The English word “atonement” comes from an Anglo-Saxon word, “onement,” with the preposition “at”; thus “at-onement,” or “at unity.” In some ways this word has more in common with the idea of reconciliation than our modern concept of atonement, which, while having “oneness” as its result, emphasizes rather the idea of how that unity is achieved, by someone “atone-ing” for a wrong or wrongs done. Atonement, in Christian theology, concerns how Christ achieved this “onement” between God and sinful humanity.

The need for atonement comes from the separation that has come about between God and humanity because of sin. In both Testaments there is the understanding that God has distanced himself from his creatures on account of their rebellion. Isaiah tells the people of Judah, “Your iniquities have separated you from your God” (59:2). And Paul talks about how we were “God’s enemies” (Rom. 5:10). So atonement is the means provided by God to effect reconciliation. The atonement is required on account of God’s holiness and justice.

Old Testament

In the OT, the sacrificial system was the means by which sins were atoned for, ritual purity was restored, iniquities were forgiven, and an amicable relationship between God and the offerer of the sacrifice was reestablished. Moses tells the Israelites that God has given them the blood of the sacrificial animals “to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life” (Lev. 17:11). In essence, this is the basic operating principle for atonement in the OT—the offering of the blood of a slaughtered animal in place of the life of the offerer. However, there have been significant scholarly debates regarding whether this accurately portrays the ancient Israelite understanding of atonement.

The meaning of “to atone.” First, there is disagreement over the precise meaning of the Hebrew word kapar (“to atone”). Among the more popular suggestions are these: to cover, to remove, to wipe out, to appease, to make amends, to redeem or ransom, to forgive, and to avert/divert. Of late, one very influential theory is that atonement has little or nothing to do with the individual offerer, but serves only to purify the tabernacle or temple and the furniture within from the impurities that attach to them on account of the community’s sin. This theory, though most probably correct in what it affirms, unnecessarily restricts the effects of atonement to the tabernacle and furniture. There are, to be sure, texts that specifically mention atonement being made for the altar (e.g., Exod. 29:36–37; Lev. 8:15). But the repeated affirmation for most of the texts in Leviticus and Numbers is that the atonement is made for the offerer (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 4:20, 26); atonement results in forgiveness of sin for the one bringing the offering. As far as the precise meaning of kapar is concerned, it may be that some of the suggested meanings overlap and that a particular concept is more prevalent in some passages, and another one in others.

There has also been debate over the significance of the offerer laying a hand on the head of the sacrificial animal (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 3:2). This has traditionally been understood as an identification of the offerer with the sacrifice and a transference of the offerer’s sins to the sacrifice. Recently this has been disputed and the argument made instead that it only signifies that the animal does indeed belong to the offerer, who therefore has the right to offer it. But again, this is unduly restrictive; it should rather be seen as complementary to what has traditionally been understood by this gesture. Indeed, in the rite for the Day of Atonement, when the priest lays his hands on the one goat, confesses Israel’s sin and wickedness, and in doing so is said to be putting them on the goat’s head (Lev. 16:21), this would seem to affirm the correctness of the traditional understanding. The sacrifice is thus best seen as substitutionary: it takes the place of the offerer; it dies in his stead.

The relationship between God and the offerer. Second, granted that the word kapar has to do with the forgiveness of sins, the question arises as to the exact effect that it has on the relationship between God and the offerer. The question here is whether the effect is expiation or propitiation. Does the offering expiate the sin—wipe it out, erase it, remove it? Or does it propitiate the one to whom the sacrifice is offered? That is, does it appease and placate God, so that the threat of God’s wrath is removed? In one respect, the distinction seems artificial; it seems logical that expiation naturally results in propitiation. On the other hand, the modern-day tendency to deny that God could possibly be a God of wrath makes the question relevant. In any case, there are certainly, in both religious and nonreligious contexts, passages where something like “appease” or “pacify” appears to be a proper rendering of kapar (Gen. 32:20; Exod. 32:30; Num. 16:46–47; 25:1–13; 1 Sam. 3:14). The effect of atonement is that sins are removed and forgiven, and God is appeased.

In conjunction with this last point, it is also important to note that there are a number of places where it is said that God does the kapar, that God is the one who makes atonement. Deuteronomy 21:8 calls upon God, literally, to “atone [NIV: “accept this atonement”] for your people, Israel.” In Deut. 32:43 God will “make atonement for his land and people.” Psalm 65:3 (ESV) states that God “atone[s] for our transgressions” (ESV). Hezekiah prays in 2 Chron. 30:18, “May the Lord, who is good, pardon [atone for] everyone.” In Ps. 78:38 (ESV), God is said to have “atoned” for Israel’s iniquity. Psalm 79:9 (ESV) asks God to “atone for our sins for your name’s sake.” In Isa. 43:3 kapar is translated as “ransom,” and God says to Israel that he gave “Egypt for your ransom.” In Ezek. 16:63 God declares that he will “make atonement” for all the sins that Israel has committed. It may be that in most of these passages “atone” is to be understood as a synonym of “forgive.” However, as many commentators have noted, in at least some of these passages, the thought is that God is either being called upon to take or is taking upon himself the role of high priest, atoning for the sins of the people. It is important to remember God’s declaration in Lev. 17:11 that he has given to the Israelites the blood of the sacrificial animals to make atonement for their sins. Atonement, no matter how it is conceived of or carried out, is a gift that God graciously grants to his covenant people.

That leads to a consideration of one particularly relevant passage, Isa. 52:13–53:12. In this text a figure referred to as “my [the Lord’s] servant” (52:13) is described as one who “took up our pain and bore our suffering” (53:4). He was “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities” (53:5). “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (53:6). And then we are told, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,” and that “the Lord makes his life an offering for sin [NASB: “guilt offering”]” (53:10). There are many issues with regard to the proper interpretation of this “Servant Song” (as it is often called), one of them being whether the term translated “guilt offering” should really be thought of along the lines of the guilt offering described in the book of Leviticus (5:14–6:7; 7:1–10). But if the traditional Christian understanding of this passage is correct, we have here a picture of God himself assuming the role of priest and atoning for the sins of his people by placing their iniquities and sins on his servant, a figure regarded by Jesus and the apostles in the NT to be God’s very own son, Christ Jesus.

New Testament

The relationship between the Testaments. When we come to the NT, four very important initial points should be made.

First, God’s wrath against sin and sinners is just as much a NT consideration as an OT one. God still considers those who are sinful and unrighteous to be his “enemies” (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21). Wrath and punishment await those who do not confess Jesus Christ as Lord (John 3:36; Rom. 2:5; Eph. 2:3). Atonement is the means of averting this wrath.

Second, salvation is promised to those who come to God by faith in Christ Jesus, but there is still the problem of how God can, at the same time, be “just” himself and yet also be the one who “justifies” sinners and declares them righteous (Rom. 3:26). God will not simply declare sinners to be justified unless his own justness is also upheld. Atonement is the way by which God is both just and justifier.

Third, as we saw in the OT that, ultimately, God is the one who atones, so also in the NT God is the one who provides the means for atonement. It is by his gracious initiative that atonement becomes possible. If Jesus’ death is the means by which atonement is achieved, it is God himself who “presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement” (Rom. 3:25). It was God himself who “so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son” (John 3:16). God himself “sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10). God “did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32). Additionally, Christ himself was not an unwilling victim; he was actively involved in the accomplishing of atonement by his death (Luke 9:31; John 10:15–18; Heb. 9:14).

Fourth, the atoning sacrifice of the Son was necessary because, ultimately, the OT sacrifices could not really have provided the necessary atonement: “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4).

Portrayals of Christ’s work of atonement. It has become common of late to refer to the different “images” or “metaphors” of atonement that appear in the NT. This is understandable on one level, but on another level there is something misleading about it. So, for example, when the NT authors speak of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, it is not at all clear that they intend for the reader to take this as imagery. Rather, Christ really is a sacrifice, offered by God the Father, to take away sins, and to bear in his own body the penalty that should have been placed on the sinner. Christ’s sacrifice has an organic connection to the OT sacrificial system, as the “full, final sacrifice.” The author of Hebrews would not have considered this to be imagery. In fact, a better case could be made that, from his perspective, Christ was the real sacrifice, and all the instances of sacrifice in the OT were the imagery (Heb. 10:1). So as we look at the different portrayals of Christ in his work of atonement in the NT, some of these may best be categorized as imagery or metaphor, while others perhaps are better described as a “facet” of, or a “window” on, the atonement. It should also be noted that the individual portrayals do not exclude the others, and in some cases they overlap.

• Ransom. Some passages in the NT speak of Christ’s death as a ransom paid to set us free (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 9:15). The same Greek word translated “ransom” in these passages is rendered as “redeem” or “redemption” in other passages (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Other forms of the same word are also translated “redeem” or “redemption” in Gal. 3:13–14; 4:5; Titus 2:14; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet. 1:18–19; Rev. 14:3. A near synonym of these words is used in Rev. 5:9; 14:4, referring to how Christ “purchased” people by his blood. In most of these cases the picture is that of slaves who have been ransomed, redeemed, or purchased from the slave market. Sometimes this is referred to as an “economic” view of atonement, though this label seems a bit crass, for the purchase is not of a commodity but of human lives at the expense of Christ’s own life and blood. To ask the question as to whom the ransom was paid is probably taking the picture too far. But those who are ransomed are redeemed from a life of slavery to sin and to the law.

• Curse bearer. In Gal. 3:13–14, noted above, there is also the picture of Christ as one who bore the curse of the law in our place. The language is especially striking because rather than saying that Christ bore the curse, Paul says that Christ became “a curse.” This is an especially forceful way of saying that Christ fully took into his own person the curse that was meant for us.

• Penalty bearer. Closely related to “curse bearer,” this portrayal depicts Christ as one who has borne the legal consequences of our sins, consequences that we should have suffered; rather, because Christ has borne the penalty, we are now declared to be righteous and no longer subject to condemnation. This idea stands behind much of the argumentation that Paul uses in Romans and Galatians, and it also intersects with the other portrayals. Passages representative of this picture are Rom. 3:24–26; 4:25; 5:8–21; 8:32–34; Gal. 3:13–14; Eph. 2:15. It is also what should be understood by Peter’s description of Christ’s death as “the just for the unjust” in 1 Pet. 3:18 (NASB, NET), as well as in 2 Cor. 5:21, where Paul states that Christ has become “sin for us” so that we might become the “righteousness of God.”

• Propitiation. There are four passages where the NIV uses “atonement” or “atoning” in the translation to reflect either the Greek verb hilaskomai or related nouns hilastērion or hilasmos. This is the word group that the LXX regularly uses to translate the Hebrew verb kapar and related nouns. There has been much debate about the precise meaning of the word in these four NT texts, in particular, as to whether it means to “expiate” (“remove guilt”) or to “propitiate” (“appease” or “avert wrath”). The better arguments have been advanced in favor of “propitiate”; at the very least, propitiation is implied in expiation. The wrath that we should have suffered on account of our sins has been suffered by Jesus Christ instead. Although the specific word is not used, this is the understanding as well in those passages where it is said either that Christ died “for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3), “gave himself for our sins” (Gal. 1:4), “bore our sins” (1 Pet. 2:24), or that his blood was poured out “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28; cf. Eph. 1:7).

• Passover. In 1 Cor. 5:7 Paul states that “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” Although the Passover has not traditionally been thought of as a sacrifice for sin (though many scholars would argue that it was), at the very least we should recognize a substitutionary concept at play in Paul’s use of the Passover idea. A lamb died so that the firstborn would not. The Gospel of John seems to have the same understanding. Early in the Gospel, Jesus is proclaimed as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). And then in his account of Jesus’ passion, John narrates that his crucifixion was precisely at the same time as the slaying of the Passover lambs (John 19:14).

• Sacrifice. This theme has already been touched on in the other portraits above, but it is important to recognize the significance of this concept in the NT and especially in the book of Hebrews. There, Christ is portrayed as both sacrifice and the high priest who offers the sacrifice (2:17; 7:27; 9:11–28; 10:10–21; 12:24). He came, not as some have argued, to show the uselessness of the sacrificial system, but rather to be the “full, final sacrifice” within that system, “that he might make atonement for the sins of the people” (2:17).

Of course, it is not just the death of Christ that secures our redemption. His entire earthly life, as well as his resurrection and heavenly intercessory work, must also be recognized. But with regard to the work of atonement per se, Christ’s earthly life, his sinless “active obedience,” is what qualifies him to be the perfect sacrifice. His resurrection is the demonstration of God’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice (he “was raised to life for our justification” [Rom. 4:25]). But it was particularly his death that provided atonement for our sins.

The organ of visual perception. The eye is the lamp of the body, so that someone who has a sound or healthy eye can experience light, but someone with a deficient eye experiences only darkness (Matt. 6:22–23). Bright eyes signify alertness and good health (1 Sam. 14:27–29; Ps. 38:10), whereas dim eyes signify poor vision, often from old age (Gen. 27:1; 48:10; 1 Sam. 3:2). Blindness may be cured by opening the eyes (Isa. 35:5; John 9:14), although Paul was blind even with his eyes open (Acts 9:8). To lift or raise the eyes is to take a look around or look toward something (Gen. 13:10; 18:2; John 11:41). To turn the eyes from something is to no longer look at it (Ps. 119:37; Song 6:5; Isa. 22:4). Something hidden from the eyes is unknown (Num. 5:13; Job 28:21; Luke 19:42), but hiding the eyes from something is to ignore it (Isa. 1:15; Ezek. 22:26; cf. Lev. 20:4). The expression “before the eyes” signifies that an event has taken place in the presence of others, and they have witnessed it.

The eye is an important part of the body (1 Cor. 12:16–21). A defective eye disqualified a priest from certain duties (Lev. 21:17–20). A conquering army often gouged out the eyes of the defeated enemy (Judg. 16:21; 2 Kings 25:7), rendering them ineffective in battle (1 Sam. 11:2). Destroying Israel’s eyes is the first among many punishments listed for breaking God’s covenant (Lev. 26:16). Paul testifies that the Galatians cared enough for him even to pluck out their eyes in order to give them to him (Gal. 4:15). The importance of the eye highlights the importance of Jesus’ demand to pluck it out if it causes one to stumble (Matt. 5:29; 18:9).

Perception and enlightenment. Opening eyes is a theme that runs through both Testaments. At times, opening the eyes simply refers to making one aware of previously unknown information. It may be in this sense that the eyes of Adam and Eve are opened, since they become aware of their nakedness (Gen. 3:7). This same kind of opening occurs when God reveals a well to Hagar (Gen. 21:19), when Balaam sees the angel of the Lord standing in his way (Num. 22:31), and when the disciples on the road to Emmaus recognize Jesus (Luke 24:31). This sense is extended into the spiritual realm, so that the eye is used figuratively as the principal organ of spiritual perception. To open or enlighten the eyes in this sense involves one of the following: (1) allowing one to understand spiritual truth in the law of God (Ps. 119:18), prophetic utterance (Num. 24:3), or by the Spirit of God (Eph. 1:18); or (2) leading someone to repentance and conversion (Acts 26:18). These spiritual eyes may also be blinded or closed, hindering the person from repenting (Isa. 6:10; Matt. 13:13; cf. 2 Cor. 4:4).

The eye not only allows one to perceive the world but also helps others perceive the person. David has beautiful eyes, highlighting his handsome appearance (1 Sam. 16:12). Leah has weak eyes, a characteristic that is contrasted to the beautiful appearance of her sister, Rachel (Gen. 29:17). A bountiful eye reveals a generous spirit (Prov. 22:9). Haughty eyes reveal arrogance (Ps. 18:27; Prov. 6:17), as do eyes that are exalted (Ps. 131:1; Prov. 30:13). Eyes may reveal one’s pity for another (Ezek. 16:5), but in the administration of justice, the eye is not allowed to pity or spare, meaning that the law will be executed to its fullest extent (Deut. 7:16; Ezek. 5:11). The eye that mocks a father or a mother reveals a person who holds them in contempt (Prov. 30:17).

Direction and evaluation. The eye also serves as a symbol for direction, care, and vast knowledge. Since the eye allows one to see, it helps set the proper course forward, physically (Num. 10:31) or spiritually (1 John 2:11). The fact that God’s eyes are always upon the land of Israel demonstrates his care for it (Deut. 11:12). Likewise, his eyes are always upon the righteous, ready to help them (Ps. 34:15). Especially in apocalyptic literature, the many eyes of the living creatures are symbols of God’s omniscience (Ezek. 1:18; Rev. 4:6), while the eyes of God in general are symbols of his awareness (1 Kings 9:3; Jer. 32:19; Amos 9:8; Heb. 4:13).

Finally, the eyes are associated with evaluation. The eyes of God often represent his favor or disfavor (Gen. 6:8; Deut. 21:9; 2 Kings 10:30). Those who evaluate themselves in their own eyes are often led astray because the eyes can lead to sinful lust (Num. 15:39; Deut. 12:8; Judg. 17:6; Prov. 3:7; 1 John 2:16).

Contrary to common uses of the word “forgiveness,” which are highly influenced by modernity’s interest in psychology, the biblical concept identifies forgiveness as a theological issue to be understood in relational categories. Biblically speaking, to forgive is less about changing feelings (emotions) and more about an actual restoration of a relationship. It is about making a wrong right, a process that usually is both costly and painful. To capture the biblical sense, the English word “pardon” may prove more helpful.

Terminology

Principally, God forgives by removing the guilt from transgressors and thereby releasing them from their deserved penalty. The OT term kipper speaks to the covering of sin (Deut. 21:8; Ps. 78:38; Jer. 18:23), and its use in connection with sacrifice signifies the idea of atonement. Like salakh, it communicates exclusively God’s forgiveness of humans (Num. 30:5; Amos 7:2). The term nasa’ refers to the removal of guilt, God lifting the burden of sin from the sinner (Exod. 32:32; Num. 14:19), but it also can be used of forgiveness between humans (Gen. 50:17).

In the NT, verbs such as aphiēmi (noun aphesis) and apolyō connote the idea of sending away or releasing, whereas (epi)kalyptō expresses the idea of covering. Other terms, such as paresis (“passing over” [Rom. 3:25]) further extend the idea of God’s forgiveness: debt is canceled; God is exercising his forbearing love. Paul’s preferred term is charizomai, which underscores the close correlation between grace and forgiveness (Rom. 8:32; Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13; 3:13).

God’s Forgiveness

Forgiveness expresses the character of the merciful God, who eagerly pardons sinners who confess their sins, repent of their transgressions, and express this through proper actions. Forgiveness is never a matter of a human right; it is exclusively a gracious expression of God’s loving care. Human need for forgiveness stems from actions arising from their fallen nature. These actions (or nonactions), whether done deliberately or coincidentally, destroy people’s relationship with God and can be restored only by God’s forgiving mercy (Eph. 2:1).

Under the Mosaic covenant, sin placed offenders under God’s wrath among the ungodly. Rescue from this fate could be obtained by God’s forgiveness alone, which was attained through repentance and sacrifice. Although sacrifice was necessary to express true repentance, it is a mistake to consider it a payment that could purchase God’s forgiveness (1 Sam. 15:22; Prov. 21:3; Eccles. 5:1; Hos. 6:6). The forgiveness of God remains his free, undeserved gift.

Although the sacrificial system is done away with, or rather completed, through Christ (Heb. 10:12), NT teaching continues to recognize conditions for forgiveness. Since forgiveness restores relationship, the offender remains involved and must desire the restoration (Luke 13:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38). God does not grant his forgiveness without consideration of the offending party.

Jesus expresses this most clearly in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11–24). The son rebels against his father, squanders his wealth, and violates their relationship. The gracious and loving father remains willing to restore the relationship, but the reunion does not occur until the prodigal replaces rebellion with repentance; then, before he can even utter his sorrow, the eager father welcomes him back to a restored relationship. God remains free to forgive or not forgive, but sinners can rest assured of God’s relationship-restoring forgiveness when they seek it in repentance. The forgiveness that God grants is full and restores things to an “as before” situation (cf. Ps. 103:12; Jer. 31:34), a point that the older son in the parable (Luke 15:25–32), who exemplifies religious self-righteousness, did not comprehend.

Human Forgiveness

The biblical description of forgiveness between humans is rooted in this theological understanding and articulates a clear analogy between divine and human forgiveness. Human relationship with God provides a pattern for their relationship to each other (Matt. 5:23–24; 6:12, 14–15). They forgive because they have been forgiven (Luke 7:41–47; Col. 3:13). If, or when, their forgiveness of others remains absent, it questions, or even jeopardizes, their own relationship with God (Matt. 18:22–35).

Again, since forgiveness is a theological matter, the one being wronged remains obligated to work for the restoration of the relationship even if the wrongdoer does not repent. The one wronged should seek to win the offender back by showing mercy and eagerness to forgive as learned from God (Rom. 12:19–20). There is no formula for this God-inspired forgiveness and no limit to its zeal. Jesus met Peter’s suggestion that the offer of forgiveness could be exhausted with an unequivocal no (Matt. 18:21–22). The offended must offer forgiveness every time the wrongdoer asks for it (Luke 17:3–4).

Most radical is the biblical mandate to forgive enemies. The OT often follows the common ancient Near Eastern notion that enemies are expressions of foreign deities, whom their own god(s) desires to destroy. It was therefore unimaginable that Israel (or Yahweh) should forgive a pagan god (e.g., Ps. 137:8–9). Jesus transforms this thinking and makes forgiveness a Christian duty (Matt. 5:43–48; cf. Rom. 12:20).

A young cow, typically one that has not produced offspring. Heifers assisted people by plowing (Deut. 21:3) and producing milk, which could be curdled into cheese (Isa. 7:21). Samson compares the animal allegorically to his wife (Judg. 14:18). Jeremiah does the same with Egypt, which will be tormented by a Babylonian gadfly (Jer. 46:20). Hosea compares Israel to a stubborn heifer (Hos. 4:16). The lives of heifers were required for special sacrifices (Gen. 15:9; 1 Sam. 16:1–2). Their sacrifice also purged bloodguilt from the land as a consequence of murder when the culprit was unknown (Deut. 21:1–8). Through an elaborate ritual, the ashes of a red heifer were mixed with water for purification from uncleanness caused by coming into contact with a corpse (Num. 19:1–22; cf. Heb. 9:13).

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

Heaven and Earth

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

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

The Theology of Land

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

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

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

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

Inheritance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A process of purifying, cleansing, or eliminating. One underlying Hebrew term, ba’ar, means “to burn” and is used to describe the removal of evil persons or things (such as idols) from Israel (Deut. 13:5; 2 Kings 23:24 [cf. taher in 2 Chron. 34:3]). “Purge” is sometimes used to translate the idea of atonement (Deut. 21:9).

Ablutions include a variety of practices found primarily in the OT through which persons washed in order to participate in the most important activities of the community, usually worship. Although terms referring to washing cover a variety of purposes, such as cleansing the hands or bathing (Gen. 18:4; Ruth 3:3; Acts 16:33; 2 Pet. 2:22), when one speaks of ablutions, the focus is upon the necessary tasks of cleansing after suffering separation from participation in the worship of the assembly because of some impurity (Deut. 21:1–9).

Sometimes ablutions were performed as a means of preparing a person for an activity of heightened importance. The priests of the OT underwent such cleansings, though they were not impure in the usual sense of the word (Exod. 30:19–21). The imagery communicated by such practices expressed the extreme holiness necessary to serve God and his people. Indeed, the sense of holiness and purity that pervaded the sacred rites of the OT was a major motivation for all levels of ablutions. For these heightened moments, however, the biblical record goes into extra detail concerning the process by which one could be washed. Special care was taken to avoid recontamination of the priest, the sacred instruments, or the camp itself, which would interfere with or render useless the rite that had been carried out (Lev. 16:4, 24, 26, 28). As with all ceremonial rites, however, the biblical interest is focused more upon the attitude and the heart of the worshiper than the rite itself. The integrity and the holiness of the participant were the true test of standing pure before God, not the ritual of cleansing (Ps. 24:3–6; Isa. 1:11–16).

In the NT, the pattern of emphasis on the inner person begun in the OT received further expression. In the book of Mark, one of the conflict passages recounts an encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding the extent of ritual cleansing necessary in one’s life (7:1–16). Jesus proclaimed, in full harmony with the OT, that it has always been the character of the individual that made a person clean or unclean, and that the washings of old were symbolic of that status, not determinative of it. Despite this, it seems that Jewish Christians of the first century chose to continue the practice of ritual washings. The writer of Hebrews argues that the use of such is both an illustration of the pure life (10:22) and a practice that may be considered unnecessary in light of what Christ had accomplished through his perfect work (6:2; 9:10).

Generally speaking, the source of washing for such ceremonial cleansing had to be “living water”; that is, it had to be moving. This could be obtained by pouring the water, by visiting a dedicated ceremonial bath, or by carrying out the washing in a location that already had moving water, such as a river. There is little question, based upon the similarities of early baptismal practices and the ceremonial baths uncovered at Qumran and elsewhere, that NT baptism draws many of its intentions and expressions from the OT ablutions. As such, the same observations about washings made above can be drawn concerning baptism. It is symbolic of an internal reality (Eph. 5:26); it is intended as a means of expressing community between the participant and the greater body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13); and it is reflective of a higher calling of Christ to live holy lives (Acts 10:47).

Ablutions include a variety of practices found primarily in the OT through which persons washed in order to participate in the most important activities of the community, usually worship. Although terms referring to washing cover a variety of purposes, such as cleansing the hands or bathing (Gen. 18:4; Ruth 3:3; Acts 16:33; 2 Pet. 2:22), when one speaks of ablutions, the focus is upon the necessary tasks of cleansing after suffering separation from participation in the worship of the assembly because of some impurity (Deut. 21:1–9).

Sometimes ablutions were performed as a means of preparing a person for an activity of heightened importance. The priests of the OT underwent such cleansings, though they were not impure in the usual sense of the word (Exod. 30:19–21). The imagery communicated by such practices expressed the extreme holiness necessary to serve God and his people. Indeed, the sense of holiness and purity that pervaded the sacred rites of the OT was a major motivation for all levels of ablutions. For these heightened moments, however, the biblical record goes into extra detail concerning the process by which one could be washed. Special care was taken to avoid recontamination of the priest, the sacred instruments, or the camp itself, which would interfere with or render useless the rite that had been carried out (Lev. 16:4, 24, 26, 28). As with all ceremonial rites, however, the biblical interest is focused more upon the attitude and the heart of the worshiper than the rite itself. The integrity and the holiness of the participant were the true test of standing pure before God, not the ritual of cleansing (Ps. 24:3–6; Isa. 1:11–16).

In the NT, the pattern of emphasis on the inner person begun in the OT received further expression. In the book of Mark, one of the conflict passages recounts an encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding the extent of ritual cleansing necessary in one’s life (7:1–16). Jesus proclaimed, in full harmony with the OT, that it has always been the character of the individual that made a person clean or unclean, and that the washings of old were symbolic of that status, not determinative of it. Despite this, it seems that Jewish Christians of the first century chose to continue the practice of ritual washings. The writer of Hebrews argues that the use of such is both an illustration of the pure life (10:22) and a practice that may be considered unnecessary in light of what Christ had accomplished through his perfect work (6:2; 9:10).

Generally speaking, the source of washing for such ceremonial cleansing had to be “living water”; that is, it had to be moving. This could be obtained by pouring the water, by visiting a dedicated ceremonial bath, or by carrying out the washing in a location that already had moving water, such as a river. There is little question, based upon the similarities of early baptismal practices and the ceremonial baths uncovered at Qumran and elsewhere, that NT baptism draws many of its intentions and expressions from the OT ablutions. As such, the same observations about washings made above can be drawn concerning baptism. It is symbolic of an internal reality (Eph. 5:26); it is intended as a means of expressing community between the participant and the greater body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13); and it is reflective of a higher calling of Christ to live holy lives (Acts 10:47).

Ancient court systems reflected the needs, values, and structures of the broader society. Not surprisingly, the court systems in nomadic and urban societies are quite different. Nomadic courts were more informal, based more on custom than law. The context of nomadic justice was located primarily within the family and clan. Those with disputes sought out elders and wise leaders to settle them. Urban court systems used more-fixed institutions of judges under the supervision of priests and kings. Even in an urban system the court functioned on a case-by-case basis and drew little or no distinction between criminal and civil offenses. Cases dealt primarily with an injury and the compensation for the injury. The basic process involved stating a case before a judge, each side calling witnesses, and the judge giving a judgment.

Old Testament

Courts in ancient Israel reflected features of both nomadic and urban court systems as well as the broader judicial practices of the ancient Near East. In ancient Israel a case could be tried by the elders, a judge, a priest, or the king. The elders were heads of families and leading citizens. They sat at the city gate (Prov. 31:23), where they heard cases (Ruth 4:1–12), oversaw property transactions (Gen. 23:10–20), settled disputes, and imposed penalties (Deut. 22:18–19). As Israelite society developed, judges were appointed from each tribe and town to administer justice (Deut. 16:18). If a case was too difficult, the judge could transfer the case to a higher court and judge (Exod. 18:21–22). Once a higher court gave a verdict, the participants and lower courts were bound by the decision (Deut. 17:8–13). Priests distinguished between the holy and the common, between clean and unclean (Lev. 10:10). However, they could judge all types of cases, not just religious ones (Deut. 21:5; Ezek. 44:23–24).

With the establishment of the monarchy, the king became the highest judge, and the elders and priests became minor judges. David appointed judges from the Levites over all Israel to administer justice (1 Chron. 26:29), but he also heard cases himself. Solomon provided the quintessential example of a wise judge as he settled the case of the two women and the one remaining child (1 Kings 3:16–28). Solomon moved the court from the city gate to the “Hall of Justice” in his palace (1 Kings 7:7). Jehoshaphat reformed Judah’s court system and established two courts, one over cases concerning God, the other over cases concerning the king (2 Chron. 19:5–11).

The OT does not provide a detailed description of the Israelite court procedures; however, glimpses into the procedures can be pieced together from several passages. Whether at the city gate, sanctuary, or palace, a private person who appeared as a plaintiff initiated the judicial action (Deut. 25:7–8). The parties stood before the judge, while the judge was seated (Deut. 19:17). However, the judge stood to pronounce judgment (Isa. 3:13). The plaintiff was the satan, “accuser” or “adversary” (Ps. 109:6). The accusation could be given orally (Isa. 41:21) or in writing (Job 31:35–36). There was no public prosecutor or defender. Each party brought its own case and witnesses. A conviction required at least two witnesses (Num. 35:30; Deut. 19:15). Witnesses accepted responsibility for the sentence, which is why they had to throw the first stones when such a penalty was in order (Deut. 17:7; John 8:7). If they provided false testimony, they faced the punishment for the crime about which they testified. Each side could produce physical evidence to make its case (Deut. 22:13–17). If a case lacked sufficient evidence or witnesses, an oath or an ordeal could be undertaken to support one’s case (Exod. 22:6–10). At times, lots were cast to select a guilty individual (Josh. 7:14–15) or to end a quarrel (Prov. 18:18). After everything had been examined, the judge acquitted the innocent and condemned the guilty (Deut. 25:1). Depending upon the crime, the penalty could be a fine, compensation, bodily punishment, or even death. Jail was primarily used for those awaiting trial and not as a punishment. If evidence and witnesses were lacking and a murder went unsolved, then a sacrifice was made to declare the community’s innocence and to atone for the community (Deut. 21:1–8).

Ideally, judges were just, righteous, fair, and defenders of the weak (Deut. 16:18–20). Unfortunately, multiple examples exist of false witnesses (Deut. 19:18) and corrupt judges who accepted bribes, perverted justice, and showed favoritism (Exod. 23:3, 8; Mic. 3:11). Ultimately, God was the supreme judge of all, protector of the weak, just, and no respecter of persons.

New Testament

During the NT period numerous lesser Sanhedrins, or councils, administered justice in Jewish communities. The lesser Sanhedrins consisted of twenty-three members, but the one in Jerusalem, the Great Sanhedrin, consisted of the high priest and seventy members comprised of priests, scribes, elders, and laity from among the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Great Sanhedrin was the supreme legislative and judicial body, and it wielded its own police force (Acts 5:24–26). The Romans allowed the Great Sanhedrin broad authority over internal and religious matters, but they limited its ability to exercise capital punishment (John 18:31). The deaths of Stephen and James were probably lynchings rather than formal executions. Clearly, the Great Sanhedrin had the authority to administer corporal punishment (2 Cor. 11:24).

The Mishnah provides insight into the Great Sanhedrin’s judicial procedure. However, several of the procedures stand in tension with the procedures described in the Gospels concerning Jesus’ trial. Cases were to be heard only during the day, but at least a hearing into the charges facing Jesus occurred at night. The proceedings against Jesus were held at the high priest’s palace instead of properly at the court (John 18:13). Capital cases could not be heard the day before the Sabbath or a festival, but Jesus was condemned on Friday during Passover.

The trials of Jesus and Paul fit well with what is known about Roman law. Roman regional rulers heard cases involving public order but usually left smaller issues in the hands of local courts. For example, Pilate, a prefect, initially wanted to release Jesus, and Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, refused to hear the charges against Paul. Such officials could also delay a decision for extended periods of time. Hoping to receive a bribe, the procurator Felix held Paul for two years without a judgment (Acts 24:26). Roman officials also had the discretion to send defendants to their home province. Pilate sent Jesus to Herod because Jesus was from Galilee, and Felix inquired about Paul’s home in Cilicia. When hearing a case, the Roman official gave the defendant and the accuser opportunities to make their respective cases and to call witnesses. Pilate gave Jesus an opportunity to defend himself, and Festus explained that it is “not the Roman custom” to condemn someone who has not yet faced the accusers and put on a defense against their charges (Acts 25:16). As a Roman citizen, Paul was afforded rights in the court system. When Paul was imprisoned and beaten without trial, he demanded an apology from the Philippian officials (16:37). Paul’s Roman citizenship also gave him the right to appeal to Caesar (25:11).

Paul expected Christians to abide by the decisions of the courts (Rom. 13:1–3), but he also encouraged Christians to avoid taking other Christians to court (1 Cor. 6:1–11) because they should be able to settle disputes within the church.

The descendants of Anak, the Anakites (NRSV: “Anakim”), known for their height (Deut. 2:10, 21; 9:2), inhabited the Judean hill country when Israelite spies entered the land (Num. 13:21–33; Deut. 1:28). The spies viewed them as Nephilim (Num. 13:33; cf. Gen. 6:4). Arba, a hero among the Anakites, gave his name to Kiriath Arba (Josh. 14:15), later Hebron (Josh. 15:13–14; Judg. 1:20). The Anakites were related to the Rephaites, originally from the regions of Moab and Ammon but destroyed by the time of the conquest (Deut. 2:10–11, 20–21). After Joshua completely destroyed Anakite habitations in the hill country, remnants moved westward and lived in the Philistine cities of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Josh. 11:21–22).

Numbers 5:11–31 describes a judicial ordeal for determining whether a wife has been unfaithful. In the course of the ritual, the wife suspected of wrongdoing is to drink water mixed with dirt from the floor of the tabernacle, thus made “bitter” (Heb. mar; Num. 5:18), and in which a scroll containing curses has been washed (so that the water also contains the ink of the scroll). In the event that the woman was guilty of unfaithfulness, this concoction was intended to transfer to her body the curses against her. Deuteronomy 21:1–9 may represent a second judicial ordeal involving water, though bitterness is not involved. The names “En Mishpat” (“spring of judgment” [Gen. 14:7]) and “En Rogel” (“spring of inquiry” [e.g., Josh. 15:7]) may also refer to the use of water for divination or ordeal.

Shortly after crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites came to Marah (“bitterness”), where the waters were bitter and not potable. Moses was divinely instructed to throw a piece of wood in the water, rendering it sweet and drinkable (Exod. 15:23–25), the first of several divine provisions of drinking water in the desert. Revelation 8:11 depicts apocalyptic divine judgment in terms of bitter or poisoned water. In both of these passages, bitterness is effected or removed by the combination of wood and water: “wormwood” (Gk. apsinthos, a bitter substance derived from the wood of a particular shrub). The image of Rev. 8:11 recalls a similar divine threat in Jer. 9:15; 23:15.

Jeremiah is the second of the Major Prophets, after Isaiah and before Ezekiel, an order determined by the chronology of the beginning of their prophetic work. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were basically contemporaries, but the latter began his ministry after Jeremiah. The book of Jeremiah is the longest of the prophets (21,835 words), compared to Ezekiel (18,730 words) and Isaiah (16,932 words). Readers ancient and modern are attracted to the book not only by its stirring message but also because Jeremiah is the most transparent of all the prophetic personalities, often referred to as the Weeping Prophet.

Historical Background

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

On the one hand, there is no good reason to question the existence of the historical Jeremiah or the attribution to him of the prophecy that bears his name. On the other hand, the text indicates that the book was not written at one sitting but rather is the product of a process. Chapter 36 mentions that the prophet wrote down his sermons in 605 BC, and when King Jehoiakim burned the scroll, the narrator relates that Jeremiah again dictated them to Baruch, who wrote them all down, and Jeremiah added many more oracles (36:32). The book describes a close relationship between Jeremiah and his associate Baruch. It is possible that the stories about Jeremiah were written down and added by this close friend.

Ancient Near Eastern historical context. When Jeremiah started his prophetic work in 626 BC, the world was undergoing major political change. Assyria had been the dominant superpower for the preceding centuries. It had incorporated the northern kingdom of Israel into its vast empire in 722 BC, and Judah had been forced to pay tribute. In 626 BC, however, Babylon began its rebellion against Assyria. Nabopolassar, a Chaldean chieftain, now king of Babylon, threw off the yoke of Assyrian bondage, and over what was almost two decades he eradicated Assyria and inherited the empire.

In 626 BC Josiah was king of Judah. His father, Amon, and his grandfather Manasseh had been evil kings, promoting false worship. But Josiah served Yahweh, and soon before Jeremiah began his work, the king began to purify the religious institutions of Judah (2 Chron. 34:3b–7). Jeremiah’s early ministry then occurred in an environment that would find support from the royal court. In 609 BC, however, Josiah tried to block Necho of Egypt from reinforcing the remnants of Assyria against Babylon and in the process lost his life. Although the Egyptians were unsuccessful in helping Assyria survive, they were able to exercise control over Judah and placed a pro-Egyptian king, Jehoiakim, on the throne. Even so, by 605 BC Egypt could not stop Babylon under their new king, Nebuchadnezzar, from demanding that Judah be their vassal (Dan. 1:1–3). Jehoiakim revolted against Babylon in 597 BC. By the time the avenging Babylonian army arrived, Jehoiakim was gone, replaced by his son Jehoiachin. The latter was promptly deported to Babylon and replaced by Zedekiah. The book of Jeremiah records that both Jehoiakim and Zedekiah were determined opponents of the prophet. In any case, Zedekiah too eventually rebelled against Babylon, and this time Nebuchadnezzar not only captured and exiled many leaders but also systematically destroyed the city. He then incorporated Judah into his empire as a province and appointed a Judean governor, Gedaliah. Jeremiah 40–44 describes how Jewish insurgents assassinated Gedaliah and killed off the Babylonian garrison troops. Many of the remaining Jewish people then fled to Egypt against God’s will as announced by Jeremiah, who was forced to go with them.

These events provide the background to the prophetic oracles and the actions narrated in the book of Jeremiah. Some of Jeremiah’s words and actions are specifically dated to these events, while others are not dated.

Text

Jeremiah is one of the few books of the OT that present a significant text-critical issue. The main Hebrew text (the MT) is clearly different from the Greek text. The latter is about one-eighth shorter than the former, lacking about 2,700 words. In addition, the order of the book is different. The oracles against the foreign nations are chapters 46–51 in the Hebrew but are found right after 25:13 in the Greek. The DSS attest to early Hebrew manuscripts that reflect the Greek tradition, and therefore we cannot attribute the difference to translation error or intentional rearrangement. A better solution is to remember that the book of Jeremiah as we know it in the Hebrew is the result of a long history of composition. The Greek text may reflect an earlier shorter version. The longer Hebrew text then represents the final authoritative edition of the book and is rightly used for modern translations.

Literary Types

The book as a whole is a compendium of prophetic oracles and stories about Jeremiah. The following distinct literary types are found in the book.

Poetical prophetic oracles of judgment and salvation. Chapters 2–25 are composed primarily of poetic oracles of judgment directed toward God’s people. They are God’s words to his people uttered by the prophet. Chapters 46–51 are also judgment oracles, but these are directed toward foreign nations such as Egypt and Babylon. Although salvation oracles are found in the first part of the book, chapters 30–31 form a striking collection of such oracles, the best known of which is the anticipation of the new covenant (31:31–34).

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

Prose oracles. Jeremiah’s oracles come in the form of prose as well as poetry. Similarities have been drawn between these oracles (a good example is 7:1–8:3) and the theology of the book of Deuteronomy. Some want to use this similarity to deny a connection with the historical Jeremiah, but there is no good reason to deny that Jeremiah could reflect the theology of this foundational book.

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

Prophetic sign-acts. Perhaps a special category of biographical material is the description of events and acts of Jeremiah’s that carry prophetic significance. A good example is 13:1–11, which narrates Jeremiah’s trip to the Euphrates River to bury his dirty underwear.

Outline

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

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

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

B Summary (25:1–14)

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

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

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

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

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

E. Account of the exile (39:1–44:30)

F. Oracle to Baruch (45:1–5)

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

IV. Epilogue (52:1–34)

Structure

The book of Jeremiah does not have a clearly delineated structure. In this respect, Jeremiah is not unique among the prophets. Nonetheless, we may still make some general observations about the shape of the book and its large sections, even though we cannot always account for why one oracle follows another. When they are given chronological indicators, they are not arranged sequentially.

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

Within these two large sections we can recognize blocks of material. Chapter 1 introduces the prophet, recounts his call, and presents two undated oracles that serve to introduce important themes of the book.

Chapters 2–24 follow as a collection of sermons, poetic and prose oracles, and prophetic sign-acts that are undated. Indeed, it is often difficult to tell when one oracle ends and another begins. It is likely that these are the oracles that come from the first part of the prophet’s ministry, that is, his first scroll, described in chapter 36.

After chapter 25 summarizes the first part of the book and turns attention to the judgment against the nations, a block of prose material follows consisting of stories about Jeremiah as well as reports of oracles (chaps. 26–29).

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

Chapters 34–38 return to prose stories about Jeremiah and oracles of judgment. This section culminates with the first account of the fall of Jerusalem.

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

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

Theological Message

Jeremiah is a complex book with many themes. One of the central ideas, however, is covenant. The Bible often uses the idea of a covenant to describe the relationship between God and his people. A covenant is a divinely initiated and defined agreement. God makes promises and calls on his people to observe certain requirements. Research has found that the biblical covenants are close in form and concept to ancient Near Eastern treaties between the kings of superpowers and those of much less powerful nations (vassal treaties). The powerful, sovereign king announces the law to the vassal, and it is accompanied by curses and blessings. If the vassal obeys, then the king gives a reward, but if the vassal disobeys, then the king issues punishment.

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

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

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

New Testament Connections

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

The new covenant replaces the old. This is the argument of the book of Hebrews, which twice cites the relevant passage in Jeremiah to make the point (Heb. 8:8–12; 10:15–17; see also 2 Cor. 3). According to the author of Hebrews, the old covenant failed not because of a defect in God or his instrument but because of the people (Heb. 8:8). They consistently broke that covenant by disobeying the law explicated in the covenant with Moses. As a result, as Jeremiah himself announced, the people would be expelled from the land (reversing the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant), bringing to conclusion the monarchy, which is a provision of the Davidic covenant.

Burial can refer to the ritual, body preparation, or interment.

Burial rites. Genesis in particular uses some formulaic phrases: “died and was gathered to his people” and “rest with [one’s] fathers/ancestors” (25:8; 35:29; 47:30; 49:33; cf. Job 14:10). In Abraham’s death (Gen. 25:8), this “gathering” does not refer to his actual burial, since it occurs between his death and burial; nor was Abraham ever buried with his ancestors (cf. Num. 20:26 [Aaron]; Deut. 32:50 [Moses]). This idiom refers to joining one’s ancestors in the realm of the dead. With communal notions, the phrase also refers to elements of family burial (similarly, “gathered to your people” [Num. 27:13]; “gathered to their ancestors” [Judg. 2:10]).

In Jacob’s obituary he “gathered up” his feet and then was “gathered” to his people (Gen. 49:33 KJV), rich imagery because he had “gathered” his sons (cf. 49:1). This expression is also used of depositing the human remains in a collective family burial site (Judg. 2:10; 2 Kings 22:20; cf. Jer. 25:33).

In the genealogically sensitive books of Kings and Chronicles a formula is used for the kings: “X rested with his ancestors and was buried in Y.” Here, “Y” can denote a place such as the City of David (1 Kings 2:10; 11:43; 14:31; 2 Chron. 16:13–14). Authors depart from this formula in order to describe a person’s desecration, such as Jezebel; the dogs consumed her except for her skull, hands, and feet (2 Kings 9:37; cf. 1 Kings 21:23–24).

Jacob and Joseph receive specialized Egyptian embalming. Embalming preserved a more holistic persona through use of special fluids and wrappings for seventy days (Gen. 50:2–3, 26). Death usually required immediate burial, even for criminals (Deut. 21:1–9, 22–23; 1 Kings 13:24–30). Outside Israel, the inclusion of grave utensils (e.g., juglets, cooking pots, bowls, and jewelry) with the deceased was indicative of a person’s status and needs in the afterlife. The OT prophets forbade certain practices of mourning such as self-mutilation (Lev. 21:1–6; cf. Amos 6:6–7).

In the NT, burial could include treatment with spices for odorific and purification reasons (Luke 23:56; John 19:40). Placed on a bench (mishkab, “resting place”), the body was covered in wrappings and a special facecloth (John 11:44). Familial respect required demonstration of grief with laments (Acts 8:2; cf. 1 Kings 13:29–30; Jer. 9:17–22).

Specific locations. In the OT, burial occurred in cemeteries, shaft tombs, rock-hewn tombs, or natural caves. The wealthy procured burial sites for their posterity (Gen. 23:3–20). Middle and Late Bronze Age (2200–1200 BC) examples have been excavated at Jericho, Gibeon, and Hazor. In a process known as secondary burial, older remains were moved to a repository in the rear of the cave to clear room for a new corpse (cf. Matt. 8:21–22). Only Rachel was not buried in the cave of Machpelah (Gen. 35:19–20). Her “stone pillar” may be a rock cairn, in which the body is interred beneath a mound of stones. Well-known landmarks, such as trees, identified the graves of others (Gen. 35:8 [Deborah]; 1 Sam. 31:11–13 [Saul]).

Iron Age I sites (1200–1000 BC) could mark tribal territories (Judg. 8:32), like Joseph’s bones at Shechem (Josh. 24:32). Iron Age II sites (1000–586 BC) show the royal tombs of kings in their capitals or ancestral areas, be it a special garden or Samaria (2 Kings 21:18, 26; 13:13). An inscription was found along the Kidron naming the owner, Shebna (Isa. 22:15–16). Such tombs often included a charnel pit. Here, older bones were placed as more recent corpses were laid out on the bench above the pit. The poor usually were consigned to public cemeteries. The Hellenistic period (332–53 BC) saw the use of shaft tombs. With a sloping entry into a burial chamber, a shaft tomb often contained perpendicular niches (kokhim) for individual bodies. These tombs were common along the coastal plain and sites such as Dor, Gezer, and Lachish.

In the intertestamental period, elaborate structures, arcosolia, were built above or adjacent to the entry, such as Jason’s tomb in southwestern Jerusalem. The loculus was a second type with a central chamber and three sprawling kokhim. The Herodian period employed a strategic entrance guarded with a rolling stone four to five feet in diameter, like that used for Jesus. During the Roman period (37 BC–AD 367), stone sarcophagi (lit., “flesh eaters”) were used, and such have been excavated at Beth She’arim and Jerusalem. Later, bones were placed in ossuaries (boxes for bones) after the corpse had decayed in the burial niche.

Burial can refer to the ritual, body preparation, or interment.

Burial rites. Genesis in particular uses some formulaic phrases: “died and was gathered to his people” and “rest with [one’s] fathers/ancestors” (25:8; 35:29; 47:30; 49:33; cf. Job 14:10). In Abraham’s death (Gen. 25:8), this “gathering” does not refer to his actual burial, since it occurs between his death and burial; nor was Abraham ever buried with his ancestors (cf. Num. 20:26 [Aaron]; Deut. 32:50 [Moses]). This idiom refers to joining one’s ancestors in the realm of the dead. With communal notions, the phrase also refers to elements of family burial (similarly, “gathered to your people” [Num. 27:13]; “gathered to their ancestors” [Judg. 2:10]).

In Jacob’s obituary he “gathered up” his feet and then was “gathered” to his people (Gen. 49:33 KJV), rich imagery because he had “gathered” his sons (cf. 49:1). This expression is also used of depositing the human remains in a collective family burial site (Judg. 2:10; 2 Kings 22:20; cf. Jer. 25:33).

In the genealogically sensitive books of Kings and Chronicles a formula is used for the kings: “X rested with his ancestors and was buried in Y.” Here, “Y” can denote a place such as the City of David (1 Kings 2:10; 11:43; 14:31; 2 Chron. 16:13–14). Authors depart from this formula in order to describe a person’s desecration, such as Jezebel; the dogs consumed her except for her skull, hands, and feet (2 Kings 9:37; cf. 1 Kings 21:23–24).

Jacob and Joseph receive specialized Egyptian embalming. Embalming preserved a more holistic persona through use of special fluids and wrappings for seventy days (Gen. 50:2–3, 26). Death usually required immediate burial, even for criminals (Deut. 21:1–9, 22–23; 1 Kings 13:24–30). Outside Israel, the inclusion of grave utensils (e.g., juglets, cooking pots, bowls, and jewelry) with the deceased was indicative of a person’s status and needs in the afterlife. The OT prophets forbade certain practices of mourning such as self-mutilation (Lev. 21:1–6; cf. Amos 6:6–7).

In the NT, burial could include treatment with spices for odorific and purification reasons (Luke 23:56; John 19:40). Placed on a bench (mishkab, “resting place”), the body was covered in wrappings and a special facecloth (John 11:44). Familial respect required demonstration of grief with laments (Acts 8:2; cf. 1 Kings 13:29–30; Jer. 9:17–22).

Specific locations. In the OT, burial occurred in cemeteries, shaft tombs, rock-hewn tombs, or natural caves. The wealthy procured burial sites for their posterity (Gen. 23:3–20). Middle and Late Bronze Age (2200–1200 BC) examples have been excavated at Jericho, Gibeon, and Hazor. In a process known as secondary burial, older remains were moved to a repository in the rear of the cave to clear room for a new corpse (cf. Matt. 8:21–22). Only Rachel was not buried in the cave of Machpelah (Gen. 35:19–20). Her “stone pillar” may be a rock cairn, in which the body is interred beneath a mound of stones. Well-known landmarks, such as trees, identified the graves of others (Gen. 35:8 [Deborah]; 1 Sam. 31:11–13 [Saul]).

Iron Age I sites (1200–1000 BC) could mark tribal territories (Judg. 8:32), like Joseph’s bones at Shechem (Josh. 24:32). Iron Age II sites (1000–586 BC) show the royal tombs of kings in their capitals or ancestral areas, be it a special garden or Samaria (2 Kings 21:18, 26; 13:13). An inscription was found along the Kidron naming the owner, Shebna (Isa. 22:15–16). Such tombs often included a charnel pit. Here, older bones were placed as more recent corpses were laid out on the bench above the pit. The poor usually were consigned to public cemeteries. The Hellenistic period (332–53 BC) saw the use of shaft tombs. With a sloping entry into a burial chamber, a shaft tomb often contained perpendicular niches (kokhim) for individual bodies. These tombs were common along the coastal plain and sites such as Dor, Gezer, and Lachish.

In the intertestamental period, elaborate structures, arcosolia, were built above or adjacent to the entry, such as Jason’s tomb in southwestern Jerusalem. The loculus was a second type with a central chamber and three sprawling kokhim. The Herodian period employed a strategic entrance guarded with a rolling stone four to five feet in diameter, like that used for Jesus. During the Roman period (37 BC–AD 367), stone sarcophagi (lit., “flesh eaters”) were used, and such have been excavated at Beth She’arim and Jerusalem. Later, bones were placed in ossuaries (boxes for bones) after the corpse had decayed in the burial niche.

Burial can refer to the ritual, body preparation, or interment.

Burial rites. Genesis in particular uses some formulaic phrases: “died and was gathered to his people” and “rest with [one’s] fathers/ancestors” (25:8; 35:29; 47:30; 49:33; cf. Job 14:10). In Abraham’s death (Gen. 25:8), this “gathering” does not refer to his actual burial, since it occurs between his death and burial; nor was Abraham ever buried with his ancestors (cf. Num. 20:26 [Aaron]; Deut. 32:50 [Moses]). This idiom refers to joining one’s ancestors in the realm of the dead. With communal notions, the phrase also refers to elements of family burial (similarly, “gathered to your people” [Num. 27:13]; “gathered to their ancestors” [Judg. 2:10]).

In Jacob’s obituary he “gathered up” his feet and then was “gathered” to his people (Gen. 49:33 KJV), rich imagery because he had “gathered” his sons (cf. 49:1). This expression is also used of depositing the human remains in a collective family burial site (Judg. 2:10; 2 Kings 22:20; cf. Jer. 25:33).

In the genealogically sensitive books of Kings and Chronicles a formula is used for the kings: “X rested with his ancestors and was buried in Y.” Here, “Y” can denote a place such as the City of David (1 Kings 2:10; 11:43; 14:31; 2 Chron. 16:13–14). Authors depart from this formula in order to describe a person’s desecration, such as Jezebel; the dogs consumed her except for her skull, hands, and feet (2 Kings 9:37; cf. 1 Kings 21:23–24).

Jacob and Joseph receive specialized Egyptian embalming. Embalming preserved a more holistic persona through use of special fluids and wrappings for seventy days (Gen. 50:2–3, 26). Death usually required immediate burial, even for criminals (Deut. 21:1–9, 22–23; 1 Kings 13:24–30). Outside Israel, the inclusion of grave utensils (e.g., juglets, cooking pots, bowls, and jewelry) with the deceased was indicative of a person’s status and needs in the afterlife. The OT prophets forbade certain practices of mourning such as self-mutilation (Lev. 21:1–6; cf. Amos 6:6–7).

In the NT, burial could include treatment with spices for odorific and purification reasons (Luke 23:56; John 19:40). Placed on a bench (mishkab, “resting place”), the body was covered in wrappings and a special facecloth (John 11:44). Familial respect required demonstration of grief with laments (Acts 8:2; cf. 1 Kings 13:29–30; Jer. 9:17–22).

Specific locations. In the OT, burial occurred in cemeteries, shaft tombs, rock-hewn tombs, or natural caves. The wealthy procured burial sites for their posterity (Gen. 23:3–20). Middle and Late Bronze Age (2200–1200 BC) examples have been excavated at Jericho, Gibeon, and Hazor. In a process known as secondary burial, older remains were moved to a repository in the rear of the cave to clear room for a new corpse (cf. Matt. 8:21–22). Only Rachel was not buried in the cave of Machpelah (Gen. 35:19–20). Her “stone pillar” may be a rock cairn, in which the body is interred beneath a mound of stones. Well-known landmarks, such as trees, identified the graves of others (Gen. 35:8 [Deborah]; 1 Sam. 31:11–13 [Saul]).

Iron Age I sites (1200–1000 BC) could mark tribal territories (Judg. 8:32), like Joseph’s bones at Shechem (Josh. 24:32). Iron Age II sites (1000–586 BC) show the royal tombs of kings in their capitals or ancestral areas, be it a special garden or Samaria (2 Kings 21:18, 26; 13:13). An inscription was found along the Kidron naming the owner, Shebna (Isa. 22:15–16). Such tombs often included a charnel pit. Here, older bones were placed as more recent corpses were laid out on the bench above the pit. The poor usually were consigned to public cemeteries. The Hellenistic period (332–53 BC) saw the use of shaft tombs. With a sloping entry into a burial chamber, a shaft tomb often contained perpendicular niches (kokhim) for individual bodies. These tombs were common along the coastal plain and sites such as Dor, Gezer, and Lachish.

In the intertestamental period, elaborate structures, arcosolia, were built above or adjacent to the entry, such as Jason’s tomb in southwestern Jerusalem. The loculus was a second type with a central chamber and three sprawling kokhim. The Herodian period employed a strategic entrance guarded with a rolling stone four to five feet in diameter, like that used for Jesus. During the Roman period (37 BC–AD 367), stone sarcophagi (lit., “flesh eaters”) were used, and such have been excavated at Beth She’arim and Jerusalem. Later, bones were placed in ossuaries (boxes for bones) after the corpse had decayed in the burial niche.

Although the calf was not a principal animal used in the sacrificial system, there were significant occasions when a male calf or a heifer was slaughtered. These included the ordination offerings (Lev. 9:2–8) and the ritual for dealing with an unsolved murder (Deut. 21:3–8). A heifer was among the animals that Abram cut in pieces when God made the covenant (Gen. 15:9–18; cf. Jer. 34:18–19). As David brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, a bull and a fattened calf were sacrificed (2 Sam. 6:13). Finally, when the prodigal son returned, the father slaughtered a fattened calf (Luke 15:23). Almost half of the thirty-six occurrences of “calf” refer to an idol.

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.

Ancient court systems reflected the needs, values, and structures of the broader society. Not surprisingly, the court systems in nomadic and urban societies are quite different. Nomadic courts were more informal, based more on custom than law. The context of nomadic justice was located primarily within the family and clan. Those with disputes sought out elders and wise leaders to settle them. Urban court systems used more-fixed institutions of judges under the supervision of priests and kings. Even in an urban system the court functioned on a case-by-case basis and drew little or no distinction between criminal and civil offenses. Cases dealt primarily with an injury and the compensation for the injury. The basic process involved stating a case before a judge, each side calling witnesses, and the judge giving a judgment.

Old Testament

Courts in ancient Israel reflected features of both nomadic and urban court systems as well as the broader judicial practices of the ancient Near East. In ancient Israel a case could be tried by the elders, a judge, a priest, or the king. The elders were heads of families and leading citizens. They sat at the city gate (Prov. 31:23), where they heard cases (Ruth 4:1–12), oversaw property transactions (Gen. 23:10–20), settled disputes, and imposed penalties (Deut. 22:18–19). As Israelite society developed, judges were appointed from each tribe and town to administer justice (Deut. 16:18). If a case was too difficult, the judge could transfer the case to a higher court and judge (Exod. 18:21–22). Once a higher court gave a verdict, the participants and lower courts were bound by the decision (Deut. 17:8–13). Priests distinguished between the holy and the common, between clean and unclean (Lev. 10:10). However, they could judge all types of cases, not just religious ones (Deut. 21:5; Ezek. 44:23–24).

With the establishment of the monarchy, the king became the highest judge, and the elders and priests became minor judges. David appointed judges from the Levites over all Israel to administer justice (1 Chron. 26:29), but he also heard cases himself. Solomon provided the quintessential example of a wise judge as he settled the case of the two women and the one remaining child (1 Kings 3:16–28). Solomon moved the court from the city gate to the “Hall of Justice” in his palace (1 Kings 7:7). Jehoshaphat reformed Judah’s court system and established two courts, one over cases concerning God, the other over cases concerning the king (2 Chron. 19:5–11).

The OT does not provide a detailed description of the Israelite court procedures; however, glimpses into the procedures can be pieced together from several passages. Whether at the city gate, sanctuary, or palace, a private person who appeared as a plaintiff initiated the judicial action (Deut. 25:7–8). The parties stood before the judge, while the judge was seated (Deut. 19:17). However, the judge stood to pronounce judgment (Isa. 3:13). The plaintiff was the satan, “accuser” or “adversary” (Ps. 109:6). The accusation could be given orally (Isa. 41:21) or in writing (Job 31:35–36). There was no public prosecutor or defender. Each party brought its own case and witnesses. A conviction required at least two witnesses (Num. 35:30; Deut. 19:15). Witnesses accepted responsibility for the sentence, which is why they had to throw the first stones when such a penalty was in order (Deut. 17:7; John 8:7). If they provided false testimony, they faced the punishment for the crime about which they testified. Each side could produce physical evidence to make its case (Deut. 22:13–17). If a case lacked sufficient evidence or witnesses, an oath or an ordeal could be undertaken to support one’s case (Exod. 22:6–10). At times, lots were cast to select a guilty individual (Josh. 7:14–15) or to end a quarrel (Prov. 18:18). After everything had been examined, the judge acquitted the innocent and condemned the guilty (Deut. 25:1). Depending upon the crime, the penalty could be a fine, compensation, bodily punishment, or even death. Jail was primarily used for those awaiting trial and not as a punishment. If evidence and witnesses were lacking and a murder went unsolved, then a sacrifice was made to declare the community’s innocence and to atone for the community (Deut. 21:1–8).

Ideally, judges were just, righteous, fair, and defenders of the weak (Deut. 16:18–20). Unfortunately, multiple examples exist of false witnesses (Deut. 19:18) and corrupt judges who accepted bribes, perverted justice, and showed favoritism (Exod. 23:3, 8; Mic. 3:11). Ultimately, God was the supreme judge of all, protector of the weak, just, and no respecter of persons.

New Testament

During the NT period numerous lesser Sanhedrins, or councils, administered justice in Jewish communities. The lesser Sanhedrins consisted of twenty-three members, but the one in Jerusalem, the Great Sanhedrin, consisted of the high priest and seventy members comprised of priests, scribes, elders, and laity from among the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Great Sanhedrin was the supreme legislative and judicial body, and it wielded its own police force (Acts 5:24–26). The Romans allowed the Great Sanhedrin broad authority over internal and religious matters, but they limited its ability to exercise capital punishment (John 18:31). The deaths of Stephen and James were probably lynchings rather than formal executions. Clearly, the Great Sanhedrin had the authority to administer corporal punishment (2 Cor. 11:24).

The Mishnah provides insight into the Great Sanhedrin’s judicial procedure. However, several of the procedures stand in tension with the procedures described in the Gospels concerning Jesus’ trial. Cases were to be heard only during the day, but at least a hearing into the charges facing Jesus occurred at night. The proceedings against Jesus were held at the high priest’s palace instead of properly at the court (John 18:13). Capital cases could not be heard the day before the Sabbath or a festival, but Jesus was condemned on Friday during Passover.

The trials of Jesus and Paul fit well with what is known about Roman law. Roman regional rulers heard cases involving public order but usually left smaller issues in the hands of local courts. For example, Pilate, a prefect, initially wanted to release Jesus, and Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, refused to hear the charges against Paul. Such officials could also delay a decision for extended periods of time. Hoping to receive a bribe, the procurator Felix held Paul for two years without a judgment (Acts 24:26). Roman officials also had the discretion to send defendants to their home province. Pilate sent Jesus to Herod because Jesus was from Galilee, and Felix inquired about Paul’s home in Cilicia. When hearing a case, the Roman official gave the defendant and the accuser opportunities to make their respective cases and to call witnesses. Pilate gave Jesus an opportunity to defend himself, and Festus explained that it is “not the Roman custom” to condemn someone who has not yet faced the accusers and put on a defense against their charges (Acts 25:16). As a Roman citizen, Paul was afforded rights in the court system. When Paul was imprisoned and beaten without trial, he demanded an apology from the Philippian officials (16:37). Paul’s Roman citizenship also gave him the right to appeal to Caesar (25:11).

Paul expected Christians to abide by the decisions of the courts (Rom. 13:1–3), but he also encouraged Christians to avoid taking other Christians to court (1 Cor. 6:1–11) because they should be able to settle disputes within the church.

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heaven and Earth

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

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

The Theology of Land

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

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

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

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

Inheritance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding many aspects of education in Israel during OT times and, to a lesser extent, into the NT period is extraordinarily difficult. Many studies draw quite specific conclusions based on very slender evidence and inferences drawn from supposed parallels with neighboring societies, inferences themselves beset by uncertainties. Therefore, conclusions are necessarily tentative at many points. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that things did not remain constant through history, and that what can be reliably discerned for one period may not accurately reflect the situation in other times.

Education encompasses several areas of life in the biblical world. Aside from academic education (relating to literacy and numeracy), there was moral and religious education, military education, and vocational training. These are not all distinct; those whose vocation lay in diplomatic circles or within the royal court as scribes would have received academic education, while those living in the country and working a farm would have had little opportunity to access such knowledge.

Old Testament

Settings for education. There were three primary arenas of education in OT times: home, school, and temple.

Home. The most important setting for education in OT times was the home (Deut. 4:9; 6:7; 11:19). Both parents were expected to play a role in a child’s education (Prov. 1:8; 6:20; 23:22; 31:1). Sons generally were trained in their father’s vocation, and such training took the form of an apprenticeship (1 Sam. 16:11; 2 Kings 4:18); girls learned from their mothers as they undertook their work on a daily basis (Exod. 35:25–26; 2 Sam. 13:8).

In part, the extent of home education is tied to the question of the extent of formal schooling in ancient Israel. As noted below, the nature and extent of schools is unclear, and if (as the evidence seems to suggest) schools were virtually nonexistent outside the royal court, then the home ultimately would have been the locus of any academic education received by children and the source of any widespread literacy and numeracy in the community. The frequent use of father/son language in Proverbs, however, need not imply an exclusively familial context for the instruction contained therein, as there is evidence from Egypt that such language was used between teacher and student.

School. The existence, nature, and extent of schools in OT times is extensively debated and ultimately uncertain. The first explicit reference to a school is found in the second century BC in Sir. 51:23. The virtual silence of the OT on the topic may reflect either that schools were absent in ancient Israel or that their existence was somehow of little interest and so warranted little reflection by biblical authors. In any case, it is likely that some form of school for scribes and those training to work in government existed in the vicinity of the royal court, as they did in Mesopotamia and Egypt. These did not form a comprehensive national schooling system for young children but were more specifically targeted to the few individuals who aimed to become scribes or advisers.

Outside the Bible there exist a number of inscriptions that could suggest the existence of schools in Israel prior to the exile. These include abecedaries (lists of the letters of the alphabet written out, usually as practice exercises or as examples), words written out several times, lists of month names, and possible exercises in reading foreign languages, among others.

There is also extensive evidence of schools in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and probably also Ugarit from an early date (cf. Acts 7:22). Whether their existence supports the existence of schools in Israel is unclear. Egypt and Mesopotamia had large and complex bureaucracies necessary to administer their kingdoms, and they employed writing systems far more difficult to master than Hebrew. In addition, mathematical texts reflect a concern with numeracy within the schools of these kingdoms, for which there is no clear evidence in ancient Israel.

The sages and scribes appear to be the primary source for the material supposedly employed in schools. Ecclesiastes 12:9 identifies one of the tasks of the sages as teaching the people, and some claim that Proverbs functioned as a textbook within a school setting. Indeed, Prov. 4:5; 17:16 speak of the “buying” (Heb. qanah) of knowledge, interpreted by some as a reference to teachers paid for providing tuition. Again, the context in which such tuition may have taken place is uncertain.

Temple. Priests were also involved in some teaching (1 Sam. 2:21, 26). According to 2 Chron. 17:7–9, King Jehoshaphat sent five officials, nine Levites, and two priests to teach the people of Judah from the Book of the Law, a point that stresses both the importance of the task and the probable failure of the home setting to adequately convey this instruction, at least by the late fifth century BC.

Types of education. In OT times four types of education can be discerned: moral and religious, academic, vocational, and military.

Moral and religious education. The Bible stresses the importance of moral and religious education above all other forms (Exod. 10:2; 12:26; 13:8; Deut. 4:9; 6:7, 20–21; 32:7, 46).

Academic education. The extent of literacy and numeracy in ancient Israel is difficult to ascertain. Rudimentary numeracy almost certainly was widespread and learned within the home and in the course of vocational training when necessary. Many among the population also appear to have been at least capable of reading and writing names or other simple texts (Deut. 6:9; 11:20; Judg. 8:14).

Vocational training. Most commonly, boys followed in their father’s vocation and thus learned through observation and participation. Under some circumstances, however, children served apprenticeships under the tutelage of others, such as was apparently the case for prophetic schools (2 Kings 2:7; 4:38; 6:1–2; Amos 7:14–15).

Military training. There are clear indications that kings recruited mercenaries to form the most important part of their army (e.g., 1 Sam. 22:2; 25:13). These mercenaries were paid and likely had received some formal training, but the nature of that training is nowhere explained. In addition to these elite forces, all able-bodied men apparently were considered eligible for military service when the need arose (2 Chron. 25:5). So, for example, the elite troops were responsible for staging the attack (2 Sam. 11:14–17; 12:26), while the remainder of the army served as reinforcements where necessary (2 Sam. 12:29). The use of chariots (under David and Solomon) would have required some training, as would the wielding of various weapons (swords, spears, bows, and slings). Ultimately, however, there are only allusions to such training (e.g., Judg. 3:2; 2 Sam. 22:35).

Educational methods. Throughout the ancient Near East there is evidence that corporal punishment played a significant role in education. There is a somewhat comical text from Mesopotamia that relates a day in the life of a student who receives physical punishment for virtually everything he does. Similarly, the book of Proverbs highlights the importance of discipline in raising and training children (e.g., 13:24; 22:15; 29:15, 17). Nonetheless, Proverbs uses “the rod” as a means to signify discipline as a whole without necessarily endorsing corporal punishment as the only or even the primary means of discipline. This is apparent because Proverbs contrasts the rod not with other, lesser forms of discipline but rather with no discipline at all. Thus, although there is evidence that corporal punishment was used extensively (and probably excessively [see Sir. 30]), Proverbs endorses a more nuanced approach to disciplining children.

Academic, religious, and moral education also involved the use of various techniques that facilitated learning. These included the use of poetry or poetic couplets (common in wisdom literature and in psalms), numerical sayings (e.g., Ps. 62:11; Prov. 6:16), and acrostics, as well as the celebration of feasts and memorials at various times throughout the year.

New Testament

Greco-Roman education. Greek education developed from about the fourth century BC and spread throughout the Mediterranean region, adopted with minor modification by the Romans. The curriculum was dominated by sports and a focus on literacy, with little place given to religious education (although philosophy was taught and did bear some religious traits). Education in the Greco-Roman world was expensive, and its provision was a parental responsibility, which tended to restrict formal education to the elite.

At about the age of fifteen, boys could move from elementary schooling to the gymnasium, where they received intellectual and physical training. Some in the Corinthian church may have received such an education, a possibility raised by Paul’s terminology in 1 Corinthians that reflects educational language: his claim to be father of the Corinthian household (4:14–21); sporting imagery (esp. 9:24–27); language of nursing and nature (3:1–4); agricultural imagery (3:5–9); his threat to come with a rod (4:21), which could be related to the rod of correction; the term grammateus (1:20), which may refer to the gymnasium instructor; reference to writing (4:6); and talk of removing the marks of circumcision (7:18).

Education in Israel. One Jewish tradition states that in AD 63 the high priest Joshua ben Gamla decreed that every town should appoint a schoolteacher for the education of children of six or seven years of age. This, together with the existence of Sirach’s school more than two centuries earlier, indicates that some form of schooling existed within Israel in the first century AD.

Although some Jews throughout the ancient world received a standard Hellenistic education, others reacted against the influence of Hellenism and sought to educate their children within the Scriptures and Jewish tradition. The DSS refer to the importance placed on study of the Torah (1QS 6:6–7). There were also rabbinic schools that focused on such teaching.

By NT times, synagogues were well established. Although determining precisely what took place within the synagogues is difficult, indications are that the focus on Scripture and its exposition played an important role in teaching both its importance and the appropriate way to interpret it. Teaching, however, was not confined to synagogues or the temple, as is amply demonstrated by the frequency with which Jesus is described as teaching in a variety of settings. Nonetheless, the temple itself did appear to serve as a center for religious education, as is reflected in the account of the twelve-year-old Jesus’ interactions with the teachers at the temple (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus’ own teaching was remarkable, however, in that it was delivered with authority (Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32).

Education in the church. Paul highlights one of the prerequisites for being an overseer of a church as the ability to teach, stressing the importance of the NT church as a place of learning (1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:2, 24). This teaching involved a familiarity with right doctrine in order to avoid being led astray, an exemplary life that modeled godly behavior for all to see, and the maturity required to apply discipline when necessary.

“Emites” (NRSV: “Emim”) appears only three times, in two OT passages (Gen. 14:5; Deut. 2:10–11), used to designate a people group dispossessed by the Moabites. They are said to be a tall people like the Anakites and the Zamzummites (Deut. 2:10, 20–21). The name “Emites” may have the pejorative sense of “dreadful people.”

Terminology

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

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

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

Types of Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

Torah in Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

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

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

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

Biblical Law and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Character of Biblical Law

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

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

The Law and the New Testament

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

Types of Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

Torah in Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

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

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

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

Biblical Law and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Character of Biblical Law

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

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

The Law and the New Testament

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding many aspects of education in Israel during OT times and, to a lesser extent, into the NT period is extraordinarily difficult. Many studies draw quite specific conclusions based on very slender evidence and inferences drawn from supposed parallels with neighboring societies, inferences themselves beset by uncertainties. Therefore, conclusions are necessarily tentative at many points. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that things did not remain constant through history, and that what can be reliably discerned for one period may not accurately reflect the situation in other times.

Education encompasses several areas of life in the biblical world. Aside from academic education (relating to literacy and numeracy), there was moral and religious education, military education, and vocational training. These are not all distinct; those whose vocation lay in diplomatic circles or within the royal court as scribes would have received academic education, while those living in the country and working a farm would have had little opportunity to access such knowledge.

Old Testament

Settings for education. There were three primary arenas of education in OT times: home, school, and temple.

Home. The most important setting for education in OT times was the home (Deut. 4:9; 6:7; 11:19). Both parents were expected to play a role in a child’s education (Prov. 1:8; 6:20; 23:22; 31:1). Sons generally were trained in their father’s vocation, and such training took the form of an apprenticeship (1 Sam. 16:11; 2 Kings 4:18); girls learned from their mothers as they undertook their work on a daily basis (Exod. 35:25–26; 2 Sam. 13:8).

In part, the extent of home education is tied to the question of the extent of formal schooling in ancient Israel. As noted below, the nature and extent of schools is unclear, and if (as the evidence seems to suggest) schools were virtually nonexistent outside the royal court, then the home ultimately would have been the locus of any academic education received by children and the source of any widespread literacy and numeracy in the community. The frequent use of father/son language in Proverbs, however, need not imply an exclusively familial context for the instruction contained therein, as there is evidence from Egypt that such language was used between teacher and student.

School. The existence, nature, and extent of schools in OT times is extensively debated and ultimately uncertain. The first explicit reference to a school is found in the second century BC in Sir. 51:23. The virtual silence of the OT on the topic may reflect either that schools were absent in ancient Israel or that their existence was somehow of little interest and so warranted little reflection by biblical authors. In any case, it is likely that some form of school for scribes and those training to work in government existed in the vicinity of the royal court, as they did in Mesopotamia and Egypt. These did not form a comprehensive national schooling system for young children but were more specifically targeted to the few individuals who aimed to become scribes or advisers.

Outside the Bible there exist a number of inscriptions that could suggest the existence of schools in Israel prior to the exile. These include abecedaries (lists of the letters of the alphabet written out, usually as practice exercises or as examples), words written out several times, lists of month names, and possible exercises in reading foreign languages, among others.

There is also extensive evidence of schools in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and probably also Ugarit from an early date (cf. Acts 7:22). Whether their existence supports the existence of schools in Israel is unclear. Egypt and Mesopotamia had large and complex bureaucracies necessary to administer their kingdoms, and they employed writing systems far more difficult to master than Hebrew. In addition, mathematical texts reflect a concern with numeracy within the schools of these kingdoms, for which there is no clear evidence in ancient Israel.

The sages and scribes appear to be the primary source for the material supposedly employed in schools. Ecclesiastes 12:9 identifies one of the tasks of the sages as teaching the people, and some claim that Proverbs functioned as a textbook within a school setting. Indeed, Prov. 4:5; 17:16 speak of the “buying” (Heb. qanah) of knowledge, interpreted by some as a reference to teachers paid for providing tuition. Again, the context in which such tuition may have taken place is uncertain.

Temple. Priests were also involved in some teaching (1 Sam. 2:21, 26). According to 2 Chron. 17:7–9, King Jehoshaphat sent five officials, nine Levites, and two priests to teach the people of Judah from the Book of the Law, a point that stresses both the importance of the task and the probable failure of the home setting to adequately convey this instruction, at least by the late fifth century BC.

Types of education. In OT times four types of education can be discerned: moral and religious, academic, vocational, and military.

Moral and religious education. The Bible stresses the importance of moral and religious education above all other forms (Exod. 10:2; 12:26; 13:8; Deut. 4:9; 6:7, 20–21; 32:7, 46).

Academic education. The extent of literacy and numeracy in ancient Israel is difficult to ascertain. Rudimentary numeracy almost certainly was widespread and learned within the home and in the course of vocational training when necessary. Many among the population also appear to have been at least capable of reading and writing names or other simple texts (Deut. 6:9; 11:20; Judg. 8:14).

Vocational training. Most commonly, boys followed in their father’s vocation and thus learned through observation and participation. Under some circumstances, however, children served apprenticeships under the tutelage of others, such as was apparently the case for prophetic schools (2 Kings 2:7; 4:38; 6:1–2; Amos 7:14–15).

Military training. There are clear indications that kings recruited mercenaries to form the most important part of their army (e.g., 1 Sam. 22:2; 25:13). These mercenaries were paid and likely had received some formal training, but the nature of that training is nowhere explained. In addition to these elite forces, all able-bodied men apparently were considered eligible for military service when the need arose (2 Chron. 25:5). So, for example, the elite troops were responsible for staging the attack (2 Sam. 11:14–17; 12:26), while the remainder of the army served as reinforcements where necessary (2 Sam. 12:29). The use of chariots (under David and Solomon) would have required some training, as would the wielding of various weapons (swords, spears, bows, and slings). Ultimately, however, there are only allusions to such training (e.g., Judg. 3:2; 2 Sam. 22:35).

Educational methods. Throughout the ancient Near East there is evidence that corporal punishment played a significant role in education. There is a somewhat comical text from Mesopotamia that relates a day in the life of a student who receives physical punishment for virtually everything he does. Similarly, the book of Proverbs highlights the importance of discipline in raising and training children (e.g., 13:24; 22:15; 29:15, 17). Nonetheless, Proverbs uses “the rod” as a means to signify discipline as a whole without necessarily endorsing corporal punishment as the only or even the primary means of discipline. This is apparent because Proverbs contrasts the rod not with other, lesser forms of discipline but rather with no discipline at all. Thus, although there is evidence that corporal punishment was used extensively (and probably excessively [see Sir. 30]), Proverbs endorses a more nuanced approach to disciplining children.

Academic, religious, and moral education also involved the use of various techniques that facilitated learning. These included the use of poetry or poetic couplets (common in wisdom literature and in psalms), numerical sayings (e.g., Ps. 62:11; Prov. 6:16), and acrostics, as well as the celebration of feasts and memorials at various times throughout the year.

New Testament

Greco-Roman education. Greek education developed from about the fourth century BC and spread throughout the Mediterranean region, adopted with minor modification by the Romans. The curriculum was dominated by sports and a focus on literacy, with little place given to religious education (although philosophy was taught and did bear some religious traits). Education in the Greco-Roman world was expensive, and its provision was a parental responsibility, which tended to restrict formal education to the elite.

At about the age of fifteen, boys could move from elementary schooling to the gymnasium, where they received intellectual and physical training. Some in the Corinthian church may have received such an education, a possibility raised by Paul’s terminology in 1 Corinthians that reflects educational language: his claim to be father of the Corinthian household (4:14–21); sporting imagery (esp. 9:24–27); language of nursing and nature (3:1–4); agricultural imagery (3:5–9); his threat to come with a rod (4:21), which could be related to the rod of correction; the term grammateus (1:20), which may refer to the gymnasium instructor; reference to writing (4:6); and talk of removing the marks of circumcision (7:18).

Education in Israel. One Jewish tradition states that in AD 63 the high priest Joshua ben Gamla decreed that every town should appoint a schoolteacher for the education of children of six or seven years of age. This, together with the existence of Sirach’s school more than two centuries earlier, indicates that some form of schooling existed within Israel in the first century AD.

Although some Jews throughout the ancient world received a standard Hellenistic education, others reacted against the influence of Hellenism and sought to educate their children within the Scriptures and Jewish tradition. The DSS refer to the importance placed on study of the Torah (1QS 6:6–7). There were also rabbinic schools that focused on such teaching.

By NT times, synagogues were well established. Although determining precisely what took place within the synagogues is difficult, indications are that the focus on Scripture and its exposition played an important role in teaching both its importance and the appropriate way to interpret it. Teaching, however, was not confined to synagogues or the temple, as is amply demonstrated by the frequency with which Jesus is described as teaching in a variety of settings. Nonetheless, the temple itself did appear to serve as a center for religious education, as is reflected in the account of the twelve-year-old Jesus’ interactions with the teachers at the temple (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus’ own teaching was remarkable, however, in that it was delivered with authority (Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32).

Education in the church. Paul highlights one of the prerequisites for being an overseer of a church as the ability to teach, stressing the importance of the NT church as a place of learning (1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:2, 24). This teaching involved a familiarity with right doctrine in order to avoid being led astray, an exemplary life that modeled godly behavior for all to see, and the maturity required to apply discipline when necessary.

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Numbers 5:11–31 describes a judicial ordeal for determining whether a wife has been unfaithful. In the course of the ritual, the wife suspected of wrongdoing is to drink water mixed with dirt from the floor of the tabernacle, thus made “bitter” (Heb. mar; Num. 5:18), and in which a scroll containing curses has been washed (so that the water also contains the ink of the scroll). In the event that the woman was guilty of unfaithfulness, this concoction was intended to transfer to her body the curses against her. Deuteronomy 21:1–9 may represent a second judicial ordeal involving water, though bitterness is not involved. The names “En Mishpat” (“spring of judgment” [Gen. 14:7]) and “En Rogel” (“spring of inquiry” [e.g., Josh. 15:7]) may also refer to the use of water for divination or ordeal.

Shortly after crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites came to Marah (“bitterness”), where the waters were bitter and not potable. Moses was divinely instructed to throw a piece of wood in the water, rendering it sweet and drinkable (Exod. 15:23–25), the first of several divine provisions of drinking water in the desert. Revelation 8:11 depicts apocalyptic divine judgment in terms of bitter or poisoned water. In both of these passages, bitterness is effected or removed by the combination of wood and water: “wormwood” (Gk. apsinthos, a bitter substance derived from the wood of a particular shrub). The image of Rev. 8:11 recalls a similar divine threat in Jer. 9:15; 23:15.

Numbers 5:11–31 describes a judicial ordeal for determining whether a wife has been unfaithful. In the course of the ritual, the wife suspected of wrongdoing is to drink water mixed with dirt from the floor of the tabernacle, thus made “bitter” (Heb. mar; Num. 5:18), and in which a scroll containing curses has been washed (so that the water also contains the ink of the scroll). In the event that the woman was guilty of unfaithfulness, this concoction was intended to transfer to her body the curses against her. Deuteronomy 21:1–9 may represent a second judicial ordeal involving water, though bitterness is not involved. The names “En Mishpat” (“spring of judgment” [Gen. 14:7]) and “En Rogel” (“spring of inquiry” [e.g., Josh. 15:7]) may also refer to the use of water for divination or ordeal.

Shortly after crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites came to Marah (“bitterness”), where the waters were bitter and not potable. Moses was divinely instructed to throw a piece of wood in the water, rendering it sweet and drinkable (Exod. 15:23–25), the first of several divine provisions of drinking water in the desert. Revelation 8:11 depicts apocalyptic divine judgment in terms of bitter or poisoned water. In both of these passages, bitterness is effected or removed by the combination of wood and water: “wormwood” (Gk. apsinthos, a bitter substance derived from the wood of a particular shrub). The image of Rev. 8:11 recalls a similar divine threat in Jer. 9:15; 23:15.

This term occurs in Deut. 2:20 and appears to be synonymous with the Zuzites of Gen. 14:5. They were dispossessed by the Ammonites and were considered to be a tall people, like the Emites and the Anakites (Deut. 2:10, 20–21). The name may be a pejorative designation for their “buzzing” speech.

This term occurs in Deut. 2:20 and appears to be synonymous with the Zuzites of Gen. 14:5. They were dispossessed by the Ammonites and were considered to be a tall people, like the Emites and the Anakites (Deut. 2:10, 20–21). The name may be a pejorative designation for their “buzzing” speech.