third case concerns mixed marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian. A Christian is not to marry a non-Christian (2 Cor. 6:14–16; cf. Deut. 7:1–7; Ezra 9). In 1 Cor. 7:12–16 Paul addresses this issue. He does so in light of the old covenant law that required God’s people to marry within the community of Israel. Circumstances had changed significantly with the coming of the new covenant. God’s people are now identified by faith in Christ, not ethnicity. Paul’s ruling here addresses one of two possible situations. Either the couple married as non-Christians and only one of them later converted, or two Christians married and one of them later abandoned the faith.

For a Jewish Christian, the first question was whether the marriage should continue or whether, on the precedent of Ezra 9, it should be terminated. Under the old covenant, for a marriage and children to be holy, both husband and wife had to establish their identity as Israelites. When Paul speaks of the unbelieving husband (1 Cor. 7:14) or children of this union as “sanctified,” he is speaking about the integrity of the marriage and the legitimacy of the children, not about their salvation. Without faith in Christ, no one is saved (Rom. 5:1; Gal. 2:16; Heb. 11:6).

Paul’s ruling is thus that the wife of the unbelieving husband should continue with the marriage because it is legitimate. “But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so” (1 Cor. 7:15). Under such circumstances, the wife (or husband [7:14]) is free, which implies the option of remarriage (7:39). She should not persevere in hope that he will be converted. She is the innocent victim.

Throughout the Bible there always remains the possibility of restoration of the original marriage except when remarriage to another has occurred (Deut. 24:4).

Worn around the neck, gold chains were a symbol of honor (Gen. 41:42; Prov. 1:9; Dan. 5:7). The temple and its furniture were decorated with chain-like ornamentation (2 Chron. 3:5); similar motifs are found also in non-Yahwistic cultic paraphernalia (Isa. 40:19).

Prisoners (Ps. 107:10; Acts 12:6; 16:26; 21:33; Heb. 11:36) and war captives (Isa. 45:14; Jer. 40:1) were bound with chains, by the hands (Jer. 40:4) or neck (Isa. 52:2). In one case, the Bible records an unsuccessful attempt to confine a demon-possessed man with chains (Mark 5:3–4). Paul often mentions the chains of his imprisonment (Phil. 1:7, 13–17; Col. 4:3; 2 Tim. 2:9; Philem. 10, 13), once referring to himself paradoxically as an “ambassador in chains” (Eph. 6:20).

At Lachish four links of an iron chain were found. Extrabiblical records of the siege of Lachish suggest that such a chain was lowered from the city walls in an attempt to foul the Assyrian battering ram.

Originally denoting the southern part of Babylonia, “Chaldea” is the name for the whole country of Babylonia. As the Chaldean chief Marduk-apla-iddina II (Marduk-Baladan) seized the Babylonian throne (721–710, 703–702 BC), “Chaldea” became a synonym of “Babylonia” (see Isa. 23:13). When the Chaldean dynasty ruled the Near East (626–539 BC), the name became famous and was used synonymously of the entire Babylonian region (cf. Dan. 3:8; 9:1). Living along the rivers Euphrates and Tigris, the Chaldeans not only enjoyed agricultural fertility but also developed science and arts, including astrology, astronomy, mathematics, mythology, and shipbuilding. Accordingly, the “Chaldeans” are identified as a class of wise men (Dan. 2:2; 4:7; 5:7, 11; cf. 1:4) and as sailors (Isa. 43:14).

Chaldea or the Chaldeans played an important role in the history of God’s people. Abram came from one of its prominent cities, “Ur of the Chaldeans” (Gen. 11:28). As one of God’s instruments to punish his people for their iniquities, the Chaldeans destroyed Jerusalem and exiled its inhabi­tants (2 Kings 24–25; Isa. 39:6–7; Jer. 21:4; Ezek. 12:13; Hab. 1:6–10), so the “land of the Chaldeans” is often identified as the place of the exile (Jer. 24:5; Ezek. 1:3 KJV, ESV, NRSV). In the context of the promise of restoration, however, the Chaldeans are God’s primary enemy, to be destroyed for their own pursuit of glory (Isa. 43:14; 47; 48:14; Jer. 50–51; Hab. 1:11). God’s destruction of them signals the deliverance of his people out of the exile (Isa. 48:20–21; Jer. 50:8). In Revelation, Babylon is an earthly symbol of the satanic power that will be destroyed in the end time (Rev. 17–19).

The KJV uses this term 118 times, usually with reference to a private room in a building. It translates various Hebrew and Greek terms. Today the term is often viewed as archaic, and the same Hebrew and Greek terms are translated by the NIV variously as “tent,” “inner room,” “upper room,” “private room,” “room,” and so on (Num. 25:8; 2 Chron. 18:24; Ezra 10:6; Neh. 3:30–32; Ps. 19:5; Song 3:4; Ezek. 16:24). Joseph, when he was moved with compassion for his brothers, entered his chamber and wept (Gen. 43:30 KJV). The room that the Shunammite prepared for Elisha is called a “chamber” (2 Kings 4:10–11 KJV). There were chambers within chambers (1 Kings 22:25; 2 Kings 9:2 KJV). “Entering the chambers” is used metaphorically of prayer (Isa. 26:20 KJV).

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

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

History

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

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

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

Geography and Climate

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

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

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

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

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

Culture and Politics

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

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

Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the Bible chaos primarily refers to an opposite condition to the orderliness of the creation or a mythical force often represented by the sea or the sea monster(s) (translated as “dragon,” “Leviathan,” or “Rahab”). The two related ideas are based on the creation accounts recorded in Gen. 1–2 and other places.

Old Testament. In Gen. 1:2 chaos is the state of darkness and desolation (note the phrase “formless and empty” [Heb. tohu wabohu], which probably refers to the state of desolation of water with nothing in it; cf. Isa. 34:11; 45:18). The rest of the chapter describes how God in his absolute sovereignty and power—only with his words—creates order in place of the chaos. God brings light to the darkness, separates the land from the sea, and provides the land with abundance. The portrayal of the garden of Eden (2:4–14) further describes God’s provision of orderliness, fertility, eternal life, and harmony in the original creation.

Although the Genesis account does not directly mention any mythical elements (i.e., the primordial combat between the sea and the prime god), other passages describe creation as the event in which God calmed the raging sea and killed the sea monsters (Pss. 74:12–17; 89:9–12; Job 26:7–14). Still, nowhere are the chaotic forces presented as an independent power that constantly challenges God’s sovereignty. Rather, God always does whatever he pleases with them, lifting up the waves of the sea (Ps. 107:25; Jer. 31:35; cf. Ps. 146:6) and uncovering Death and Destruction (Job 26:6). Isaiah alludes to God’s slaying of the chaotic sea creature not only as the past event (51:9), but also as the promise to be realized in the day of the Lord (27:1).

In Genesis, God’s judgment is frequently described by means of the chaos motif, as a pre­creation condition reversed—for example, loss of harmony, fruitfulness, and eternal life (Gen. 3:15–24), return of the waters over the land (Gen. 7–8), loss of communication (11:7–9), and desolation of the fruitful land (19:23–28; cf. 13:10).

The chaos motif also plays an important role in the prophetic descriptions of God’s judgment against his people and against the foreign nations. Noteworthy is Jer. 4:23–26, which depicts God’s judgment upon his people in terms of chaos’s return—that is, the condition of “formless and empty,” without light, creatures, or fruitful land (cf. Hos. 4:3). In Isa. 34:11 God’s judgment upon Edom is expressed with the characteristic phrase in Gen. 1:2: “God will stretch out over Edom the measuring line of chaos [tohu, ‘formless’] and the plumb line of desolation [bohu, ‘empty’].” In other places Isaiah frequently employs the imageries of desolation (5:6; 7:23–25; 13:19–22; 24:1–13; 34:8–17), darkness (5:30; 8:22; 13:10), and flood (8:7–8).

New Testament. The concept of chaos developed in the OT provides an important background for understanding the NT. The Gospel writers use the chaos motif in describing Jesus’ person and work—for example, as light in the darkness (John 1:4–9; 3:19), as provider of abundance and eternal life (John 3:16; 4:14; 5:51; 6:1–15), and as the sovereign ruler of the chaotic sea, who walks on the water (Matt. 14:22–36; Mark 6:47–55; John 6:16–21) and calms the stormy sea with his words (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–41; Luke 8:22–25). Jesus’ resurrection is his ultimate demonstration of his reign over death (cf. 1 Cor. 15).

Paul further uses the chaos motif to describe the life of sinners or the sinful world. The identity of believers is changed from “darkness” to “light” or “children of light,” who now must shine the light in the world (Eph. 5:8; cf. Matt. 5:15–16; Phil. 2:15).

In the book of Revelation the ultimate restoration of the perfect creation order is presented, making allusions to the OT mythical descriptions of the chaotic forces (e.g., Satan as the dragon [12:15–16], Death and Hades as the underground forces [20:13–14]). Particularly, the new Jerusalem is the place of no sea or darkness or death (21:1, 4, 23–25) but of fruitfulness and eternal life (22:1–2).

A small, horse-drawn platform with various configurations throughout history with regard to size, construction, and purpose. The earliest known chariots are nearly three thousand years older than the racing chariots of the Roman Empire. They were bulky, four-wheeled carts pulled by mules instead of horses, making them very slow.

The invention of wheels with spokes, along with the use of lighter materials (such as animal skins) to cover the carriage of the chariot, allowed for greater speed and agility. Chariots customarily were pulled by two to four horses and had platforms on which up to three occupants (a driver and one or two archers) could stand during battle.

In addition to military use, chariots were used historically for municipal transport, distance travel, processions of dignitaries, and religious festivals. War chariots ceased to be effective with the development of light cavalry units.

In the Bible, chariots often symbolize power and status (Gen. 41:43; Acts 8:26–40). For example, the “iron chariots” described in Josh. 17:16–18 evoked dread among the tribes of Israel preparing to enter the Promised Land. Psalm 20:7 sharply contrasts trust in God and trust in chariots, which are a symbol of human power. Perhaps the most vivid depiction of chariots in Scripture is that of Pharaoh’s army descending upon the Israelites fleeing Egypt, and of his chariots’ drivers sinking into the sea (Exod. 14–15).

A city or region approximately sixty miles north of the confluence of the Euphrates and the Balikh rivers. Abraham moved from Ur to Harran en route to Canaan (Gen. 11:26–12:5). There, Eliezer acquired Rebekah as a wife for Isaac (24:1–67), and Jacob later resided, marrying Leah and Rachel (29:1–30).

A king of Elam during the time of Abram. He and three other kings subdued five kings rebelling against Kedorlaomer’s rule, routing them in the Valley of Siddim, a tar-filled lowland at the south end of the Dead Sea. When Abram heard that his nephew Lot had been captured in battle, he set out with his men and pursued Kedorlaomer, ultimately recovering Lot and the spoils that Kedorlaomer’s forces had taken (Gen. 14:1–16).

A descendant of Seir, a Horite, he was the fourth son of the clan chieftain Dishon (Gen. 36:26; 1 Chron. 1:41).

“Cherubim” (Heb. kerubim) is the plural form of “cherub” (Heb. kerub), a winged heavenly creature, apparently different from an (or a certain type of) angel. Scholars are uncertain as to the original meaning of the word, but it is probably related to a word that means either “gatekeeper” or “intercessor.” Cherubim appear as attendants around the throne of God or in some cases as gatekeepers, guarding the way to the presence of God.

God stationed cherubim to guard the entrance to the garden of Eden after he expelled Adam and Eve from the garden (Gen. 3:24). In this sense, the garden of Eden was a prototype of the temple, where the presence of God could be encountered. Later, in accordance with God’s instructions, golden cherubim were constructed and placed on either side of the mercy seat on the Ark of the Covenant, the place where God declared, “I will meet with you [Moses]” (Exod. 25:18–22).

The decorations of the tabernacle and the later Solomonic temple incorporated artwork depicting representations of cherubim (Exod. 26:1, 31; 1 Kings 6:23–29; 7:29, 36; 8:6–7; 2 Chron. 3:14). Isaiah 37:16 describes God as sitting between the wings of the cherubim, and Ps. 18:10 describes him as flying on the wings of the cherubim.

The prophet Ezekiel gives an extensive description of “four living creatures” flying around the throne of God (1:4–21). Later, the prophet identifies these same creatures but refers to them as cherubim (10:1–22). See also Ark of the Covenant.

“Cherubim” (Heb. kerubim) is the plural form of “cherub” (Heb. kerub), a winged heavenly creature, apparently different from an (or a certain type of) angel. Scholars are uncertain as to the original meaning of the word, but it is probably related to a word that means either “gatekeeper” or “intercessor.” Cherubim appear as attendants around the throne of God or in some cases as gatekeepers, guarding the way to the presence of God.

God stationed cherubim to guard the entrance to the garden of Eden after he expelled Adam and Eve from the garden (Gen. 3:24). In this sense, the garden of Eden was a prototype of the temple, where the presence of God could be encountered. Later, in accordance with God’s instructions, golden cherubim were constructed and placed on either side of the mercy seat on the Ark of the Covenant, the place where God declared, “I will meet with you [Moses]” (Exod. 25:18–22).

The decorations of the tabernacle and the later Solomonic temple incorporated artwork depicting representations of cherubim (Exod. 26:1, 31; 1 Kings 6:23–29; 7:29, 36; 8:6–7; 2 Chron. 3:14). Isaiah 37:16 describes God as sitting between the wings of the cherubim, and Ps. 18:10 describes him as flying on the wings of the cherubim.

The prophet Ezekiel gives an extensive description of “four living creatures” flying around the throne of God (1:4–21). Later, the prophet identifies these same creatures but refers to them as cherubim (10:1–22). See also Ark of the Covenant.

The word “kindness” is used to translate the Hebrew term khesed (Gen. 40:14) and the Greek words chrēstotēs (Col. 3:12) and philanthrōpia (Acts 28:2). Because of the richness of its meaning, khesed is difficult to capture in English. The word is translated in a variety of ways, including “kindness,” “loving-kindness,” “loyalty,” “steadfast love,” “mercy,” “commitment.” God embodies kindness (Exod. 34:6; Ps. 103:8; Hos. 2:19). Humans are also called on to reflect this quality of kindness in their relationships with others (1 Sam. 20:8; Mic. 6:8; Zech. 7:9).

In the NT, God is described as displaying kindness toward humans (Rom. 11:22; Titus 3:4; 1 Pet. 2:3), even the selfish and ungrateful (Luke 6:36). God pours out kindness on humans in order to lead them to repentance (Rom. 2:4). Christians are to demonstrate kindness even when others are unkind and vengeful (Prov. 25:21–22; Matt. 5:43–48; Rom. 12:17–21).

One discovers what practicing kindness looks like by observing the words associated with it in Scripture. Kindness involves putting away anger, bitterness, and slander; being tenderhearted and forgiving; and imitating God (Eph. 4:31–5:2); it finds company with compassion, humility, meekness, and patience (Col. 3:12); it is associated with patience, holiness of spirit, and genuine love (2 Cor. 6:6).

A town in southern Canaan where Shua’s daughter gave birth to Shelah, the third son of Judah (Gen. 38:5). Kezib is probably the same as Akzib.

In the OT, numerous Hebrew terms are translated as “chief” or describe a chief or leader. Although the noun ’ayil literally means “ram” (the leader of a flock), it is used figuratively to refer to foreign rulers (Exod. 15:15; Josh. 13:21; 1 Chron. 1:51). The basic meaning of ro’sh is “head,” but context often allows the term to be nuanced as “leader” (Exod. 18:25; Num. 14:4; 25:4; Josh. 23:2). The patriarch of the family was considered to be its ro’sh (Exod. 6:14; Num. 7:2), as was the chief priest in relation to the people (2 Kings 25:18; 2 Chron. 19:11; Jer. 52:24). One such chief priest was Amariah, who was involved in reformations during the rule of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 19:11). The most common designation, however, is sar, which can be used in construct to refer to numerous professions: “prison warden” (Gen. 39:21), “chief cupbearer” (Gen. 40:2), “chief official” (Dan. 1:7). The term nagid is used frequently as a designation for a (future) king (1 Sam. 9:16; 10:1; 13:14; 25:30; 1 Kings 1:35). The term nasi’ is used in reference to tribal chiefs (Gen. 17:20; 23:6; 34:2) and aristocracy (Exod. 16:22; Josh. 9:15; 1 Chron. 2:10).

In the NT, the Greek noun archōn belongs to an extended network of words that use the prefix arch- and generally convey the meaning of “rule” or “authority.” The noun archōn is used in reference to humans, demons, and divinity. Jesus spoke of “ruling officials” who assert their authority over Gentiles, but he instructed his followers to seek the posture of servitude to others (Matt. 20:25–26). Even though Satan is called the archōn of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; cf. Eph. 2:2), Jesus is the true archōn over all the earth (Rev. 1:5). Various individuals are referred to as “ruler of the synagogue” (archisynagōgos) in the NT. These leaders were chiefly responsible for the physical upkeep of the building and the arrangements of worship in the Jewish synagogue. Among the named leadership are Jairus in Galilee (Mark 5:21–43; Luke 8:40–56; cf. Matt. 9:18–26) and Crispus (Acts 18:8; cf. 1 Cor. 1:14) and Sosthenes in Corinth (Acts 18:17). Other administrative authorities may be understood as “eminent rulers” or “officials” (cf. Acts 16:19; 17:6).

Aaron was Moses’ older brother (eighty-three and eighty years old respectively, according to Exod. 7:7) and his close associate during the days when God used both of them to establish his people Israel as a nation. Aaron’s particular importance came when God selected him to be the first high priest of Israel.

Aaron first appears in the account of Moses’ divine commission at the burning bush. God charged Moses to return to Egypt and lead his people out of bondage (Exod. 3:7–10). In spite of God’s assurance of divine support and ultimate success, Moses hesitated to accept the call, finally citing his lack of rhetorical skills (“I am slow of speech and tongue” [Exod. 4:10]). Finally, God revealed that Aaron was on the way to see Moses. Aaron could “speak well” (Exod. 4:14), so he would serve as Moses’ mouthpiece.

Aaron plays a supportive role in the Exodus account of the plagues and the departure from Egypt. He was at Moses’ side. As previously arranged, Aaron was the spokesperson, acting as a prophet to Moses, who was “like God to Pharaoh” (Exod. 7:1). Indeed, the early plagues often were initiated by Moses commanding Aaron to “stretch out” his staff (Exod. 8:5, 16; cf. 7:9), though later Moses took over this role.

After much struggle, Pharaoh finally allowed the Israelites to leave Egypt. Aaron is not specifically mentioned as playing a role at the climactic moment of the crossing of the Red Sea, but he appears again in Exod. 16 during the first report of the Israelite community’s grumbling about lack of food for the journey. Moses and Aaron were the objects of the grumbling (v. 2), with Aaron continuing his role as the one who speaks for Moses (vv. 9–10). Aaron also supported Moses’ leading position during the first battle in the wilderness (Exod. 17:8–16). When the Israelites fought the aggressive Amalekites, Israel had the upper hand only when Moses kept his walking staff, representing God’s presence, raised above his head. When his arms grew too tired to hold the staff aloft, Aaron and Hur were next to him, hoisting his arms high.

The event of greatest significance involving Aaron in the wilderness was his appointment as high priest. The divine mandate for his installation is recorded in Exod. 28. Aaron and his sons were to be “set apart” or “consecrated” (Heb. root qdsh) for service to God. They were given special garments that distinctively related them to the sanctuary (i.e., the similarity between the ephod and the innermost curtain of the tabernacle [“blue, purple and scarlet yarn”; Exod. 26:1; 28:6]). Instructions for the installation service are given in Exod. 29, but the event itself is reported in Lev. 8.

Aaron did not fare well on the one occasion when he acted independently from Moses. While Moses was on Mount Sinai receiving the two tablets of the law from the hand of God, Aaron gave in to the people’s request to make a calf idol out of golden earrings that they gave him. Whether this calf idol represented a false god or the Lord (see Exod. 32:5) is irrelevant because in either case the worship was illegitimate and brought great harm on God’s people. When Moses returned, he confronted Aaron, who gave lame excuses by blaming the people. Unexpectedly, the Levites, his own tribe, assisted Moses by killing many of those who worshiped the idol. For this act, the Levites were ordained to work as priestly assistants.

In spite of Aaron’s sin, God did not remove him from his priestly responsibilities (thanks to the prayers of Moses [Deut. 9:20]), the height of which was to preside over the annual Day of Atonement. The incident of the golden calf was not the only occasion when Aaron tried God’s patience. According to Num. 12, Aaron and his sister, Miriam, contested Moses’ leadership. Using his marriage to a Cushite woman as a pretext, Moses’ siblings asserted their equality. God, however, put them in their place, affirming Moses’ primacy.

Other tribal leaders questioned Aaron’s priestly leadership, according to Num. 17. Moses told all the tribal leaders to place their walking staffs along with Aaron’s before God at the tent of testimony. God showed his favor toward Aaron by causing his staff to bud.

Both Moses and Aaron forfeited their right to enter the land of promise when they usurped the Lord’s authority as they brought water from the rock in the wilderness (Num. 20:1–13). Sick and tired of the people’s complaining, Moses wrongly ascribed the ability to make water come from the rock to himself and Aaron, and rather than speaking to the rock, he struck it twice. For this, God told them that they would die in the wilderness. Aaron’s death is reported soon after this occasion (Num. 20:22–27).

Aaron is cited infrequently in subsequent Scripture, with the exception of priestly genealogies (1 Chron. 6:3, 49–50) or in historical reviews (Pss. 77:20; 99:6; 105:26). Psalm 133:2 presents a striking image of the blessings of communal unity by asking the reader to picture oil running down Aaron’s beard. In the NT, the most significant use of Aaron is in comparison to Jesus Christ, the ultimate high priest. Interestingly, the book of Hebrews argues that Jesus far surpassed the priestly authority of Aaron by connecting his priesthood to Melchizedek, a mysterious non-Israelite priest who blesses God and Abram in Gen. 14 (see Heb. 7:1–14).

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

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

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

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

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

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

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

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

Children, Parenting, and Education

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

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

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

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

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

Family as an Analogy

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

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

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

Broadly speaking, child abuse refers to physical maltreatment and/or sexual molestation of a child. Often both occur together. In child abuse, legal, moral, and psychological domains are affected. A natural dependence, trust, and frailty define a child, with adulthood typically starting around age eighteen.

Child abuse brings chaos where the Creator blessed with fruitful life (Gen. 1:28; 9:7). Children signify one of God’s richest blessings (Ps. 127:3–6). Pharaoh’s pogrom against the Hebrew children only served to highlight the midwives who “feared God” and chose to foster rather than harm life (Exod. 1:15–22). Orphans lacked parental protection and uniquely came under God’s care as the “helper of fatherless” (Ps. 10:14, 18; cf. James 1:27).

Sadly, one in three girls and one in five boys are sexually abused, 14 percent under the age of six. Most sexual abuse is incest, perpetrated by known providers, often the father. But fathers are exhorted not to even “exasperate” their children (Eph. 6:4; cf. Col. 3:21). For an abused child, their bridging metaphors for God (e.g., “father” and “mother”) can be permanently crushed.

Fortunately, the abused child can find a “spiritual family” in the church (cf. Mark 10:28–30). But woe to those who cause “one of these little ones—those who believe in me” to stumble (Matt. 18:1–6).

The Hebrew expression “sons of God” (often translated as “children of God” in contemporary usage) is an important biblical concept and is used to describe a range of referents.

In the OT, the term is used to refer to angels (e.g., Job 1:6). They are subordinate divine beings, carrying out God’s mission on earth (Job 2:1). Compared to them, Yahweh’s incomparability is asserted in divine council (Ps. 89:6; cf. Deut. 32:8 NIV mg.). They are called upon to praise Yahweh for his creation (Ps. 29:1). They shout for joy at God’s creation (Job 38:7). In Gen. 6:2 the term refers to beings that are apparently of divine origin and to be contrasted with the “daughters of men” in that same passage. The sin mentioned in this passage refers to the cohabitation of divine beings and humans. This union is one of the impetuses for the flood, an indication of how bad things had gotten. The “order” of creation (Gen. 1), where humans are meant to be fruitful with their own kind, is here transgressed. Hence, God introduces further disorder by bringing back the waters of chaos to flood the earth.

Israel as a covenant nation is called “my son, my firstborn” by Yahweh (Exod. 4:22; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1). As son, Israel is expected to give proper reverence and honor for his father (Mal. 1:6). Although only one of many metaphors for Israel in the OT, Israel’s status as son is important for understanding the movement of the book of Exodus. Israel is to be delivered from Egyptian rule because Israel is God’s son. If Pharaoh continues to mistreat Israel, God will call judgment upon Egypt’s firstborn, as he did in the plague of death and the Red Sea incident.

Sonship is not exclusive to Israel. The Gentiles are also included in the future of God’s program (Isa. 19:25; Zech. 14:16). Likewise, in the NT all humans are God’s children (Eph. 4:6). More often, though, the term refers to those who are in Christ. The bond is spiritual, and often the concept of adoption is used (John 1:12; Rom. 9:6; Gal. 3:26; 4:5–7; 1 John 5:1). See also Sons of God

A clan, whose name means “easterners,” that occupied an area somewhere east of Canaan and west of the Euphrates. God promised to give to Abram’s offspring the land of the Kadmonites (Gen. 15:19). They may have been included in the peoples who were collectively called “the eastern peoples.” Other people referred to as “the eastern peoples” or “peoples of the east” include the inhabitants of the land where Jacob searched for his wife (Gen. 29:1), those who rose up with the Midianites against Gideon (Judg. 6:3, 33), the wise men whose wisdom was surpassed by Solomon (1 Kings 4:30–31), and Job (Job 1:3).

The choice or selection of a person or group, especially God’s determination of who will be saved.

Terminology

On occasion, the language of being “elect” is used as a description of Christ, or perhaps even a title. Isaiah, in one of his Servant Songs, gives a description that is probably best taken as a veiled reference to Christ in his unique relationship with the Father: “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen [or ‘elect’] one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations” (Isa. 42:1). There is similar usage in the NT, where Jesus is described in 1 Pet. 2:6 (using a quotation from Isa. 28:16): “For in Scripture it says: ‘See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen [or ‘elect’] and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’ ”

Many times the word “elect” is used in Scripture as a synonym for believers. For example, Jesus speaks of the future time when “he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other” (Matt. 24:31). Similarly, Peter addresses his first letter “to God’s elect” (1 Pet. 1:1). John does something similar in his second letter, addressed to “the lady chosen by God [KJV, RSV: “elect lady”] and to her children, whom I love in the truth” (2 John 1).

Election and Salvation

There is more to this terminology, though, than simply a descriptive name for Christ or God’s people. Other passages are more explanatory in nature and imply a definite and active place for God’s involvement in the salvation process. For example, Peter continues on in his introduction to his first letter with a description of the elect as those “who have been chosen [KJV: ‘elect’] 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” (1 Pet. 1:2). Here there is the key question of how we should understand the role of God’s foreknowledge in the expression “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Some argue that this is simply telling us that God is able to look forward and know ahead of time who will exercise faith and be saved, so salvation is simply based on a purely human decision after all.

However, Rom. 9 suggests otherwise. This chapter, perhaps more than any other, sheds light on God’s election of his people. Paul is in the process of explaining how God’s plan of redemption (which he has been developing in Rom. 1–8) applies to his own Jewish people. If the gospel is really as powerful as Paul claims, why has it produced so little fruit among God’s own covenant people, the Jews? Paul answers, “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6). Then, in the following verses, Paul explains what he means by “not all Israel are Israel.” Not every child of Abraham is a child of faith (9:7–13). The promise has come only through Isaac, and not through Abraham’s other sons, Ishmael and the six sons of Keturah (see Gen. 25:1). Similarly, the line of promise and blessing does not involve all of Isaac and Rebekah’s children either, but only Jacob and not Esau (9:10–13). Here Paul explains, “Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls” (9:11–12). In support of this conclusion, Paul quotes from Mal. 1:2–3: “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’ ” (9:13). The bottom line, according to Paul, is not one’s ancestry at all, but God’s own choice. God tells Moses in Exod. 33:19, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (quoted in Rom. 9:15). Paul gives his summary of election: “It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy” (9:16). He rests his case with the classic OT illustration of God’s hardening of Pharaoh (9:17) before concluding, “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (9:18).

Romans 9 is not an isolated passage of Scripture. The apostle John says much the same of Jesus’ ministry, and how salvation is specifically to all “those who believed in his name”; to them “he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God” (John 1:12–13). The last part of this passage is key: salvation ultimately depends not upon “natural descent” or one’s human ancestry (including whether one is Jewish or not), nor upon “human decision” (including any and all acts of the human will), nor upon a “husband’s will” (a more difficult expression that probably refers to the decisions of others in the family), but solely and ultimately only on being “born of God.”

Hardening of Hearts and the Nonelect

Certainly, there is a mystery in all of this. There is no easy way to understand the negative process of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart or to explain the mechanics of the positive process of election. Scripture often describes God himself as the one who has hardened the hearts of various individuals. In Exod. 4:21, for example, God says to Moses, “I will harden [Pharaoh’s] heart so that he will not let the people go.” Other times, Scripture is less clear and simply tells us that “Pharaoh’s heart became hard” (Exod. 7:13). Then there are still other times when Pharaoh himself is described as being actively involved in this process of hardening his own heart, such as “when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron” (Exod. 8:15). Undoubtedly, the best way to understand this is to see a negative response such as the hardening of a person’s heart as a combination of the active will of fallen human beings and the mysterious workings of a sovereign God. In a similar way, both salvation and spiritual growth are other spiritual realities that also involve the mysterious combination of God’s direct involvement in people’s lives and the necessity of their own human response. Paul captures this tension in Phil. 2:12–13: “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.”

There is also the question of the nonelect, sometimes put in terms of “reprobation” or “double predestination.” If God is actively involved in the positive act of bringing human beings into a proper relationship with himself in salvation, is he actively involved equally in choosing those who will never respond in faith and will suffer an eternity of judgment apart from him? Again, Christians are divided, and simplistic overgeneralizations do little to advance our understanding of this topic. Those who give precedence to God’s sovereignty in their understanding of the process of salvation usually see a greater involvement of God in the decisions of those who do not respond in faith; those who emphasize human involvement in salvation will also emphasize human decision in those who do not respond.

Those who emphasize God’s sovereignty in this mystery of the faith lean toward the Calvinistic or Reformed end of the scale. They tend also to emphasize the total depravity of humanity: the notion not that people are as bad as they can possibly be, but simply that sin has tainted every area of the mind, will, and emotions, making a positive turning to God, apart from God’s grace, humanly impossible. They also emphasize the definite atonement, the doctrine that Christ died specifically for the elect. On the other hand, those who emphasize human involvement, often called “Arminians,” tend to emphasize the importance of human free will in order to create a sense of responsibility for one’s decisions. They also emphasize an unlimited atonement, the doctrine that Christ died potentially for anyone and everyone.

Summary

The proper balance in Scripture seems to involve both God’s sovereignty and human involvement. Peter captures some of this need for balance: “Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble” (2 Pet. 1:10). Election is ultimately God’s work, but at the same time there is a human involvement in it. Charles Spurgeon’s illustration seems appropriate here. Human will and predestination are like the two rails on a railroad track: everywhere we look they are separate and distinct and thus irreconcilable; yet it is only off in the distance (really in the mind of God himself) that these two complementary truths come together in their perfect resolution. There is no question that “elect” and “election” are biblical terms; the key question is how to understand this difficult topic and to work out all the logical implications in terms of sharing the gospel with others in a meaningful and appropriate manner.

Old Testament

Students of biblical history must work with several overlapping systems of chronology. This section defines several approaches and describes how they are interconnected.

Absolute and relative dates. Absolute dates consist of a numerical value falling in one of two eras, BC (“Before Christ”; also referred to as BCE, “Before the Common Era”) or AD (Anno Domini, “in the year of our Lord”; also referred to as CE, “Common Era”). For example, Samaria fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC. This system of absolute dating, a commonplace of modern life, was devised only in the sixth century AD, so it is unknown in biblical and other ancient sources. Instead of absolute dates, the Bible and other ancient historiographic sources give relative dates; that is, events are dated in relation to other recorded events, as in 1 Kings 15:1: “In the eighteenth year of the reign of Jeroboam son of Nebat, Abijah became king of Judah.” The system of relative dates in the OT can be collated to form a single relative chronology.

Using royal histories. For the purposes of constructing a unified chronology, the royal history in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles is of central importance, with its tabulations of the ages of the kings at accession and the lengths of their reigns. The biblical chronology can then be assigned to absolute dates by establishing synchronisms with other historical chronicles (most usefully, from Mesopotamia), which in turn can be fixed to a handful of absolute dates. Of particular importance are records (all nonbiblical cuneiform texts) of observed astronomical phenomena, the appearance of which in history can now be calculated with a high degree of mathematical certainty. Annalistic sources (documents that record an entry for each passing year, such as the cuneiform eponym chronicles) are particularly valuable. The Bible contains no annalistic sources, but rather is made up of chronistic sources—that is, texts that record and quantify the passage of time, but without a separate accounting of each year. When miscalculations or textual corruptions affect chronistic records, they are difficult to correct (see 1 Sam. 13:1). The biblical data, consisting of summary figures, probably go back to annalistic sources that were compiled from year to year (perhaps the records mentioned in, e.g., 1 Kings 11:41; 14:19).

The assembly of a unified biblical chronology on the basis of the royal histories is further complicated by the fact that several calendars—royal, agricultural, cultic—were in simultaneous use. There may also have been a discrepancy between Israel and Judah with regard to the reckoning of the cultic New Year. Added to this, in several cases the biblical data imply a period of coregency, during which the reigns of the outgoing king and his appointed successor overlapped, creating the potential for the years of the coregency to be counted twice. In biblical times there were two systems of reckoning dates based on royal succession: the “accession-year” system, which omitted from the length of a king’s reign any partial year from his accession to the first New Year, and the “nonaccession-year” system, which began counting the years of a king’s reign as soon as he acceded. In nonaccession-year dating, any year in which there are two kings gets counted twice: once as the last year of the former king, and once as the first year of the new king. The biblical chronologies appear to use both systems, with a movement from the nonaccession-year system to the accession-year system in later centuries. Obviously, the choice of systems dictates the significance of the figures presented in the Bible and must be taken into account in the collation of data.

Combining royal regnal data and various genealogical tables (based on, e.g., Gen. 5; 11; the summary figures in Exod. 12:41; 1 Kings 6:1), it is possible to reconstruct a putative world chronology from the creation of Adam to the exile. Famously, in 1650 James Ussher followed this procedure, working backward from absolute dates known from classical sources, to determine that the world was created on the night before October 23, 4004 BC. In its day, this was a work of impressive scholarship, but Ussher’s chronology is too short to encompass not only archaeological findings (from the land of Israel itself, there are Neolithic and Chalcolithic artifacts going back ten thousand years), but also findings in all branches of the sciences that corroborate the age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years and the appearance of modern humans approximately two hundred thousand years before the present. Beginning in the first millennium BC, however, the Bible provides chronological data that, with modest adjustments, agree with other historical and archaeological findings.

Weighing the sources. Because of the variety of materials in the OT, it is crucial to determine which sources are of historical value, weighing each in terms of internal and external coherence. As noted above, the backbone of OT chronology is the series of regnal data for the kings of Israel and Judah found in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. These data are useful because they provide a continuous chronology of several hundred years that can be anchored at several points to datable events in external historical sources. In addition, the history of the kings of Judah and Israel contains references to historical figures known from extrabiblical records. In contrast, the chronology of the OT prior to the period of judges, while internally coherent, cannot be correlated to known absolute dates. Where non-Israelite figures are mentioned, they are often unnamed (e.g., the pharaohs of the eras of Abraham and Moses), anachronistically described (e.g., Abraham’s contacts with the Philistines [Gen. 21:34], a group that did not appear in Palestine until long after the ostensible Middle Bronze Age date of Abraham), or do not correspond to known historical figures (e.g., Abimelek, Nimrod). Although cultural-historical investigation may shed light on the patriarchal narratives and their historical setting, such an approach yields nothing more than vague chronological findings. In some cases, the late date of the biblical texts has obscured chronological indicators, interfering with the project of cultural history. Setting aside questions of the historicity of the patriarchal narratives, apart from the reports of their ages, there is little data to work with when it comes to constructing a chronology of the patriarchs.

The story of the exodus from Egypt presents an event that, in principle, should be datable on the basis of external data. The mass migration of millions of persons, the destruction of the army of a geopolitical superpower, and the subsequent conquest of a small but powerful country are events that promise to provide a chronological anchor for the beginning of Israel’s history. Unfortunately, the event recorded in the Bible has not left a clear mark, either in the historiography of Egypt or in the archaeology of Palestine. On closer inspection, the biblical text contains a number of features that frustrate any attempt to date the events on their basis. Unlike in the histories of the biblical monarchs, the pharaoh of the Exodus, a figure of international stature in his own day, is never named in the Bible. Some have attempted to fix a date to the exodus on the basis of the occurrence of the name “Rameses” in Exod. 1:11; 12:37. This name was not current in Egypt before the thirteenth century BC. If it provides a clue as to the date of the exodus, it does so only at the expense of broader biblical chronology, according to which the exodus occurred in the fifteenth century BC (in particular, based on the figures given in Exod. 12:41; 1 Kings 6:1). It is not until we get into the monarchic period, when the history of Israel is intertwined with that of named international figures, that absolute dates can be established with certainty.

Biblical events that can be assigned absolute dates based on cuneiform historical records include the following. Ahab was king of Israel at the time of the battle of Qarqar in 853 BC. The Kurkh monolith of Shalmaneser III records his participation in the coalition of Hadadezer, though the event is not mentioned in the Bible. Jehu was on the throne of Judah in 841 BC, when Shalmaneser III recorded that he gave tribute to Assyria. Joash was king of Israel in 796 BC, when he rendered tribute to Adad-nirari III. Menahem was king in 740 and 738 BC (see 2 Kings 15:19), when he paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser III (the biblical Pul). Ahaz paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser in 734 BC, and Manasseh to Esarhaddon around 674 BC. These synchronisms provide in each case upper and lower limits for fixing the reign of the kings of Israel and Judah. In some cases, the chronology of the book of Kings must be adjusted to fit these dates, on the assumption that the Deuteronomistic Historian lacked firsthand knowledge about the history of the northern kingdom, was attempting to work with conflicting sources, or made errors in calculation. Other important synchronisms include Hoshea’s coup against Pekah (2 Kings 15:30), dated based on an inscription of Tiglath-pileser III to 732 BC; the fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:6), dated based on the Babylonian Chronicle to 722 BC; Sennacherib’s Judean campaign in 701 BC (2 Kings 18:13–19:36); the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BC (Jer. 46:2); the capture of Jerusalem in 597 BC (2 Kings 24:12); and the release of Jehoiachin from captivity in 561 BC, coinciding with the accession of Amel-Marduk (2 Kings 25:27).

Periodization of history. In addition to relative and absolute chronologies, biblical scholars refer to several schemes of periodization defined by technological and political developments.

The most ancient scheme of periodization is implied in the Bible itself, which conceives of periods of judges (Judg. 17:6), united monarchy, divided monarchy, and exile. The transitions between phases in this scheme are defined by dramatic social and political discontinuities. Another approach to the periodization of Israelite history involves defining the major transitions in terms of the material culture. Prior to the fall of Jerusalem, modern biblical scholars and archaeologists divide Syro-Palestinian history into several periods, named for developments in metallurgical technology. While there is some variety of opinion among scholars regarding the exact dates used, the following scheme is widely used (given with rough correlations to the biblical periods):

Early Bronze Age – 3300 to 2200 BC (Primeval period?)

Middle Bronze Age – 2200 to 1550 BC (Patriarch)

Late Bronze Age – 1550 to 1200 BC (Period in Egypt, exodus)

Iron Age – 1200 to 586 BC (Judges monarchy)

The Iron Age is further subdivided as follows:

Iron Age – 1200 to 1000 BC (Judges)

Iron Age IIA – 1000 to 900 BC (United monarchy)

Iron Age IIB – 900 to 700 BC (Divided monarchy)

Iron Age IIC – 700 to 586 BC (Fall of Samaria to fall of Jerusalem

The divisions between these periods are heuristic and do not correspond to precisely dated developments in metallurgy. For instance, some iron artifacts may be dated to the Bronze Age, though not widespread iron metalworking on an industrial scale. Especially in the various subdivisions of the Iron Age, transitions begin to be defined by political events rather than the metal sequence: Iron IA corresponds to the biblical period of the judges, Iron IIA to the united monarchy, Iron IIB to the divided monarchy, and Iron IIC to the period between the falls of Samaria and Jerusalem, when the southern kingdom alone had political autonomy. Some scholars round off the dates to avoid a periodization based on short-term political events and to emphasize the gradual rate of change in material culture and technology (e.g., using the round dates 900, 700, 600).

For events and dates after the fall of Jerusalem, historians employ a scheme of periodization based heavily on political factors. The series of periods are named for the dominant geopolitical powers in Syria-Palestine:

Neo-Babylonian period – 622 to 539 BC (Late Judean monarchy, exile)

Persian period – 539 to 330 BC (Return from exile)

Hellenistic period – 330 to 63 BC (Intertestamental)

Roman period – 63 BC to AD 324 (New Testament events

Although there was significant redaction (and, according to some, composition) of biblical texts in the Hellenistic period, no biblical narratives are ostensibly set in the period. Thus, the internal periodization of history in the Hebrew Bible ends with the return from exile (the Persian period).

New Testament

The birth of Jesus. According to Matt. 2:1 (see also Luke 1:5), Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod the Great, who, as we know from Josephus, died in 4 BC (see Matt. 2:15–19). In his attempt to kill Jesus, Herod ordered the slaughter of male children up to the age of two, based on information that he obtained from the magi concerning the appearance of the star heralding Jesus’ birth (Matt. 2:16). Thus, Matthew’s account implies a date no later than 4 BC, but possibly several years earlier. Some scholars have attempted to correlate the magi’s observance of a star with one of several striking celestial phenomena, including a conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars in 7 BC (so Johannes Kepler). Such attempts, however, are weakened by the fact that Matthew’s description of the star is vague, unnaturalistic, and difficult to identify certainly with a planetary alignment or any other known phenomenon (in particular, the star is said to move and then come to rest over Jesus’ location). Another line of investigation involves Luke’s correlation of Jesus’ birth with a Roman census that he dates to the time of Quirinius (Luke 2:1–2). This report, however, contradicts the testimony of Josephus, according to whom Quirinius became governor in AD 6 (a decade after the death of Herod). Most likely, Jesus was born shortly before 4 BC, during the reign of Herod.

The beginning and duration of Jesus’ public ministry. According to Luke 3:23, Jesus was “about thirty years old” at the time of his baptism and the beginning of his public ministry. In John 8:57, Jesus is challenged: “You are not yet fifty years old.” These two round numbers provide reasonable limits for the age of Jesus during his ministry. Owing to a paucity of chronological indicators in the Synoptic Gospels, the ministry of Jesus as depicted in Matthew, Mark, and Luke could have taken place within the space of a single year. In contrast, John narrates postbaptism events during three occurrences of the annual Passover festival (John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55), suggesting that Jesus’ ministry lasted for three years or longer. Unfortunately, the chronology of John appears in some instances to be at odds with the other Gospels. Most significantly, he places Jesus’ cleansing of the temple at the beginning, rather than the end, of his ministry (John 2:13–22; cf. Mark 11:15–19 pars.). It is unclear to what degree strict chronology has been modified in the interest of other concerns in each of the Gospels. According to John’s account, the cleansing of the temple occurred forty-six years after the beginning of its construction, an event that Josephus dates to either the eighteenth or the fifteenth year of Herod’s reign (John 2:20), placing the incident in the year AD 28 or 31. Ultimately, there are two sources of uncertainty pertaining to the chronology of Jesus’ ministry: the imprecise (and possibly symbolic) report of his age in Luke 3:23 and the indeterminate length of his ministry.

The death of Jesus. All four Gospels agree that Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judea, was instrumental in the trial and execution of Jesus. Pilate governed from AD 26 to 36; this provides a latest possible date for the death of Jesus. To refine the chronology beyond this, scholars have attempted to date the end of Jesus’ life based on its occurrence during the Feast of Passover (15 Nisan in the Jewish calendar) and by trying to determine in which year the feast would have coincided with his crucifixion on a Friday. This approach is complicated by the discrepancy between John, according to whom the Passover meal was eaten in the evening following the crucifixion (John 19:14), and Mark, who appears to have an imperfect knowledge of Passover customs (Mark 14:12–16) and thus describes Jesus’ final supper with his disciples as a Passover meal (i.e., on 14 Nisan). Following John’s chronology yields a date for the crucifixion of Friday, April 7 (Nisan 14), AD 30, or Friday, April 3 (Nisan 14), AD 33.

Of these two options, the AD 30 date conforms more closely to Luke 3:23, and it suggests that following a ministry of about three years, Jesus was in his mid- to late thirties at the time of his crucifixion.

Paul’s career. The chronology of Paul’s career remains a difficult question in biblical studies. There are two major sources for this chronology: the letters of Paul (esp. Galatians) and the book of Acts. When independent chronologies are constructed from each of these sources, several difficulties arise, including the absence of absolute anchors in Paul’s letters, lack of clear agreement between Acts and the letters regarding the number of visits to Jerusalem, and, by implication, the periodization of Paul’s career into distinct phases of concerted activity or “missionary journeys.” These data must in turn be synchronized, sometimes requiring some ingenuity, with other historically documented events such as the dating of Claudius’s edict (Acts 18:2), the dates of Aretas’s control of Damascus (2 Cor. 11:32–33), the death of Herod Agrippa in AD 44 (mentioned in Acts 12:23), the presence of Sergius Paulus in Cyprus during Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 13:7 [this figure is known from inscriptions, but none of them clearly bears on the question]), and Festus’s succession of Felix as the procurator of Palestine (Acts 23–26), which Josephus puts in AD 53.

If we grant a fair measure of historical reliability to the outline of Acts, Paul experienced his conversion around AD 33, visited Jerusalem in AD 36 (Gal. 1:18), completed his first missionary journey and then visited Jerusalem to confer with the other apostles (Acts 15:1–29; Gal. 2:1) in the late 40s, conducted his second and third missionary journeys in the first half of the 50s before being finally arrested in Jerusalem around AD 57, and was taken to Rome in AD 59–60.

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

The custom of cutting the foreskin of the male genitalia as a religious rite. The earliest attestation of circumcision is on depictions of West Semitic Syrian warriors unearthed in Syria and Egypt and dating to the third millennium BC. In addition, an Egyptian stela describing a ceremony in which 120 were circumcised has been dated to the twenty-third century BC. Egyptians practiced circumcision, as did the Ammonites, Edomites, Moabites, and nomadic Arabians (Jer. 9:25–26). Philistines, Assyrians, and Gentiles in general were uncircumcised (Judg. 14:3; Ezek. 32:17–32; Eph. 2:11).

Circumcision is first mentioned in the Bible as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Gen. 17:10). God commanded that every male be circumcised at eight days old (Gen. 17:12; cf. 21:4; Lev. 12:3; Luke 1:59; 2:21). Circumcision was required for a male to participate in the Passover (Exod. 12:48) or worship in the temple (Ezek. 44:9; cf. Acts 21:28–29).

Simeon and Levi used circumcision as a ruse to obtain revenge for the rape of their sister Dinah (Gen. 34:13–31). Zipporah redeemed Moses by circumcising her son on their journey back to Egypt (Exod. 4:24–26). At Gilgal, Joshua circumcised the sons of the Israelites who had disbelieved that God could bring them into the Promised Land (Josh. 5:2–8). The sons had not been circumcised during the journey through the wilderness (5:7). Saul demanded a dowry of one hundred Philistine foreskins before David could marry his daughter Michal (1 Sam. 18:25). David doubled the bride-price by providing two hundred (18:27).

Metaphorically, circumcision goes beyond the physical sign (Rom. 2:28). Ultimately, the enemies of God, whether circumcised or not, will be slain and laid in the grave with the uncircumcised (Ezek. 32:32). Physical circumcision is of no avail if the heart remains “uncircumcised” (Jer. 9:25–26; cf. Rom. 2:25). Circumcision of the heart is accomplished when one loves God completely (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Rom. 2:29), but uncircumcised ears are disobedient (Acts 7:51). The circumcision accomplished by Christ occurs when the sinful nature is rejected (Col. 2:11). In him neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value; what counts “is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal. 5:6).

Controversy began in the NT church over whether Gentile believers should be circumcised (Acts 15:1–12). Evidently, a group existed that demanded circumcision (Acts 15:1; Titus 1:10). Paul argued that circumcision was not essential to Christian faith and fellowship (Gal. 6:15; Col. 3:11).

An artificial underground reservoir designed for collecting and storing water. In Palestine, cisterns were made in various shapes and sizes. Many were bell-like or pear shaped and cut into limestone rock. Smaller private cisterns served family buildings; larger public reservoirs provided for the needs of cities. Great care was taken to drain runoff water from a roof, a courtyard, or a wadi (a dry riverbed) into a cistern. Most cisterns were plastered to help them retain the water.

The region suffers from a limited amount of rainfall and a long dry season. Rain often falls in short, heavy showers capable of creating destructive flash floods unless diverted into cisterns and reservoirs. In this type of climate, not only do cisterns supplement the natural water supply for supporting agriculture, but they are also a necessity for sustaining life.

Joseph was thrown into an empty cistern (Gen. 37:22–29), and Jeremiah was imprisoned in one (Jer. 38:6). Cisterns were good places to hide (1 Sam. 13:6), and one served as a place to dump corpses (Jer. 41:7–9). Like springs, cisterns were considered to be ritually clean (Lev. 11:36). Marriage fidelity is likened to drinking water from your own cistern (Prov. 5:15). On the other hand, Jeremiah describes covenant infidelity as rejecting “the spring of living water” for “broken cisterns that cannot hold water” (2:13).

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.

Cities in the OT period that were divinely designated places of asylum to which a manslayer might flee for safety (Exod. 21:12–14). Refuge was provided in these cities for the manslayer from family members of the slain person who were seeking to avenge the death of their relative. According to the principle of lex talionis enshrined in OT revelation and subsequent Israelite law (Gen. 9:5–6; Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17), the death penalty applied to the willful murderer. In ancient Israel the sacred duty of punishing a murderer was placed in the hands of the closest relative of the murdered person (“the avenger of blood”). The manslayer was admitted to the city of refuge only after stating his case before the city’s elders at the city gate (Josh. 20:4–5), for this provision applied only to those implicated in an accidental or unintentional death. This institution gave the accused person an opportunity to stand trial before a legal assembly and possibly be acquitted (Num. 35:12). After the death of the high priest (marking the end of an era), the acquitted manslayer was free to return home (Josh. 20). The manslayer who left the city before that time could be killed by the avenger of blood with impunity. In Deuteronomy, with its “holy land” theology, the safety of a person who accidentally killed another prevented the defilement of the land: “Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the Lord your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed” (Deut. 19:10). More widely, the provision reflects the moral character of the God of Israel and the humane spirit of OT legislation that sought to limit vengeance and the blood feuds that easily resulted.

They were six cities of refuge, chosen out of the forty-eight Levitical cities (Num. 34:6–15). Three of these cities were on the east side of the Jordan River, and three on the west. The cities were well spaced and centrally located, so that there was ready access to a city of refuge wherever a person happened to live in Israelite territory. Roads were to be built to the cities to assist the person fleeing (Deut. 19:3). The eastern cities were set apart by Moses (Deut. 4:41–43), and the western ones by Joshua (Josh. 20). The three in Cisjordan (the Promised Land proper) were, from north to south, Kedesh in Naphtali, Shechem in Ephraim, and Kiriath Arba (= Hebron) in Judah. The matching three cities in Transjordan were, from south to north, Bezer in Reubenite territory, Ramoth in the tribal allotment of Gad, and Golan in Bashan.

This institution extended and broadened the primitive custom of a manslayer finding safety in the sanctuary (Exod. 21:14). In the wilderness period, with all Israel encamped around a central sanctuary, this was all that was required. The entrance into the land and the spreading out of the tribes required the establishment of designated cities of refuge. The earlier custom is reflected in 1 Kings 1:50–53; 2:28–35, wherein Adonijah and Joab, who feared for their lives because of the wrath of Solomon, are described as “clinging to the horns of the altar.” This drastic procedure did not, however, prevent the death of Joab at the hands of Benaiah, Solomon’s executioner. A similar custom of sanctuaries as places of asylum is found in other ancient cultures (e.g., Phoenician, Syrian, Greek, and Roman). This social understanding is also reflected in the Psalter, wherein the temple is described as a place of spiritual refuge (e.g., Pss. 27:5; 31:20; 61:4; 91:1–2).

Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboyim, and Bela (also called “Zoar”), the cities of the plain (Gen. 14:2), were allied together against four kings invading from Mesopotamia. As the battle turned against them, they fled, and some fell into tar pits in the Valley of Siddim. Later, with the exception of Zoar, all these cities suffered cataclysmic destruction as God rained down burning sulfur on the entire plain in judgment against the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19).

The biblical text seems to indicate that these cities were north of the Dead Sea. When Abram and Lot were at Bethel, the land could not support both of their households. Lot was enticed by the well-watered plain of the Jordan Valley, and he moved east and lived near Sodom (Gen. 13:3–13). The sons born to Lot were Moab and Ben-Ammi (19:37–38), whose descendants settled east of the north end of the Dead Sea.

Even so, the traditional view for the past century has located these cities at the southeastern end of the Dead Sea. Surveys of the area near the Lisan Peninsula revealed five cities dating to the Early Bronze Age, the most prominent of which is Bab edh-Dhra’.

In the ancient world, gates played a critical role in the defenses of a city. Gates usually were the weakest point in the walls of a city and therefore often the point of attack for siege armies. For a city to be strong, massive walls were not enough; it had to have strong gates. Archaeological excavations of OT-era cities have uncovered the foundations of very elaborate multichambered gates with multiple levels of defense.

In addition, since gates were the entry point into a city, they made a statement about its power and wealth. Thus, the gates of powerful cities often were elaborately decorated in an attempt to make a statement to all visitors about the splendor and strength of the city.

Gates controlled the entrance and the exit to a city and thus were its lifeline. The one who controlled the gates controlled the city. In some cases the gates to Israelite cities were closed on the Sabbath in order to prohibit the transport of any market goods on the Sabbath. Usually, city gates were closed and guarded at night for protection.

City gates were also the location of judicial courts as well as the place where taxes were collected. Jeremiah 38:7 indicates that the king held court in one of Jerusalem’s gates. When the OT prophets inveigh against injustice, they often refer to the city gates as the place for justice. For example, the prophet Amos cries out, “Hate what is wrong, love what is right! Promote justice at the city gate!” (Amos 5:15 NET).

Thus, the common OT phrase “to sit at the gate” implies that one is ruling the city. For an enemy to “possess the gate” or to “sit at the gate” means that the enemy has captured the city and is currently holding court and ruling over the city. In describing the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, Jeremiah states, “Then all the officials of the king of Babylon came and took seats in the Middle Gate” (Jer. 39:3).

City gates symbolized the critical point of defense of a city as well as the place from which it was ruled and where justice (or injustice) was administered. City gates, therefore, become part of the major prophetic themes running throughout Scripture. Part of God’s promise to Abraham in response to his faithfulness in offering Isaac is that Abraham’s descendants will “possess the gate of their enemies” (Gen. 22:17 NRSV). The prophet Jeremiah stands at a gate in Jerusalem and proclaims to the people that if they will cease profaning the Sabbath by bringing in market produce through the gate on the Sabbath, then God will establish a Davidic king to sit at the gate. But if they persist in violating the Sabbath at the gate, Jeremiah warns, then God will judge them by removing their king from the gate and burning it (Jer. 17:19–27).

In the future, the prophets declare, the situation regarding gates will be very different. When Isaiah looks to the messianic future for Jerusalem, he describes a time when “your gates will always stand open,” implying a time of total peace and safety (Isa. 60:11). Likewise, gates figure prominently in Ezekiel’s vision of the future temple and city of God (Ezek. 40–48).

Gates play a significant role in the book of Nehemiah, combining several of the themes of Isaiah and Jeremiah. After the exile, when Nehemiah returns and rebuilds the walls and gates of Jerusalem, he has to close the gates and guard them tightly at night (7:3), indicating that the time of Isaiah’s promise has not yet come. Likewise, Nehemiah is forced to shut the gates on the Sabbath in order to get the disobedient people to comply with the prohibition of transporting market goods on the Sabbath (13:19). Clearly, this was not the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy either.

In the NT, gates continue to carry symbolic significance. When Peter miraculously escapes from prison, the iron gate to the city “opened for them by itself” (Acts 12:10), probably implying that locked city gates cannot stop the powerful spread of the gospel. On the other hand, in a dramatic rejection of the gospel, when the Jews seize Paul and drag him from the temple in order to kill him, Luke adds a dramatic detail: “and immediately the gates were shut” (Acts 21:30). This probably symbolizes the finality of the official Jewish rejection of the gospel.

In contrast, Rev. 21 paints a picture of the future when the very presence of God in the city eliminates any need for a temple. John’s vision of Jerusalem includes twelve gates to the city (as in Ezekiel). Furthermore, in fulfillment of Isa. 60:11 and in contrast to Nehemiah’s Jerusalem, the gates to the new Jerusalem will remain open perpetually (Rev. 21:25).

Cities in the OT period that were divinely designated places of asylum to which a manslayer might flee for safety (Exod. 21:12–14). Refuge was provided in these cities for the manslayer from family members of the slain person who were seeking to avenge the death of their relative. According to the principle of lex talionis enshrined in OT revelation and subsequent Israelite law (Gen. 9:5–6; Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17), the death penalty applied to the willful murderer. In ancient Israel the sacred duty of punishing a murderer was placed in the hands of the closest relative of the murdered person (“the avenger of blood”). The manslayer was admitted to the city of refuge only after stating his case before the city’s elders at the city gate (Josh. 20:4–5), for this provision applied only to those implicated in an accidental or unintentional death. This institution gave the accused person an opportunity to stand trial before a legal assembly and possibly be acquitted (Num. 35:12). After the death of the high priest (marking the end of an era), the acquitted manslayer was free to return home (Josh. 20). The manslayer who left the city before that time could be killed by the avenger of blood with impunity. In Deuteronomy, with its “holy land” theology, the safety of a person who accidentally killed another prevented the defilement of the land: “Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the Lord your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed” (Deut. 19:10). More widely, the provision reflects the moral character of the God of Israel and the humane spirit of OT legislation that sought to limit vengeance and the blood feuds that easily resulted.

They were six cities of refuge, chosen out of the forty-eight Levitical cities (Num. 34:6–15). Three of these cities were on the east side of the Jordan River, and three on the west. The cities were well spaced and centrally located, so that there was ready access to a city of refuge wherever a person happened to live in Israelite territory. Roads were to be built to the cities to assist the person fleeing (Deut. 19:3). The eastern cities were set apart by Moses (Deut. 4:41–43), and the western ones by Joshua (Josh. 20). The three in Cisjordan (the Promised Land proper) were, from north to south, Kedesh in Naphtali, Shechem in Ephraim, and Kiriath Arba (= Hebron) in Judah. The matching three cities in Transjordan were, from south to north, Bezer in Reubenite territory, Ramoth in the tribal allotment of Gad, and Golan in Bashan.

This institution extended and broadened the primitive custom of a manslayer finding safety in the sanctuary (Exod. 21:14). In the wilderness period, with all Israel encamped around a central sanctuary, this was all that was required. The entrance into the land and the spreading out of the tribes required the establishment of designated cities of refuge. The earlier custom is reflected in 1 Kings 1:50–53; 2:28–35, wherein Adonijah and Joab, who feared for their lives because of the wrath of Solomon, are described as “clinging to the horns of the altar.” This drastic procedure did not, however, prevent the death of Joab at the hands of Benaiah, Solomon’s executioner. A similar custom of sanctuaries as places of asylum is found in other ancient cultures (e.g., Phoenician, Syrian, Greek, and Roman). This social understanding is also reflected in the Psalter, wherein the temple is described as a place of spiritual refuge (e.g., Pss. 27:5; 31:20; 61:4; 91:1–2).

The protection of individual freedoms against government restriction, such as the freedom of expression, press, religion, and assembly (cf. the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution). Those who champion these rights often ground them in liberal ideology, enshrining individual autonomy over against collectivism. However, a Christian worldview better establishes these freedoms and avoids idolizing the self. While God ordains civil authorities as his earthly representatives to restrain evil and administer justice (Rom. 13:1–7; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13), only Jesus Christ reigns as Lord and as judge of the living and the dead (2 Cor. 5:10). Civil liberties are therefore those matters of conscience that a government should leave between individuals and God (Acts 4:19; 5:29). These include how, or whether, they worship him (religious freedom) and reflect the divine image in which they were created (expressive freedom; cf. Gen. 1:26). Thus, by violating civil liberties a government commits a greater sin than restraining personal autonomy: it assumes Christ’s office for itself.

Those individual entitlements protected by a government, such as due process and equal protection under the law (cf. Amendments 13 and 14 of the U.S. Constitution). God gives secular rulers the authority to legislate, enforce, and interpret civil laws; he has therefore entrusted them with administering justice, which includes protecting civil rights (Rom. 13:1–7; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13–14; cf. Matt. 22:21). Until Christ returns to rule his kingdom on earth, the church must defer the protection of civil rights to the state (see John 18:36).

Nonetheless, as Christians preach the gospel, they can embody and promote the principles characteristic of God’s kingdom. Since God created man and woman in his own image and likeness (Gen. 1:26), Christians ought to practice and promote the respect and dignity of all people. All humans bear God’s image regardless of the circumstances of their birth, and whether or not they are Christians. Hence, the Bible explicitly grounds the rights to life (Gen. 9:6) and fair treatment (James 3:9) in the principle of the divine image. For these reasons, believing citizens do well to advocate a society that serves justice regardless of an individual or group’s race, ethnicity, religion, sex, or class.

The word “clan,” translating several Hebrew words, designates a social grouping below the level of the nation or (in Israel) the tribe and above that of the (extended) family (Gen. 10:5; Num. 1:2; Josh. 7:14). Originally based on kinship, the Israelite clans may have developed to some extent into groups with a nonkin component. The clans served as the basis of military enlistment (Num. 1:20) and the division of the land (Num. 33:54; Josh. 13:15–21:45).

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.

In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).

Articles of Clothing

A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.

In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).

Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).

The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il  ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).

In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).

Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).

Special Functions of Clothing

According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).

Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).

Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).

Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.

Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).

Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.

In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).

Articles of Clothing

A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.

In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).

Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).

The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il  ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).

In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).

Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).

Special Functions of Clothing

According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).

Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).

Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).

Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.

Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).