A vessel made of animal skin used to draw water from a well or cistern. Two sticks used as crosspieces held the top of the vessel open (Num. 24:7; Isa. 40:15). Similar vessels are still used in Palestine today.

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

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

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

A cloth hanging used to construct temporary dwelling places, to function as an entrance, or to screen private places. The tabernacle was constructed from ten curtains woven from expensively dyed yarns, hung with blue cord, and fastened with gold clasps (Exod. 26:1–6). The surrounding tent was formed from eleven goatskin curtains (26:7–13). A curtain hung in front of the holy place, preventing entry except by the high priest on certain days, and then only after animal sacrifices were made and the sanctuary was sprinkled with blood (Lev. 16:2). At the time of Jesus’ death, this curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51), signifying a new freedom of access to God, which Jesus achieved by his blood (Heb. 10:19–20). When the earth is spoken of metaphorically as God’s dwelling place, the heavens are described as the curtains that encompass it (Isa. 40:22).

The primary term in Hebrew is ’apar (“loose earth, dust”), which is related to the Hebrew terms for cultivatable “soil” (’adamah [Gen. 3:19]) and “earth” (’erets [Gen. 13:16]). These terms are semantically close enough to be used interchangeably (cf. 1 Sam. 4:12; 2 Sam. 1:2 with Josh. 7:6; Ezek. 27:30).

In the OT, the imagery of dust is used to illustrate notions of quantity and abundance (Num. 23:10; 2 Chron. 1:9; Job 27:16; Ps. 78:27; Isa. 40:12; Zech. 9:3). This stock of imagery is applied to annihilation (2 Sam. 22:43), worthlessness (Zeph. 1:17), humiliation (Isa. 25:12), and mourning (Isa. 2:10; Rev. 18:19). In the OT, ’apar alone is used figuratively over sixty times to refer to judgment. Thus, “to lick the dust” (Ps. 72:9) is a sign of subjugation. The opposite is “to shake off the dust,” a sign of repudiation (Isa. 52:2; Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5; 10:11; Acts 13:51). It is this figurative use of “dust” that facilitates the theological use of ’apar. Yahweh acts to humiliate, debase, destroy, and “cast down” into the dust (Isa. 25:12); and he also restores, “lifting up” to remove the shame (1 Kings 16:2; Ps. 113:7).

The significance of ’apar is powerfully portrayed in the creation of humans. Whereas animals are made from the “earth,” humankind emerges from more refined material, the dust (’apar [Gen. 2:7]). In an etymological pun, the “human” (’adam) rises from the “humus” (’adamah; cf. Ps. 103:14; Job 4:19). Death comes when God withdraws the human’s “breath of life” (cf. Gen. 2:7), causing the groundling to collapse back to the ground like “crushed dust” (cf. Pss. 90:3; 104:29; 146:4). Human life is fragile, dependent, and transitory. This is the teacher’s argument and also the reason that he stresses death as the inevitable end of both human and animal life (Eccles. 3:18–20). However, Daniel knows that “multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake” (Dan. 12:2).

The word “eagle” may represent more than one species of eagle and vulture, particularly the griffon vulture. A bird of prey, the eagle is classed among the unclean birds in the OT (Lev. 11:13). The eagle was considered one of the marvels of the world (Prov. 30:19), proverbial for its speed and power (Deut. 28:49; 2 Sam. 1:23; Ezek. 17:3), its inaccessibility among the high rocks (Job 39:27; Jer. 49:16), and its tutelage and protection of its young (Deut. 32:11). The eagle serves to illustrate the renewed strength of those whose hope is in God (Ps. 103:5; Isa. 40:31).

In the ancient world, the eagle was a symbol of transcendence over the earthly realm. In Egyptian and Mesopotamian iconography it is closely associated with royalty, serving to demonstrate that the king is invited to participate in a dominion normally beyond the reach of human capacity. There is a close association with warfare and with divine protection and guarantee of success.

In Exod. 19:4 God brings his royal-priestly people to himself at Mount Sinai “on eagles’ wings,” while in Deut. 32:10–11 the eagle illustrates the divine protection of Israel. Because of its proverbial attributes and associations, the eagle is included in a number of visionary images (Ezek. 1:10; Dan. 7:4; Rev. 4:7; 8:13).

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).

In the NIV, “fashion” is a verb meaning “to craft, shape, form.” Often it is used pejoratively, as in the crafting of an idol out of wood, stone, or metal (Exod. 32:4; 2 Kings 19:18; Isa. 37:19; 40:19; 44:15; Hos. 13:2). Job speaks of the cunning and scheming of those who think they are wise but are godless: “their womb fashions deceit” (Job 15:35). In a positive sense, items are fashioned for God’s purpose: Aaron’s breastpiece is fashioned by “the work of skilled hands” (Exod. 28:15; cf. 39:8). God is the master craftsman who “fashioned and made the earth” (Isa. 45:18). But God’s fashioning is a synonym for creation rather than crafting; he fashions his work out of nothing.

In the KJV God’s fashioning extends to his creation of human beings (Job 10:8; 31:15; Ps. 119:73), his oversight of the human heart (Ps. 33:15), his ordaining of a person’s life span (Ps. 139:16), and his transformative work in the glorification of believers (Phil. 3:21).

The most common noun usage for the word “fashion” in the KJV OT is as a plan, blueprint, or specification (2 Kings 16:10)—for example, of the ark (Gen. 6:15), the tabernacle (Exod. 26:30), and the temple (1 Kings 6:38; Ezek. 43:11). “Fashion” is also used as a synonym for “likeness, appearance, manner, form” (Exod. 37:19; Mark 2:12; Luke 9:29; 1 Cor. 7:31; Phil. 2:8; James 1:11). Finally, Peter cautions believers against “fashioning [themselves] according to the former lusts” (1 Pet. 1:14 KJV), a warning not to model or conform to worldly desires.

Beyond its obvious literal sense, “flesh” denotes the physicality of one’s life in this world, often in contrast to the spiritual dimension. Both the OT (Heb. she’er, basar) and NT (Gk. sarx) use “flesh” to refer to the physical dimension of human existence, often assigning varying degrees of figurative and contextual nuances to the word. “Flesh” as the cover term for fallen humanity and sinfulness is a distinctive NT development. For example, the expression “all flesh” in the OT is often merely equivalent to the collective human race (e.g., Gen. 6:12; Isa. 40:5 KJV). Even when the term is used in contrast to “spirit” (e.g., Isa. 31:3; Jer. 17:5), “flesh” is not so much “antispiritual” as “nonspiritual.” John even refers to the mystery of incarnation as the Word becoming flesh (John 1:14).

It is mostly in Paul’s letters that we find clear depiction of flesh as the seat of the carnal and sinful nature of humanity. The flesh stands for the totality of destructive effects of the original sin on the human nature. Thus, the flesh is in essence the sinful nature that Adam left for all subsequent generations to inherit (Gal. 5:17). Before it is redeemed and transformed, it is “sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3 NRSV) waiting to be condemned by the holy God and his law, and inevitably leading to death (7:5). It is inseparable from lust (Gal. 5:16; 1 Pet. 4:2). In the reprobate, unregenerate state, human nature in its entirety is under the control of the flesh (Eph. 2:3). Since corrupt humans basically sow the flesh and reap the flesh, they can neither please God nor obey the law (Rom. 8:3, 8). It is significant that salvation is expressed in terms of overcoming the flesh. In wrapping up an exhortation regarding spiritual life, Paul concludes that those who nailed their flesh to the cross along with its passions and desires are “those who belong to Christ Jesus” (Gal. 5:24).

The blossoms of seed-bearing plants that contain the plant’s reproductive organs. Used generally, “flowers” refers to the colorful array of blossoms that grew mostly in the open fields of the Holy Land. Numerous kinds of wild flowers could be found in the plains and mountains of Palestine. When winter rains were followed by the moderate temperatures of spring, renewal abounded (Song 2:11–12). Early spring blossoms presented an array of vibrant color and form. As early as January, cyclamen poured forth pink, white, and lilac blossoms, followed by various shades of red and pink of the crown anemones, poppies, and mountain tulips. The flowers of the diverse tuberous plants of the lily family also added to the colorful mosaic. Summer brought fields of chamomile and chrysanthemums, with their yellow and white daisylike flowers. The blossoms from plants such as mints, mustards, and other native herbaceous plants, along with those of flowering trees, shrubs, and field flowers, provided ample nectar for bees in the land of milk and honey (Num. 13:27). Healing or soothing ointments and various perfumes were produced from the essential oils extracted from the crushing of blossoms from a variety of flowers.

Flower Imagery

Traditionally, the language of flowers functions to illustrate some prominent themes, such as love and beauty. Flower imagery in descriptions of the tabernacle, of Solomon’s temple, and in the Song of Solomon develops the themes of beauty, purity, sweetness, and love (Song 2:1–5; 5:13; Isa. 28:4). The Song of Solomon is set in a garden scene where the sensuous quality of flowers—their colors, shapes, and scents, their delicate touch—are analogous to the captivating sexuality of physical love. The spring setting assures that the flowers are at their pinnacle of brilliance and the air is filled with the fragrance of vine blossoms (Song 2:12–13).

Used metaphorically, flowers can also refer to transience, pride, restoration, and the glory of the holy and eternal. Such references are found in both Testaments. The short life of flowers is representative of the brevity and fragility of human life on earth (Job 14:2; Ps. 103:15; Isa. 40:6–8; 1 Pet. 1:24). After a brief moment of splendor, decline and decay are close behind. Such is the metaphor used in psalms, by the prophets, and in the NT for the life of a person who flourishes like the flower, is like the grass one day, but is gone the next day.

As surely as flower imagery points out our human mortality, it also serves to illustrate the judgment of the proud or ungodly, as when Isaiah prophesies the speedy downfall of the kingdom of Israel like flowers being trampled under-foot (Isa. 28:1–3), turned to dust (5:24), or cut off with pruning knives (18:5). Nahum sees God’s power to rebuke his enemies in his ability to dry up seas and rivers and to make the many flowers of Carmel and Lebanon wilt (Nah. 1:4). James applies the flower imagery to describe the sudden departure of the rich person, passing away as quickly as the flowers of the field, whose beauty perishes under the burning heat of the sun (James 1:10–11).

The usual contexts of this flower imagery are judgment on the proud and the wicked, whose deeds will be short-lived. The insignificant and contemptible deeds of the wicked are contrasted with God’s power; our human transience and frailty with God’s permanence (Ps. 103:15); and our human weakness with the eternal word of God (Isa. 40:6, 8; 1 Pet. 1:24–25).

The flower can also represent a blessing. The righteous are compared to the flowering or flourishing of a plant (Isa. 5:24; 18:5; 28:1–4), since the flowering of a plant represents the peak of its life process, its most glorious moment. This beautifully pictures the restoration themes of the prophets as they utilize flower imagery. Isaiah’s words “The desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom; it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy” (Isa. 35:1–2; cf. 27:6) are one example of God’s restorative ability to turn a wasteland into a garden. Hosea illustrates this theme: “I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily. Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots” (Hos. 14:5). The psalmists also sing of the righteous, not the wicked, flourishing like grass or the flower (Pss. 72:7, 16; 92:12–14). Proverbs too reminds us that the righteous will “flourish,” or break forth and sprout like foliage (Prov. 14:11).

Flowers Named in the Bible

The Bible often identifies flowering plants by a more generic name rather than mentioning specific flowers. Sometimes context can help in determining more specific species. According to 1 Kings 7:19–20, 26, lily blossoms, along with pomegranates, adorned the top of the bronze columns that stood before King Solomon’s temple. In a musical aspect, three psalms are identified as those to be sung to the tune “Lilies” (Pss. 45; 69; 80).

The most frequently mentioned specific flowers are traditionally translated “lily” and “rose” (though these are probably not accurate renderings since these flowers are not native to the region and so would have been unfamiliar to most readers). Many commentators believe that the phrase “lilies of the field” referred to the showy, attractive springtime flowers that grow profusely in the plains, pastures, and hills of the Carmel and Sharon regions. These flowers can include ranunculus, anemone, cyclamen, tulip, hyacinth, narcissus, crocus, iris, and orchid. The tulip, asphodel, star-of-Bethlehem, hyacinth, and related narcissus, daffodil, crocus, and iris inhabit the rocky ground and dry places of the hill country. The “lily of the valleys” of Song 2:1–2 is probably the blue hyacinth.

Consider Jesus’ words “Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these” (Matt. 6:28–29 NASB). Although these flowers may not be true lilies but rather one of the numerous showy spring flowers such as the crown anemone, Jesus proclaims that the beauty of a single flower in a meadow was more striking than all the riches of Solomon, and that the flower did not concern itself with working and getting riches to be clothed. Jesus’ comments about flowers demonstrate that their beauty was appreciated in Israel.

The flowers listed below are specifically named in various Bible versions.

Almond blossoms. The almond tree is among the first of flowering trees to bloom in the spring. Almond blossoms were part of the almond-tree design on the seven-branched lampstands of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:33–34; 37:19–20). In Eccles. 12:5, almond tree blossoms are likely an allegorical reference to an elderly person’s hair turning white like the almond tree.

Camphire flower. In Song 1:14; 4:13, the KJV refers to camphire, while the NIV and most modern versions have “henna.” The camphire is a small plant or shrub that bears highly scented, cream-colored flowers that hang in clusters and were used for orange dye.

Caperberry flower. The caperberry was a common prickly shrub with large, white flowers that produced small, edible berries. The berries had a reputation for exciting sexual desire, so the caperberry is used in Eccles. 12:5 to allude to the waning sexual potency that comes with age (NIV: “desire is no longer stirred”).

Cockle flower. The KJV of Job 31:40 refers to a “cockle” (NIV: “stinkweed”), a plant whose name is spelled like the Hebrew word for “stink.” This noxious weed with purplish red flowers grew abundantly in Palestinian grain fields.

Crocus. A plant with a long yellow floral tube tinged with purple specks or stripes. The abundant blossoms of the crocus symbolize beauty and splendor (Isa. 35:1).

Fitch. Named in the KJV at Isa. 28:25, 27 (NIV: “caraway”; NRSV: “dill”) and Ezek. 4:9 (NIV: “spelt”). The flower referred to is probably the nutmeg flower, which is a member of the buttercup family; it grew wild in most Mediterranean lands. The plant is about two feet high, with bright blue flowers. The pods of the plant were used like pepper.

Lily. A symbol of fruitfulness, purity, and resurrection, this plant grows from a bulb to a height of three feet, with large white flowers. The term “lily” covers a wide range of flowers. The lily mentioned in Song 5:13 refers to a rare variety of lily that had a bloom similar to a glowing flame. The “lily of the valleys” (Song 2:1) is known as the Easter lily. The lily mentioned in Hos. 14:5 is more like an iris. The water lily or lotus was a favorite flower in Egypt and was used to decorate Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:19, 22, 26; 2 Chron. 4:5). The “lilies of the field” (Matt. 6:28) probably were numerous kinds of colorful spring flowers such as the crown anemone (see NIV: “flowers of the field”).

Mint. This aromatic plant, with hairy leaves, has dense white or pink flowers. It is listed with other spices and herbs as something that the Pharisees tithe (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).

Myrtle branch. This bush has fragrant evergreen leaves. Its scented white flowers were used for perfumes. The bush grew to considerable height (Zech. 1:8, 10) and is listed among the trees used to build shelters during the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. 8:15; see also Isa. 41:19; 55:13).

Pomegranate blossom. The blossom of the pomegranate tree is large and orange-red in color. The fruit of the tree was a symbol of fertile and productive land (Num. 13:23; Deut. 8:8; cf. Hag. 2:19) and was used to produce spiced wine (Song 8:2). Pomegranates were part of the decoration that adorned Aaron’s garments (Exod. 28:33–34) and the temple of Solomon (1 Kings 7:18–20).

Rose. The Hebrew word translated as “rose” in Song 2:1 is translated as “crocus” in Isa. 35:1. Crocus was probably the family name of this flower.

Saffron. This is a species of crocus. Petals of the saffron were used to perfume banquet halls (cf. Song 4:14).

The English word “gospel” translates the Greek word euangelion, which is very important in the NT, being used seventy-six times. The word euangelion (eu = “good,” angelion = “announcement”), in its contemporary use in the Hellenistic world, was not the title of a book but rather a declaration of good news. Euangelion was used in the Roman Empire with reference to significant events in the life of the emperor, who was thought of as a savior with divine status. These events included declarations at the time of his birth, his coming of age, and his accession to the throne. The NT usage of the term can also be traced to the OT (e.g., Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1), which looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, who would bring a time of salvation. This good news, which is declared in the NT, is that Jesus has fulfilled God’s promises to Israel, and now the way of salvation is open to all.

The Gospel Message

The apostle Paul recognizes that the gospel is centered on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1–5). He states that this gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16), a sacred trust (1 Tim. 1:11), the word of truth (Eph. 1:13), and an authoritative pronouncement that requires a response (Rom. 10:16; 2 Cor. 11:4; 2 Thess. 1:8). The declaration of this good news is found on the lips of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 11:5; Luke 4:18), who calls people to respond in repentance and belief (Mark 1:15). The good news is also in the early apostolic preaching, where it is associated with the proclamation of Christ (Acts 5:42; 8:35; 11:20).

The records of apostolic preaching in Acts are records of the earliest public declaration of this gospel. The apostle Peter gives three such speeches (Acts 2:14–41; 3:11–4:4; 10:34–43), whose content can be summarized as follows. The age of fulfillment has dawned through the birth, life, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (2:22–31), which has ushered in the “latter days” foretold by the prophets (3:18–26). Jesus, by his resurrection, has been exalted to the right hand of God as the head of the new Israel (2:32–36), and the Holy Spirit has been given to the church as the sign of Christ’s present power and exaltation (10:44–48). This age will reach its consummation at the return of Christ (3:20–21), and in response to this gospel an appeal is made for repentance, with the offer of forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, and salvation (2:37–41).

This declaration of the gospel is concerned primarily with what was preached rather than what was written. Itinerant preachers of this gospel were known as “evangelists,” which in Greek is closely related to the term euangelion (Acts 21:8; Eph. 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:5). Some scholars believe that during the stage of oral transmission, the gospel accounts developed a certain form through repetition, which helps explain some similarities between later written accounts of the gospel.

From Oral to Written Gospel

Later, this “oral” gospel was written down, for several reasons. With the rapid spread of Christianity, as recorded in the book of Acts, a need arose for a more efficient dissemination of the message of Jesus than was available by oral means. Furthermore, there was a need to keep the message alive because some of the apostles had died (e.g., James in Acts 12:2) and many churches were facing opposition and persecution. The written Gospels would facilitate catechetical and liturgical needs and encourage persecuted Christians to continue following Jesus by telling the story of his faithfulness through great suffering. These written Gospels would also contain examples of those who persevered in following Jesus and of those who denied him and betrayed him. These accounts about Jesus and those who followed him became foundational documents for the early church.

It should be noted that the gospel was not written down in order to give it greater authority. The first-century context was largely an oral culture, in which storytelling and the rehearsal of facts was integral. Papias, a leader of the church in Hierapolis in Asia Minor who died around AD 130, states his preference for oral tradition rather than written information about Jesus: “For I did not think that information from books would help me as much as the word of a living and surviving voice” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.4). There is, however, a traceable trajectory from the gospel preached by the apostles to the written accounts that bear the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is generally held that the authors/editors of the four canonical Gospels were using oral and/or written sources (Luke 1:1–4), and that their respective Gospels were written in the second half of the first century.

The majority of biblical scholars hold that Mark was the first Gospel to be written (c. AD 66). According to tradition, its editor/author was John Mark, a close friend of the apostle Peter (1 Pet. 5:13) and a part-time companion of the apostle Paul (Acts 12:12; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11). This tradition is not without basis. Papias says, “Mark, who had indeed been Peter’s interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or done by the Lord” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). This tradition is also outlined by Clement of Alexandria, who, around AD 200, wrote, “When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the gospel, then those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what he said; and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.5–7; cf. 2.15.1–2).

It is widely held that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of their sources: of the material in Mark, over 97 percent is repeated in Matthew and over 88 percent in Luke. Matthew and Luke also contain material that appears to come from a common written source that is not found in Mark. Scholars have named this source as “Q” (from the German Quelle = “source”), although this may be a collection of sources rather than a single document.

Furthermore, the association of the Fourth Gospel with the apostle John goes back to Irenaeus (c. AD 180), who states, “John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on his breast, also published the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia” (Haer. 3.1.1, as cited in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.8.4). By the second century, the term “gospel” is used for the written accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (e.g., Did. 11.3; 15.4). Justin Martyr (c. AD 140) refers to the “memoirs of the apostles” (1 Apol. 67) and Irenaeus (c. AD 180) mentions the four canonical Gospels by name (Haer. 3.11.7).

The Purpose and Genre of the Gospels

Purpose. The Gospels were written to convey theology and to create and confirm faith. They do not give an objectively neutral account of the life of Jesus; they enthusiastically endorse their protagonist and condemn those who oppose him. They differ from traditional biographies in that they give little information about the chronology of Jesus’ life. Only two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, tell of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth. Luke alone tells of an event in Jesus’ childhood (Luke 2:41–52). It is virtually incidental that Jesus worked as a carpenter and had brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3). A large percentage of each of the four canonical Gospels is devoted to the last week of Jesus’ life; of the sixteen chapters of Mark’s Gospel, six are devoted to the one week from Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem until his resurrection.

The primary intentions of the authors/editors of the written Gospels were not to give biographical details but rather to lead the reader to an acknowledgment of the identity of Jesus and a belief in the purpose of his mission (Luke 1:4; John 20:31). Their theological purposes, however, do not necessarily compromise their commitment to historical accuracy. Jesus is presented as a real, historical figure who lived within a specific historical time frame. Luke appears to be more concerned than the other evangelists with historical details, giving a rough date for Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:1–2) and a more specific time for Jesus’ baptism (3:1–2).

Genre. The discerning reader of the Gospels is forced to ask questions concerning the literary genre(s) of these texts. Such a discussion is imperative, as the interpretation of a section of any piece of literature will largely be determined by the function of the text within a certain literary genre. Prior to the 1970s, most NT scholars believed that the Gospels formed a unique literary genre and were therefore distinct from other first-century literary forms. This conclusion was based on the belief that the written Gospels were collections of smaller sections sewn together by the evangelists, and that the documents as a whole lacked coherence. Since then, this presupposition has been challenged, largely because scholars have seen that the Gospel writers were real editors and authors who were not just collecting primitive source material but were using that material to write a larger story about Jesus. The written Gospels therefore have overall coherence and purpose; they were written in such a way as to bring about a desired response in the reader. Such an overall intention may have stronger similarities with different genres in the Greco-Roman world of the NT.

The Gospels have been associated with several genres. They bear some resemblance to aretalogies, which were narratives about divine persons in antiquity from which flowed moral instructions. These stories often involved miraculous events at the subject’s birth or death or during life, and they included the presence of both disciples and opponents. Within these aretalogies, the narrative was secondary to the morality. An association with aretalogies, therefore, would encourage the reader to give greater attention to moral teaching than to events in which this teaching is embedded. Similarly, others have seen the Gospels as essentially a collection of wisdom sayings set in a historicized narrative; this view again gives priority to sayings and is doubtful of the historicity of the narrative. Such views that downplay the narrative, and particularly the miracles in Jesus’ life, have led others to argue the opposite extreme, which sees the Gospels, and Luke-Acts in particular, as examples of ancient novels, with their focus on miracle stories. Many scholars have rejected the emphasis on either sayings or narrative, arguing that the literary genre that the Gospels most closely resemble is ancient biographies (bioi). These contained praise for the protagonist, rhetoric, moral philosophy, and a concern for character.

Although the Gospels use different literary motifs that are reflective of different genres of the Greco-Roman world, they do not exactly replicate a known genre. They contain material not found in other Hellenistic literature of the time—for example, the fulfillment of OT expectations and their desire to address particular issues faced by the early church, such as opposition; the Gentile mission; the need to redefine Israel in the light of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection; and the nature of Christian discipleship. Unlike other literature of the time, they do not name their authors, and with the exception of Luke, they lack traditional literary devices such as prefaces. They are therefore to be seen as unique, or at least as a distinct subgenre of ancient biographies.

Canonical and Noncanonical Gospels

The progression from the events of Jesus’ life to the oral preaching of this gospel to the first-century writing of the story led to the acceptance of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John into the NT canon. There is also a significant body of literature that is normally referred to as the noncanonical gospels. These later documents were neither widely accepted nor viewed as authoritative, but they provide useful insights into the nature of early Christianity. A significant noncanonical gospel is the Gospel of Thomas, which is part of a large collection of works discovered at Nag Hammadi (Egypt) in 1945. The Gospel of Thomas does not contain a resurrection account and is primarily a collection of sayings.

The canonical Gospels are not more authoritative than other sections of Scripture, but because they focus on Jesus’ ministry, with particular attention to his death and resurrection, they draw the attention of the reader to the fulfillment of God’s purpose in the life and work of Jesus, the Messiah. They are therefore of great importance within Scripture.

The normal foodstuff of livestock in biblical times, grass consisted of various kinds of fast-growing, ground-covering plants (Num. 22:4; 1 Kings 18:5). Several types of grass were native to Israel, including short-lived grasses that sprang up during the rainy season and died down shortly afterward, as well as longer-lasting dune grasses. Dried grass, or hay, does not appear to have been harvested but needed to be removed before the new growth appeared (Prov. 27:25). The various words for “grass” can also indicate other vegetation, some of which was suitable for pasture, and some of which was even used for human consumption (Gen. 3:18; Matt. 13:26).

Because of its shallow roots, grass is quick to grow and quick to wither. This transience provides a suitable metaphor for human mortality (Ps. 90:5–6; Isa. 40:6; 1 Pet. 1:24), in contrast with the permanence of God’s word. It also illustrates the fleeting success of the wicked (Ps. 92:7), in contrast to the security of the righteous. Grass is the quickest indicator of changes in growing conditions, and thus it was also a barometer of God’s blessing on his people (Ps. 72:16). Grass is considered the most mundane of plants, of little value, yet even this plant is valued by God, who is said to clothe the grass with the splendor of lilies (Matt. 6:28–30).

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood, molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idols are not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—even pagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium through which a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguish between worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahweh through images.

In contrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of all images as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images of Yahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented by anything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form at Sinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form can adequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Bible similarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because it elevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the second commandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image of anything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatry is regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because it marks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with his people (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). This corresponds to the fact that idol worship often included cultic prostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alike ridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unable to see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these “gods” depended on humans for transportation and protection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20). Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as the things they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing, both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous. This is because idols lead people away from properly worshiping Yahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despite its warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israel regularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supreme revelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping a golden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society had become degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan, engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy was divided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship to preserve the loyalty of his people (1 Kings 12:25–33). Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reason for the exile.

By NT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but it remained an important issue for the growing church because many believers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostles included idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readers to flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols. Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linked it with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NT authors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worship the true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to the time when all idol worship would cease.

A major public road upgraded through some kind of paving material and with drainage ditches on the sides. Highways provided international access for armies, merchants, caravans, and animals on the major trade routes of an empire (Num. 20:17; 21:22). The paving material often was made of pebbles packed down, but occasionally it was made of cut stone. The term “highway” often was used metaphorically to suggest a wide, easy path of life (Prov. 7:27; 15:19; Isa. 19:23; 40:3).

Scope and Uses of the Word “Hope”

At times simply indicating a wish (2 Cor. 11:1), in the Bible the word “hope” most often designates a disposition of soul, the grounds for one’s hope, or the outcome for which one hopes.

Those whom God has helped and delivered expect to see God’s power again when future needs arise, knowing that in God there are reasons for hope. Mere optimism assumes that bad circumstances will improve with the passing of time. In contrast, hope assumes that God is faithful and is convinced that he is able to bring about his good purpose (Isa. 44:1–8). So at its core, biblical hope is hope in God, rooted in God’s covenant faithfulness (Ps. 62:5–8; Jer. 14:8; 17:13; Rom. 4:18; 5:1–5). Hope trusts God in the present and lives even now on the strength of God’s future accomplishments (Gal. 5:5; Heb. 11:1).

Both of the main OT words for “hope” (Heb. roots qwh and ykhl) are at times translated “wait.” By definition, hope means that God’s promised outcome has not arrived, and that some time will pass before it does. But that time is filled with a sense of waiting on God, often with a deep ache of longing for God to act (see Pss. 25:16–21; 39:4–7; Isa. 40:28–31; Lam. 3:19–24).

The inner disposition of hope may be seriously threatened by injustice and other devastating life experiences, as reflected in Job 6:8–13; 14:19; 19:10. The refrain of Pss. 42:5–6, 11; 43:5 is a psalmist’s self-exhortation to hope amid oppressive and depressing circumstances: “Why, my soul, are you downcast? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God.” Words for “hope” function similarly in other psalms of lament (Pss. 9:18; 31:24; 71:5, 14; cf. Mic. 7:7).

The OT usually locates individual hope within the horizon and limits of this world. One hopes for outcomes that may be realized in one’s own lifetime; indeed, when life ends, hope ends (Prov. 11:7; 24:20; Eccles. 9:4; Isa. 38:18). Proverbs that mention hope regarding someone’s character development show an underlying concern that God’s purposes be vindicated in one’s life (e.g., Prov. 19:18; 26:12). When used in conjunction with Israel as a whole, hope looks to a more distant future and coming generations.

In the NT, hope is closely associated with Christ and his saving work. Christians now live by hope in Christ (Eph. 1:12; 1 Pet. 1:3; 3:15); indeed, he is “Christ Jesus our hope” (1 Tim. 1:1), and his future appearing is “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). Thus, hope refers to eschatological glory (2 Cor. 3:11–12; Eph. 1:18). It is “the hope of the resurrection” (Acts 23:6; cf. 24:15; 26:6–9), our transformation into Christ’s likeness (1 John 3:1–3). That expectation stimulates various hopes for God’s plans to be realized in one’s own or others’ lives (1 Cor. 9:10, 13; Phil. 2:19, 23; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 John 12). So hope is named repeatedly as an essential Christian attribute (Rom. 12:12; 15:4, 13; 1 Cor. 13:13).

Hope as a Biblical Theme

With the God of hope as its covenant Lord, hope is a defining reality for Israel and a persistent theme in the historical books (e.g., 2 Sam. 23:1–7; 2 Kings 25:27–30). Psalmists find hope either in continuity with present structures (Ps. 37) or in drastic change (Pss. 33; 82), such as personal or corporate restoration.

Judgment dominates the message of the preexilic prophets, although expressions of hope are also found. But Judah’s downfall in 587/586 BC marks a turning point in prophetic hope. While preexilic prophecy bases its indictment, appeal, and warning in the exodus and the covenant, Jeremiah and Ezekiel tend to redirect hope and expectation to a new work of salvation that God will accomplish through and after the judgment of exile (e.g., Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 11:16–21; cf. Isa. 43:18–19). In the wake of Judah’s destruction, these prophets grasp a remarkable new vision of grace and promise. Restoration will be personal as well as national; forgiveness of sin will enable obedience to God’s law, now to be found written on their hearts.

During the exile, collection of Israel’s sacred texts enabled the shattered community to sustain identity and hope. Postexilic prophecy is often “text prophecy” that arises from reflection upon and reapplication of written prophecies, psalms, and other scriptural texts. For example, the book of Zechariah (especially chaps. 9–14) alludes to many earlier writings and also moves toward apocalyptic literature, contributing dramatic new imagery of God’s conquest of evil to establish his cosmic reign and fulfill his covenant. Messianic hopes rose throughout this period, fueled by earlier prophecies (e.g., Isa. 9; 11; 65:17; Jer. 23:5; Mic. 5:2).

If the OT gives occasional hints of an afterlife, this hope becomes manifest in the NT (2 Tim. 1:10). Jesus promises the thief on the cross fellowship after death (Luke 23:43). For Paul, “to depart and be with Christ” is such a vivid hope that “to die is gain” (Phil. 1:21–24). Such texts imply that death ushers the believer into Christ’s presence. Yet this intermediate state is not the whole picture. We are saved in hope of the redemption of our bodies (Rom. 8:23–25)—our resurrection from the dead and entry into a new glorified, bodily existence (1 Cor. 15; Phil. 3:20–21).

Christ is judge as well as savior (Matt. 16:27; 25:31–46; Acts 17:31; Rom. 2:16), and the NT anticipates final judgment of all persons and powers arrayed against God, including sin and death (1 Cor. 15:24–26; 2 Thess. 1:5–10). Christian hope involves nothing less than the return and full revelation of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the renewal of all creation (1 Thess. 4:13–18; Rev. 21–22)—the complete vindication of God’s rule, secured already in Christ. Then God’s redeemed people will see his face and live in his presence forever (Matt. 5:8; Jude 24; Rev. 22:4). A vision of this future enables us to press on with hope, stretching toward what is to come (Phil. 3:13–14).

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood, molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idols are not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—even pagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium through which a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguish between worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahweh through images.

In contrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of all images as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images of Yahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented by anything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form at Sinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form can adequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Bible similarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because it elevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the second commandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image of anything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatry is regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because it marks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with his people (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). This corresponds to the fact that idol worship often included cultic prostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alike ridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unable to see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these “gods” depended on humans for transportation and protection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20). Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as the things they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing, both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous. This is because idols lead people away from properly worshiping Yahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despite its warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israel regularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supreme revelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping a golden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society had become degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan, engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy was divided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship to preserve the loyalty of his people (1 Kings 12:25–33). Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reason for the exile.

By NT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but it remained an important issue for the growing church because many believers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostles included idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readers to flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols. Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linked it with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NT authors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worship the true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to the time when all idol worship would cease.

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood, molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idols are not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—even pagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium through which a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguish between worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahweh through images.

In contrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of all images as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images of Yahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented by anything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form at Sinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form can adequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Bible similarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because it elevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the second commandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image of anything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatry is regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because it marks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with his people (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). This corresponds to the fact that idol worship often included cultic prostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alike ridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unable to see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these “gods” depended on humans for transportation and protection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20). Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as the things they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing, both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous. This is because idols lead people away from properly worshiping Yahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despite its warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israel regularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supreme revelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping a golden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society had become degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan, engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy was divided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship to preserve the loyalty of his people (1 Kings 12:25–33). Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reason for the exile.

By NT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but it remained an important issue for the growing church because many believers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostles included idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readers to flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols. Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linked it with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NT authors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worship the true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to the time when all idol worship would cease.

The central city and capital of ancient Israel. The original meaning of the name probably is “founded by [the Canaanite god] Salem.” The Amarna letters refer to a Beth-Shalem, and its first reference in the Bible is Salem (Gen. 14:18). Throughout its history, the city has also been referred to variously as Zion, Jebus, Mount Moriah, and the City of David.

The name “Jerusalem” occurs more than 650 times in the OT, particularly in the history of Israel, and in the NT more than 140 times. The OT prophets used the city as a symbol of God’s dealing with his people and his plan. Jerusalem is viewed collectively as God’s abode, his chosen place, and his sovereignty, while its destruction is also representative of God’s judgment on apostasy among his people (e.g., Jer. 7:1–15; 26:18–19; Mic. 3:12). The rebuilding of the city represents the hope and grace of God (e.g., Isa. 40:1–2; 52:1, 7–8; 60–62; Jer. 30:18–19; 31:38–39; Ezek. 5:5; Hag. 2:6–8; Zech. 8:3–8). Like the writers of the OT, the NT authors spoke of Jerusalem in metaphorical and eschatological terms. Paul used Jerusalem to contrast the old and the new covenants (Gal. 4:24–26), and the writer of Hebrews used it as the place of the new covenant, sealed through the blood of Jesus (Heb. 12:22–24). In Revelation the concept of a new Jerusalem is related to the future kingdom of God (Rev. 3:12; 21:1–22:5).

Jerusalem is located in the Judean hill country, about 2,700 feet above sea level. It borders the Judean desert to the east. The city expanded and contracted in size over various hills and valleys. There are two major ridges (Eastern and Western Hills) separated by the Tyropoeon Valley. The Eastern Hill contains a saddle, the Ophel Hill, and north of this is the traditional site of Mount Moriah, where later the temple was constructed. The Eastern Hill was always occupied, since the only water source is the Gihon Spring, located in the Kidron Valley. Two other ridges were important for the city, as they were used for extramural suburbs, cemeteries, and quarries. To the east is the Mount of Olives, which is separated from the Eastern Hill by the Kidron Valley. To the west of the Western Hill is the Central Ridge Route, separated by the Hinnom Valley.

Early History through the United Monarchy

The earliest occupation was near the Gihon Spring, where Chalcolithic pottery (c. 3500 BC) and structures dating to the Early Bronze Age (c. 3000–2800 BC) were found. The Bronze Age city is mentioned in the Ebla tablets, Execration texts, and the Amarna letters. Melchizedek, the king of Salem, received gifts from Abraham and blessed him (Gen. 14). Abraham was commanded to offer Isaac as a sacrifice on one of the mountains of Mount Moriah (Gen. 22:2), the location where Solomon later built the temple (2 Chron. 3:1). The Jebusite city of the Bronze Age extended over the lower part of the Eastern Hill for about twelve acres, with a population of about one thousand.

After Joshua made a treaty with the Gibeonites, the king of Jerusalem, Adoni-Zedek, formed a coalition of five kings to attack Gibeon. Joshua defeated this coalition and killed the kings (Josh. 10). The Canaanite inhabitants of Jerusalem are referred to as Amorites (Josh. 10:5) and as Jebusites (Judg. 1:21; 1 Chron. 11:4).

When David became king over both Israel and Judah, he made Jerusalem the political, spiritual, and administrative center of his kingdom. Jerusalem became synonymous with David and was called the “City of David.” Transferring the ark to Jerusalem made it the new religious center for the Israelites. David conquered the Jebusite stronghold through the tsinnor, possibly a water tunnel (2 Sam. 5:6–8; 1 Chron. 11:4–7). He took up residence in the city and began an extensive building program, but his vision of Jerusalem as the religious center was not fully realized until his son Solomon became king and built the temple.

Solomon greatly expanded the city by building fortifications, the temple, and the royal palace (1 Kings 7–9). This was the first initial expansion of the city as Solomon extended the city northward along the Eastern Hill, up the Ophel to the site of the present-day Temple Mount. This expanded the city to about thirty-two acres, with a population of around five thousand. During the united monarchy, Jerusalem became the center of Israelite administration and religion. All Israelites were to come to Jerusalem three times a year for religious festivals. Solomonic Jerusalem became the foundation for the imagery bestowed on the city by the psalms (e.g., Pss. 46; 48; 76; 84; 87; 122; 125; 132). Although major excavations were carried out in the 1980s in the City of David, little is known archaeologically about the city of that period.

From the Divided Monarchy to the Exile

During the divided monarchy, Jerusalem was attacked by foreign forces. Jerusalem was attacked by Shishak of Egypt at the end of the tenth century BC (1 Kings 14:25–26), by Syria and northern Israel during the ninth century BC (2 Kings 12:17; 15:37), and by Sennacherib of Assyria during the seventh century BC (2 Kings 18:13). Several Judean kings undertook building projects. Uzziah fortified Jerusalem by adding towers to the city walls (2 Chron. 26:9), and Jotham built the upper gate of the temple (2 Chron. 27:3).

Hezekiah greatly expanded Jerusalem. The city doubled in size during his reign as it extended to the Western Hill (Upper City). The city then encompassed about 125 acres, with a population of about twenty-five thousand. It had expanded due to the influx of immigrants from the north when the capital of Samaria fell to the Assyrians. Hezekiah reinforced the Millo, built and rebuilt walls, and erected towers as he extended the walls to encompass the Western Hill. In preparation for the siege by Sennacherib, he constructed an underground water system to bring water from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam inside the city (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chron. 32:2–4, 30; Isa. 22:11). Manasseh refortified Jerusalem with the construction of a new outer wall (2 Chron. 33:14). Jerusalem was invaded when Jehoiakim rebelled and was finally destroyed by Babylon in 586 BC. Prophets during the divided monarchy spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem, but also of its exaltation in later times (e.g., Isa. 2:2–4; 24:23; Jer. 7:14; Mic. 3:12).

Archaeological excavations have revealed much about Jerusalem during the time of the later Judean kings. Several walls, towers, and fortifications attributed to Hezekiah have been excavated in the Jewish Quarter. Hezekiah’s tunnel and the Siloam Inscription have been discovered, highlighting the preparations made by Hezekiah for the Assyrian siege. Several quarries and tombs have been found on the slopes of the Mount of Olives and the western slope (Ketef Hinnom) of the Hinnom Valley. In one of the Ketef Hinnom tombs, a silver amulet containing the earliest known biblical text (Num. 6:24–26) was found. Evidence of the Babylonian destruction was found in excavations of the Jewish Quarter and the City of David. A group of bullae (fired clay impressions) was found with the name of “Gemariah ben-Shaphan,” probably the scribe mentioned in Jer. 36.

From Persian to Roman Rule

After the Persian conquest of Babylon (539 BC), Cyrus II allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. Judah became the Persian province Yehud, and Jerusalem was the administrative center. Nehemiah was appointed governor of Judea by Artaxerxes in 445 BC. Nehemiah undertook a hasty rebuilding project against the wishes of the local population (Neh. 2:19; 4:7). The rebuilt city was constricted to the area of the Eastern Hill, comprising some thirty acres, with a population of about forty-five hundred.

Alexander the Great captured Jerusalem in 332 BC. This victory marked the end of Persian rule. Following Alexander’s death, his empire was divided between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria. Ptolemy I captured Jerusalem in 320 BC, but the Jerusalem temple continued to be the center of local Jewish life and administration. The Seleucids defeated the Ptolemies and annexed Palestine around 201–198 BC. The city and the temple were repaired during their reign. During this period the Jews were struggling with the acceptance of Hellenistic culture. The high priest Jason favored Hellenization and transformed Jerusalem into a Hellenistic polis (a Greek city-state). Jerusalem became known as Antiochia, and the city expanded to the eastern slope of the Western Hill (Upper City). Jason built a gymnasium (1 Macc. 1:11–15; 2 Macc. 4:9–17). The Maccabeans revolted, and Antiochus IV destroyed the walls of Jerusalem, erected a fortress (the Akra), and desecrated the temple. Judas Maccabeus liberated Jerusalem in 164 BC, and the temple was purified and rededicated (1 Macc. 4:36–55). Hasmonean rule lasted from 142 to 63 BC. Hasmonean Jerusalem occupied the Western and Eastern Hills. The Upper City was joined to the Temple Mount by an arched bridge across the Tyropoeon Valley (Wilson’s Arch). A fortress (the Baris) was built northwest of the temple. The Romans conquered Jerusalem in 63 BC under the rule of Pompey and ended Hasmonean rule.

The Time of Jesus and the First Century AD

Jerusalem during the time of Jesus was largely the product of Herod the Great’s policies and building programs. Herod was a Roman vassal and brought Hellenistic culture to the city. He built an amphitheater and a theater. Jerusalem became a city divided between the wealthy of the Upper City and the poor in the Lower City. Herodian Jerusalem’s population was about forty thousand, and the city extended over 230 acres, not including suburbs on the Mount of Olives and west of the city. Herod’s main building activity was the complex on the Temple Mount. Herod built a massive podium over the northern summit of the Eastern Hill. This podium stood forty-five meters high above the bottom of the Kidron Valley. This formed a rectangular platform for the temple that measured 144,000 square meters. Most of the retaining walls are visible today, and the best-known section is the Western Wall. To the south of the Temple Mount complex was the Royal Stoa, and on the northwest corner was the Antonia Fortress.

Archaeological research has uncovered several components and features of NT Jerusalem. The temple rituals needed large amounts of water, and Herod built an elaborate water-delivery and storage system. Remains of both subterranean and surface aqueducts are found from the Bethlehem region to Jerusalem. Large water-storage pools are still visible today, such as the Serpent’s Pool in the Hinnom Valley, the Pool of the Towers of Amygdalon, the Sheep Pools, the Pool of Israel, as well as several other unnamed reservoirs and water-storage features. Several segments of the city fortification walls were found in various archaeological excavations, as well as remains of the Antonia Fortress and Herod’s Upper Palace with its three towers and adjacent Agora. Jewish Quarter excavations have revealed several palatial homes with various luxury goods, evidence of the wealth of the Upper City. These homes contained a courtyard surrounded by rooms and reception halls; several had private ritual baths. Excavations of the southern wall have revealed components of the Temple Mount complex, most notably the southern monumental stairway with the ritual-bath complex building and the two entrances that led up to the Temple Mount. Several tombs and cemeteries have also been excavated in the environs around the city.

Most of Jesus’ ministry was spent in Galilee. He would have come to Jerusalem at least three times each year to attend the major festivals. Of the Gospel writers, Luke most often referred to Jerusalem and the temple as he framed his account of the deeds and teachings of Jesus. Although the events of Passion Week took place in Jerusalem and its environs, the Gospels emphasize the events and teachings of Jesus, not the geography.

The early church started in Jerusalem with the events of Pentecost. Jerusalem was the origin and the center of the early church under the leadership of James. It seemed to serve as the center of the apostles’ authority, but the missionary zeal soon shifted the ministry and focus of the church to the eastern Mediterranean. Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 by the Romans under the direction of Titus. Jerusalem has been a central place for the Christian faith, whose followers acknowledge the city as the place of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jerusalem played a major role throughout history and has always been a center of pilgrimage for Christians.

Geography and economy. Biblical Lebanon is the region that consists of two parallel mountain ranges north of Israel, whose boundaries are very similar to modern-day Lebanon. The south-southwest range is called “Lebanon,” and the north-northeast range “Anti-Lebanon” (i.e., “all Lebanon to the east” [cf. Josh. 13:5]). Between the two ranges is the Valley of Lebanon, where the city of Baal Gad was located (Josh. 11:17; 12:7). At the southern end is Mount Hermon, where the snowcapped peaks probably gave rise to its name, which in Hebrew means “to be white” (Jer. 18:14). Biblical references probably have in view Mount Lebanon (Judg. 3:3), with an elevation of ten thousand feet. Historically, the region was not as prosperous as the coastal Phoenician cities, although it was well known for its lumber industry. The fruits (Ps. 72:16), wine (Hos. 14:7), flowing waters (Song 4:15), and animals (Song 4:8) are described effusively in the OT. The region marks the northern boundary of the promised land (Deut. 1:7; 3:25; 11:24; Josh. 1:4; 9:1), which Joshua never conquered (Josh. 13:5; Judg. 3:1–3). Later, Solomon seems to have built cities in it (1 Kings 9:19; 2 Chron. 8:6).

Archaeological evidence indicates that trees found in the region, such as pine, cypress, and cedar, were greatly sought after from the time of the Middle Bronze Age (2200–1550 BC) to the Byzantine period (AD 324–638) for use in the construction of buildings and boats (cf. Ezek. 27:5). Cedar wood from the forests of Lebanon was shipped to Solomon by the king of Tyre for building the temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 4:33; 5:6–10; 2 Kings 14:9; 2 Chron. 2:8–16; Song 3:9). When the forest belonged to the king of Persia, he authorized cedar wood to be sent for the building of the second temple (Ezra 3:7).

Metaphorical use of “Lebanon.” Important to the present discussion is the metaphorical use of the term “Lebanon,” particularly in the OT, where the term occurs over seventy times (the name does not appear in the NT). First, associated with the mountainous range in the region, Lebanon evokes images of glory, fertility, and abundance. For example, the high elevation gives Lebanon the sense of majesty and glory (Isa. 35:2; 60:13; cf. 2 Kings 19:23), which is further equated with the glory of Jerusalem (Isa. 60:13; Ezek. 17:3, 22; cf. Isa. 10:34; Zech. 11:1) and the restored Israel (Zech. 10:10–11; cf. Jer. 22:6). The melting snows, plus the annual rainfall, ensure abundance and fertility (Ps. 104:16; Song 4:15; Jer. 18:14; cf. Ps. 72:16). The glory of Lebanon is linked with Sharon, Bashan, and Carmel in the territory of Israel (Isa. 2:13; 35:2; cf. Isa. 33:9; Nah. 1:4).

Second, of all the coniferous trees in the forest of Lebanon, cedars receive the greatest attention and have been regularly used to indicate stature and beauty. For example, their sweet smell describes the desirability of renewed Israel (Song 4:11; Hos. 14:7), and their magnificence reminds one of the beautiful trees in Eden (Ps. 104:16; Ezek. 31:9, 16). These towering evergreens are a fitting image of humankind. The righteous people are compared to a cedar of Lebanon (Ps. 92:12–15); the legs of the bridegroom are as noble as the cedars (Song 5:15); and even kings, both Davidic (Isa. 14:8; Ezek. 17:3) and foreign (Isa. 10:34; Ezek. 31:3–18), as well as their subjects (Judg. 9:15), are likened to the cedars of Lebanon. Quite often, they are symbols of political entities (Isa. 2:13; 40:16), such as Judah (Ezek. 17:3), Assyria (Ezek. 31:3), and Tyre (Ezek. 27:5).

Third, Lebanon, together with its forest, is used to depict negative images. For example, all its glories and riches combined are not enough for a sacrificial offering to God (Isa. 40:16). The barrenness of Lebanon is the result of God’s judgment (Isa. 33:9). Prophetic oracles are often associated with Lebanon. The cutting down or withering of the choicest trees is spoken of as judgment against the proud (Isa. 2:13; 33:9; Ezek. 31:15; Nah. 1:4), against the wicked nation of Tyre (Ezek. 27:1–9) and Judah (Jer. 22:6–7).

Fourth, exegetical traditions resulting from the metaphorical richness of Lebanon are found in later Jewish literature. For example, based on the root (lbn) of the term “Lebanon,” which means “to be white,” the rabbis interpreted it to refer to the temple, for it whitens the sin of Israel (b. Yoma 39a). The sweet fragrance of the cedars in Lebanon (Hos. 14:6) causes interpreters to connect it with the smell of the youth of Israel exhaled in the last day (b. Ber. 43b).

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It has a Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family” and, eventually, “race” or “people.” The Greek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship. In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other than Israel. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,” “peoples,” or “races.”

Old Testament

In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

The Servant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect this law/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. The servant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14), serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6; 49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separate from Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who have harmed Israel.

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Second Temple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, their nature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end. Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’s people defined by the law, variously understood and contested among Second Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’s ultimate blessing activities.

Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18).

However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.

A track worn by footsteps (Gen. 49:17; Num. 22:32; Neh. 9:19; Mark 4:4), often distinguished from a wider, smoother road (Num. 22:24; 2 Sam. 22:37; Matt. 7:13–14). The Bible exhorts the reader toward the “path of life” (Ps. 16:11; Prov. 15:24) in contrast to the way leading to death (Deut. 30:1–20; Prov. 14:12; Jer. 21:8; James 5:20). The good path is characterized by pursuing God’s presence through obedience to his will (Deut. 11:28; Pss. 27:11; 44:18; 119:32). John the Baptist was called to prepare the path of the Messiah (Mark 1:3; cf. Isa. 40:3). Jesus presents himself as a path back to God (John 14:6). Early Christianity was called “the Way” (Acts 9:2; 19:9; 24:22). Paul exhorts Christians to walk in the humility and gentleness of Christ, which is worthy of God’s calling (Eph. 4:1–2).

A synonym of “strength.” “Power” often translates the Hebrew words koakh or ’az or the Greek word dynamis, all of which denote strength or might. The Hebrew word yad (“hand”) may also denote power when it is used to speak of the dominion of a ruler (e.g., 2 Kings 17:7 [NASB: “hand of Pharaoh”; NIV: “power of Pharaoh”]).

Although humans have a degree of power, God is omnipotent, all-powerful (Jer. 32:17). He utilized his great power in creating the world (Jer. 51:15; Rom. 1:20; Rev. 4:11). He has also displayed his power through other mighty acts, such as delivering the Israelites from Egypt (Exod. 14:31; Deut. 9:26). The wisdom literature extols God’s power (Job 9:4; Pss. 20:6; 66:3; 147:5), as do the prophets (Isa. 40:10; Jer. 27:5; Dan. 2:20; Nah. 1:3) and the letters of the NT (1 Cor. 6:14; Eph. 1:18–21; Col. 2:10). God continues to display his power through the gospel (Rom. 1:16), not only in rescuing believers from their sins (1 Cor. 1:24–25) but also in empowering them to live holy lives (2 Cor. 4:7).

The Holy Spirit has acted and continues to act as the agent of God’s power (Judg. 14:6; 1 Sam. 16:13; Acts 1:8). Just as the Holy Spirit has done many powerful signs and wonders through Jesus and the apostles (Acts 10:38; Rom. 15:18–19), he gives rebirth to each Christian through his power (Gal. 4:29). The Holy Spirit also strengthens Christians with power “so that Christ may dwell in [their] hearts through faith” (Eph. 3:17).

The word “root” occurs in a literal sense in Job 30:4, but ordinarily it is used in a figurative sense. Its most prevalent connotation refers to the foundation or core of a matter or one’s life (Job 28:9; Prov. 12:3, 12; Isa. 14:30). It also, by analogy, signifies that which gives life to the plant (Matt. 13:6; Rom. 11:17). When pictured near water, roots symbolize prosperity (Job 29:19; Ezek. 31:7), even a blessing of the Lord (Job 8:17; Jer. 17:8).

The term sometimes indicates the lowest part or depth (Job 36:30). It can also carry the idea of origin, as in that of bitterness or evil (Deut. 29:18; 1 Tim. 6:10; Heb. 12:15), or the cause of a matter (Job 19:28).

Frequently, the word is used to describe something established, as in a kingdom (Ps. 80:9, 15; Isa. 27:6; 37:31; 40:24; Jer. 12:2). It emphasizes positively that which is secure (Prov. 12:3, 12) or negatively that which is uprooted or destroyed (1 Kings 14:15).

Finally, the word may refer to the offspring of a family (Judg. 5:14; Ps. 80:15), ultimately pointing to the coming Messiah (Isa. 11:1, 10; 53:2; Rev. 5:5; 22:16) as the heir through whom the dynasty is completed.

A metalworker who creates objects out of silver and sometimes gold, brass, or iron (2 Chron. 2:7). The OT references translated “silversmith” are based on the Hebrew word for “smelter, refiner” (tsorep) with “silver” as a modifier (Judg. 17:4; Isa. 40:19) or implied from context (Prov. 25:4; Jer. 10:9). In the NT, the only silversmith (Gk. argyrokopos) is Demetrius of Ephesus (Acts 19:24), a guild leader who made shrines honoring Artemis. Recognizing that the gospel threatened his industry, he incited a riot against Paul.

In the ancient Near East, tents were used as shelters, particularly for nomadic peoples (Gen. 13:5, 18), seminomadic herders (Song 1:8), wealthy travelers or caravans, and military encampments (2 Kings 7:5–8). Tent coverings could be made of fabric (often woven from goat hair [e.g., Exod. 26:7]) or animal skins. Poles, pegs, and ropes were used to raise the tent and hold it in place (Isa. 33:20; 54:2). Tents were used both as dwellings (Gen. 4:20) and as meeting or worship spaces (2 Sam. 6:17). The term “tabernacle” also refers to a tent structure (e.g., Job 18:6 KJV), especially to the tent God inhabited from the time of the exodus until Solomon built him a more permanent dwelling (see Tabernacle, Tent of Meeting). A tent is used as a metaphor for the sky or the heavens (Pss. 19:4; 104:2; Isa. 40:22) and often symbolizes protection or habitation (Job 18:14; 22:23; Ps. 61:4). In the NT, the image of a tent is used figuratively of human flesh and earthly existence (2 Cor. 5:1–4; 2 Pet. 1:13; cf. John 1:14; see also Shekinah). Paul was a tentmaker by trade, as were Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:2–3). See also Pavilion.

A broad designation for certain regions in Israel, typically rocky, although also plains, with little rainfall. These areas generally are uninhabited, and most often “wilderness” refers to specific regions surrounding inhabited Israel. A fair amount of Scripture’s focus with respect to the wilderness concerns Israel’s forty-year period of wandering in the wilderness after the exodus (see also Wilderness Wandering).

Geography

More specifically, the geographical locations designated “wilderness” fall into four basic categories: the Negev (south), Transjordan (east), Judean (eastern slope of Judean mountains), and Sinai (southwest).

The Negev makes up a fair amount of Israel’s southern kingdom, Judah. It is very rocky and also includes plateaus and wadis, which are dry riverbeds that can bloom after rains. Its most important city is Beersheba (see Gen. 21:14, 22–34), which often designates Israel’s southernmost border, as in the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” (e.g., 2 Sam. 17:11).

Transjordan pertains to the area east of the Jordan River, the area through which the Israelites had to pass before crossing the Jordan on their way from Mount Sinai to Canaan. (Israel was denied direct passage to Canaan by the Edomites and Amorites [see Num. 20:14–21; 21:21–26]). Even though this region lay outside the promised land of Canaan, it was settled by the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh after they had fulfilled God’s command to fight alongside the other tribes in conquering Canaan (Num. 32:1–42; Josh. 13:8; 22:1–34).

The Judean Desert is located on the eastern slopes of the Judean mountains, toward the Dead Sea. David fled there for refuge from Saul (1 Sam. 21–23). It was also in this area that Jesus was tempted (Luke 4:1–13).

The Sinai Desert is a large peninsula, with the modern-day Gulf of Suez to the west and the Gulf of Aqaba to the east. In the ancient Near Eastern world, both bodies of water often were referred to as the “Red Sea,” which is the larger sea to the south. In addition to the region traditionally believed to contain the location of Mount Sinai (its exact location is unknown), the Sinai Desert is further subdivided into other areas known to readers of the OT: Desert of Zin (northeast, contains Kadesh Barnea), Desert of Shur (northwest, near Egypt), Desert of Paran (central).

Wilderness in the Bible

Wilderness is commonly mentioned in the Bible, and although it certainly can have neutral connotations (i.e., simply describing a location), the uninhabited places often entail both positive (e.g., as a place of solitude) and negative (e.g., as a place of wrath) connotations, both in their actual geological properties and as metaphors. The very rugged and uninhabited nature of the wilderness easily lent itself to being a place of death (e.g., Deut. 8:15; Ps. 107:4–5; Jer. 2:6). It was also a place associated with Israel’s rebellions and struggles with other nations. Upon leaving Egypt, Israel spent forty years wandering the wilderness before entering Canaan, encountering numerous military conflicts along the way. This forty-year period was occasioned by a mass rebellion (Num. 14), hence casting a necessarily dark cloud over that entire period, and no doubt firming up subsequent negative connotations of “wilderness.” Similarly, “wilderness” connotes notions of exile from Israel, as seen in the ritual of the scapegoat (lit., “goat of removal” [see Lev. 16]). On the Day of Atonement, one goat was sacrificed to atone for the people’s sin, and another was sent off, likewise to atone for sin. The scapegoat was released into the desert, where it would encounter certain death, either by succumbing to the climate or through wild animals.

On the other hand, it is precisely in this uninhabited land that God also showed his faithfulness to his people, despite their prolonged punishment. He miraculously supplied bread (manna) and meat (quail) (Exod. 16; Num. 11), as well as water (Exod. 15:22–27; 17:1–7; Num. 20:1–13; 21:16–20). God’s care for Israel is amply summarized in Deut. 1:30–31: “The Lord your God, who is going before you, will fight for you, as he did for you in Egypt, before your very eyes, and in the wilderness. There you saw how the Lord your God carried you, as a father carries his son, all the way you went until you reached this place.”

The harsh realities of the wilderness also made it an ideal place to seek sanctuary and protection. David fled from Saul to the wilderness, the Desert of Ziph (1 Sam. 23:14; 26:2–3; cf. Ps. 55:7). Similarly, Jeremiah sought a retreat in the desert from sinful Israel (Jer. 9:2).

Related somewhat to this last point is Jesus’ own attitude toward the wilderness. It was there that he retreated when he could no longer move about publicly (John 11:54). John the Baptist came from the wilderness announcing Jesus’ ministry (Matt. 3:1–3; Mark 1:2–4; Luke 3:2–6; John 1:23; cf. Isa. 40:3–5). It was also in the desert that Jesus went to be tempted but also overcame that temptation.

Wings symbolize protection (Exod. 19:4; Ruth 2:12; Ps. 17:8; Matt. 23:37) or strength: “Those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles” (Isa. 40:31). In some cases, heavenly beings have wings (Ezek. 1:6–11; Rev. 4:8).

The Bible has much to say about works, and an understanding of the topic is important because works play a role in most religions. In the most generic sense, “works” refers to the products or activities of human moral agents in the context of religious discussion. God’s works are frequently mentioned in Scripture, and they are always good. His works include creation (Gen. 2:2–3; Isa. 40:28; 42:5), sustenance of the earth (Ps. 104; Heb. 1:3), and redemption (Exod. 6:6; Ps. 111:9; Rom. 8:23). Human works, therefore, should be in alignment with God’s works, though obviously of a different sort. Works in the Bible usually reflect a moral polarity: good or evil, righteous or unrighteous, just or unjust. The context of the passage often determines the moral character of the works (e.g., Isa. 3:10–11; 2 Cor. 11:15).

Important questions follow from the existence of works and their moral quality. Do good works merit God’s favor or please him? Can good works save at the time of God’s judgment? When people asked Jesus, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” he answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” (John 6:28–29). Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). The people from the OT commended in Heb. 11 did their works in the precondition of faith. Explicitly in the NT and often implicitly in the OT, faith is the condition for truly good works. God elects out of his mercy, not out of human works (Rom. 9:12, 16; Titus 3:5; cf. Rom. 11:2). Works not done in faith, even if considered “good” by human standards, are not commendable to God, since all humankind is under sin (Rom. 3:9) and no person is righteous or does good (Rom. 3:10–18; cf. Isa. 64:6). Works cannot save; salvation is a gift to be received by faith (Eph. 2:8–9; 2 Tim. 1:9; cf. Rom. 4:2–6). Even works of the Mosaic law are not salvific (Rom. 3:20, 27–28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2; 5:4). Good works follow from faith (2 Cor. 9:8; Eph. 2:10; 1 Thess. 1:3; James 2:18, 22; cf. Acts 26:20). The works of those who have faith will be judged, but this judgment appears to be related to rewards, not salvation (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; 2 Cor. 5:10; cf. Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3:13–15).

The study of human beings, their nature and origins. The Christian understanding of anthropology stems from a biblical view of humankind’s relationship to God.

The Origin of Humankind

According to Genesis, the creation of humankind took place on the sixth day of the creation week. The amount of narrative space allotted to this day (Gen. 1:24–31) testifies to the special importance of what happened. Human beings were made on the same day as the animals. Human beings were not given a day of their own, showing that they have a certain kinship with the animals, although they are far more than highly successful and adaptive mammals. This has implications for the care of animals and of the environment generally. The value of human beings and their special place in the created order is clear in passages such as Pss. 8:5–6; 104:14–15.

Created in the image of God. When it came to the making of human beings, God deliberated over this crucial step (Gen. 1:26). The plural of exhortation in “Let us make man in our image” signals that the decision to make humankind was the most important one that God had made so far. Genesis 1 says that human beings are like God in some way.

Various opinions have been canvassed as to what the “image” is. We cannot totally exclude the physical form of humans, given God’s humanoid form in OT appearances (theophanies; e.g., Isa. 6:1; Ezek. 1:26; Amos 9:1). The image has sometimes been interpreted as a task, the exercising of dominion (Gen. 1:28), with humanity appointed as creation’s king, ruling under God. But the image is better understood as the precondition for rule rather than rule itself. The image shows human worth (Gen. 9:6) and differentiates humans from all other creatures. It is proper for the Bible to use anthropomorphic language for God, for humans are remarkably like God. Both male and female are in the image of God (“in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” [1:27]), so that the divine image is not maleness, nor is sexual differentiation the image. Commonly, the image of God is thought to be some peculiar quality of human beings—for example, rationality, speech, moral sense, personality, humans as relational beings.

Every century has its own view of what is the essence of humanity. However, nothing in the passage allows a choice among such alternatives. The point of the passage is simply the fact of the likeness, with no exact definition being provided. The fact of the image is the basis of the divine prohibition of murder and of the strict penalty applied to the transgressor (9:4–6). The fall into sin affected every aspect of the human constitution, and the Bible does not minimize the fact of human sinfulness (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10–18); nevertheless, humans are still in the image of God (Gen. 5:1–3; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7). God’s plan of salvation is aimed at ridding creation (and especially humanity) of the baneful effects of sin, and this will be achieved through the work of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15–20; Heb. 1:1–3; 2:5–18). The outcome will be the conformity of believers in Christ to his glorious image (Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 3.18).

Place in the created order. God’s purpose in giving human beings the divine image is “so they may rule” (NET [Gen. 1:26b translated as a purpose clause]). The syntax suggests that the image is a presupposition of dominion. It is plain that such a delegated authority makes humans stewards. The vegetarian diet of Gen.1:29 (there was no eating of meat at first) represents a limitation to the human right of dominion. Adam’s naming of the animals was (in part) expressive of his sovereignty over them (2:19). Later, Noah was charged to bring pairs of animals into the ark to preserve them alive (6:19–20), showing care for other creatures. The patriarchs tended flocks (13:2–9; 26:12–14), and Joseph’s relief measures saved the lives of people and animals (47:15–18). The wanton destruction of the Promised Land was expressly forbidden (Deut. 20:19–20). Humanity is accountable to God for the stewardship of the earth. The divine command “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28 NRSV) shows that God’s purpose is that the human race populate the whole earth.

At Gen. 2:7 the biblical narrative becomes thoroughly anthropocentric, picturing the little world that God establishes around the first man, so this account is quite different from the cosmic presentation of Gen. 1. In Gen. 1 humankind is the apex of a pyramid, the last and highest of a series of creatures; in Gen. 2 the man is the center of a circle, everything else made to fit around him, and his connection to the physical earth is emphasized. In either view, a very special place is given to human beings in the created order. The two pictures are complementary, not contradictory.

The “man” (’adam) is formed from the “ground” (’adamah), with the related Hebrew words making a pun. Man’s name reminds him of his earthy origins. He is made from the “dust,” which hints at his coming death. He will return to the dust (Gen. 3:19; cf. Job 10:8–9; Ps. 103:14; Isa. 29:16). The reference to “the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7) is due to the fact that this leaves a person at death (Job 34:14–15; Ps. 104:29–30), so man’s (potential) mortality is implied. Ironically, the making of man is described using the language of death. What is described in Gen. 2 is the making of the first man, from whom the rest of the human race has descended, not the making of humankind, though the word ’adam can mean that in other contexts.

The Nature of Humankind

Body, soul, and spirit. Arguments over whether human nature is bipartite (body and soul) or tripartite (body, soul, spirit) are not to be decided by arbitrary appeal to isolated verses. Verses can be found in apparent support for both the first view (e.g., Matt. 10:28) and the second (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:23), but certainly the first scheme is much more prevalent in the Bible. “Soul” and “spirit” can be used interchangeably (Eccles. 3:21; 12:7; Ezek. 18:31). Death is marked by the parting of soul/spirit and body, but it would be a mistake to think that human beings are made up of separate component parts, or that the physical body is only a dispensable shell and not essential to true humanity. The physicality of human existence in the “body” is owned and celebrated in Scripture, part of that being the positive attitude to sexuality when properly expressed (Song of Songs; 1 Cor. 7) and the nonascetic nature of biblical ethics (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 2:23). The doctrine of the resurrection of the body is the fullest expression of this (1 Cor. 15), in contrast to ancient Greek thought that viewed the body as inherently evil and understood salvation as the immortality of the liberated, disembodied soul.

The different words used in relation to persons are only intended to refer to and at times focus on different aspects of unified human nature. References to the “soul” may stress individual responsibility (e.g., Ezek. 18:4 NASB: “The soul who sins will die”). In Ps. 103:1–2, “O my soul” expresses emphatic self-encouragement to praise God and is in parallel with “all my inmost being”—that is, “my whole being” (an example of synecdoche: a part standing for the whole [cf. Ps. 35:10]). These are ways of referring to oneself as a person who expresses will and intention (cf. Ps. 42:5–6, 11). The “flesh” is used to stress the weakness of mortal humanity (e.g., Isa. 40:6 RSV: “All flesh is grass”). The “heart” is the volitional center of a human being (Prov. 4:23; cf. Mark 7:17–23). The emotional and empathetic reactions of humans are described by reference to the organs: “liver,” “kidneys,” “bowels.”

Morals and responsibility. In Gen. 2 the complexities of the man’s moral relation to God and his relations with the soil, with the animals, and with the woman are explored. God deposited the man in the garden “to work it and take care of it” (2:15). The words chosen to designate the man’s work prior to the fall have an aura of worship about them, for they are later used in the OT for the cultic actions of serving and guarding within the sanctuary. The priests served by offering sacrifices, and the Levites guarded the gates of the sacred precinct. A theology of work as a religious vocation is presented. The man was a kind of king-priest in the garden of God.

The moral responsibility of humanity is signaled from the beginning. God’s command gives permission for the man to eat from “any tree” except one (Gen. 2:16–17) and as such indicates man’s freedom, so that this command is no great restriction. The wording “you are free to eat” reinforces the point about God’s generous provision. The prohibition is embedded in the description of God’s fatherly care for the man and gracious act in placing him in the garden. The divine restriction is slight and not at all overbearing, though the serpent will seek to make it appear mean-spirited (3:1). The command and prohibition are the very first words of God to the man, marking them out as of fundamental importance for the relationship between them. The prohibition (“you must not eat . . .”) is an absolute one in the style of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). What is placed before the man is a test that gives him the opportunity to express his loyalty to God. A relationship of obedience and trust requires the possibility of choice and the opportunity to disobey (if that is what he wants to do). The moral nature and responsibility of individuals is not a late discovery by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 18); rather, it is the presupposition behind the Mosaic law, for the commands of the Decalogue (“you shall not . . .”) are phrased as commands to individuals (as the Hebrew makes clear). On the other hand, the concept of corporate responsibility is also present (e.g., Achan’s punishment in Josh. 7).

Relationships. Human beings are relational by nature, as the creation of the woman as a helper and partner for the first man makes plain (Gen. 2:18–25). Later in Scripture this is put in more general terms, so that friendship and mutual cooperation are shown to be essential to life (Eccles. 4:7–12). The body life of the church reflects the same fact and need (1 Cor. 12). In Psalms, human needs and vulnerability find their answer and fulfillment in God, with the psalmist acknowledging his frailty and his creaturely dependence on God (e.g., Ps. 90). This also shows the folly of sinful human pride, against which the prophets so often inveighed (e.g., Isa. 2:9, 11–17, 22).

Gold was sometimes hammered into thin sheets for gilding other surfaces. This technique was used for various temple furnishings, including the altar and the inner sanctuary (1 Kings 6:20–35) and also for idols (Isa. 40:19). Hammered gold could also be made into objects such as candlesticks (Exod. 25:18) or shields (1 Kings 10:16–17).

Bible formation and canon development are best understood in light of historical events and theological principles. In the historical-theological process we learn what God did and how he engaged a variety of people to produce Scripture as the word of God. The Bible is the written revelation of the triune God, who made himself known to his creation. The divine actions of God to reveal himself resulted in a written text recognized to be authoritative and thus copied and preserved for future generations. The process of recognizing and collecting authoritative books of the Scriptures occurred over time and involved consensus.

Bible Formation

Revelation. The process of Bible formation begins with God revealing. The act of revelation involved God communicating truth to the human writers in a progressive and unified manner. Inspiration is the act of God the Holy Spirit, who superintended the biblical authors so that they composed the books of Scripture exactly as he intended. God used the biblical writers, their personalities and their writing styles, in a manner that kept them from error in composing the original written product, the Scriptures. The resulting books of the Bible constitute God’s permanent special revelation to humankind.

Both Testaments affirm the work of revelation along with the formation of a body of divine writings. The OT is dominated by the phrase “thus says the Lord” and similar expressions (cf. Gen. 9:8; Josh. 24:27; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:7 and contrast Ps. 135:15–19). Every part of the OT is viewed as the word of God (Rom. 3:2). This is confirmed by Jesus’ attitude toward the Scriptures (Matt. 19:4–5; 21:42; 22:29; cf. Luke 11:50–51; 24:44).

Four NT passages help us understand the work of inspiration. A factual statement regarding the extent and nature of inspiration is made in 2 Tim. 3:16. According to 2 Pet. 1:19–20, the Holy Spirit purposefully carried persons along to produce the prophetic word, and 1 Cor. 2:10–13 supports the choice of the words in the work of composing the inspired product. Finally, Peter comments that Paul was given wisdom to produce inspired literary documents in the canon of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:14–18).

Authority. Books formed and authored by God in this manner are authoritative. Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliably composed in the originals, it is binding upon people in their relationship with God and other people. Biblical authority derives from God’s eternal character and the content of his word preserved in Scripture. The inscripturated word of God is authoritative and requires obedience.

The authority of God’s word is affirmed and illustrated in the creation and fall narratives. In the fall, Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s command (Gen. 3:3–4) and were expelled from the garden. In subsequent periods of biblical history, God’s spoken and written word continued to be the basis for belief and conduct. God summarized his will in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17; Deut. 5:6–21) and held his people accountable to it (Deut. 6:2; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 17:5–23). The authoritative word embraced by faith protects the believer from sin (Ps. 119:11). The fool is the person who rejects God’s authority (Pss. 14:1; 53:1). The apostle Paul acknowledged the authority of the gospel for his own life and ministry (Gal. 1:6–9). God the Holy Spirit impresses upon the believer the authority of the Bible as the reliable rule for faith and practice (John 6:63).

God made provision for a reliable and trustworthy preservation of his authoritative word in the multiplicity of extant manuscripts. God commanded that his revealed word be copied (Deut. 17:8–18; 24:8; 31:9, 25–26; 33:8–10) for administrative and personal purposes (Deut. 6:6; Josh. 1:8; 23:6; Prov. 3:3; 7:3). Through this process of multiplication the word of God was preserved (Ps. 119:152, 160; Isa. 40:8; cf. Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35; 1 Pet. 1:22–25).

Canonization

Canonization is the next critical step in the development of the Bible. The word “canon” (Gk. kanōn) refers to a standard, norm, or rule (Gal. 6:16; cf. Ezek. 42:16), and when applied to the Bible, it designates the collection of books revealed by God, divinely inspired, and recognized by the people of God as the authoritative norm for faith and practice. The presupposition of canonicity is that God spoke to his human creatures and his word was accurately recorded. Since inspiration determines canonicity, the books composed by human beings under the direction of the Holy Spirit functioned authoritatively at the time of writing. The people of God then recognized and collected the books that they discerned to be inspired and authoritative (1 Thess. 2:10–16; 2 Pet. 3:15).

The canonical process. The challenge associated with canon and Bible formation is that the Scriptures do not reveal a detailed historical process for recognizing and collecting inspired works. An understanding of this process is derived from the testimony of Jesus, biblical principles, and historical precedents.

Canonical identification is associated with the witness of the Holy Spirit, who worked in connection with the believers to recognize the written documents given by inspiration (1 Thess. 2:13). The Holy Spirit enabled believers to discern a book’s authority and its compatibility with existing canonical revelation (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). Although the question of authorship cannot be positively settled for every OT or NT book, believers recognized the prophets as the OT authors (Deut. 18:14–22) and the apostles as the NT authors. Canonical books were recognized to bear the power of God and to contain an effective message (2 Tim. 3:15–16; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Over time, the authoritative books of Scripture were collected into a body of literature that today forms one book, the Bible. During this process, some believers struggled with the message, content, and ambiguous authorship of books such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Esther in the OT and Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter in the NT. The pattern of composition and canonical process for the OT provided the foundation for the composition and development of the NT canon. Therefore, the NT books that came to be recognized as canonical were those that were composed in connection with an apostle, doctrinally sound, and widely circulated and used by the churches.

In the collection task some texts were recognized (homologoumena), some were disputed (antilegomena), and others were rejected as unorthodox (pseudepigrapha). Historically, there is no evidence for widespread acceptance of the present-day canon of sixty-six books until the third century AD.

Structure and content. Over the centuries, several canonical lists began to emerge, often influenced by particular theological conclusions. For example, the Samaritan canon, which includes only the first five books of our OT, was compiled by the Samaritans, who were hostile to anything in Israel or Judea outside Samaria. Today, Christian traditions vary in their inclusion or omission of the Apocrypha from their Bibles and in their list of which books are contained in the Apocrypha.

The Babylonian canon, accepted as standard by Jews, contains all the books now recognized as the OT and is divided into three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. This canon is also known as the Tanak, an acronym derived from the Hebrew words for “law” (torah), “prophets” (nebi’im), “writings” (ketubim). This canonical list traditionally includes twenty-four books (the twelve Minor Prophets are considered to be one book, as are 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah). The twenty-four books of this canonical list are the same as the thirty-nine OT books in current English Bible editions. The law or instruction section includes the first five books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets section is divided into the Former and Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets are the historical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The Latter Prophets include both the Major and the Minor Prophets. The Writings section contains both poetic and wisdom material, along with some historical material.

Historical references to this canonical format are found in extrabiblical sources as early as the second century BC. The grandson of Jesus Ben Sira referenced a threefold canon in the prologue of the apocryphal book Sirach (c. 190 BC); Josephus referenced it in Against Apion (AD 37–95). Jesus acknowledged the threefold division in Luke 24:44 (cf. Matt. 23:34). Among Christian sources, this division is preserved in the oldest extant list of OT books, associated with Bishop Melito of Sardis (AD 170). Tertullian, an early Latin church father (AD 160–250), Origen (AD 254), Hilary of Poitiers (AD 305–366), and Jerome (AD 340–420) affirmed an OT canon of twenty-two or twenty-four books. Most current English versions follow a fourfold structure of law, history, poetry, and prophets.

The twenty-seven books of the NT are attested in lists associated with churches in the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean world. Two such witnesses are the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius (AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). The canonical list associated with Marcion and the Muratorian list represent fragmentary lists from the early part of the second century AD. In terms of usage, a majority of church fathers recognized and used the twenty-seven NT books in our canon. See also Apocrypha, New Testament; Apocrypha, Old Testament.

The book of Ezekiel is widely recognized as one of the most idiosyncratic of the OT prophetic books. Some rabbis prohibited anyone under the age of thirty from reading portions of the book (i.e., the visions of God’s glory in chapters 1 and 10 might lead to dangerous speculations about the mystery of God).

Authorship and Date

Up until the beginning of the twentieth century, most scholars viewed the unparalleled extensive dating in the book (1:1–2; 8:1; 20:1; 24:1; 26:1; 29:1, 17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1, 17; 33:21; 40:1), along with the symmetry achieved by deliberate thematic repetition (i.e., the “watchman” passages in 3:16–21; 33:1–9; Ezekiel’s message of judgment/hope addressed to the mountains of Israel respectively in chaps. 6; 36) as indisputable proof that the book was the product of a single author. Even during the first one hundred years or so of historical-critical dominance in OT research, historical-critical investigations tended to confirm the traditional views of the unity, authenticity, and date of the book of Ezekiel, although the opinions of the majority of scholars began to shift early in the twentieth century.

For much of the first half of the twentieth century, issues of authorship, dating, and provenance of the prophet’s ministry dominated critical research on the book of Ezekiel. The book’s peculiarities lent themselves to various suggestions regarding the place of Ezekiel’s ministry. If, as 1:1–3 records, Ezekiel was called to prophetic ministry among the exilic community in Babylon, how does one explain Ezekiel’s apparent knowledge of particular events in Jerusalem, such as the death of Pelatiah (11:13) and the various forms of idolatry taking place in and around the temple complex in chapters 8–11? Furthermore, what is one to make of Ezekiel’s words to those who remained behind in Jerusalem (5:8–17; 11:5–12; 33:23–29)?

Many of those who sought to defend a straightforward understanding of the book’s own claims looked to mysticism or psychology to explain Ezekiel’s visionary involvement in events occurring some seven hundred miles away. Explanations for the apparent idiosyncrasies of his ministry—including extremely violent and graphic language, his extended period of “muteness,” various striking sign-acts, and the extended length and emotional intensity of his visionary experiences—tended to bleed into the discussion of how to understand his visionary experience of being transported to remote locations. Earlier solutions ranged from noting the similarities between Ezekiel’s experiences and those of the mystics to characterizing Ezekiel as having a “complex personality” and as one whose life was more attuned to the realities of the supernatural world.

Geographical solutions to account for Ezekiel’s apparent knowledge of events in Jerusalem include two suggestions. The first is that Ezekiel ministered only in Jerusalem. His preaching forms the core of chapters 1–39, and a later exilic redactor updated these chapters to address the concerns of an exilic audience and also added chapters 40–48. The second suggestion is that Ezekiel ministered in Jerusalem from 593 BC until the fall of Jerusalem, at which time he was taken into captivity in Babylon, where he continued his ministry among the exiles. The appeal of a dual-ministry approach is that it accounts for the double geographical focus of Ezekiel without resorting to ecstatic or supernatural flight from one city to the other or positing extensive secondhand editing of the book.

On the other hand, there is evidence from other biblical materials that ecstatic or visionary experiences of this sort were part of the prophetic tradition. Many of Ezekiel’s apparent idiosyncrasies actually resemble characteristics of the preclassical prophets. Viewing Ezekiel’s ministry as part of an accepted cultural tradition provides a more persuasive explanation for the text as it stands. For example, the evidence of continued contacts between the Jerusalem and exilic communities (Jer. 29; Ezek. 33:21) suffices to explain whatever knowledge Ezekiel possessed of events in Jerusalem. The manner of their presentation in his visions is dictated by the cultural standards and expectations of a prophet operating under the influence of the “hand of Yahweh” and by the rhetorical goals of his preaching.

It is entirely plausible to suggest that the author of Ezekiel was an Israelite who was a rough contemporary of the tragic events surrounding the dismantling of the Judahite monarchy by the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

Historical Background

The book of Ezekiel itself yields pertinent information about Ezekiel’s world, which, when supplemented with other biblical texts (2 Kings, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Habakkuk), enables us to reconstruct a working picture of the social, historical, and theological milieu in which Ezekiel lived and ministered.

In 701 BC the kingdom of Judah escaped annihilation by the Assyrians, as had befallen the northern kingdom in 722 BC, due in large part to the ministry of Isaiah and the faith of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:1–20:21; Isa. 36–37), albeit at a crippling financial expense in the form of heavy tribute to Assyria. After Hezekiah’s death in 698 BC, his son Manasseh reversed his father’s religious reforms, which meant disaster spiritually (2 Kings 21:1–18; 2 Chron. 33:1–11) and survival politically. Judah continued to exist for most of the seventh century BC as a vassal kingdom under Assyrian domination. The spiritual decline of Judah was briefly challenged during the reign of Josiah, who ruled in the years 640–609 BC. However, Jeremiah’s strong invectives against empty religious formalism and social irresponsibility during much of Josiah’s reign suggest that Josiah’s attempts at religious reforms were only nominally successful and did not penetrate to the populace at large.

While Josiah was seeking to institute his reforms, power in the international scene was shifting. After the death of Ashurbanipal, the last great Assyrian ruler, the Assyrian Empire began to wane. The Neo-Babylonian Empire, founded by Nabopolassar (626 BC), dealt Assyria its final blow with the conquest of Nineveh (612 BC), followed by the destruction of Harran a few years later. This, coupled with the untimely death of Josiah in battle against the Egyptians at Megiddo (609 BC), spelled disaster for Judah (2 Kings 23:29–30; 2 Chron. 35:20–24). Nebuchadnezzar assumed leadership of Babylon after the death of his father (605 BC). Later that same year, Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egyptian forces at Carchemish and also ordered the deportation of some of the educated young Jewish men to Babylon (Dan. 1:1–4). This was followed by a second deportation in 597 BC, which included King Jehoiachin, Ezekiel, and about ten thousand Jews (2 Kings 24:14). Zedekiah was placed on the Judean throne as a puppet king. His rebellion against Babylon (588 BC) led to Nebuchadnezzar’s one-and-a-half-year siege of Jerusalem before its final demise in 586 BC.

The political crisis of 597–586 BC led to a crisis of faith. The promises of an eternal Davidic kingdom (2 Sam. 7:7–16; Ps. 89:3–4, 35–37) and Yahweh’s vow to set up his abode forever in the temple at Jerusalem (Pss. 68:16; 132:13–14) seemed to be failing. At the beginning of Ezekiel’s ministry, the Davidic promise was already under a cloud: Jehoiachin, the rightful heir of the line of David, had been taken in captivity to Babylon, and in his place sat the puppet king Zedekiah. In addition, the land of Canaan had played a significant role in shaping the Israelites’ understanding of themselves as Yahweh’s chosen people (Gen. 12:1–3; Deut. 4:37–38; 7:1–11). Because true worship of God was so closely aligned with the Israelites’ inheritance of the land (Deut. 12), to be outside the land immediately raised grave concern about their status before God (1 Sam. 26:19). To be outside the promised land would lead in a few short years to a questioning of whether true worship was even possible any longer (Ps. 137:4). Throughout this period, Ezekiel (and Jeremiah) consistently portrayed Nebuchadnezzar as an unwitting pagan king commissioned by Yahweh to execute the covenant curses on the recalcitrant southern kingdom.

Far from recognizing these events as such, many Israelites in the rebellion party, supported by rebellion prophets, asserted their claim to divine favor and denied the validity of prophetic indictments. They supported their claims with appeals to the miraculous deliverance from the formidable Assyrian army (701 BC), selective use of Scripture’s focus on the inviolability of Jerusalem and the temple, the unconditional promises of an eternal Davidic kingdom (see above), and predictions by rebellion prophets of a quick return for the exiles (Jer. 28; 29:15–32; Ezek. 13).

From Ezekiel’s perspective, the people of Judah were making a liar out of Yahweh. Yahweh had always demanded their exclusive worship. In light of their recent history of idolatry, the only appropriate response was to execute judgment on them (Ezek. 20:4–44). By denying this, the only explanation left to the rebellion party for the destruction of Jerusalem and exile was that a mighty and wicked kingdom that they intensely hated (Ps. 137:4) had bested Yahweh.

From this historical survey one may distill the overall situation faced by Ezekiel into a set of opinions probably shared by the majority of Ezekiel’s fellow exiles. First, there was a widespread belief that it was proper to worship other deities in addition to Yahweh. Also, it was generally believed that the people of Judah were in good standing with Yahweh and were objects of his favor, and that he would shortly bring them deliverance. These beliefs combined to eliminate serious consideration of the possibility that destruction of the kingdom and exile were Yahweh’s intention. Consequently, once the kingdom was destroyed and exile had become a reality, Yahweh’s power and/or character became suspect in the minds of many. Furthermore, the perceived link between the land and the presence and blessing of Yahweh cast the exilic experience in an extremely negative light. For those gripped by these convictions, exile raised the specter of hopelessness. The sense of hopelessness was intensified by its conjunction with the belief that destruction of the kingdom and exile were undeserved. There was no way to integrate the outcome of the Babylonian crisis with their previously held beliefs about Yahweh and his purposes for Israel.

Literary Considerations

Structure and outline. There are several frameworks that can help the reader understand the “inner logic” of the book.

Tripartite structure. In chapters 1–24 the theme of God’s impending judgment on the nation of Israel for violation of the covenant laws is emphatically repeated in both word and sign-act. Chapters 25–32 serve a Janus (double) function, connecting with chapters 1–24 by continuing the theme of God’s judgment, now directed toward the foreign nations. The pronouncements of coming judgment in these chapters anticipate the last part of the book, with the message of hope for Israel that dominates chapters 33–48. The emphasis on divine judgment in the first half of the book is not a de facto statement that God is finished with Israel; rather, it is recognition that only by means of judgment (both of Israel and their neighbors) is future restoration and reconciliation possible. Many recognize a further subdivision in the third section, with chapters 33–39 focusing on the renewal of the nation and chapters 40–48 dealing with Ezekiel’s temple vision.

This yields the following outline:

I. God’s Judgment on Israel (1–24)

II. God’s Judgment on the Foreign Nations (25–32)

III. Hope for Israel (33–48)

A. Renewal of the nation (33–39)

B. Ezekiel’s temple vision (40–48)

Visions. Visions open and close the book (chaps. 1–3; 40–48), with two additional visions in between: temple idolatry and the incremental departure of God’s glory as judgment is executed (chaps. 8–11), and the valley of dry bones (37:1–14).

The movement of God’s glory. Ezekiel’s sustained concern for the temple as the place where God’s glory dwells provides a unifying structure to the book as Ezekiel chronicles God’s glory coming to Babylon in his ominous inaugural vision (chaps. 1–3), the incremental departure of God’s glory from the temple and the city (chaps. 8–11), and the return of God’s glory in the vision of the new temple (chaps. 40–48).

Genre. The book of Ezekiel is considered by many to be a literary masterpiece composed of various genres, including extended visionary narrative (1–3; 8–11; 37:1–14; 40–48), allegory (16; 23), poetry (19; 26–28), parable (17; 24:3), and popular sayings (8:12; 9:9; 11:3, 15; 12:22, 27; 18:2; 33:10, 17, 20, 24, 30; 37:11). Other prophets quoted popular sayings (Isa. 40:27; Jer. 31:29; Amos 5:14; Hag. 1:2; Mal. 1:2, 6–7, 12–13), but the quotations are far more frequent in Ezekiel and are couched in uniquely theocentric language. In each case it is God who informs Ezekiel what the people are saying. Ezekiel uses popular sayings of the people to establish their hostility toward God and to vindicate God by demonstrating his covenant faithfulness. The unparalleled frequency of Ezekiel’s use of popular sayings in his oracles against the Israelites and the patently theocentric garb in which his counterreplies are clothed serve to anchor both the judgment and the hope of restoration in God alone. Ezekiel’s quotations serve as a foil for a frontal attack on the entire religious enterprise of his contemporaries in Jerusalem and Babylon. By citing these popular sayings and refuting them, Ezekiel skillfully reveals both the necessity and purpose of the exilic crisis. He turns the sayings of the people against them, exposing the depths of their opposition to God and thus furthering the purpose of vindicating God.

Theological Message

The sovereignty of God. The book emphasizes God’s sovereignty over all as Ezekiel challenged the false theology of his fellow Jewish exiles, which held that Yahweh, bound by covenantal oath, could not destroy Jerusalem. The formulaic expression (with variations) “After X occurs, then you/they will know that I am the Lord/I have spoken” occurs over sixty-five times in the book to emphasize God’s intervention in human events, including the exile and restoration (e.g., 7:27; 13:23; 29:16), to uphold the covenant and establish his kingdom.

The holiness of God. Israel’s sins had obscured God’s holiness in the sight of their neighbors (20:9). God’s holiness required both punishment of Israel’s sins and the continuation of his covenantal relationship with his people. God’s purging judgment and restoration would be a fulfillment of his covenantal obligations and would display his holiness (20:40–44; 28:25; 36:16–32).

Hope in the midst of judgment. God’s covenantal faithfulness would include restoration after judgment (chaps. 33–39). The final temple vision (chaps. 40–48) gives a picture of the restoration using typological images and cultural idioms with which the people were familiar.

New Testament Connections

There are approximately sixty-five quotations and allusions to the book of Ezekiel in the NT. Echoes of Ezekiel are prevalent in John’s Gospel (John 10:1–30 [Ezek. 34]; John 15:1–8 [Ezek. 15]) and the book of Revelation (Rev. 4:6–9 [Ezek. 1]; Rev. 20–22 [Ezek. 40–48]).

The first of the Major Prophets in the canon, the book of Isaiah is one of the longest books in the Bible. This, coupled with the NT’s frequent use of Isaiah, has contributed to the book’s great importance in Christian tradition. Isaiah contains some of the most memorable passages in Scripture, with its majestic poetry and evocative sermons making it a literary masterpiece. Nevertheless, it has also been characterized as a difficult book to comprehend and make sense of as a whole because the connections between different paragraphs and sections appear to be haphazard at times and are difficult to understand. However, some knowledge of the way the book was formed can aid in interpretation.

Authorship

The authorship of Isaiah has been one of the most debated issues in biblical interpretation. Ancient tradition credited the eighth-century BC prophet Isaiah with the entire sixty-six chapters. However, an early Jewish tradition in the Talmud claims that “the men of Hezekiah” compiled Isaiah, showing their awareness that the book did not come entirely from Isaiah.

Literary evidence. Isaiah son of Amoz is referred to as author in three sections of the book (1:1; 2:1; 13:1) and is featured in both third-person (chaps. 7; 20; 36–39) and first-person (chaps. 6; 8) narratives. However, chapters 40–66 have no such headings and do not even mention Isaiah. While references to Isaiah as author in specific sections may suggest that he actually did write the whole book, they may also indicate that he did not write sections that are not ascribed to him. Similarly, historical narratives referring to the prophet in the third person may suggest that someone else wrote them, although the intimate information in them (e.g., 7:3) could point to Isaianic authorship.

Another possible indication of multiple authorship is the marked difference in literary style and vocabulary found in different sections of Isaiah. While such judgments are quite subjective, both sides of the authorship debate acknowledge these stylistic differences.

Historical settings. The debate regarding the authorship of Isaiah really centers on the diverse historical settings within different sections of the book. Chapters 1–39 clearly are set during the late eighth century BC, the period when Assyria is threatening Judah. Assyria is frequently mentioned (e.g., 7:17; 8:4; 10:12; 11:11; 19:23; 20:1; 27:13; 36:1), as are Judean kings (e.g., 1:1; 6:1; 7:1; 14:28; 36:1) and the prophet Isaiah himself (e.g., 1:1; 2:1; 13:1; 20:2; 37:5).

In contrast, the historical setting of chapters 40–55 is not eighth-century BC Judah. Israel is described as in captivity and Jerusalem is referred to as ruined and deserted (44:26, 28; 52:9); there is frequent allusion to the sufferings of the exile (42:22, 25; 43:28; 47:6; 51:17; 52:5); and the coming return from exile is described as close at hand (40:2; 46:13; 48:20). Furthermore, in chapters 40–55 Babylon is Israel’s enemy, even though in Isaiah’s day they were allies. Also, Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who conquered Babylon in 539 BC (ending the exile), is mentioned with no introduction or explanation (44:28; 45:1), even though he lived 150 years after Isaiah. In sum, chapters 40–55 appear to be addressed to Judeans in Babylonian exile.

Conversely, chapters 56–66 appear to come from yet another historical period. Unlike in chapters 40–55, where the temple was destroyed and out of operation, in chapters 56–66 the temple (66:6), along with sacrifices (56:7; 66:3), offerings (57:6; 65:3; 66:3), and Sabbaths (56:2; 58:13; 66:23), is referred to. Also, Jerusalem and its walls are standing (62:6), unlike in chapters 40–55, where it is predicted that Jerusalem will be rebuilt (44:26). This seems to indicate that it addresses those who have returned to Jerusalem after the exile.

This evidence suggests that the book of Isaiah was written by several authors from different time periods. Alternatively, these diverse historical settings could be explained by supposing that Isaiah spoke to audiences in the distant future through divine inspiration. While skeptical scholars holding antisupernatural worldviews have denied this possibility, those who believe in an almighty God believe that he can reveal the distant future to his prophets. However, the question is whether that is in fact the case with Isaiah. It is significant that in chapters 40–55 Babylonian oppression is not predicted as something to come in the future but rather is presupposed as the present conditions under which the writer is living—only the release from exile is predicted. Logically, it would seem that the author lived in the situation that he presupposes and before the situation that he predicts.

Arguments for the unity of Isaiah. Some scholars still hold to the unity of Isaiah on the following grounds: (1) no ancient manuscripts show that the book ever existed in another form; (2) differences in style and vocabulary can be explained by different subject matter (besides which, the title “Holy One of Israel” unites all sections of Isaiah, as it is used thirteen times in chapters 1–39, sixteen times in chapters 40–66, and only seven times in the rest of the Bible); (3) it seems unlikely that an author as great as the one who wrote chapters 40–55 should remain anonymous; and (4) although it is logical to assume that a prophet is contemporary with what he presupposes, once a prophet makes a prediction, that prediction can become a presupposition for another prediction. Therefore, Isaiah’s prediction of exile in 39:6–7 could become the basis or presupposition on which he continued to prophesy the end to the exile.

However, these arguments are not compelling. Although no manuscripts attest to earlier versions of the book, we possess so few manuscripts from before the time of Christ (and none dating to the time during which the three sections of Isaiah are thought to have been combined) that this is insignificant. Also, the differences in subject matter do not seem great enough to explain the very different style and language in the various sections. Regarding the unlikelihood that the writer of chapters 40–55 could remain anonymous, the fact is that many biblical books are indeed anonymous (e.g., Judges, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles). However, most significant are the different historical settings of the major sections of Isaiah. If Isaiah was addressing an audience in the distant future, not only would it be a situation unparalleled in the biblical prophets, but also the message would have been largely unintelligible to Isaiah’s contemporaries (especially references to Cyrus). Moreover, the text does not claim to predict these situations but only presupposes them. However, the reality of prophetic inspiration is underscored, as a later author predicts not only the end of the exile but also a suffering messiah.

First, Second, and Third Isaiah. For convenience (and not to imply that each author was named “Isaiah”), the three major sections are often referred to as First Isaiah (chaps. 1–39), Second Isaiah (chaps. 40–55), and Third Isaiah (chaps. 56–66). In light of the purposeful connections between the different sections, it is probable that the book was the product of a “school” of Isaiah’s disciples (cf. 8:16) who collected and organized Isaiah’s words and added to them over a long period of time.

In the end, the involvement of multiple authors in the composition of Isaiah does not undermine its authority as Scripture. Its authority derives not from the namesake prophet but rather from God, who inspired its writing (2 Tim. 3:16).

Plan of the Book

Isaiah has a literary structure similar to that of Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Joel, and the Greek translation of Jeremiah. The first section is concerned with judgment on Israel (chaps. 1–12), the second with judgment on foreign nations (chaps. 13–23), and the third records prophecies of hope and salvation (chaps. 24–27). This structure purposefully places hopeful oracles of comfort after the judgment oracles. Some view the entire book of Isaiah as following this pattern (chaps. 1–12, judgment on Israel; chaps. 13–35, judgment on other nations; chaps. 40–66, oracles of comfort). However, both of these schemes are somewhat forced, since each section is slightly mixed (there are oracles of salvation in chaps. 1–12, prophecies against Judah in chaps. 13–23, and judgment oracles in chaps. 56–66). However, in broad outline it is helpful to recognize this structure.

Outline

I. Judgment on Judah (1–12)

II. Judgment on the Nations (13–27)

III. Warnings to Trust in the Lord (28–35)

IV. The Assyrian Crisis (36–39)

V. The Second Exodus (40–48)

VI. The Restoration of Jerusalem (49–55)

VII. The Earthly and New Jerusalem (56–66)

First Isaiah (Isa. 1–39)

Key historical events. This section of Isaiah comes from the period when the nation of Assyria was aggressively expanding its territory and terrorizing weaker nations, such as Israel and Judah. Two key historical events form the background for many oracles in chapters 1–39 and are the prominent focus there: the Syro-Ephraimite war of 734 BC and the 701 BC Assyrian invasion of Judah.

The Syro-Ephraimite war. The nations of Aram (Syria) and Israel (Ephraim) allied together against Assyria and tried to coerce Judah into joining them. They planned to replace King Ahaz with a king of their choice (7:6), which would end the Davidic dynasty. In the end, Ahaz rejected Isaiah’s advice to simply trust God (7:9) and instead appealed to the king of Assyria for aid. The Assyrians conquered Aram (732 BC) and Israel (722 BC) and assimilated them into the Assyrian empire. Judah survived but had to pay tribute to Assyria from that point onward.

The Assyrian invasion of Judah. The Assyrian king Sennacherib invaded Judah when Hezekiah, Ahaz’s son, reigned in Jerusalem. The invasion devastated Judah; however, when Jerusalem was threatened, Hezekiah, in contrast to his father, trusted God to save them, and the Assyrian army suffered massive losses and failed to take Jerusalem (37:36).

Structure and themes. The structure of chapters 1–39 is quite complex. However, the prophecies and historical narratives concerned with Isaiah’s day are roughly in chronological order (e.g., prophecies and events occurring during the reign of King Ahaz [6:1–8:22] precede those during Hezekiah’s reign [36:1–39:8]). The structure of these chapters alternates between threat and promise (e.g., chap. 1 = threat; 2:1–4 = promise of hope; 2:5–4:1 = threat; 4:2–6 = promise of hope). Analogously, the main themes of these chapters alternate between threat and promise.

Holiness. A major theme of Isaiah is God’s holiness, as evidenced in its favorite title for the Lord, “Holy One of Israel.” While the original idea underlying holiness was physical separation and did not have an ethical dimension (e.g., temple prostitutes in the ancient Near East were called “holy women”), a different concept of holiness emerges in chapter 6, the account of Isaiah’s call. Since 6:1–9:7 is the only part in the book with autobiographical narration, these chapters probably come from an original memoir of Isaiah himself. The memoir is surrounded by judgment oracles with a repeated element, “Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised” (5:25; 9:12, 17, 21; 10:4), suggesting that the memoir as a whole was inserted between these oracles to explain God’s anger recorded in 1–12. God’s mandate to Israel was to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–45), but Israel failed to follow this command. In the presence of the holy God, Isaiah realized his own sinfulness and the sinfulness of his people (6:5), connecting the concepts of holiness and righteousness.

The remnant. Already in the first chapter we see the emergence of two groups within Israel: the wicked, who will be punished, and a remnant, who will be redeemed (1:27–31). This focus on the remnant was one way in which Isaiah saw hope for Israel despite the coming judgment that he predicted. The remnant theme highlights the apparent tension between God as holy and God as redeemer: God’s holiness is upheld through the judgment on Israel, but God’s character as savior is witnessed through the remnant that is redeemed.

A coming messianic king. The section 6:1–9:7 dates from the time of the Syro-Ephraimite war, and it appears that Isaiah wrote it down (8:16) when Ahaz refused his counsel. The memoir emphasizes the rejection of the Davidic king Ahaz and predicts the birth of a royal son who would replace Ahaz and bring freedom from oppression (9:1–7). This dissatisfaction with the reigning Davidic king was the seedbed for messianic expectations and is the background for the messianic trilogy of 7:14–16; 9:2–7; 11:1–9. While some of these passages may have originally referred to Hezekiah, he falls short of these messianic expectations, leaving the community of faith awaiting another anointed one (messiah). Ominously, chapter 39 describes Hezekiah’s entertaining guests from Babylon, perhaps implying an alliance between the two nations. Hezekiah’s actions prompt Isaiah to predict the Babylonian exile (39:6–7), providing a fitting segue to chapters 40–66.

Second Isaiah (Isa. 40–55)

A message to the exiles. Second Isaiah was written near the end of the exilic period for those who were deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon. Although the exiles in Babylon were settled in communities (Ezek. 3:15) and allowed to build houses and farm the land (Jer. 29:5–7), they had no temple for worship, and many of the exiles probably saw the destruction of Jerusalem and their temple as the end of God’s action on their behalf. The gods of Babylon appeared to have won the victory. The exiles’ faith was flagging, and even those who did not abandon worship of Israel’s God simply clung to the past and expected nothing new from him.

Contrary to these expectations, Second Isaiah proclaims that God is doing something new for his people and bringing an end to the exile (40:1; 55:12). The role of Cyrus in this deliverance is highlighted, with explicit and implicit reference made to the Persian king (41:2–3, 25; 44:28; 45:1–4, 13–14). However, amid the oracles of comfort there is also a challenge to Israel, which is somehow resistant to the message. To break down this resistance, the prophecy has a sustained rhetoric against idol worship, with some quite hilarious sections ridiculing idol makers (44:9–20). Israel needed to realize that only Yahweh is God and to trust that he will redeem Israel for his purposes. Chapters 1–39 allude to the redemption of Israel (1:27; 35:9), and chapters 40–66 reveal more of how this redemption will take place: the work of “the servant.”

The servant. Several poems featuring an anonymous “servant” (42:1–9; 49:1–12; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12) are often referred to as the Servant Songs. As far back as the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:34), interpreters have struggled with how to identify “the servant.” At times, Israel is explicitly identified as the servant (Isa. 41:8–9; 42:19 [2×]; 43:10), yet the servant clearly also has individual features, suggesting that a person was to fill the role. Some have suggested Cyrus because 42:1 says that the servant “will bring justice to the nations,” and Cyrus is described as conquering nations (41:2, 25; 45:1). However, despite all the talk of Cyrus, the text never explicitly applies the term “servant” to him, which can hardly be by chance. Alternatively, the servant could be the prophet who speaks in these chapters (as the Ethiopian eunuch speculated), since he was destined for his mission before his birth (49:1) and equipped for a mission involving prophetic speech (49:2) and had received divinely revealed knowledge (50:4).

Yet the Servant Songs are also messianic and look forward to a future anointed one who will fulfill the role of the servant fully. In the NT, Jesus is presented as the new Israel (cf. Matt. 2:15 with Hos. 11:1) who truly fulfills the role of the servant (John 12:38, quoting Isa. 53:1; Matt. 8:17, quoting Isa. 53:4). However, Paul appears to hold to a collective interpretation of the songs, as he sees himself as the servant in some instances (Acts 13:47; Rom. 15:21; Gal. 1:15). Both the individual and the collective interpretations are legitimated in the NT, as both Jesus (individual) and the church (collective), which is Christ’s body, fulfill the role of the servant.

Third Isaiah (Isa. 56–66)

In 539 BC Cyrus allowed the exiles to return home to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple (Ezra 1:1–4). Despite many obstacles, the temple was finished in 515 BC. Even with this success, living in the land was challenging (see Malachi), with factions among the people, economic troubles, hypocritical worship (Isa. 58:1–14), and problems with corrupt leaders (56:9–57:13). It was for this postexilic community that Third Isaiah was written (probably before the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah in 445 BC brought lasting change to the desperate situation).

Unlike in chapters 40–55, where Israel needs to be roused from its despair by the imminent actions of God, in chapters 56–66 the people are pleading with God to help them (59:11; 62:7). In chapter 59 the prophet declares that God’s delay in helping his people is due not to his inability but rather to the sins of the people, which are described, confessed, and lamented.

In many ways, Third Isaiah unites the themes of First Isaiah and Second Isaiah. Second Isaiah emphasizes the inbreaking of a new age that contrasts with the old. The former things are remembered, but the new thing that God was doing—the return from exile—is stressed. However, in Third Isaiah the deliverance from Babylon is seen as merely a foretaste of God’s promise, which is now identified as a new heaven and earth (chaps. 65–66). Third Isaiah looks forward to the new things that are still ahead.

First Isaiah predicts a Davidic messiah who would rule in righteousness (9:1–7; 11:1–9) and a faithful remnant that would respond in trust (10:20; 28:16). Second Isaiah does not continue with these themes, instead turning attention to the “servant” whose suffering and death would atone for Israel (53:4–5). However, Third Isaiah links First Isaiah’s faithful remnant with obedient “servants” who take on the mission of the Suffering Servant in Second Isaiah. This interpretation sets the direction for the NT’s identification of the royal messiah of chapters 1–39 as the servant of chapters 40–55 (Luke 24:26; Acts 8:32). Third Isaiah thus unites and reinterprets the book as a whole.

It is fitting that Jesus read the opening verses of Isa. 61 in the synagogue at the beginning of his ministry. Like Third Isaiah, he united prophecies of both the messianic Davidic ruler of First Isaiah and the Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah, taking on both roles himself. Third Isaiah ends with a glorious future pictured for the Jewish community as they function as priests in the world (61:6). Similarly, Christ’s body, the church, now functions in these same roles in the world (cf. Acts 13:47; Rev. 5:10).

Malachi is one of the last prophetic voices in the OT. It is likely for this reason that it is the last of the twelve Minor Prophets, the last book in the entire OT, at least in the English order of books. In the Hebrew canon it concludes the second of three parts of the Hebrew Bible, the Nebiim, or Prophets.

Since the prophet comes from the period after the judgment of the exile, it is sad to see that he addresses the sin of the people and thus threatens further judgment. Intriguingly for the Christian, the book ends with the promise that Elijah will come before that great day of judgment, a promise that the NT authors see fulfilled in the person of John the Baptist, whose ministry comes as a prelude to the appearance of Jesus Christ (Matt. 3; Mark 1:1–8; Luke 3; John 1:19–34).

Historical Background

The superscription of the book (1:1) names Malachi as the vehicle through whom God addresses his people. The fact that the prophet is identified by name and not by place of birth or parentage has led some to suggest that “Malachi” is not a person’s real name but refers simply to “my messenger,” which is the meaning of the Hebrew. Messenger is a theme in the book, as the prophecy later promises a future messenger who will prepare the way for the coming of the Lord (3:1; 4:5). However, since the rest of biblical prophecy makes a point of identifying its oracles with a particular person, it is best to think of “Malachi” as a real person’s name.

The superscription also lacks a historical indicator—for instance, the names of kings during whose reign the prophet ministered. Nonetheless, internal indications point to the Persian period, probably sometime in the years 475–460 BC, before the work of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Literary Considerations and Outline

The superscription describes the contents of the book as “a prophecy” and “the word of the Lord.” The book’s contents support this genre identification, as the author brings charges against the religious and ethical behavior of the people of God and also looks forward to the future day of judgment, which leads to the redemption of the faithful.

The prophecy’s structure is based on a series of disputations or challenges directed toward God’s sinful people. The six disputations have a common structure. God begins by asserting a truth about the nature of his relationship with his people. In the second disputation (1:6–2:9), for instance, God asserts that he is the priests’ master and father and asks why they treat him with contempt (1:6). The response comes in the form of a question, in this case “How have we shown contempt for your name?” (1:6). God then responds by listing the ways they have done so.

Six such disputes are framed by a superscription announcing the oracle and by a conclusion in which God demands observance of the law and announces the future coming of Elijah:

I. Superscription: God’s Prophecy through Malachi (1:1)

II. Dispute about God’s Love for His People (1:2–5)

III. Dispute about the Contempt That the Priests Show God (1:6–2:9)

IV. Dispute about Israel’s Breaking of the Covenant (2:10–16)

V. Dispute about God’s Justice (2:17–3:5)

VI. Dispute about Repentance (3:6–12)

VII. Dispute about Harsh Words against God (3:13–4:3)

VIII. Conclusion: Observe the Law, Watch for Elijah (4:4–6)

Theological Message

As is typical of the biblical prophets, the covenant is at the center of Malachi’s prophetic proclamation. Three covenants in particular are cited: the covenant with Levi (2:8), the covenant of the fathers (2:10), and the covenant of marriage (2:14). God’s people have violated these covenants. God loves them in a special way, but they do not return that love. Their sin breaks their covenant relationship; thus the prophet warns them of the possibility of future judgment. Even so, God is also a redeemer, and so Malachi also presents a vision of future restoration. He foresees a day when God will intervene in the world, bringing victory to those who obey God’s laws and punishment to those who do not (3:1–5; 4:1–6).

New Testament Connections

Malachi challenges the people of God today to examine their lives and ask whether their behavior matches their belief. Do Christians acknowledge God’s love for them (1:2–5)? Do they honor and respect God as they should (1:6–2:9)? Do they honor their relational commitments, particularly those made in the covenant of marriage (2:15–16)? These are just some of the issues that the ancient prophet raises for modern Christian reflection and application.

Mark begins his Gospel with a quotation that combines Mal. 3:1 with Isa. 40:3, announcing the messenger who will precede the coming of the Lord. In the last chapter of Malachi, this messenger is identified with Elijah, who will precede the Lord on the day of victory and judgment. John the Baptist fulfills the role, thus implying that Jesus is the Lord who brings victory and judgment. Jesus himself later identifies John as Elijah, whose heralding role is anticipated in Malachi (Matt. 11:7–19; cf. Luke 7:18–35). Thus, the future hopes of the book of Malachi find their fulfillment in the Gospels.

Bible formation and canon development are best understood in light of historical events and theological principles. In the historical-theological process we learn what God did and how he engaged a variety of people to produce Scripture as the word of God. The Bible is the written revelation of the triune God, who made himself known to his creation. The divine actions of God to reveal himself resulted in a written text recognized to be authoritative and thus copied and preserved for future generations. The process of recognizing and collecting authoritative books of the Scriptures occurred over time and involved consensus.

Bible Formation

Revelation. The process of Bible formation begins with God revealing. The act of revelation involved God communicating truth to the human writers in a progressive and unified manner. Inspiration is the act of God the Holy Spirit, who superintended the biblical authors so that they composed the books of Scripture exactly as he intended. God used the biblical writers, their personalities and their writing styles, in a manner that kept them from error in composing the original written product, the Scriptures. The resulting books of the Bible constitute God’s permanent special revelation to humankind.

Both Testaments affirm the work of revelation along with the formation of a body of divine writings. The OT is dominated by the phrase “thus says the Lord” and similar expressions (cf. Gen. 9:8; Josh. 24:27; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:7 and contrast Ps. 135:15–19). Every part of the OT is viewed as the word of God (Rom. 3:2). This is confirmed by Jesus’ attitude toward the Scriptures (Matt. 19:4–5; 21:42; 22:29; cf. Luke 11:50–51; 24:44).

Four NT passages help us understand the work of inspiration. A factual statement regarding the extent and nature of inspiration is made in 2 Tim. 3:16. According to 2 Pet. 1:19–20, the Holy Spirit purposefully carried persons along to produce the prophetic word, and 1 Cor. 2:10–13 supports the choice of the words in the work of composing the inspired product. Finally, Peter comments that Paul was given wisdom to produce inspired literary documents in the canon of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:14–18).

Authority. Books formed and authored by God in this manner are authoritative. Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliably composed in the originals, it is binding upon people in their relationship with God and other people. Biblical authority derives from God’s eternal character and the content of his word preserved in Scripture. The inscripturated word of God is authoritative and requires obedience.

The authority of God’s word is affirmed and illustrated in the creation and fall narratives. In the fall, Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s command (Gen. 3:3–4) and were expelled from the garden. In subsequent periods of biblical history, God’s spoken and written word continued to be the basis for belief and conduct. God summarized his will in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17; Deut. 5:6–21) and held his people accountable to it (Deut. 6:2; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 17:5–23). The authoritative word embraced by faith protects the believer from sin (Ps. 119:11). The fool is the person who rejects God’s authority (Pss. 14:1; 53:1). The apostle Paul acknowledged the authority of the gospel for his own life and ministry (Gal. 1:6–9). God the Holy Spirit impresses upon the believer the authority of the Bible as the reliable rule for faith and practice (John 6:63).

God made provision for a reliable and trustworthy preservation of his authoritative word in the multiplicity of extant manuscripts. God commanded that his revealed word be copied (Deut. 17:8–18; 24:8; 31:9, 25–26; 33:8–10) for administrative and personal purposes (Deut. 6:6; Josh. 1:8; 23:6; Prov. 3:3; 7:3). Through this process of multiplication the word of God was preserved (Ps. 119:152, 160; Isa. 40:8; cf. Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35; 1 Pet. 1:22–25).

Canonization

Canonization is the next critical step in the development of the Bible. The word “canon” (Gk. kanōn) refers to a standard, norm, or rule (Gal. 6:16; cf. Ezek. 42:16), and when applied to the Bible, it designates the collection of books revealed by God, divinely inspired, and recognized by the people of God as the authoritative norm for faith and practice. The presupposition of canonicity is that God spoke to his human creatures and his word was accurately recorded. Since inspiration determines canonicity, the books composed by human beings under the direction of the Holy Spirit functioned authoritatively at the time of writing. The people of God then recognized and collected the books that they discerned to be inspired and authoritative (1 Thess. 2:10–16; 2 Pet. 3:15).

The canonical process. The challenge associated with canon and Bible formation is that the Scriptures do not reveal a detailed historical process for recognizing and collecting inspired works. An understanding of this process is derived from the testimony of Jesus, biblical principles, and historical precedents.

Canonical identification is associated with the witness of the Holy Spirit, who worked in connection with the believers to recognize the written documents given by inspiration (1 Thess. 2:13). The Holy Spirit enabled believers to discern a book’s authority and its compatibility with existing canonical revelation (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). Although the question of authorship cannot be positively settled for every OT or NT book, believers recognized the prophets as the OT authors (Deut. 18:14–22) and the apostles as the NT authors. Canonical books were recognized to bear the power of God and to contain an effective message (2 Tim. 3:15–16; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Over time, the authoritative books of Scripture were collected into a body of literature that today forms one book, the Bible. During this process, some believers struggled with the message, content, and ambiguous authorship of books such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Esther in the OT and Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter in the NT. The pattern of composition and canonical process for the OT provided the foundation for the composition and development of the NT canon. Therefore, the NT books that came to be recognized as canonical were those that were composed in connection with an apostle, doctrinally sound, and widely circulated and used by the churches.

In the collection task some texts were recognized (homologoumena), some were disputed (antilegomena), and others were rejected as unorthodox (pseudepigrapha). Historically, there is no evidence for widespread acceptance of the present-day canon of sixty-six books until the third century AD.

Structure and content. Over the centuries, several canonical lists began to emerge, often influenced by particular theological conclusions. For example, the Samaritan canon, which includes only the first five books of our OT, was compiled by the Samaritans, who were hostile to anything in Israel or Judea outside Samaria. Today, Christian traditions vary in their inclusion or omission of the Apocrypha from their Bibles and in their list of which books are contained in the Apocrypha.

The Babylonian canon, accepted as standard by Jews, contains all the books now recognized as the OT and is divided into three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. This canon is also known as the Tanak, an acronym derived from the Hebrew words for “law” (torah), “prophets” (nebi’im), “writings” (ketubim). This canonical list traditionally includes twenty-four books (the twelve Minor Prophets are considered to be one book, as are 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah). The twenty-four books of this canonical list are the same as the thirty-nine OT books in current English Bible editions. The law or instruction section includes the first five books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets section is divided into the Former and Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets are the historical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The Latter Prophets include both the Major and the Minor Prophets. The Writings section contains both poetic and wisdom material, along with some historical material.

Historical references to this canonical format are found in extrabiblical sources as early as the second century BC. The grandson of Jesus Ben Sira referenced a threefold canon in the prologue of the apocryphal book Sirach (c. 190 BC); Josephus referenced it in Against Apion (AD 37–95). Jesus acknowledged the threefold division in Luke 24:44 (cf. Matt. 23:34). Among Christian sources, this division is preserved in the oldest extant list of OT books, associated with Bishop Melito of Sardis (AD 170). Tertullian, an early Latin church father (AD 160–250), Origen (AD 254), Hilary of Poitiers (AD 305–366), and Jerome (AD 340–420) affirmed an OT canon of twenty-two or twenty-four books. Most current English versions follow a fourfold structure of law, history, poetry, and prophets.

The twenty-seven books of the NT are attested in lists associated with churches in the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean world. Two such witnesses are the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius (AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). The canonical list associated with Marcion and the Muratorian list represent fragmentary lists from the early part of the second century AD. In terms of usage, a majority of church fathers recognized and used the twenty-seven NT books in our canon. See also Apocrypha, New Testament; Apocrypha, Old Testament.

Love for those who suffer. If we love others by denying ourselves for their sake, so that they might please God and live abundantly, we show them compassion by doing this when they are in pain. We respond with friendship, healing, and encouragement just when others might keep their distance. The compassionate person also turns sin-sick people away from evil, longing to see Christ formed in their character and life. Accordingly, compassion, like love in general, is an active force. It does not merely “feel someone’s pain”; it gets involved whenever and wherever possible.

Compassion Shown by God

The OT often refers to God’s compassion, especially toward those who, because of their sinfulness, deserve the opposite treatment. In Exod. 33:19 Yahweh takes pity on the Israelites after they have rebelled, making an idol for themselves and praising it for their deliverance. He renews his covenant with them, but he reminds them of his sovereignty in doing so: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (cf. Rom. 9:15). No one deserves God’s mercy, yet the people often receive it, even when suffering from deserved harm. In the book of Judges, Israel’s history cycles from sin and wrath to compassion and deliverance, thus emphasizing Yahweh’s patience and love. The people “wouldn’t listen to their judges; they prostituted themselves to other gods—worshiped them!” but God later “was moved to compassion when he heard their groaning because of those who afflicted and beat them” (2:17–18 MSG). David’s plea for mercy in Ps. 51 relies on Yahweh’s compassion for the self-destructive sinner: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions” (v. 1). In fact, God’s tendency to show mercy appalls Jonah, who complains, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? . . . I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity” (Jon. 4:2). Isaiah 40–66 dwells frequently on this aspect of God’s nature (e.g., 49:10–15; 54:7–10; 63:7, 15).

The NT points to God’s compassion at significant junctures in the Gospels and the Epistles. Jesus himself has compassion for the crowds who “were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). He takes pity on the crowds, healing their sick and feeding them miraculously (14:14–21; cf. 15:32). The same connection between compassion and healing occurs in Matt. 20:34; Mark 1:41, this time on an individual level. The apostle Paul underscores this attribute of God, raising it to a title of sorts. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is “the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort” (2 Cor. 1:3). James says that the Lord is “full of compassion and mercy” (5:11), and John depicts God as one who will wipe away every tear caused by persecution and trial (Rev. 7:17; 21:4). Because God is always dealing with broken sinners, his compassion for them coincides with his love (see Ps. 145:8); and this rescuing of the guilty sets an example for his people. They must go and do likewise, loving the unlovely, unwise, and even unrighteous.

Compassion Required by God

Because God loves the suffering person, even those with self-inflicted wounds, he calls upon his people to show similar compassion. Parents ought to show compassion toward their own children, as 1 Kings 3:26; Ps. 103:13 imply (cf. Ezek. 16:5). No one must keep a debtor’s garment in pledge, Yahweh says, “because that cloak is the only covering your neighbor has. What else can they sleep in? When they cry out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate” (Exod. 22:27). According to Hos. 6:6, a familiar verse quoted by Jesus, God requires compassion: “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings” (cf. Matt. 12:7). Micah 6:8 draws the same contrast between outward formalism and genuine righteousness, including displays of compassion: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Given the OT emphasis on the compassion of God, we might have expected it to become Israel’s duty as well, though it is sometimes withheld in judgment (see Deut. 7:5–6; 13:8; 19:13; Ps. 109:12).

The NT also portrays mercy or compassion as a duty. Matthew 5:7 is a familiar example: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” Of course if Jesus demonstrates compassion toward those who suffer, we ought to do so as well. In 2 Cor. 1 the “Father of compassion” comforts us (v. 3) “so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God” (v. 4). Ephesians 4:32 is a direct command that associates compassion with mercy toward sinners: “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” The comfort given to us by Christ sets the tone for each believer in Phil. 2: if there is any “tenderness and compassion” in him (v. 1), we must follow his example. Similarly, we must “clothe [ourselves] with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience” (Col. 3:12). Peter makes the same connection between humility and compassion: “Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble” (1 Pet. 3:8).

The Bible connects compassion and mercy with humility for understandable reasons, given the common association of distress and dishonor. We want always to keep up appearances, since others might be affected by our own troubles and the troubled company we keep. Suffering people are burdensome and sometimes unlovely. Their sins may provide a ready excuse to keep one’s distance, but just as God the Savior has shown us compassion, we must love others when they hurt.

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 Bible is full of teeming creatures and swarming things. These creatures, insects, often play significant roles in the stories and the events described in them. From the first chapter of the Bible to the very last book, these flying, creeping, hopping, and crawling things are prominent.

Terms for Insects

Insects are described in the Bible with both general and specific terms. In the OT, there are three general terms for insects and twenty terms used to refer to specific types of insects. In the NT, two different types of insects are referenced: gnats and locusts.

The two most common general terms for insects are variously translated. Terms and phrases used to describe them include “living creatures” (Gen. 1:20), “creatures that move along the ground” (Gen. 1:24–26; 6:7, 20; 7:8, 14, 23; 8:17, 19; Lev. 5:2; Ezek. 38:20; Hos. 2:18), that which “moves” (Gen. 9:3), “swarming things” (Lev. 11:10), “flying insects” (Lev. 11:20–21, 23; Deut. 14:19), “creatures” (Lev. 11:43), “crawling things” (Lev. 22:5; Ezek. 8:10), “reptiles” (1 Kings 4:33), “teeming creatures” (Ps. 104:25), “small creatures” (Ps. 148:10), and “sea creatures” (Hab. 1:14). The other general term for insects is used with reference to swarms of insects, typically flies (Exod. 8:21–22, 24, 29; Pss. 78:45; 105:31). Specific insects named in Scripture are listed below.

Ants. Ants are used in Proverbs as an example of and encouragement toward wisdom. In 6:6 ants serve as an example for sluggards to reform their slothful ways. Also, in 30:25 ants serve as an example of creatures that, despite their diminutive size, are wise enough to make advance preparations for the long winter.

Bees. Bees are used both literally and figuratively in Scripture. Judges 14:8 refers to honeybees, the product of which becomes the object of Samson’s riddle. The other three uses of bees in the OT are figurative of swarms of enemies against God’s people (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18).

Fleas. Fleas are referenced in the OT only by David to indicate his insignificance in comparison with King Saul (1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20). The irony of the comparison becomes clear with David’s later ascendancy.

Flies. The plague of flies follows that of gnats on Egypt (Exod. 8:20–31). Although the gnats are never said to have left Egypt, the flies are removed upon Moses’ prayer. In Eccles. 10:1 the stench of dead flies is compared to the impact that folly can have on the wise. In Isa. 7:18 flies represent Egypt being summoned by God as his avenging agents on Judah’s sin. In addition, one of the gods in Ekron was named “Baal-Zebub,” which means “lord of the flies” (2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). The reference to Satan in the NT using a similar name is likely an adaptation of the OT god of Ekron (Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18–19).

Gnats. Gnats are distinguished from flies in the OT, though the distinction is not always apparent. Gnats are employed by God in the third plague on Egypt (Exod. 8:16–19), while flies form the means of punishment in the fourth plague. The two are listed together in Ps. 105:31 and appear parallel, though the former may be a reference to a swarm. Gnats were also used by Jesus to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the scribes (Matt. 23:24).

Hornets. The Bible uses hornets in Scripture as an agent of God’s destruction. The term occurs three times in the OT. In each occurrence these stinging insects refer to God’s expulsion of the Canaanites from the land that God promised to his people. The first two times, Exod. 23:28 and Deut. 7:20, hornets are used in reference to a promise of what God will do; the third time, Josh. 24:12, they illustrate what God did.

Locusts. Of particular interest is the use of locusts in the Bible. The term or a similar nomenclature occurs close to fifty times in the NIV. Locusts demonstrate a number of characteristics in Scripture. First, they are under God’s control (Exod. 10:13–19). As such, they have no king (Prov. 30:27). They serve God’s purposes. Second, locusts often occur in very large numbers or swarms (Judg. 6:5; Jer. 46:23; Nah. 3:15). At times, their numbers can be so large as to cause darkness in the land (Exod. 10:15). Third, in large numbers these insects have been known to ravage homes, devour the land, devastate fields, and debark trees (Exod. 10:12–15; Deut. 28:38; 1 Kings 8:37; 2 Chron. 7:13; Pss. 78:46; 105:34; Isa. 33:4; Joel 1:4–7). Due to their fierceness, they were compared to horses (Rev. 9:7). Fourth, locusts hide at night (Nah. 3:17). Finally, certain types of locusts were used as food.

Moths. Moths are referred to seven times in the OT and four times in the NT. Job uses moths to illustrate the fragility of the unrighteous before God (4:19) and the impermanence of their labors (27:18). The other references to moths in Scripture present them as the consumers of the wealth (garments) and pride of humankind as a means of God’s judgment (Job 13:28; Ps. 39:11; Isa. 50:9; 51:8; Hos. 5:12; Matt. 6:19–20; Luke 12:33; James 5:2).

Functions of Insects in Scripture

As agents in God’s judgment. Insects serve a variety of functions in Scripture. Most notably, insects serve as agents of judgment from God. The OT indicates how insects were used as judgment on both Israel and their enemies.

Moses warned of God’s judgment for Israel’s violation of the covenant. He advised Israel that as a consequence of their sin, they would expend much labor in the field but harvest little, because the locusts would consume them (Deut. 28:38).

Solomon, in his prayer of dedication at the temple, beseeched God regarding judgment that he might send in the form of grasshoppers to besiege the land. He asked that when the people of God repent and pray, God would hear and forgive (2 Chron. 6:26–30). God similarly responded by promising that when he “command[s] locusts to devour the land” as judgment for sin, and his people humble themselves and pray, he will heal and forgive (2 Chron. 7:13–14; cf. 1 Kings 8:37).

The psalmist reminded Israel of God’s wonderful works in their past, one of which was his use of insects as a means of his judgment (Ps. 78:45–46; cf. 105:34).

Joel 1:4 and 2:25 describe God’s judgment on Israel for their unfaithfulness in successive waves of intensity (cf. Deut. 28:38, 42; 2 Chron. 6:28; Amos 4:9–10; 7:1–3). The devastation led to crop failure, famine, destruction of vines and fig trees, and great mourning. The severity of the judgment is described as being unlike anything anyone in the community had ever experienced (Joel 1:2–3).

Locusts are the subject of one of the visions of the prophet Amos. In the vision, God showed him the destructive power of these insects as a means of judgment. Upon seeing the vision, the prophet interceded for the people, and God relented (Amos 7:1–3).

Insects were also used as judgments on Israel’s enemies. In the plagues on Egypt, insects were the agents of the third, fourth, and eighth plagues. The third plague (Exod. 8:16–19) was gnats. Interestingly, this was the first of Moses’ signs that the magicians of Pharaoh could not reproduce. Their response to the Egyptian king was that this must be the “finger of God.” There is no record of the gnats ever leaving Egypt, unlike the other plagues.

The fourth plague was flies (Exod. 8:20–32). Here the Bible specifically indicates a distinction between the land of Goshen, where the Israelites dwelled, and the rest of the land of Egypt. The flies covered all of Egypt except Goshen. This plague led to Pharaoh’s first offer of compromise. Once Moses prayed and the flies left Egypt, Pharaoh hardened his heart.

The eighth plague was in the form of locusts (Exod. 10:1–20). In response to this plague, Pharaoh’s own officials complained to him, beseeching him to let Israel leave their country lest it be entirely destroyed. The threat of this plague led to Pharaoh’s second offer of compromise. Once the locusts began to devastate the land of Egypt, Pharaoh confessed his sin before God, but as soon as the locusts were removed, his heart again became hardened. Thus, three of the ten plagues on Egypt were in the form of insects.

At the end of a series of “woe” passages, the prophet Isaiah proclaimed God’s judgment against the enemies of his people because of their oppression. In the end, those who plundered will themselves be plundered, as if by a “swarm of locusts” (Isa. 33:1–4; cf. Jer. 51:14, 27).

Insects were also used as judgment on people who dwelled in the land of Israel prior to Israel’s occupation. Both before and after the event took place, the Bible describes how God sent hornets to help drive out the occupants of the land of Canaan in preparation for Israel’s arrival. This is described as part of God’s judgment on these nations for their sins against him (Exod. 23:28; Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12).

As food. Insects also are mentioned in Scripture as food. Certain types of locusts are listed as clean and eligible for consumption. The NT describes the diet of John the Baptist, which consisted of locusts and wild honey—a diet entirely dependent on insects (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6). The OT also notes Samson enjoying the labor of bees as food (Judg. 14:8–9).

Used figuratively. Most often, insects are used figuratively in Scripture. They are used in the proverbs of Scripture to illustrate wisdom. The sages wrote about ants (Prov. 6:6; 30:25), locusts (Prov. 30:27), and even dead flies (Eccles. 10:1) both to extol wisdom and to encourage its development in humankind.

Another figurative use of insects is in the riddle about bees and honey posed by Samson to the Philistines (Judg. 14:12–18). As noted above, Samson ate honey (Judg. 14:8–9; cf. 1 Sam. 14:25–29, 43). Also, Scripture describes the promised land as a place of “milk and honey.”

Insects also are used to symbolize pursuing enemies (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18), innumerable forces (Judg. 6:5; 7:12; Ps. 105:34; Jer. 46:23; Joel 2:25), insignificance (Num. 13:33; 1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20; Job 4:19; 27:18; Ps. 109:23; Eccles. 12:5; Isa. 40:22), vulnerability (Job 4:19), God’s incomparable nature (Job 39:20), the brevity of life (Ps. 109:23), wisdom and organization (Prov. 30:27), and an invading army (Isa. 7:18; Jer. 51:14, 27), and they are employed in a taunt against Israel’s enemies (Nah. 3:15–17), a lesson on hypocrisy (Matt. 23:24), and an image of eschatological judgment (Rev. 9:4–11).

Scriptural Truths about Insects

1. Insects are part of God’s creation. In view of all the uses of insects in Scripture, several key truths emerge. First, insects are a part of the totality of God’s creation. The very first chapter of the Bible uses one of the general terms for insects as part of God’s creative activity on the sixth day of creation (Gen. 1:24). After God reviewed the creation on that day, his assessment of it, including the insects, was that it was “good” (1:25).

2. Insects are under God’s control. A second scriptural truth related to insects in the Bible is that they are under God’s control. In Deut. 7:20 God promised to send hornets ahead of the children of Israel to prepare the promised land for their arrival. Also, in Joel 2:25, when God promised to repair the damage to the land caused by the locusts, he described them as “my great army that I sent.” Thus, the picture emerges that what God has created, he alone reserves the authority to control.

3. Insects are cared for by God. A final truth regarding insects in Scripture is that God takes care of them. Just as Jesus explained God’s care for the birds of the air (Matt. 7:26), the psalmist explained that all of God’s creation, specifically insects, “look to you to give them their food at the proper time” (Ps. 104:25–27). The conclusion of the psalmist is appropriate for all of God’s creation: “When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground” (104:29–30). Thus, in the end, God creates, God controls, and God cares—a lesson that all of God’s creation shares.

Whether animal or human, “creature” assumes creator. God’s unique creative activity is showcased in his majestic work: “creatures” (Heb. bar’a, “to create” [Gen. 1:1, 27]; Heb. nepesh hayah, “living creature” [Gen. 1:24; cf. 2:7]). While the infinite God is not confined in the lives of his creatures, both are linked in a relationship of fidelity (Ps. 104).

A creature is a gift and has an obligation of service (Ps. 150). Scripture celebrates divine rule and creaturely dependence (Ps. 96). Creatures have roles, and the liturgy of doxology revels in a cosmic and eschatological drama (Ps. 148; Isa. 40:12–31; 65:17–25). Humans are caretaking creatures (Ps. 8).

In systematic theology, “foreknowledge” usually refers to the doctrine that God knows all things, events, and persons before they exist or occur and that this knowledge has been his from all eternity. No single Hebrew term in the OT corresponds to the English term; the concept is expressed rather on the phrase or sentence level. In the NT, the Greek verb proginōskō and noun prognōsis are translated “foreknow” and “foreknowledge,” respectively. Recently in evangelical circles there has been intense debate as to whether foreknowledge and omniscience are in fact taught in the biblical texts.

Old Testament

In the OT narratives, especially in the Pentateuch, there are numerous instances that indicate some limitations to God’s knowledge in general and his foreknowledge in particular. God appears to be somewhat surprised by how wicked humanity has become before he decides to send the flood (Gen. 6:5). God comes down and discovers that the inhabitants of Babel have started to build a tower and considers how to stop the activity (11:5–7). God comes down to ascertain whether the outcry that has come to his ears about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is actually as bad as the reports would indicate (18:20–21). God tests Abraham by commanding him to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, and when Abraham begins to do so, he declares that now he knows that Abraham really fears him (22:1–18).

Often, narratives such as these are regarded by theologians as cases of anthropomorphism, statements made about God that speak of him as if he had human characteristics—in this case, limited knowledge. And certainly there are many other narratives in the Pentateuch that appear to give the opposite picture. God asks Cain where his brother Abel is, though he apparently already knows the answer (Gen. 4:9–10). God relates to Abraham the course that Israelite history will take for the next several hundred years (15:13–16). God seems to be in a real-time chess match with Pharaoh, but in actuality God knows all the moves that both he and Pharaoh will make before the game ever begins (Exod. 3:19–22; 4:21–23; 7:1–5).

Given this data, perhaps the better explanation for what is happening in these texts is not that the biblical narrator is employing anthropomorphism but rather that God is accommodating himself both to the characters in the narrative and to the narrator of the stories. That is, at this stage of revelatory history God is not yet revealing himself as fully omniscient and prescient of the future in its entirety. In the conceptual world of the ancient Near East, deities were regularly portrayed as being interactive—deliberating, investigating, discovering, making decisions, and so forth. God therefore may well have accommodated himself to the larger milieu in revealing himself to the patriarchs and earliest biblical narrators.

Whatever the case may be, later biblical revelation certainly seems to present God as fully omniscient and prescient. “Death and Destruction lie open before the Lord—how much more do human hearts!” (Prov. 15:11). Before words reach our tongues, God knows them completely (Ps. 139:4). No one has ever had to keep God informed or provide him with counsel (Isa. 40:13–14). There are no limits to his understanding (Ps. 147:5). The God of Israel challenges all idols and all other gods to a foreknowledge contest: if they are able, let them tell what is going to happen, as Yahweh does (Isa. 42:9; 44:6–8; 48:3–8). God alone makes the end known from the beginning (Isa. 46:10), and he has been doing so from ancient times (Acts 15:17–18). God knew Jeremiah long before he was ever a fetus (Jer. 1:5). Our prayers do not make God finally aware of our situation; he already knows what our needs are (Matt. 6:8). Indeed, God answers our prayers before they are even prayed (Isa. 65:24). “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare” before his eyes (Heb. 4:13).

New Testament

One especially important exegetical question for the NT involves the precise meaning of the aforementioned Greek words, proginōskō (“foreknow”) and prognōsis (“foreknowledge”). The question concerns whether these words, in their contexts, are merely cognitive terms, indicating simply that God knows things before they happen, or whether the terms are volitional terms and/or affective terms. That is, do they indicate foreordaining and/or foreloving? Are they terms that have basically the same meaning as “election” and “predestination”?

Giving credence to this position is the fact that in some of the passages where these words occur there are other words that definitely refer to God willing things to happen. In Acts 2:23, Peter declares that Jesus was handed over to his crucifiers by “God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge.” The verse can hardly mean that God decided to do this because he already knew it was going to happen. Rather, the terms “deliberate plan” and “foreknowledge” act together to convey the single idea of God’s complete control, planning, and sovereignty in the death of Jesus. Likewise, in 1 Pet. 1:20 the word does not mean that the Son was simply “foreknown” before the foundation of the world, but rather that he was “chosen” (NIV), “destined” (NRSV), “foreordained” (KJV).

In Rom. 11:2, Paul states that God has not rejected “his people, whom he foreknew.” Again, it is hard to read this as being only cognitive. Rather, the use of the term appears to imply some kind of “affective” foreknowing, a “setting his love upon” (cf. Deut. 7:7–8), a choosing. It is important to note that the text says God foreknew not things but people. On the one hand, God foreknew all people who would ever exist, but in this passage the foreknowing refers to a particular people. And the foreknowing most likely takes its sense from the use of the word “know” in the OT, which on numerous occasions refers to the relationship of acknowledgment and love between God and his people.

In the same way, in Rom. 8:29 “those God foreknew he also predestined,” “foreknew” again appears to be a volitional, affective term—that is, “those whom God set his love upon.” That it means that God knew how these people would respond to the gospel and then chose them seems to be excluded by passages such as Rom. 9:11–12, where God’s purposes in election are not determined by people’s actions. Finally, in 1 Pet. 1:1–2 the “elect” to whom Peter is writing are elect according to “foreknowledge of God”; not that God foreknew things about them, but that God foreknew them. This understanding of the terms in context seems preferable.

In systematic theology, “foreknowledge” usually refers to the doctrine that God knows all things, events, and persons before they exist or occur and that this knowledge has been his from all eternity. No single Hebrew term in the OT corresponds to the English term; the concept is expressed rather on the phrase or sentence level. In the NT, the Greek verb proginōskō and noun prognōsis are translated “foreknow” and “foreknowledge,” respectively. Recently in evangelical circles there has been intense debate as to whether foreknowledge and omniscience are in fact taught in the biblical texts.

Old Testament

In the OT narratives, especially in the Pentateuch, there are numerous instances that indicate some limitations to God’s knowledge in general and his foreknowledge in particular. God appears to be somewhat surprised by how wicked humanity has become before he decides to send the flood (Gen. 6:5). God comes down and discovers that the inhabitants of Babel have started to build a tower and considers how to stop the activity (11:5–7). God comes down to ascertain whether the outcry that has come to his ears about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is actually as bad as the reports would indicate (18:20–21). God tests Abraham by commanding him to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, and when Abraham begins to do so, he declares that now he knows that Abraham really fears him (22:1–18).

Often, narratives such as these are regarded by theologians as cases of anthropomorphism, statements made about God that speak of him as if he had human characteristics—in this case, limited knowledge. And certainly there are many other narratives in the Pentateuch that appear to give the opposite picture. God asks Cain where his brother Abel is, though he apparently already knows the answer (Gen. 4:9–10). God relates to Abraham the course that Israelite history will take for the next several hundred years (15:13–16). God seems to be in a real-time chess match with Pharaoh, but in actuality God knows all the moves that both he and Pharaoh will make before the game ever begins (Exod. 3:19–22; 4:21–23; 7:1–5).

Given this data, perhaps the better explanation for what is happening in these texts is not that the biblical narrator is employing anthropomorphism but rather that God is accommodating himself both to the characters in the narrative and to the narrator of the stories. That is, at this stage of revelatory history God is not yet revealing himself as fully omniscient and prescient of the future in its entirety. In the conceptual world of the ancient Near East, deities were regularly portrayed as being interactive—deliberating, investigating, discovering, making decisions, and so forth. God therefore may well have accommodated himself to the larger milieu in revealing himself to the patriarchs and earliest biblical narrators.

Whatever the case may be, later biblical revelation certainly seems to present God as fully omniscient and prescient. “Death and Destruction lie open before the Lord—how much more do human hearts!” (Prov. 15:11). Before words reach our tongues, God knows them completely (Ps. 139:4). No one has ever had to keep God informed or provide him with counsel (Isa. 40:13–14). There are no limits to his understanding (Ps. 147:5). The God of Israel challenges all idols and all other gods to a foreknowledge contest: if they are able, let them tell what is going to happen, as Yahweh does (Isa. 42:9; 44:6–8; 48:3–8). God alone makes the end known from the beginning (Isa. 46:10), and he has been doing so from ancient times (Acts 15:17–18). God knew Jeremiah long before he was ever a fetus (Jer. 1:5). Our prayers do not make God finally aware of our situation; he already knows what our needs are (Matt. 6:8). Indeed, God answers our prayers before they are even prayed (Isa. 65:24). “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare” before his eyes (Heb. 4:13).

New Testament

One especially important exegetical question for the NT involves the precise meaning of the aforementioned Greek words, proginōskō (“foreknow”) and prognōsis (“foreknowledge”). The question concerns whether these words, in their contexts, are merely cognitive terms, indicating simply that God knows things before they happen, or whether the terms are volitional terms and/or affective terms. That is, do they indicate foreordaining and/or foreloving? Are they terms that have basically the same meaning as “election” and “predestination”?

Giving credence to this position is the fact that in some of the passages where these words occur there are other words that definitely refer to God willing things to happen. In Acts 2:23, Peter declares that Jesus was handed over to his crucifiers by “God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge.” The verse can hardly mean that God decided to do this because he already knew it was going to happen. Rather, the terms “deliberate plan” and “foreknowledge” act together to convey the single idea of God’s complete control, planning, and sovereignty in the death of Jesus. Likewise, in 1 Pet. 1:20 the word does not mean that the Son was simply “foreknown” before the foundation of the world, but rather that he was “chosen” (NIV), “destined” (NRSV), “foreordained” (KJV).

In Rom. 11:2, Paul states that God has not rejected “his people, whom he foreknew.” Again, it is hard to read this as being only cognitive. Rather, the use of the term appears to imply some kind of “affective” foreknowing, a “setting his love upon” (cf. Deut. 7:7–8), a choosing. It is important to note that the text says God foreknew not things but people. On the one hand, God foreknew all people who would ever exist, but in this passage the foreknowing refers to a particular people. And the foreknowing most likely takes its sense from the use of the word “know” in the OT, which on numerous occasions refers to the relationship of acknowledgment and love between God and his people.

In the same way, in Rom. 8:29 “those God foreknew he also predestined,” “foreknew” again appears to be a volitional, affective term—that is, “those whom God set his love upon.” That it means that God knew how these people would respond to the gospel and then chose them seems to be excluded by passages such as Rom. 9:11–12, where God’s purposes in election are not determined by people’s actions. Finally, in 1 Pet. 1:1–2 the “elect” to whom Peter is writing are elect according to “foreknowledge of God”; not that God foreknew things about them, but that God foreknew them. This understanding of the terms in context seems preferable.

A soldier who goes ahead of the main army as a scout, or a herald who travels ahead of a political delegation to announce the arrival in a city of an important figure such as a king. In the apocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon, “forerunner” is used to describe ravaging wasps that God sends ahead of Israel’s army as it invades to conquer the promised land (Wis. 12:8).

The only instance of “forerunner” in the NT is Heb. 6:20. Here the word is used to describe Jesus Christ’s entrance into the heavenly holy of holies by virtue of his sacrificial death. As a forerunner, Jesus enters into the fullness of God’s presence on behalf of everyone who trusts in him.

Although the specific word is not used, the concept of a forerunner is seen clearly in the ministry of John the Baptist. The OT prophets spoke of a messenger (Mal. 3:1; cf. 4:5–6) and herald (Isa. 40:3–9) who would come announcing salvation and the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth prior to the coming of the Messiah. The NT clearly indicates that John the Baptist is this herald (Matt. 3:1–12; 11:10; Mark 1:2–8; Luke 1:76; 3:1–18; see also John 1:6–8, 19–34). Using the language of the prophets, the Gospels describe John’s ministry as one of preparation for the ministry of Jesus Christ, a preparation focused primarily on personal and corporate repentance. John’s vivid preaching and effective ministry led to him being mistaken for the Messiah (Luke 3:15–16). John makes it clear that he is simply the forerunner (John 1:20, 23), the one who comes to “prepare the way for the Lord” (Isa. 40:3; cf. Mal. 3:1), the Lord who himself will usher in God’s kingdom in its fullness.

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It has a Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family” and, eventually, “race” or “people.” The Greek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship. In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other than Israel. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,” “peoples,” or “races.”

Old Testament

In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

The Servant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect this law/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. The servant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14), serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6; 49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separate from Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who have harmed Israel.

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Second Temple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, their nature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end. Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’s people defined by the law, variously understood and contested among Second Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’s ultimate blessing activities.

Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18).

However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.

The English word “gospel” translates the Greek word euangelion, which is very important in the NT, being used seventy-six times. The word euangelion (eu = “good,” angelion = “announcement”), in its contemporary use in the Hellenistic world, was not the title of a book but rather a declaration of good news. Euangelion was used in the Roman Empire with reference to significant events in the life of the emperor, who was thought of as a savior with divine status. These events included declarations at the time of his birth, his coming of age, and his accession to the throne. The NT usage of the term can also be traced to the OT (e.g., Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1), which looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, who would bring a time of salvation. This good news, which is declared in the NT, is that Jesus has fulfilled God’s promises to Israel, and now the way of salvation is open to all.

The Gospel Message

The apostle Paul recognizes that the gospel is centered on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1–5). He states that this gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16), a sacred trust (1 Tim. 1:11), the word of truth (Eph. 1:13), and an authoritative pronouncement that requires a response (Rom. 10:16; 2 Cor. 11:4; 2 Thess. 1:8). The declaration of this good news is found on the lips of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 11:5; Luke 4:18), who calls people to respond in repentance and belief (Mark 1:15). The good news is also in the early apostolic preaching, where it is associated with the proclamation of Christ (Acts 5:42; 8:35; 11:20).

The records of apostolic preaching in Acts are records of the earliest public declaration of this gospel. The apostle Peter gives three such speeches (Acts 2:14–41; 3:11–4:4; 10:34–43), whose content can be summarized as follows. The age of fulfillment has dawned through the birth, life, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (2:22–31), which has ushered in the “latter days” foretold by the prophets (3:18–26). Jesus, by his resurrection, has been exalted to the right hand of God as the head of the new Israel (2:32–36), and the Holy Spirit has been given to the church as the sign of Christ’s present power and exaltation (10:44–48). This age will reach its consummation at the return of Christ (3:20–21), and in response to this gospel an appeal is made for repentance, with the offer of forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, and salvation (2:37–41).

This declaration of the gospel is concerned primarily with what was preached rather than what was written. Itinerant preachers of this gospel were known as “evangelists,” which in Greek is closely related to the term euangelion (Acts 21:8; Eph. 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:5). Some scholars believe that during the stage of oral transmission, the gospel accounts developed a certain form through repetition, which helps explain some similarities between later written accounts of the gospel.

From Oral to Written Gospel

Later, this “oral” gospel was written down, for several reasons. With the rapid spread of Christianity, as recorded in the book of Acts, a need arose for a more efficient dissemination of the message of Jesus than was available by oral means. Furthermore, there was a need to keep the message alive because some of the apostles had died (e.g., James in Acts 12:2) and many churches were facing opposition and persecution. The written Gospels would facilitate catechetical and liturgical needs and encourage persecuted Christians to continue following Jesus by telling the story of his faithfulness through great suffering. These written Gospels would also contain examples of those who persevered in following Jesus and of those who denied him and betrayed him. These accounts about Jesus and those who followed him became foundational documents for the early church.

It should be noted that the gospel was not written down in order to give it greater authority. The first-century context was largely an oral culture, in which storytelling and the rehearsal of facts was integral. Papias, a leader of the church in Hierapolis in Asia Minor who died around AD 130, states his preference for oral tradition rather than written information about Jesus: “For I did not think that information from books would help me as much as the word of a living and surviving voice” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.4). There is, however, a traceable trajectory from the gospel preached by the apostles to the written accounts that bear the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is generally held that the authors/editors of the four canonical Gospels were using oral and/or written sources (Luke 1:1–4), and that their respective Gospels were written in the second half of the first century.

The majority of biblical scholars hold that Mark was the first Gospel to be written (c. AD 66). According to tradition, its editor/author was John Mark, a close friend of the apostle Peter (1 Pet. 5:13) and a part-time companion of the apostle Paul (Acts 12:12; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11). This tradition is not without basis. Papias says, “Mark, who had indeed been Peter’s interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or done by the Lord” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). This tradition is also outlined by Clement of Alexandria, who, around AD 200, wrote, “When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the gospel, then those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what he said; and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.5–7; cf. 2.15.1–2).

It is widely held that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of their sources: of the material in Mark, over 97 percent is repeated in Matthew and over 88 percent in Luke. Matthew and Luke also contain material that appears to come from a common written source that is not found in Mark. Scholars have named this source as “Q” (from the German Quelle = “source”), although this may be a collection of sources rather than a single document.

Furthermore, the association of the Fourth Gospel with the apostle John goes back to Irenaeus (c. AD 180), who states, “John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on his breast, also published the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia” (Haer. 3.1.1, as cited in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.8.4). By the second century, the term “gospel” is used for the written accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (e.g., Did. 11.3; 15.4). Justin Martyr (c. AD 140) refers to the “memoirs of the apostles” (1 Apol. 67) and Irenaeus (c. AD 180) mentions the four canonical Gospels by name (Haer. 3.11.7).

The Purpose and Genre of the Gospels

Purpose. The Gospels were written to convey theology and to create and confirm faith. They do not give an objectively neutral account of the life of Jesus; they enthusiastically endorse their protagonist and condemn those who oppose him. They differ from traditional biographies in that they give little information about the chronology of Jesus’ life. Only two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, tell of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth. Luke alone tells of an event in Jesus’ childhood (Luke 2:41–52). It is virtually incidental that Jesus worked as a carpenter and had brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3). A large percentage of each of the four canonical Gospels is devoted to the last week of Jesus’ life; of the sixteen chapters of Mark’s Gospel, six are devoted to the one week from Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem until his resurrection.

The primary intentions of the authors/editors of the written Gospels were not to give biographical details but rather to lead the reader to an acknowledgment of the identity of Jesus and a belief in the purpose of his mission (Luke 1:4; John 20:31). Their theological purposes, however, do not necessarily compromise their commitment to historical accuracy. Jesus is presented as a real, historical figure who lived within a specific historical time frame. Luke appears to be more concerned than the other evangelists with historical details, giving a rough date for Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:1–2) and a more specific time for Jesus’ baptism (3:1–2).

Genre. The discerning reader of the Gospels is forced to ask questions concerning the literary genre(s) of these texts. Such a discussion is imperative, as the interpretation of a section of any piece of literature will largely be determined by the function of the text within a certain literary genre. Prior to the 1970s, most NT scholars believed that the Gospels formed a unique literary genre and were therefore distinct from other first-century literary forms. This conclusion was based on the belief that the written Gospels were collections of smaller sections sewn together by the evangelists, and that the documents as a whole lacked coherence. Since then, this presupposition has been challenged, largely because scholars have seen that the Gospel writers were real editors and authors who were not just collecting primitive source material but were using that material to write a larger story about Jesus. The written Gospels therefore have overall coherence and purpose; they were written in such a way as to bring about a desired response in the reader. Such an overall intention may have stronger similarities with different genres in the Greco-Roman world of the NT.

The Gospels have been associated with several genres. They bear some resemblance to aretalogies, which were narratives about divine persons in antiquity from which flowed moral instructions. These stories often involved miraculous events at the subject’s birth or death or during life, and they included the presence of both disciples and opponents. Within these aretalogies, the narrative was secondary to the morality. An association with aretalogies, therefore, would encourage the reader to give greater attention to moral teaching than to events in which this teaching is embedded. Similarly, others have seen the Gospels as essentially a collection of wisdom sayings set in a historicized narrative; this view again gives priority to sayings and is doubtful of the historicity of the narrative. Such views that downplay the narrative, and particularly the miracles in Jesus’ life, have led others to argue the opposite extreme, which sees the Gospels, and Luke-Acts in particular, as examples of ancient novels, with their focus on miracle stories. Many scholars have rejected the emphasis on either sayings or narrative, arguing that the literary genre that the Gospels most closely resemble is ancient biographies (bioi). These contained praise for the protagonist, rhetoric, moral philosophy, and a concern for character.

Although the Gospels use different literary motifs that are reflective of different genres of the Greco-Roman world, they do not exactly replicate a known genre. They contain material not found in other Hellenistic literature of the time—for example, the fulfillment of OT expectations and their desire to address particular issues faced by the early church, such as opposition; the Gentile mission; the need to redefine Israel in the light of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection; and the nature of Christian discipleship. Unlike other literature of the time, they do not name their authors, and with the exception of Luke, they lack traditional literary devices such as prefaces. They are therefore to be seen as unique, or at least as a distinct subgenre of ancient biographies.

Canonical and Noncanonical Gospels

The progression from the events of Jesus’ life to the oral preaching of this gospel to the first-century writing of the story led to the acceptance of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John into the NT canon. There is also a significant body of literature that is normally referred to as the noncanonical gospels. These later documents were neither widely accepted nor viewed as authoritative, but they provide useful insights into the nature of early Christianity. A significant noncanonical gospel is the Gospel of Thomas, which is part of a large collection of works discovered at Nag Hammadi (Egypt) in 1945. The Gospel of Thomas does not contain a resurrection account and is primarily a collection of sayings.

The canonical Gospels are not more authoritative than other sections of Scripture, but because they focus on Jesus’ ministry, with particular attention to his death and resurrection, they draw the attention of the reader to the fulfillment of God’s purpose in the life and work of Jesus, the Messiah. They are therefore of great importance within Scripture.

Mark’s Gospel is a fast-paced, action-packed narrative that portrays Jesus as the mighty Messiah and Son of God, who suffers and dies as the servant of the Lord—a ransom price for sins. Mark’s purpose is to provide an authoritative account of the “good news” about Jesus Christ and to encourage believers to follow Jesus’ example by remaining faithful to their calling through persecution and even martyrdom. A theme verse is Mark 10:45: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Narrative Structure (Plot) and Main Themes

Mark’s narrative may be divided into two main parts. The first half of the story demonstrates that Jesus is the mighty Messiah and Son of God (1:1–8:26); the second half reveals that the Messiah’s role is to suffer and die as a sacrifice for sins (8:27–16:8).

Messiah and Son of God. Unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark does not begin with stories of Jesus’ birth but instead moves directly to his public ministry. As in the other Gospels, John the Baptist is the “messenger” who prepares the way for the Messiah (cf. Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1). John preaches a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins and announces the “more powerful” one, the Messiah, who will come after him (1:7). When Jesus is baptized by John, the Spirit descends on him, empowering him for ministry. After his temptation (or testing) by Satan in the desert, Jesus returns to Galilee and launches his ministry, proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) that “the time has come. . . . The kingdom of God has come near” (1:15).

During his Galilean ministry, Jesus demonstrates extraordinary authority in teaching, healing, and exorcism. He calls fishermen from their occupation, and they drop everything and follow him (1:16–20). He claims authority to forgive sins (2:10) and authority over the Sabbath command (2:28). He reveals power over natural forces, calming the sea (4:35–41), walking on water (6:45–52), and feeding huge crowds with a few loaves and fishes (6:30–44; 8:1–13). The people stand “amazed” and “astonished” (a major theme in Mark) at Jesus’ teaching and miracles, and his popularity soars.

Jesus’ authority and acclaim provoke opposition from the religious leaders of Israel, who are jealous of his influence. The scribes and Pharisees accuse him of claiming the prerogative of God (2:7), associating with undesirable sinners (2:16), breaking the Sabbath (2:24), and casting out demons by Satan’s powers (3:22). They conspire to kill him (3:6).

A sense of mystery and awe surrounds Jesus’ identity. When he calms the sea, the disciples wonder, “Who is this?” (4:41), and King Herod wonders if this might be John the Baptist risen from the dead (6:16). Adding to this sense of mystery is what has come to be called the “messianic secret.” Jesus silences demons who identify him as the Messiah and orders those he heals not to tell anyone what has happened. This secrecy is not, as some have claimed, a literary device invented by Mark to explain Jesus’ unmessianic life; rather, it is Jesus’ attempt to calm inappropriate messianic expectations and to define his messianic mission on his own terms.

Messiah’s role to suffer and die. The critical turning point in the narrative comes in 8:27–33, when Peter, as representative of the disciples, declares that Jesus is the Messiah. The authority that Jesus has demonstrated up to this point confirms that he is God’s agent of salvation. Yet Jesus startles the disciples by announcing that his messianic task is to go to Jerusalem to suffer and die. Peter rebukes him, but Jesus responds, “Get behind me, Satan! . . . You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns” (8:33). Jesus will accomplish salvation not by crushing the Roman occupiers, but by offering his life as a sacrifice for sins.

In the second half of the Gospel, Jesus journeys to Jerusalem, three times predicting that he will be arrested and killed (8:31–32; 9:31; 10:33–34). The disciples repeatedly demonstrate pride, ignorance, and spiritual dullness (8:33; 9:32–34; 10:35–41), and Jesus teaches them that whoever wants to be first must become last (9:35); that to lead, one must serve (10:45); and that to be Jesus’ disciple requires taking up one’s cross and following him (8:34).

When he comes to Jerusalem, Jesus symbolically judges the nation by clearing the temple of merchants (11:15–17) and by cursing a fig tree (representing Israel), which subsequently withers (11:12–14, 20–21). He engages in controversies with the religious leaders (chaps. 11–12) and teaches the disciples that Jerusalem and the temple will be destroyed (chap. 13). Judas Iscariot, one of Jesus’ own disciples, betrays him. Jesus is arrested and brought to trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin, which finds him guilty of blasphemy. That council turns Jesus over to the Roman governor Pilate, who accedes to his crucifixion (chaps. 14–15).

The crucifixion scene in Mark is a dark and lonely one. Jesus is deserted by his followers, unjustly condemned, beaten by the soldiers, and mocked by all. Apparently deserted even by God, Jesus cries out from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (15:34). Yet the reader knows by this point in the story that Jesus’ death is not the tragedy that it seems. This is God’s means of accomplishing salvation. Upon Jesus’ death, the curtain of the temple is torn, opening a new way into God’s presence. The Roman centurion at the cross cries out, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (15:39). The death of the Messiah is not a defeat; it is an atoning sacrifice for sins. Three days later Jesus rises from the dead, just as he has predicted. When Jesus’ women followers come to the tomb, the angel announces, “He has risen! He is not here” (16:6). Jesus the Messiah has turned tragedy into victory and has defeated sin, Satan, and death.

Literary Features

Mark writes with a rough Semitic style characterized by colorful detail and dramatic effect. He emphasizes Jesus’ actions rather than extended teaching. For its length, Mark’s Gospel records more miracles and less teaching than the other Gospels. The author’s fondness for the term “immediately” (euthys) and use of the Greek historical present tense give the narrative a fast-paced, vivid, and realistic style.

One of Mark’s favorite literary techniques is intercalation, a sandwiching method whereby one episode is interrupted by another, with the two mutually interpreting each other. One example of this is the clearing of the temple, which is sandwiched between the cursing and withering of the fig tree (11:12–25). Both episodes symbolically represent Israel’s spiritual failure and coming judgment. Other intercalations appear in 3:20–35; 5:21–43; 6:7–30; 14:53–72.

Mark is also fond of groups of three, or triads. Three boat scenes illustrate the disciples’ lack of faith and comprehension (4:35–41; 6:45–52; 8:14–21). In three cycles of events, Jesus predicts his death and then teaches his disciples about servant leadership (8:31–38; 9:31–37; 10:32–45). In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus three times tells his disciples to be alert (13:33, 35, 37), and then three times he finds them sleeping in Gethsemane (14:37, 40, 41). Peter denies Jesus three times (14:68, 70, 71), and three three-hour intervals are mentioned during the crucifixion (15:25, 33, 34). These and other literary devices provide color to Mark’s narrative and carry the story forward.

Authorship

Early church tradition identifies the author of this Gospel as John Mark, son of Mary (Acts 12:12), cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10), missionary companion of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:5), and later companion of Peter (1 Pet. 5:13). Church tradition claims that Mark became Peter’s interpreter while working with him in Rome and put into writing Peter’s version of the Gospel.

Most scholars consider Mark to have been the first Gospel written and think that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as one of their sources.

Audience, Life Setting, and Date

The specific audience of Mark’s Gospel is uncertain, although the author’s tendency to explain Jewish customs and terms suggests a primarily non-Jewish (Gentile) readership. Mark also sometimes provides Latin equivalents for Greek terms. This would agree with the church tradition that the Gospel was composed by John Mark in Rome and was intended for the Roman church.

A Roman setting and destination also fit well with the theme of faithfulness through suffering that runs through Mark’s story. Many scholars place the origin of Mark’s Gospel in Rome in the mid-60s AD, in the context of the emperor Nero’s persecution of Christians. Mark writes to encourage his readers to endure suffering for the gospel, to take up their crosses and follow Jesus, for “even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (10:45).

Outline

I. The Preparation of the Son of God (1:1–13)

II. The Authoritative Ministry of the Son of God in and around Galilee (1:14–8:26)

A. The kingdom authority of the Son of God (1:14–3:12)

B. The disciple family of the Son of God and those outside (3:13–6:6)

C. The mission of the Son of God (6:7–8:26)

III. The Suffering of the Son of God as Servant of the Lord (8:27–16:8)

A. The confession of Peter and the servant Messiah (8:27–10:52)

B. The Son of God confronts Jerusalem (11:1–13:37)

C. Climax: The death of the Son of God (14:1–15:47)

D. Resolution: The resurrection of the Son of God (16:1–8)

E. Appendix (16:9–20)

Gold was sometimes hammered into thin sheets for gilding other surfaces. This technique was used for various temple furnishings, including the altar and the inner sanctuary (1 Kings 6:20–35) and also for idols (Isa. 40:19). Hammered gold could also be made into objects such as candlesticks (Exod. 25:18) or shields (1 Kings 10:16–17).

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It has a Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family” and, eventually, “race” or “people.” The Greek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship. In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other than Israel. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,” “peoples,” or “races.”

Old Testament

In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

The Servant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect this law/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. The servant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14), serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6; 49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separate from Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who have harmed Israel.

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Second Temple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, their nature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end. Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’s people defined by the law, variously understood and contested among Second Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’s ultimate blessing activities.

Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18).

However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood, molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idols are not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—even pagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium through which a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguish between worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahweh through images.

In contrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of all images as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images of Yahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented by anything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form at Sinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form can adequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Bible similarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because it elevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the second commandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image of anything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatry is regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because it marks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with his people (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). This corresponds to the fact that idol worship often included cultic prostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alike ridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unable to see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these “gods” depended on humans for transportation and protection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20). Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as the things they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing, both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous. This is because idols lead people away from properly worshiping Yahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despite its warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israel regularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supreme revelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping a golden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society had become degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan, engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy was divided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship to preserve the loyalty of his people (1 Kings 12:25–33). Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reason for the exile.

By NT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but it remained an important issue for the growing church because many believers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostles included idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readers to flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols. Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linked it with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NT authors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worship the true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to the time when all idol worship would cease.

The Bible is full of teeming creatures and swarming things. These creatures, insects, often play significant roles in the stories and the events described in them. From the first chapter of the Bible to the very last book, these flying, creeping, hopping, and crawling things are prominent.

Terms for Insects

Insects are described in the Bible with both general and specific terms. In the OT, there are three general terms for insects and twenty terms used to refer to specific types of insects. In the NT, two different types of insects are referenced: gnats and locusts.

The two most common general terms for insects are variously translated. Terms and phrases used to describe them include “living creatures” (Gen. 1:20), “creatures that move along the ground” (Gen. 1:24–26; 6:7, 20; 7:8, 14, 23; 8:17, 19; Lev. 5:2; Ezek. 38:20; Hos. 2:18), that which “moves” (Gen. 9:3), “swarming things” (Lev. 11:10), “flying insects” (Lev. 11:20–21, 23; Deut. 14:19), “creatures” (Lev. 11:43), “crawling things” (Lev. 22:5; Ezek. 8:10), “reptiles” (1 Kings 4:33), “teeming creatures” (Ps. 104:25), “small creatures” (Ps. 148:10), and “sea creatures” (Hab. 1:14). The other general term for insects is used with reference to swarms of insects, typically flies (Exod. 8:21–22, 24, 29; Pss. 78:45; 105:31). Specific insects named in Scripture are listed below.

Ants. Ants are used in Proverbs as an example of and encouragement toward wisdom. In 6:6 ants serve as an example for sluggards to reform their slothful ways. Also, in 30:25 ants serve as an example of creatures that, despite their diminutive size, are wise enough to make advance preparations for the long winter.

Bees. Bees are used both literally and figuratively in Scripture. Judges 14:8 refers to honeybees, the product of which becomes the object of Samson’s riddle. The other three uses of bees in the OT are figurative of swarms of enemies against God’s people (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18).

Fleas. Fleas are referenced in the OT only by David to indicate his insignificance in comparison with King Saul (1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20). The irony of the comparison becomes clear with David’s later ascendancy.

Flies. The plague of flies follows that of gnats on Egypt (Exod. 8:20–31). Although the gnats are never said to have left Egypt, the flies are removed upon Moses’ prayer. In Eccles. 10:1 the stench of dead flies is compared to the impact that folly can have on the wise. In Isa. 7:18 flies represent Egypt being summoned by God as his avenging agents on Judah’s sin. In addition, one of the gods in Ekron was named “Baal-Zebub,” which means “lord of the flies” (2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). The reference to Satan in the NT using a similar name is likely an adaptation of the OT god of Ekron (Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18–19).

Gnats. Gnats are distinguished from flies in the OT, though the distinction is not always apparent. Gnats are employed by God in the third plague on Egypt (Exod. 8:16–19), while flies form the means of punishment in the fourth plague. The two are listed together in Ps. 105:31 and appear parallel, though the former may be a reference to a swarm. Gnats were also used by Jesus to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the scribes (Matt. 23:24).

Hornets. The Bible uses hornets in Scripture as an agent of God’s destruction. The term occurs three times in the OT. In each occurrence these stinging insects refer to God’s expulsion of the Canaanites from the land that God promised to his people. The first two times, Exod. 23:28 and Deut. 7:20, hornets are used in reference to a promise of what God will do; the third time, Josh. 24:12, they illustrate what God did.

Locusts. Of particular interest is the use of locusts in the Bible. The term or a similar nomenclature occurs close to fifty times in the NIV. Locusts demonstrate a number of characteristics in Scripture. First, they are under God’s control (Exod. 10:13–19). As such, they have no king (Prov. 30:27). They serve God’s purposes. Second, locusts often occur in very large numbers or swarms (Judg. 6:5; Jer. 46:23; Nah. 3:15). At times, their numbers can be so large as to cause darkness in the land (Exod. 10:15). Third, in large numbers these insects have been known to ravage homes, devour the land, devastate fields, and debark trees (Exod. 10:12–15; Deut. 28:38; 1 Kings 8:37; 2 Chron. 7:13; Pss. 78:46; 105:34; Isa. 33:4; Joel 1:4–7). Due to their fierceness, they were compared to horses (Rev. 9:7). Fourth, locusts hide at night (Nah. 3:17). Finally, certain types of locusts were used as food.

Moths. Moths are referred to seven times in the OT and four times in the NT. Job uses moths to illustrate the fragility of the unrighteous before God (4:19) and the impermanence of their labors (27:18). The other references to moths in Scripture present them as the consumers of the wealth (garments) and pride of humankind as a means of God’s judgment (Job 13:28; Ps. 39:11; Isa. 50:9; 51:8; Hos. 5:12; Matt. 6:19–20; Luke 12:33; James 5:2).

Functions of Insects in Scripture

As agents in God’s judgment. Insects serve a variety of functions in Scripture. Most notably, insects serve as agents of judgment from God. The OT indicates how insects were used as judgment on both Israel and their enemies.

Moses warned of God’s judgment for Israel’s violation of the covenant. He advised Israel that as a consequence of their sin, they would expend much labor in the field but harvest little, because the locusts would consume them (Deut. 28:38).

Solomon, in his prayer of dedication at the temple, beseeched God regarding judgment that he might send in the form of grasshoppers to besiege the land. He asked that when the people of God repent and pray, God would hear and forgive (2 Chron. 6:26–30). God similarly responded by promising that when he “command[s] locusts to devour the land” as judgment for sin, and his people humble themselves and pray, he will heal and forgive (2 Chron. 7:13–14; cf. 1 Kings 8:37).

The psalmist reminded Israel of God’s wonderful works in their past, one of which was his use of insects as a means of his judgment (Ps. 78:45–46; cf. 105:34).

Joel 1:4 and 2:25 describe God’s judgment on Israel for their unfaithfulness in successive waves of intensity (cf. Deut. 28:38, 42; 2 Chron. 6:28; Amos 4:9–10; 7:1–3). The devastation led to crop failure, famine, destruction of vines and fig trees, and great mourning. The severity of the judgment is described as being unlike anything anyone in the community had ever experienced (Joel 1:2–3).

Locusts are the subject of one of the visions of the prophet Amos. In the vision, God showed him the destructive power of these insects as a means of judgment. Upon seeing the vision, the prophet interceded for the people, and God relented (Amos 7:1–3).

Insects were also used as judgments on Israel’s enemies. In the plagues on Egypt, insects were the agents of the third, fourth, and eighth plagues. The third plague (Exod. 8:16–19) was gnats. Interestingly, this was the first of Moses’ signs that the magicians of Pharaoh could not reproduce. Their response to the Egyptian king was that this must be the “finger of God.” There is no record of the gnats ever leaving Egypt, unlike the other plagues.

The fourth plague was flies (Exod. 8:20–32). Here the Bible specifically indicates a distinction between the land of Goshen, where the Israelites dwelled, and the rest of the land of Egypt. The flies covered all of Egypt except Goshen. This plague led to Pharaoh’s first offer of compromise. Once Moses prayed and the flies left Egypt, Pharaoh hardened his heart.

The eighth plague was in the form of locusts (Exod. 10:1–20). In response to this plague, Pharaoh’s own officials complained to him, beseeching him to let Israel leave their country lest it be entirely destroyed. The threat of this plague led to Pharaoh’s second offer of compromise. Once the locusts began to devastate the land of Egypt, Pharaoh confessed his sin before God, but as soon as the locusts were removed, his heart again became hardened. Thus, three of the ten plagues on Egypt were in the form of insects.

At the end of a series of “woe” passages, the prophet Isaiah proclaimed God’s judgment against the enemies of his people because of their oppression. In the end, those who plundered will themselves be plundered, as if by a “swarm of locusts” (Isa. 33:1–4; cf. Jer. 51:14, 27).

Insects were also used as judgment on people who dwelled in the land of Israel prior to Israel’s occupation. Both before and after the event took place, the Bible describes how God sent hornets to help drive out the occupants of the land of Canaan in preparation for Israel’s arrival. This is described as part of God’s judgment on these nations for their sins against him (Exod. 23:28; Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12).

As food. Insects also are mentioned in Scripture as food. Certain types of locusts are listed as clean and eligible for consumption. The NT describes the diet of John the Baptist, which consisted of locusts and wild honey—a diet entirely dependent on insects (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6). The OT also notes Samson enjoying the labor of bees as food (Judg. 14:8–9).

Used figuratively. Most often, insects are used figuratively in Scripture. They are used in the proverbs of Scripture to illustrate wisdom. The sages wrote about ants (Prov. 6:6; 30:25), locusts (Prov. 30:27), and even dead flies (Eccles. 10:1) both to extol wisdom and to encourage its development in humankind.

Another figurative use of insects is in the riddle about bees and honey posed by Samson to the Philistines (Judg. 14:12–18). As noted above, Samson ate honey (Judg. 14:8–9; cf. 1 Sam. 14:25–29, 43). Also, Scripture describes the promised land as a place of “milk and honey.”

Insects also are used to symbolize pursuing enemies (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18), innumerable forces (Judg. 6:5; 7:12; Ps. 105:34; Jer. 46:23; Joel 2:25), insignificance (Num. 13:33; 1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20; Job 4:19; 27:18; Ps. 109:23; Eccles. 12:5; Isa. 40:22), vulnerability (Job 4:19), God’s incomparable nature (Job 39:20), the brevity of life (Ps. 109:23), wisdom and organization (Prov. 30:27), and an invading army (Isa. 7:18; Jer. 51:14, 27), and they are employed in a taunt against Israel’s enemies (Nah. 3:15–17), a lesson on hypocrisy (Matt. 23:24), and an image of eschatological judgment (Rev. 9:4–11).

Scriptural Truths about Insects

1. Insects are part of God’s creation. In view of all the uses of insects in Scripture, several key truths emerge. First, insects are a part of the totality of God’s creation. The very first chapter of the Bible uses one of the general terms for insects as part of God’s creative activity on the sixth day of creation (Gen. 1:24). After God reviewed the creation on that day, his assessment of it, including the insects, was that it was “good” (1:25).

2. Insects are under God’s control. A second scriptural truth related to insects in the Bible is that they are under God’s control. In Deut. 7:20 God promised to send hornets ahead of the children of Israel to prepare the promised land for their arrival. Also, in Joel 2:25, when God promised to repair the damage to the land caused by the locusts, he described them as “my great army that I sent.” Thus, the picture emerges that what God has created, he alone reserves the authority to control.

3. Insects are cared for by God. A final truth regarding insects in Scripture is that God takes care of them. Just as Jesus explained God’s care for the birds of the air (Matt. 7:26), the psalmist explained that all of God’s creation, specifically insects, “look to you to give them their food at the proper time” (Ps. 104:25–27). The conclusion of the psalmist is appropriate for all of God’s creation: “When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground” (104:29–30). Thus, in the end, God creates, God controls, and God cares—a lesson that all of God’s creation shares.

In biblical and systematic theology, “inspiration” is one of several descriptions of God’s involvement in the production of Scripture. It is not an exhaustive description of the many ways in which divine revelation is mediated.

Taken as a description of “all Scripture” (as in 2 Tim. 3:16), inspiration must necessarily encompass such diverse modes of revelation as words audibly spoken or dictated by God and written down by humans (i.e., dictation: “the Lord said to Moses,” “thus says the Lord”), words spoken by angels, texts in which a divine or angelic voice is entirely obscured by the voice and identity of the human author (e.g., the letters of Paul), and, in the vast majority of cases, texts that are essentially anonymous, invoking no human author or divine author in particular. Moreover, any catalog of divinely inspired texts must include not only direct quotations of God’s speech but also occasional letters (the NT Epistles), prayers directed to God by humans (the Psalter), divine oracles given through prophets, the results of historical research (e.g., Luke 1:1–4; 1 Kings 14:19), and anthological texts that were collected and edited over a long period of time, often by unnamed individuals or groups of individuals.

Thus, the inspiration of Scripture must be regarded as a concept that is applied in the broadest possible way to the materials of Scripture. While the doctrine of inspiration constitutes a strong statement concerning the authority and divine authorship of Scripture, it must remain highly flexible with regard to the particular modes and literary products of divine revelation in Scripture.

God-Breathed (theopneustos) in 2 Timothy 3:16

The idea of divine inspiration is stated most clearly in 2 Tim. 3:16–17: “All Scripture is God-breathed [theopneustos] and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Here, the fact of divine inspiration serves the apostle’s interest in the authority and relevance of Scripture, especially as Scripture undergirds Timothy’s religious education (2 Tim. 3:14–15). This sole biblical use of the term theopneustos says little about how inspiration is accomplished, and the emphasis is entirely on the consequences of the fact. Because it is inspired, all Scripture is useful and authoritative for a variety of purposes.

In some older English translations, the key term, theopneustos, was translated as “inspired,” following the ancient tradition of rendering the term in Latin as divinitus inspirata. Strictly speaking, “inspiration” is not a biblical term. In one classic Protestant evangelical exposition of the text and doctrine, B. B. Warfield noted that the Greek word denotes not so much a “breathing in” as a “breathing out” on God’s part. Scripture is not simply a container into which God has breathed his word (so that Scripture merely “contains” God’s word), nor is Scripture only “inspiring,” in the sense that it works an effect on the reader (taking theopneustos in an active rather than a passive sense: “God-breathing” rather than “God-breathed”). Scripture is not the product of inspiration, as if produced by inspired authors but not itself inspired. Rather than all these things, it is most correct to say that Scripture is, in the strictly literal sense of the word, “expired”—breathed out by God himself. This view of the matter is reflected in, among other places, the NIV translation of theopneustos as “God-breathed.”

The translation by the NIV—“all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful . . .”—takes theopneustos as a grammatical predicate. Others have suggested that theopneustos can be understood attributively: “all God-breathed Scripture is useful.” This interpretation remains a minority position, especially among evangelical scholars, both on grammatical grounds and because it implies a distinction between inspired and noninspired Scriptures. There is little other evidence for such a notion in the NT.

The application of the notion of inspiration to the whole of the Christian canon (OT and NT) inevitably involves some extension of the original meaning of 2 Tim. 3:16. By no account were the NT writings either composed or collected prior to the writing of 2 Timothy, and the final shape of the Christian OT canon may also have been undecided at the time 2 Tim. 3:16 was written. In postbiblical Christian theology, however, what is said of “all Scripture” (pāsa graphē) in 2 Tim. 3:16 is applied to all Christian Scripture, regardless of what was directly in view when the verse was written. It is likely that by “all Scripture,” the apostle meant nothing more than the Christian OT—that is, the books that lay before Timothy as he was educated in the faith from his infancy (2 Tim. 3:14–15). In systematic theology, the application of inspiration and other descriptors of “Scripture” to the NT writings owes much to a comment in 2 Pet. 3:16 that places the letters of Paul in the same class as “the other Scriptures” (tas loipas graphas).

Why “Inspiration”?

The sheer diversity of the modes of revelation described in the Bible raises a question: Why is “inspiration” (or, as Warfield argued, “expiration” or “breathing out”) a particularly appropriate description of God’s involvement in the production of the scriptural text? At the root of theopneustos, Greek pneuma (as well as its Hebrew cognate, ruakh) denotes several related concepts ranging from “wind” or “breath” to “spirit,” as in “the Holy Spirit.” It is from this complex of meanings that the relevance of theopneustos is evident.

Physiologically, several of the speech organs are also organs of respiration, so that the spoken word can be thought of as a kind of breathing, as in Acts 9:1: “Saul was still breathing out [empneuōn] murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples.” To speak of Scripture as “God-breathed,” then, is simply to identify it as God’s spoken utterance or word, as in the many biblical texts that introduce a scriptural utterance as “the word of the Lord” or with the phrase “thus says the Lord.” To the extent that 2 Tim. 3:16 has in view the physiological dimension of “breathing,” it extends these explicit statements of divine speaking to the whole of Scripture. In one sense, theopneustos is an anthropomorphism: God does not speak as a human, with lungs, throat, and mouth. Scripture is not God-breathed as opposed to being written by humans; the figurative breathing or speaking of God does not circumvent other processes of textual production. Again, the idea of inspiration pertains more to the authority of Scripture as revelation than to the mode of the mediation of God’s word.

As with the concept of “inspiration” itself, to speak of Scripture as the “word of God” specifies its divine authority without exhaustively describing how that word is mediated to the human author who then commits it to writing. To speak of Scripture as the “breathing out” of God is to invoke the broader concept of God’s (anthropomorphic) breath, and thus to place scriptural production among the other phenomena that are so described. These include the divine creation of life (Gen. 2:7; Job 33:4; Ezek. 37:5) and the cosmos (Ps. 33:6), divine judgment and destruction (Job 4:9; Isa. 30:33; 2 Thess. 2:8), the impartation of divine wisdom (Job 32:8), the impartation of the Holy Spirit (John 20:22), and the continuing action of God in creation (Exod. 15:10; Job 37:10; Isa. 40:7). In contrast to the living God of Israel, the idols lack breath (ruakh) and are therefore false gods (Jer. 10:14).

Equally important as the anthropomorphic description of God’s role as exhalation or speaking is the fact that pneuma refers not only to bodily breathing but also to the spirit of God—that is, the Holy Spirit. The inspiration of scriptural revelation is the particular work of the Holy Spirit, as comes to light particularly in 2 Pet. 1:20–21: “You must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Unlike 2 Tim. 3:16, this verse gives a description of the mechanism by which God is involved in scriptural production: the Holy Spirit “carries along” humans speaking from God. Again, however, if this is to be taken as a description of the entirety of the Christian Bible, it must encompass a wide variety of literary phenomena.

As in 2 Tim. 3:16, the emphasis is on the authority and divine origin of Scripture rather than on the worldly history of the Bible. Like the adjective “God-breathed,” the Holy Spirit’s “carrying along” of the prophets is figurative and anthropomorphic, and the expression leaves many questions unanswered regarding the mode of revelation. Nevertheless, the specific mention of the role of the Holy Spirit as the divine agent of scriptural production sheds light on the term theopneustos in 2 Tim. 3:16. This is consistent with the citation formula in Acts 4:25, which quotes Ps. 2:1–2 by saying, “You [God] spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David.” This verse highlights several facets of the notion of the inspiration of Scripture: its character as divine speech, the agency of the Holy Spirit, and the concurrence of divine and human authorship.

An eighth-century BC prophet who prophesied during the period just before and after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel to the Assyrians in 722 BC. Isaiah lived in Judah, specifically in Jerusalem.

Isaiah began his prophetic work in the year that King Uzziah died, approximately 733 BC (Isa. 6:1). His ministry continued through the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. The latter began his rule in 727 BC and ended in 698 BC, but since Isaiah was with him during the Assyrian incursion of 701 BC (see below), the prophet was active until late in his reign. He may have lived into the reign of Hezekiah’s wicked son Manasseh. Tradition states that he died as a martyr, being sawn in half.

Isaiah was married to a prophetess and had at least two sons (Isa. 7:3; 8:3). His sons had names with symbolic import. The first was “Shear-Jashub,” meaning “a remnant will return”; the second was “Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz,” meaning “quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil.”

Apart from such glimpses, readers do not learn as much about Isaiah the person as they do about Jeremiah or even Ezekiel. But his prophecies are clearly connected to the big events of his day. Many of his prophecies have the Syro-Ephraimite war as their background. The king of Syria, Rezin, and the king of Israel, Pekah, tried to enlist the help of the king of Judah, Ahaz, against the encroachment of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III in the middle of the eighth century BC. Ahaz refused, and Isaiah supported that decision. However, Ahaz did not really trust God in this matter, for against the wishes of Isaiah he wrote to Tiglath-pileser asking for help against Rezin and Pekah, since they had decided to try to replace him with a more amenable person. As a result of his appeal, Tiglath-pileser took Syria, and his successors eventually took the northern kingdom in 722 BC. Ahaz and the kings of Judah who followed him were forced to become vassals.

In 701 BC the current Assyrian king, Sennacherib, moved militarily against Judah to incorporate it into his empire. Isaiah again was at the side of the Judean king, now Hezekiah, encouraging him to depend on God and not submit. In contrast to Ahaz, Hezekiah did not submit, and God delivered him from the Assyrians.

These events are the background and the situations into which Isaiah spoke, but his prophetic vision extended far beyond his lifetime. He saw not only the future defeat of Judah and Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians but also their restoration (see esp. Isa. 40–66). The NT cites Isaiah more frequently than any other OT book, finding the ultimate fulfillment of many of his oracles in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Introduction

Name. Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title “Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). The name “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was a common male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ” is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually were named after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry of Jesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources. From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesus constitute the turning point in human history. From a historical perspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian first-century and early second-century literary sources are extant, but they are few in number. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initial resistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Roman historian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,” since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailing worldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sources therefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christian sources.

The NT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry of Jesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four Source Hypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as a source by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (from German Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their own individual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additional sources.

The early church tried to put together singular accounts, so-called Gospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionites represents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Another harmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was produced around AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning the life of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4). The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was a passion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. The first extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognized from the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:13–14).

Among non-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in a letter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about the history of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Rome because of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Some scholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of “Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

The Jewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in a different part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). The majority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic but heavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source, the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but these references are very late and of little historical value.

Noncanonical Gospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these may contain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most part they are late and unreliable.

Jesus’ Life

Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.

On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesus was born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered a temple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford to sacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, or metal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth was not a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground. Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently common first-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesus was also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy were surely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnant before her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only the intervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal (Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem, far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinship hospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay with distant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcome because of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Mary had to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feeding trough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later in Nazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son” (Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming him as one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewise rejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucify him!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21; John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter, vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71; Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His own siblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamed of his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his mother into the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27) rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.

Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’ public ministry: chronology. Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28, and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple had been forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as the temple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out the money changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding and expansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during the eighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry of John the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From these dates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of the reign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset of Jesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast in John 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended over three or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a half years. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came on a Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death was therefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and his Judean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry in Galilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.

All Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.

During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).

The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fed five thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark 6:48–49).

In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).

Passion Week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Various aspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels, depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses to Jesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning and examining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark 3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70; 23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritual realm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). At Jesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus was transfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voice affirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’ identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and other guards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf. Mark 15:39).

Miracle worker. In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers were part of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs and miracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of God over various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature, and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus his identity.

No challenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miracles and signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed a storm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke 8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13; Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised the dead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16; 8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculous feedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44; 8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked on water (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

The Pharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark 8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4). The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—his death and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice, taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher. Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbis or Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguished him was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathered disciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to join him in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesus used a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables (Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35; 21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark 4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18; 12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15, 19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33), used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons (Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke 13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Major themes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the cost of discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, his identity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings, observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’s kingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’ teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. These conflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions in which the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus used these interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gave replies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’s will, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. The Synoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations of violating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answers to such accusations often echoed the essence of 1 Sam. 15:22, “To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). An overall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’ public teaching.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than” ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outward obedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equal to murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfully amounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revenging wrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesus valued compassion above traditions and customs, even those contained within the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter of the law.

Jesus’ teachings found their authority in the reality of God’s imminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9), necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence (Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—the family of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged, “Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among prophetic teachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his own grounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt. 10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examples of a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include the occasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesus used an aphorism in response to accusations about his associations with sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking the law, he pointed to an OT exception (1 Sam. 21:1–6) to declare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also applied the “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, since women suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly became outcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’ kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, and eschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internal transformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring on love (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus to bless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesus taught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” ones in Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful, and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godly character.

Some scholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic” for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end of time. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of his teachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah. The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore the glories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability was common in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babylonian captivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace and protection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer, one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice and righteousness (2 Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16; Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whose suffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle of expectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’ authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianic images in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearers called him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt. 12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesus as the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). In line with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesus focused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regeneration through his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatological prophet. Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God to intervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom of God. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2, 15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). In addition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representative of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30). Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images of coming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt. 24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

Suffering Son of God. Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth was paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa. 61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so he revealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptly portrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ own teachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13, 31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly career ended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewish components (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65; 15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24; 18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’ suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt. 27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John 19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror, bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyone hanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with a crucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed as a lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referred to this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

Exalted Lord. Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46). The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday (Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) and risen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke 24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus was witnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples (Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appeared to as many as five hundred others (1 Cor. 15:6). He appeared in bodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43; John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

As much as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory over death was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises (Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31). Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through his resurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his life and work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him as Lord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’ exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification (Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and his intercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascension signaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John 14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return in glory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt. 19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, who preaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent (4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter the kingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, one made in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

In the prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identity of Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidings of salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of the gospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Luke likewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose of Jesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is the kingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesus answered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, as presented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’ healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God already present in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20; 8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signs throughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, his identity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundant life is lived out in community.

In the Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community of God (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but they continued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’s family—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained by adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

The quest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from a historical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary by scholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’ death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding of the church.

The beginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecture notes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously. Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus that rejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. He concluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles, prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’s conclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry of rationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continued throughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “first quest” for the historical Jesus.

In 1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of the first quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-century researchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming the historical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching an inoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’s conclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest. Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was an eschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days in Jerusalem.

With the demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historical Jesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’s former students launched what has come to be known as the “new quest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). This quest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was still dominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels is largely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

As the rebuilding years of the post–World War II era waned and scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeological finds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on to what has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeks especially to research and understand Jesus in his social and cultural setting.

A Jewish prophet at the time of Jesus, he was the son of priestly parents (Zechariah and Elizabeth), executed by Herod Antipas, and identified as “John” (a common Jewish name), often with the title “the Baptist” or “the Baptizer,” the latter possibly being the older title.

Our primary sources on John the Baptist are the canonical Gospels, Josephus (Ant. 18.116–19), and Acts. Both Jewish and Christian sources note John’s message of the kingdom, call to baptism, and popularity. Josephus and the Gospels can speak of him without introduction. In the Gospels, only Jesus is a more prominent character. It is possible that the typical peasant was more familiar with John than with Jesus, at least until after Pentecost.

The Gospels, particularly Luke, parallel the stories of John and Jesus. Both had an annunciation, a miraculous birth accompanied by praise, and a martyr’s death. Both gathered disciples, announced the kingdom, denounced the Jewish leadership, and practiced baptism. It is easy to see how some on the periphery confused the characters (Mark 8:28).

Ministry

Dressed in a prophet’s garment of camel’s hair (Matt. 3:4; cf. 2 Kings 1:8; Zech. 13:4), the Baptist is noted for emerging from the wilderness and preaching near the Jordan. He called all listeners to repent to prepare Israel for the coming covenant of the Spirit. He and his message were well known, disconcerting Jerusalem’s powerful elite (Mark 11:32) and enthralling the masses (Matt. 3:5–6).

John the Baptist unwaveringly maintained that he was sent to introduce the Son (or Chosen One) of God, who would baptize with the Holy Spirit (John 1:33–34; cf. Matt. 3:11–12 pars.). This one was not named, but the Baptist was told how he would know him: “The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one” (John 1:33). Thus, the Baptist could claim, “I myself did not know him” (John 1:31), more likely meaning that the Baptist did not know Jesus was the one until the Spirit descended on him (1:32). It is less likely that John meant that he had not met his cousin previously (Luke 1:39–45). Jesus accepts (and validates) the Baptist’s proclamation both at the beginning of his ministry (Mark 1:9) and again later (Luke 16:16; John 5:35; 10:41).

After his imprisonment, the Baptist seems less certain of his earlier identification of Jesus as the coming one (Matt. 11:2–3). It should also be noted that John had not disbanded his disciples. After his death, some continued to preach his baptism of repentance as far away as in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–26; 19:1–7). Similarly, Jesus’ last description of the Baptist is ambiguous. It is guarded but still complimentary (John 5:32–36; 10:41) and even lofty: “Among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist”; however, Jesus’ next statement could be interpreted to mean that the Baptist was not yet part of the coming kingdom: “Yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11). Like everyone else, John was confused by Jesus’ preaching ministry. Jesus was not acting like the Messiah they were expecting (Luke 7:18–20). The Gospels offer no final verdict on the Baptist.

Message

Like Isaiah, the Baptist’s message of restoration of the kingdom meant comfort and hope for those preparing for its arrival (Isa. 40; Mark 1:2–6) and judgment for those unprepared (Isa. 41; Matt. 3:7–10; Luke 3:7–9). The return of the kingdom was by a new covenant, marked by the Spirit (Mark 1:2–8). Cleansing with water is connected to replacing the old covenant (etched in stone) with the new (imbedded in hearts with the Spirit) by the prophets (Ezek. 36:24–28; Jer. 31), by the Baptist (John 1:31–33), by Jesus (John 3:5), and by early Christians (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 9–10). Preparing (Matt. 3:3) meant repenting and living in piety and justice as a member of the kingdom (Luke 3:10–14). This commitment of renewed faithfulness was marked by one’s own (ethical) cleansing, symbolized in baptism. While ritual lustrations were somewhat common for initiation or membership in a group, John the Baptist called all who would devote themselves to God to repent, confess their sins, and be baptized (Mark 1:4–5).

The Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus and John as allies in announcing the kingdom. It has been argued that the Fourth Gospel has an anti-Baptist polemic. Because of historical elements (in Ephesus?), it may be more accurate to say that the Fourth Gospel strives to clarify the Baptist’s place in salvation history. He is subordinate to Jesus by divine design (John 1–5) and by deed (John 10:41). He was the Elijah who was to come before the Christ (Matt. 11:14).

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).

Moses played a leadership role in the founding of Israel as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6). Indeed, the narrative of Exodus through Deuteronomy is the story of God using Moses to found the nation of Israel. It begins with an account of his birth (Exod. 2) and ends with an account of his death (Deut. 34). Moses’ influence and importance extend well beyond his lifetime, as later Scripture demonstrates.

Abraham’s Descendants in Egypt

The book of Genesis prepares the way for the story of Moses and the founding of Israel. After recounting the creation of the world and the fall into sin, the book eventually describes God’s choice of Abraham as the one whose descendants he will make “a great nation” and bring a blessing to the world (Gen. 12:1–3). However, by the end of Genesis, Abraham’s descendants have gone to Egypt in order to survive a devastating famine. Although they are in a good relationship with the Egyptian government, the hope is expressed that God will eventually return them to the land of promise (Gen. 50:24–26).

Many years pass between the close of the book of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus. The Israelite population has grown from family size (about seventy people) to nation size. Out of fear, the Egyptians had begun to oppress them. Indeed, the size of the Israelite population so worried them that Pharaoh instituted a decree calling for the death of all male babies born to the Israelites.

Moses’ Life before the Exodus

Moses was born in a dangerous time, and according to Pharaoh’s decree, he should not have survived long after his birth. He was born to Amram and Jochebed (Exod. 6:20). Circumventing Pharaoh’s decree, Jochebed placed the infant Moses in a reed basket and floated him down the river. This act seems desperate, but there are similar stories from the Near East (the account of the birth of Sargon, an Akkadian king), and perhaps it was a way of placing the endangered child in the hands of God. God guided the basket down the river and into the presence of none other than Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod. 2:5–6), who, at the urging of Moses’ sister, hired Jochebed to take care of the child. When the infant grew older, Pharaoh’s daughter gave him a Hebrew name, “Moses,” which sounds like the Hebrew verb mashah, meaning “to draw out” (Exod. 2:10). This amazing story of Moses’ survival at birth informs later Israel that their human savior was really provided by their divine savior.

Modern movie adaptations of this story dwell on Moses’ upbringing in Pharaoh’s household, but the Bible itself is essentially silent on this period of his life (apart from a reference to Moses’ Egyptian education in Acts 7:22; cf. Heb. 11:24). The next major episode concerns his defense of an Israelite worker who was being beaten by an Egyptian (Exod. 2:11–25). In the process of rescuing the Israelite, Moses killed the Egyptian. Apparently, his relationship to the ruler’s household would not save him from punishment, so when it became clear that he was known to be the killer, he fled Egypt and ended up in Midian, where he became a member of the family of a Midianite priest-chief, Jethro, by marrying his daughter Zipporah.

The territory of Midian is vaguely described in the Bible, perhaps because its people were nomadic sheepherders. They were often found around the Gulf of Aqaba and sometimes farther northeast of the Jordan River. The question is whether the tent of Jethro and Mount Sinai were on the Sinai Peninsula or on the eastern side of Aqaba in what is today Saudi Arabia.

Although Moses was not looking for a way back into Egypt, God had different plans. One day, while Moses was tending his sheep, God appeared to him in the form of a burning bush and commissioned him to go back to Egypt and lead his people to freedom. Moses expressed reluctance, and so God grudgingly enlisted his older brother, Aaron, to accompany him as his spokesperson.

The Exodus and Wilderness Wandering

Upon Moses’ return to Egypt, Pharaoh stubbornly refused to allow the Israelites to leave Egypt. God directed Moses to announce a series of plagues that ultimately induced Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to depart. After they left, Pharaoh had a change of mind and cornered them on the shores of the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds). It was at the Red Sea that God demonstrated his great power by splitting the sea and allowing the Israelites to escape before closing it again in judgment on the Egyptians. Moses signaled the presence of God by lifting his rod high in the air (Exod. 14:16). This event was long remembered as the defining moment when God released Israel from Egyptian slavery (Pss. 77; 114), and it even became the paradigm for future divine rescues (Isa. 40:3–5; Hos. 2:14–15).

After the crossing of the Red Sea, Moses led Israel back to Mount Sinai, the location of his divine commissioning. At this time, Moses went up the mountain as a prophetic mediator for the people (Deut. 18:16). He received the Ten Commandments, the rest of the law, and instructions to build the tabernacle (Exod. 19–24). All these were part of a new covenantal arrangement that today we refer to as the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant.

However, as Moses came down the mountain with the law, he saw that the people, who had grown tired of waiting, were worshiping a false god that they had created in the form of a golden calf (Exod. 32). With the aid of the Levites, who that day assured their role as Israel’s priestly helpers, he brought God’s judgment against the offenders and also interceded in prayer with God to prevent the total destruction of Israel.

Thus began Israel’s long story of rebellion against God. God was particularly upset with the lack of confidence that the Israelites had shown when the spies from the twelve tribes gave their report (Num. 13). They did not believe that God could handle the fearsome warriors who lived in the land, and so God doomed them to forty years of wandering in the wilderness, enough time for the first generation to die. Not even Moses escaped this fate, since he had shown anger against God and attributed a miracle to his own power and not to God when he struck a rock in order to get water (Num. 20:1–13).

Thus, Moses was not permitted to enter the land of promise, though he had led the Israelites to the very brink of entry on the plains of Moab. There he gave his last sermon, which we know as the book of Deuteronomy. The purpose of his sermon was to tell the second generation of Israelites who were going to enter the land that they must obey God’s law or suffer the consequences. The form of the sermon was that of a covenant renewal, and so Israel on this occasion reaffirmed its loyalty to God.

After this, Moses went up on Mount Nebo, from which he could see the promised land, and died. Deuteronomy concludes with the following statements: “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face. . . . For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel” (Deut. 34:10, 12).

Legacy and Dates

The NT honors Moses as God’s servant but also makes the point that Jesus is one who far surpasses Moses as a mediator between God and people (Acts 3:17–26; Heb. 3).

The date of Moses is a matter of controversy because the biblical text does not name the pharaohs of the story. Many date him to the thirteenth century BC and associate him with Ramesses II, but others take 1 Kings 6:1 at face value and date him to the end of the fifteenth century BC, perhaps during the reign of Thutmose III.

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Introduction

Name. Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title “Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). The name “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was a common male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ” is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually were named after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry of Jesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources. From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesus constitute the turning point in human history. From a historical perspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian first-century and early second-century literary sources are extant, but they are few in number. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initial resistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Roman historian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,” since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailing worldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sources therefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christian sources.

The NT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry of Jesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four Source Hypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as a source by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (from German Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their own individual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additional sources.

The early church tried to put together singular accounts, so-called Gospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionites represents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Another harmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was produced around AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning the life of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4). The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was a passion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. The first extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognized from the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:13–14).

Among non-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in a letter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about the history of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Rome because of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Some scholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of “Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

The Jewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in a different part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). The majority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic but heavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source, the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but these references are very late and of little historical value.

Noncanonical Gospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these may contain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most part they are late and unreliable.

Jesus’ Life

Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.

On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesus was born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered a temple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford to sacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, or metal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth was not a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground. Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently common first-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesus was also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy were surely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnant before her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only the intervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal (Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem, far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinship hospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay with distant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcome because of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Mary had to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feeding trough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later in Nazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son” (Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming him as one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewise rejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucify him!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21; John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter, vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71; Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His own siblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamed of his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his mother into the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27) rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.

Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’ public ministry: chronology. Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28, and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple had been forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as the temple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out the money changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding and expansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during the eighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry of John the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From these dates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of the reign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset of Jesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast in John 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended over three or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a half years. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came on a Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death was therefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and his Judean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry in Galilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.

All Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.

During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).

The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fed five thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark 6:48–49).

In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).

Passion Week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Various aspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels, depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses to Jesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning and examining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark 3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70; 23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritual realm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). At Jesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus was transfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voice affirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’ identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and other guards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf. Mark 15:39).

Miracle worker. In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers were part of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs and miracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of God over various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature, and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus his identity.

No challenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miracles and signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed a storm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke 8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13; Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised the dead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16; 8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculous feedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44; 8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked on water (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

The Pharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark 8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4). The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—his death and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice, taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher. Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbis or Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguished him was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathered disciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to join him in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesus used a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables (Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35; 21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark 4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18; 12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15, 19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33), used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons (Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke 13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Major themes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the cost of discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, his identity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings, observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’s kingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’ teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. These conflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions in which the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus used these interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gave replies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’s will, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. The Synoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations of violating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answers to such accusations often echoed the essence of 1 Sam. 15:22, “To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). An overall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’ public teaching.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than” ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outward obedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equal to murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfully amounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revenging wrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesus valued compassion above traditions and customs, even those contained within the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter of the law.

Jesus’ teachings found their authority in the reality of God’s imminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9), necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence (Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—the family of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged, “Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among prophetic teachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his own grounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt. 10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examples of a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include the occasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesus used an aphorism in response to accusations about his associations with sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking the law, he pointed to an OT exception (1 Sam. 21:1–6) to declare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also applied the “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, since women suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly became outcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’ kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, and eschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internal transformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring on love (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus to bless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesus taught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” ones in Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful, and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godly character.

Some scholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic” for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end of time. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of his teachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah. The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore the glories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability was common in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babylonian captivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace and protection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer, one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice and righteousness (2 Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16; Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whose suffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle of expectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’ authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianic images in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearers called him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt. 12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesus as the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). In line with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesus focused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regeneration through his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatological prophet. Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God to intervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom of God. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2, 15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). In addition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representative of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30). Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images of coming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt. 24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

Suffering Son of God. Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth was paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa. 61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so he revealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptly portrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ own teachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13, 31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly career ended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewish components (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65; 15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24; 18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’ suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt. 27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John 19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror, bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyone hanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with a crucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed as a lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referred to this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

Exalted Lord. Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46). The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday (Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) and risen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke 24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus was witnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples (Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appeared to as many as five hundred others (1 Cor. 15:6). He appeared in bodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43; John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

As much as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory over death was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises (Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31). Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through his resurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his life and work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him as Lord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’ exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification (Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and his intercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascension signaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John 14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return in glory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt. 19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, who preaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent (4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter the kingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, one made in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

In the prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identity of Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidings of salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of the gospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Luke likewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose of Jesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is the kingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesus answered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, as presented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’ healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God already present in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20; 8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signs throughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, his identity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundant life is lived out in community.

In the Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community of God (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but they continued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’s family—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained by adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

The quest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from a historical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary by scholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’ death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding of the church.

The beginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecture notes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously. Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus that rejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. He concluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles, prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’s conclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry of rationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continued throughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “first quest” for the historical Jesus.

In 1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of the first quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-century researchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming the historical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching an inoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’s conclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest. Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was an eschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days in Jerusalem.

With the demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historical Jesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’s former students launched what has come to be known as the “new quest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). This quest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was still dominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels is largely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

As the rebuilding years of the post–World War II era waned and scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeological finds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on to what has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeks especially to research and understand Jesus in his social and cultural setting.

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 English word derives from the Latin omnis (“all”) and sciens (“knowing”). Though not found in Scripture, the term accurately describes an exclusively divine attribute. God has perfect infinite knowledge of himself and everything actual and possible (1 Sam. 23:8–13; Job 37:16; Pss. 33:13–15; 139:2–6, 11–12; 147:5; Prov. 15:3; Isa. 40:14; 46:10; Dan. 2:22; Matt. 11:21–23; John 21:17; Acts 15:18; 1 Cor. 2:10–11; Heb. 4:13; 1 John 3:20). God’s omniscience is eternal, encompassing all things past, present, and future. It includes complete knowledge of all human choices, the occurrence of all events, and the outworking of all contingencies.

The study of human beings, their nature and origins. The Christian understanding of anthropology stems from a biblical view of humankind’s relationship to God.

The Origin of Humankind

According to Genesis, the creation of humankind took place on the sixth day of the creation week. The amount of narrative space allotted to this day (Gen. 1:24–31) testifies to the special importance of what happened. Human beings were made on the same day as the animals. Human beings were not given a day of their own, showing that they have a certain kinship with the animals, although they are far more than highly successful and adaptive mammals. This has implications for the care of animals and of the environment generally. The value of human beings and their special place in the created order is clear in passages such as Pss. 8:5–6; 104:14–15.

Created in the image of God. When it came to the making of human beings, God deliberated over this crucial step (Gen. 1:26). The plural of exhortation in “Let us make man in our image” signals that the decision to make humankind was the most important one that God had made so far. Genesis 1 says that human beings are like God in some way.

Various opinions have been canvassed as to what the “image” is. We cannot totally exclude the physical form of humans, given God’s humanoid form in OT appearances (theophanies; e.g., Isa. 6:1; Ezek. 1:26; Amos 9:1). The image has sometimes been interpreted as a task, the exercising of dominion (Gen. 1:28), with humanity appointed as creation’s king, ruling under God. But the image is better understood as the precondition for rule rather than rule itself. The image shows human worth (Gen. 9:6) and differentiates humans from all other creatures. It is proper for the Bible to use anthropomorphic language for God, for humans are remarkably like God. Both male and female are in the image of God (“in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” [1:27]), so that the divine image is not maleness, nor is sexual differentiation the image. Commonly, the image of God is thought to be some peculiar quality of human beings—for example, rationality, speech, moral sense, personality, humans as relational beings.

Every century has its own view of what is the essence of humanity. However, nothing in the passage allows a choice among such alternatives. The point of the passage is simply the fact of the likeness, with no exact definition being provided. The fact of the image is the basis of the divine prohibition of murder and of the strict penalty applied to the transgressor (9:4–6). The fall into sin affected every aspect of the human constitution, and the Bible does not minimize the fact of human sinfulness (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10–18); nevertheless, humans are still in the image of God (Gen. 5:1–3; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7). God’s plan of salvation is aimed at ridding creation (and especially humanity) of the baneful effects of sin, and this will be achieved through the work of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15–20; Heb. 1:1–3; 2:5–18). The outcome will be the conformity of believers in Christ to his glorious image (Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 3.18).

Place in the created order. God’s purpose in giving human beings the divine image is “so they may rule” (NET [Gen. 1:26b translated as a purpose clause]). The syntax suggests that the image is a presupposition of dominion. It is plain that such a delegated authority makes humans stewards. The vegetarian diet of Gen.1:29 (there was no eating of meat at first) represents a limitation to the human right of dominion. Adam’s naming of the animals was (in part) expressive of his sovereignty over them (2:19). Later, Noah was charged to bring pairs of animals into the ark to preserve them alive (6:19–20), showing care for other creatures. The patriarchs tended flocks (13:2–9; 26:12–14), and Joseph’s relief measures saved the lives of people and animals (47:15–18). The wanton destruction of the Promised Land was expressly forbidden (Deut. 20:19–20). Humanity is accountable to God for the stewardship of the earth. The divine command “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28 NRSV) shows that God’s purpose is that the human race populate the whole earth.

At Gen. 2:7 the biblical narrative becomes thoroughly anthropocentric, picturing the little world that God establishes around the first man, so this account is quite different from the cosmic presentation of Gen. 1. In Gen. 1 humankind is the apex of a pyramid, the last and highest of a series of creatures; in Gen. 2 the man is the center of a circle, everything else made to fit around him, and his connection to the physical earth is emphasized. In either view, a very special place is given to human beings in the created order. The two pictures are complementary, not contradictory.

The “man” (’adam) is formed from the “ground” (’adamah), with the related Hebrew words making a pun. Man’s name reminds him of his earthy origins. He is made from the “dust,” which hints at his coming death. He will return to the dust (Gen. 3:19; cf. Job 10:8–9; Ps. 103:14; Isa. 29:16). The reference to “the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7) is due to the fact that this leaves a person at death (Job 34:14–15; Ps. 104:29–30), so man’s (potential) mortality is implied. Ironically, the making of man is described using the language of death. What is described in Gen. 2 is the making of the first man, from whom the rest of the human race has descended, not the making of humankind, though the word ’adam can mean that in other contexts.

The Nature of Humankind

Body, soul, and spirit. Arguments over whether human nature is bipartite (body and soul) or tripartite (body, soul, spirit) are not to be decided by arbitrary appeal to isolated verses. Verses can be found in apparent support for both the first view (e.g., Matt. 10:28) and the second (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:23), but certainly the first scheme is much more prevalent in the Bible. “Soul” and “spirit” can be used interchangeably (Eccles. 3:21; 12:7; Ezek. 18:31). Death is marked by the parting of soul/spirit and body, but it would be a mistake to think that human beings are made up of separate component parts, or that the physical body is only a dispensable shell and not essential to true humanity. The physicality of human existence in the “body” is owned and celebrated in Scripture, part of that being the positive attitude to sexuality when properly expressed (Song of Songs; 1 Cor. 7) and the nonascetic nature of biblical ethics (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 2:23). The doctrine of the resurrection of the body is the fullest expression of this (1 Cor. 15), in contrast to ancient Greek thought that viewed the body as inherently evil and understood salvation as the immortality of the liberated, disembodied soul.

The different words used in relation to persons are only intended to refer to and at times focus on different aspects of unified human nature. References to the “soul” may stress individual responsibility (e.g., Ezek. 18:4 NASB: “The soul who sins will die”). In Ps. 103:1–2, “O my soul” expresses emphatic self-encouragement to praise God and is in parallel with “all my inmost being”—that is, “my whole being” (an example of synecdoche: a part standing for the whole [cf. Ps. 35:10]). These are ways of referring to oneself as a person who expresses will and intention (cf. Ps. 42:5–6, 11). The “flesh” is used to stress the weakness of mortal humanity (e.g., Isa. 40:6 RSV: “All flesh is grass”). The “heart” is the volitional center of a human being (Prov. 4:23; cf. Mark 7:17–23). The emotional and empathetic reactions of humans are described by reference to the organs: “liver,” “kidneys,” “bowels.”

Morals and responsibility. In Gen. 2 the complexities of the man’s moral relation to God and his relations with the soil, with the animals, and with the woman are explored. God deposited the man in the garden “to work it and take care of it” (2:15). The words chosen to designate the man’s work prior to the fall have an aura of worship about them, for they are later used in the OT for the cultic actions of serving and guarding within the sanctuary. The priests served by offering sacrifices, and the Levites guarded the gates of the sacred precinct. A theology of work as a religious vocation is presented. The man was a kind of king-priest in the garden of God.

The moral responsibility of humanity is signaled from the beginning. God’s command gives permission for the man to eat from “any tree” except one (Gen. 2:16–17) and as such indicates man’s freedom, so that this command is no great restriction. The wording “you are free to eat” reinforces the point about God’s generous provision. The prohibition is embedded in the description of God’s fatherly care for the man and gracious act in placing him in the garden. The divine restriction is slight and not at all overbearing, though the serpent will seek to make it appear mean-spirited (3:1). The command and prohibition are the very first words of God to the man, marking them out as of fundamental importance for the relationship between them. The prohibition (“you must not eat . . .”) is an absolute one in the style of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). What is placed before the man is a test that gives him the opportunity to express his loyalty to God. A relationship of obedience and trust requires the possibility of choice and the opportunity to disobey (if that is what he wants to do). The moral nature and responsibility of individuals is not a late discovery by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 18); rather, it is the presupposition behind the Mosaic law, for the commands of the Decalogue (“you shall not . . .”) are phrased as commands to individuals (as the Hebrew makes clear). On the other hand, the concept of corporate responsibility is also present (e.g., Achan’s punishment in Josh. 7).

Relationships. Human beings are relational by nature, as the creation of the woman as a helper and partner for the first man makes plain (Gen. 2:18–25). Later in Scripture this is put in more general terms, so that friendship and mutual cooperation are shown to be essential to life (Eccles. 4:7–12). The body life of the church reflects the same fact and need (1 Cor. 12). In Psalms, human needs and vulnerability find their answer and fulfillment in God, with the psalmist acknowledging his frailty and his creaturely dependence on God (e.g., Ps. 90). This also shows the folly of sinful human pride, against which the prophets so often inveighed (e.g., Isa. 2:9, 11–17, 22).

The term “predestination” means “to determine or decide something beforehand.” Some form of the Greek verb proorizō (“to determine beforehand”) occurs six times in the NT (Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29, 30; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11). It is practically synonymous with the concept of foreordination and is closely related to divine foreknowledge (Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:1–2, 20). Various Scriptures indicate that God the Father is the one who predestines (John 17:6–10; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:3–5; 1 Pet. 1:2).

The specific objects of predestination are humans, angels, and the Messiah. These divine predeterminations occurred before the creation of the world and were motivated by the love of God (Eph. 1:4–5). In regard to humans, this means that in eternity past, God determined that some individuals would be the recipients of his salvation. However, this determination does not rule out the necessity of human choice, responsibility, and faith. The decision to predestine some individuals for salvation was based not upon anything good or bad in the recipients, but solely on God’s good pleasure and according to his holy, wise, and eternal purpose (Isa. 46:10; Acts 13:48; Rom. 11:33).

Predestination as Part of God’s Larger Plan

The scope of God’s plan. Predestination is a part of God’s all-encompassing eternal plan (Isa. 40:13–14; Rom. 11:34; Eph. 1:11). Several terms express God’s plan. Among these are his “decree” (Ps. 2:7), “eternal purpose” (Eph. 3:11), “foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23), and “will” (Eph. 1:9, 11). God’s plan involves all things that come to pass, including major and insignificant events, direct and indirect causes, things appointed and things permitted. It therefore encompasses both good and evil (Ps. 139:16; Prov. 16:4; Isa. 14:24–27; 22:11; 37:26–27; 46:9–10; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28; Eph. 1:11; 2:10).

The inclusion of evil in the plan of God does not mean that he condones, authorizes, or commits moral evil. The apostle John stresses that God is light and that there is no darkness in him at all (1 John 1:5). He is absolutely holy and cannot be charged with the commission of sin (Hab. 1:13). When addressing the topic of God’s plan and purpose, the biblical authors are careful to distinguish between divine causation and human responsibility. Both fall under the purview of God’s plan. There is divine certainty about what will happen, but moral agents are never under compulsion to commit evil (see Acts 4:28; Rom. 9:11; 1 Cor. 2:7; 11:2; Heb. 2:5, 10–16; 1 Pet. 1:2, 20; 2 Pet. 3:17). For example, when Luke refers to the greatest miscarriage of justice in the history of the world, the crucifixion of Christ, he indicates that it was predestined by God, but the moral turpitude of the act is attributed to “wicked men” (Acts 2:23). The dual nature of such events is aptly reflected in Joseph’s statement to his brothers who sold him into slavery: “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20 NASB).

Whereas the all-encompassing plan of God relates to his sovereign control over all things, predestination appears to be restricted primarily to certain divine decisions affecting humans, angels, and the Messiah (Isa. 42:1–7; Acts 2:23; 1 Tim. 5:21; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2:4). With reference to humans, Paul states, “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:11). Some scholars limit predestination to those things “in him,” thus linking this work of God to his purpose in salvation. Others argue that the following phrase, “who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,” demonstrates that all things fall under the purview of God’s controlling and guiding purpose (Eph. 1:11). It seems best to see the phrase “in him” as indicating the sphere in which believers are chosen and the term “predestinated” as one crucial aspect of the greater plan of God.

Divine foreknowledge and election. Some theologians argue that election and predestination are merely based upon God’s foreknowledge of those who will believe in him. Although God surely knows all those who will believe, the term “foreknowledge” connotes much more than simply knowing ahead of time who will come to faith. It means that God has sovereignly chosen to know some individuals in such an intimate way that it moved him to predestine them to eternal life (Rom. 8:29). Whereas the term “election” refers to God’s sovereign choice of those individuals, “predestination” looks forward toward the goal of that selection. Both predestination and election occur in eternity past (Eph. 1:4–5).

The purpose of predestination. Whereas election refers to God’s choice of individuals, predestination looks toward the purpose and goal of that choice. NT believers are designated as chosen by God and appointed to eternal life (Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4). The express purpose is that they be adopted as his children (Eph. 1:5) and, as beloved children, become “conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29). The idea is that those whom God has chosen are predestined in view of the purpose that he desires to fulfill in them, that of becoming his children who are conformed to the image of his Son. The ultimate purpose behind this plan is to bring glory to God (Eph. 1:5–6, 11–12).

Predestination and Reprobation

In his plan, God has chosen some individuals, nations, groups, and angels to fulfill special purposes, implying that other individuals, nations, groups, and angels have not been selected for those same purposes (2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:10; 1 Pet. 1:2). With regard to God’s choice in salvation, this has led some theologians to argue that those not chosen for salvation are by default chosen for eternal damnation. They maintain that predestination applies not only to individuals whom God plans to save, but also to those whom he does not plan to save (Prov. 16:4; Matt. 26:23–24; Rom. 9:10–13, 17–18, 21–22; 2 Tim. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:8; 2 Pet. 2:3, 9; Jude 4; Rev. 13:8; 20:15). This is sometimes called “reprobation.” The belief in the combined concepts of election and reprobation has been called “double predestination.”

While some scholars in the history of the church have argued that God is just as active in determining the reprobate as he is the elect, others have pointed out that God’s condemnation of the nonelect is based solely upon their sin and unbelief. A real distinction exists in the level of divine involvement with regard to the destiny of one class as compared with the other. God does not appear to have the same relationship to every event or thing in his creation. The degree of divine causation in each case differs. Scripture recognizes a difference between God’s direct working and his permissive will. In this view, God directly chooses some to be saved; however, he does not choose the others to be damned but rather passes them by, allowing them to continue on their own way and eventually suffer the just punishment that their sins deserve.

Whichever view one takes, it seems that the Scripture does not teach reprobation in the same way it teaches predestination leading to eternal life. Whereas the assignment to eternal death is a judicial act taking into account a person’s sin, predestination unto eternal life is purely an act of God’s sovereign grace and mercy not taking into account any actions by those chosen. Carrying the teaching of reprobation to the extreme threatens to view God as capricious, which clearly is not scriptural (1 John 1:5).

Predestination and Human Responsibility

God was in no way obligated or morally impelled to choose or predestine anyone to eternal life. His determination not to choose everyone in no way impinges upon his holy and righteous character (Rom. 9:13). On the contrary, justice would demand that all receive the punishment that they have rightly earned for their sins (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). Therefore, the predestination of some to become like his Son required that God exercise grace and mercy in providing for the cleansing of their sin, which he accomplished through the sacrifice of his beloved Son, Jesus Christ (Acts 2:23).

God’s predetermined plan does not force individuals to respond in predetermined ways, either to accept him or to reject him. In the one case, the sinner is drawn by God to himself but must also choose to place trust in Christ (John 6:37, 44). Even in the radical intervention of God in the life of Saul on the road to Damascus, where the divine call was indeed overpowering, Saul was given opportunity to respond either positively or negatively. In the case of those who are headed for eternal judgment, God’s working is not fatalistic or mechanistic in the sense that a person may want to choose God but God’s predetermined plan will not allow such a response. To the contrary, all are invited to come to Christ (Matt. 11:28; John 3:16). The apostle John clarifies, “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37 [cf. Matt. 11:28]). Those who do not come to God refuse to do so by their own volition (Matt. 23:37; John 5:40). They are not merely unable to come to God but unwilling to do so (John 5:40; 6:65; Rom. 3:11). The NT teaches that Christ died for their sins (John 3:16), pleadingly warns them to repent, and cites their transgressions as the reason for their condemnation (1 Pet. 2:8; 2 Pet. 2:21–22; Jude 8–16). When all aspects of the issue are considered, there is indeed a mystery that lies outside the boundaries of our comprehension regarding God’s sovereign working and human choice.

The act of repudiating sin and returning to God. Implicit in this is sorrow over the evil that one has committed and a complete turnabout in one’s spiritual direction: turning from idols—anything that wrests away the affection that we owe God—to God (1 Sam. 7:3; 2 Chron. 7:14; Isa. 55:6; 1 Thess. 1:9; James 4:8–10).

Terminology. Two Hebrew word groups are associated with the concept of repentance: nakham and shub. Nakham means “to pant, sigh, groan, howl.” When used with respect to the circumstances of others and the feeling of sympathy that they engender, it refers to compassion. When used in reference to feelings generated by one’s own actions, it means “grief” or “remorse.” In this regard, nakham predominantly has God as the subject. The KJV translates it about forty times as “repent.” While one of the senses of nakham is that of grief over one’s actions, those actions are ethically neutral: it does not presuppose that they are inherently evil. The NIV is correct, therefore, in never translating nakham as “repent” where God is the subject. In most cases where God is its subject, the term highlights God’s compassion and comfort for the afflicted (Isa. 40:1–2; 49:13), or his grief over the dire consequences brought upon or intended for the disobedient and his subsequent commutation of their punishment (Exod. 32:12–14; Judg. 2:18; 2 Sam. 24:16; Jon. 3:10), or his grief over human self-ruinous obstinacy (Gen. 6:6–7; 1 Sam. 15:11). Even in the few cases where nakham has human subjects, it need not always be rendered “repent,” their concern for change of heart notwithstanding (cf. Exod. 13:17; Judg. 21:6).

The concept of repentance is better conveyed by the Hebrew verb shub (“to turn, return back, restore, reverse, bring back”) or its noun form in rabbinic Judaism, teshubah (“repentance”). While shub has many nonreligious uses, its theological significance derives from the sense of either “turning away from God” (apostasy [cf. Hos. 11:7; Jer. 11:10]) or “turning to God” (repentance [cf. 1 Sam. 7:3–4; Hos. 14:1]). Our concern is with the latter sense, which normally would be followed by God’s return to his people (Zech. 1:3; Mal. 3:7).

In the OT, shub is central to the concept of repentance. It is the key term employed in the entreaty to God’s people to return to him (2 Chron. 30:6; Isa. 44:22; Ezek. 14:6). The outward signs of repentance in the OT include fasting, mourning (sometimes while sitting in dust or pouring ashes or dust upon one’s head), rending garments, wearing sackcloth, and offering sacrifices (Lev. 5:5–12; 2 Kings 22:11, 19; Neh. 9:1; Joel 2:12–17). The Israelites became so preoccupied with these outward forms that God told them repeatedly that he no longer had interest in them, but rather sought contrition of the heart (Ps. 34:18; Isa. 1:10–16; 58; 66:2; Joel 2:13).

In the NT, the dominant terms used for repentance are the verb metanoeō and the cognate noun metanoia; the overwhelming majority of these occur in Luke-Acts. These terms are used to express the complete turnaround in one’s way of life, including conversion, faith, and regeneration (Acts 2:28; 3:19; 5:31; 20:21). Occasionally these two terms are complemented by epistrephō to stress the positive side of repentance, that of turning from sin or idols to God (Acts 9:35; 11:21; 26:20).

Elements of repentance. The constituent elements of biblical repentance include the following: (1) A recognition of one’s sin, its damaging effects on life and nature, its affront to God’s word and authority, and its dire consequences (Ezek. 18:4; Rom. 3:23; 8:19–22; Rev. 21:8). (2) Personal outrage and remorse over one’s sin, grief at one’s helplessness, and a deep longing for forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration. (3) A personal response to God’s grace in choosing a new spiritual direction by breaking with the past and returning to God. This includes confession and renunciation of sin, and prayer for God’s forgiveness (Lev. 5:5; Prov. 28:13; 1 John 1:9). (4) In some circumstances, repentance may require restitution (Exod. 22:1–15; 1 Sam. 12:3; 2 Sam. 12:6; Luke 19:8). (5) At its core, repentance is a rejection of the autonomous life and the surrender of oneself to the lordship of Christ (Jer. 3:22; Mark 8:34–38). (6) The proof of true repentance is the worthy fruit of a changed life (Luke 3:7–14; Eph. 4:17–32; Col. 1:10).

Righteousness is an important theme in both Testaments of the Bible. The concept includes faithfulness, justice, uprightness, correctness, loyalty, blamelessness, purity, salvation, and innocence. Because the theme is related to justification, it has important implications for the doctrine of salvation (see also Justification).

Old Testament

Divine righteousness. Being careful to avoid imposing Western philosophical categories onto OT texts, we may say that the core idea of righteousness is conformity to God’s person and will in moral uprightness, justness, justice, integrity, and faithfulness. Behind the many and varied uses of righteousness language in the OT stands the presupposition that God himself is righteous in the ultimate sense (e.g., Ezra 9:15; Isa. 45:21; Zeph. 3:5). Righteousness is the expression of his holiness in relationship to others (Isa. 5:16), and all other nuances of righteousness in the biblical texts are derived from this. Either he reveals what is right or demonstrates rightness in his activity. God’s decrees and laws are righteous (Deut. 4:8; Ps. 119); his will is righteous (Deut. 33:21); his acts are righteous (Judg. 5:11; 1 Sam. 12:7; Ps. 71:24); his judgments are righteous (Ps. 7:11); and he always judges with righteousness (Ps. 96:13). In OT texts, divine righteousness is often linked to God’s saving activity, particularly in Psalms (e.g., Ps. 71) and in Isa. 40–66. Divine righteousness is much broader than deliberative justice (i.e., punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous), though it does include it.

Human righteousness. Related to humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite of wickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, where it relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of the world as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). God reigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humans should align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousness can be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “my righteousness” (2 Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “their righteousness” (1 Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found in poetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust are parallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).

It seems likely that the OT understanding of righteousness was more concrete and less absolute than the typical thinking of most contemporary Western Christians. A more absolute way of understanding righteousness might lead one to think that a truly righteous person is sinless. While we do have references to absolute righteousness in the OT (e.g., Ps. 143:2; cf. Job 4:17; 25:4; Isa. 64:6–7), there are many more references to a righteousness grounded in particular or generalized situations (e.g., Pss. 32:11; 64:10). Another way of unpacking this conceptual difference is the helpful distinction between “ordinary” and “absolute” righteousness. Ordinary righteousness reflects the kind of righteousness that we intend when making comments such as “my wife is a righteous woman.” This means, taken in broad perspective, that her life is characterized predominantly by righteousness. This statement is not making a claim of sinlessness, absolute righteousness. The OT offers examples of comparative righteousness between people (e.g., Gen. 38:26; 1 Sam. 24:17; Jer. 3:11). Absolute righteousness is different from this. It is the extraordinary righteousness that we see in the person and work of God; he is righteous and without sin, totally holy in his dealings.

Noncanonical Jewish documents from the intertestamental period, while varying greatly in individual perspective, generally affirm OT views of human and divine righteousness. In these documents righteousness often is associated with mercy, goodness, justness, and concern for the poor and is contrasted with wickedness.

In Greco-Roman society, righteousness was one of the cardinal virtues and thus had an important influence in society. Greco-Roman righteousness did have some measure of abstractness as a kind of external norm, but this abstractness should not obscure the fact that righteousness often had a relational component in Greco-Roman literature and life. Righteous and unrighteous behaviors often were embedded in interpersonal relationships. Unrighteous deeds not only violated “transcendent” standards of righteousness, but also impacted humans.

New Testament

Ordinary human righteousness. Righteousness language is more rare in the Gospels than one might expect in light of OT and Jewish intertestamental usage. These references fit with the Jewish setting: righteousness is required of God’s people, and unrighteousness is to be avoided. Righteousness is proper conduct with respect to God or Torah (Matt. 21:32) in contrast to wickedness (Matt. 13:49). Righteousness could be conceived as one’s own (e.g., Luke 18:9) and has its reward (Matt. 10:41). While the specific terms related to righteousness are infrequent in the Gospels, the broader concept of conformity to God’s will is widely apparent in calls for repentance, personal moral uprightness, mercy, and concern for the marginalized. The NT Epistles continue these general strands of the concept. Righteousness is related to personal conduct (1 Thess. 2:10; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Pet. 2:24) and is contrasted with wickedness (2 Cor. 6:14); it is a matter of doing, not knowing (Rom. 2:13). An example of righteousness in doing is the kindness shown by the prostitute Rahab, who hid the Israelite spies (James 2:25).

The NT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7), Jesus extends the requirements of righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, a shocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners rather than the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitly questions the righteousness of the “righteous.” In similar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness of one’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke 18:9).

Divine righteousness. The NT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to God himself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf. Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commands and laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge (2 Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does not compromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26). The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness and wickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation in righteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g., Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:1, 29). He fulfilled righteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating complete conformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:18). He also fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his saving activity toward humans (e.g., 2 Pet. 1:1).

“The righteousness of God” and extra-ordinary human righteousness. There is a significant OT connection between God’s righteousness and his faithfulness in saving activity (e.g., Psalms; Isa. 40–66). Although there are glimpses of righteousness related to God’s saving activity outside of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (e.g., Matt. 5:10; 6:33), a technical phrase, “the righteousness of God,” is used in three important texts in Romans (1:17; 3:21–22 [2×]; 10:3 [2×]). In the gospel, “the righteousness of God” is revealed, where “righteousness of God” could mean his divine righteousness in some sense, righteousness from God (NIV), God’s saving activity as related to his righteousness in fulfilling his covenant faithfulness (e.g., Psalms), or some combination of these.

The righteousness of God is further discussed in Rom. 3:21: “the righteousness of God” has now been revealed apart from the Mosaic law, though the OT testifies about it (cf. Rom. 4 and Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). This righteousness of God is clarified in that it is by trust in Jesus Christ for all, both Jews and Gentiles. The “righteousness of God” may be distinguished from righteousness as a character quality of God (Rom. 3:25–26). In fact, it must be, for God’s righteousness as a character quality was revealed in the OT, whereas “the righteousness of God” is “apart from the [Mosaic] law” (3:21).

In Rom. 10:3 Paul comments that the Israelites are ignorant of “the righteousness of God”; they are seeking to establish their own righteousness because they are not submitting to “the righteousness of God.” The Israelites certainly knew of God’s righteousness in terms of his character, judgments, and expectations of his people. The lack of submission to “the righteousness of God” occurs in the context of the Jewish rejection of Jesus (e.g., 9:32–33; 10:9–13). And Jesus is the key to understanding “the righteousness of God” in the other texts also.

In Rom. 1:17 the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, which is the power of God for salvation to all who trust in Jesus (1:3–5, 16). The righteousness of God in 3:21–22 is related to trust in Jesus (3:22, 25–26), who as a sacrifice of atonement (3:25) enables the justification and redemption of sinners (3:24, 26). In Jesus we become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). The righteousness of God, then, is God’s saving activity revealed and manifested in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, whereby sinners are justified as both innocent and righteous in Christ.

The blossoms of seed-bearing plants that contain the plant’s reproductive organs. Used generally, “flowers” refers to the colorful array of blossoms that grew mostly in the open fields of the Holy Land. Numerous kinds of wild flowers could be found in the plains and mountains of Palestine. When winter rains were followed by the moderate temperatures of spring, renewal abounded (Song 2:11–12). Early spring blossoms presented an array of vibrant color and form. As early as January, cyclamen poured forth pink, white, and lilac blossoms, followed by various shades of red and pink of the crown anemones, poppies, and mountain tulips. The flowers of the diverse tuberous plants of the lily family also added to the colorful mosaic. Summer brought fields of chamomile and chrysanthemums, with their yellow and white daisylike flowers. The blossoms from plants such as mints, mustards, and other native herbaceous plants, along with those of flowering trees, shrubs, and field flowers, provided ample nectar for bees in the land of milk and honey (Num. 13:27). Healing or soothing ointments and various perfumes were produced from the essential oils extracted from the crushing of blossoms from a variety of flowers.

Flower Imagery

Traditionally, the language of flowers functions to illustrate some prominent themes, such as love and beauty. Flower imagery in descriptions of the tabernacle, of Solomon’s temple, and in the Song of Solomon develops the themes of beauty, purity, sweetness, and love (Song 2:1–5; 5:13; Isa. 28:4). The Song of Solomon is set in a garden scene where the sensuous quality of flowers—their colors, shapes, and scents, their delicate touch—are analogous to the captivating sexuality of physical love. The spring setting assures that the flowers are at their pinnacle of brilliance and the air is filled with the fragrance of vine blossoms (Song 2:12–13).

Used metaphorically, flowers can also refer to transience, pride, restoration, and the glory of the holy and eternal. Such references are found in both Testaments. The short life of flowers is representative of the brevity and fragility of human life on earth (Job 14:2; Ps. 103:15; Isa. 40:6–8; 1 Pet. 1:24). After a brief moment of splendor, decline and decay are close behind. Such is the metaphor used in psalms, by the prophets, and in the NT for the life of a person who flourishes like the flower, is like the grass one day, but is gone the next day.

As surely as flower imagery points out our human mortality, it also serves to illustrate the judgment of the proud or ungodly, as when Isaiah prophesies the speedy downfall of the kingdom of Israel like flowers being trampled under-foot (Isa. 28:1–3), turned to dust (5:24), or cut off with pruning knives (18:5). Nahum sees God’s power to rebuke his enemies in his ability to dry up seas and rivers and to make the many flowers of Carmel and Lebanon wilt (Nah. 1:4). James applies the flower imagery to describe the sudden departure of the rich person, passing away as quickly as the flowers of the field, whose beauty perishes under the burning heat of the sun (James 1:10–11).

The usual contexts of this flower imagery are judgment on the proud and the wicked, whose deeds will be short-lived. The insignificant and contemptible deeds of the wicked are contrasted with God’s power; our human transience and frailty with God’s permanence (Ps. 103:15); and our human weakness with the eternal word of God (Isa. 40:6, 8; 1 Pet. 1:24–25).

The flower can also represent a blessing. The righteous are compared to the flowering or flourishing of a plant (Isa. 5:24; 18:5; 28:1–4), since the flowering of a plant represents the peak of its life process, its most glorious moment. This beautifully pictures the restoration themes of the prophets as they utilize flower imagery. Isaiah’s words “The desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom; it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy” (Isa. 35:1–2; cf. 27:6) are one example of God’s restorative ability to turn a wasteland into a garden. Hosea illustrates this theme: “I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily. Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots” (Hos. 14:5). The psalmists also sing of the righteous, not the wicked, flourishing like grass or the flower (Pss. 72:7, 16; 92:12–14). Proverbs too reminds us that the righteous will “flourish,” or break forth and sprout like foliage (Prov. 14:11).

Flowers Named in the Bible

The Bible often identifies flowering plants by a more generic name rather than mentioning specific flowers. Sometimes context can help in determining more specific species. According to 1 Kings 7:19–20, 26, lily blossoms, along with pomegranates, adorned the top of the bronze columns that stood before King Solomon’s temple. In a musical aspect, three psalms are identified as those to be sung to the tune “Lilies” (Pss. 45; 69; 80).

The most frequently mentioned specific flowers are traditionally translated “lily” and “rose” (though these are probably not accurate renderings since these flowers are not native to the region and so would have been unfamiliar to most readers). Many commentators believe that the phrase “lilies of the field” referred to the showy, attractive springtime flowers that grow profusely in the plains, pastures, and hills of the Carmel and Sharon regions. These flowers can include ranunculus, anemone, cyclamen, tulip, hyacinth, narcissus, crocus, iris, and orchid. The tulip, asphodel, star-of-Bethlehem, hyacinth, and related narcissus, daffodil, crocus, and iris inhabit the rocky ground and dry places of the hill country. The “lily of the valleys” of Song 2:1–2 is probably the blue hyacinth.

Consider Jesus’ words “Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these” (Matt. 6:28–29 NASB). Although these flowers may not be true lilies but rather one of the numerous showy spring flowers such as the crown anemone, Jesus proclaims that the beauty of a single flower in a meadow was more striking than all the riches of Solomon, and that the flower did not concern itself with working and getting riches to be clothed. Jesus’ comments about flowers demonstrate that their beauty was appreciated in Israel.

The flowers listed below are specifically named in various Bible versions.

Almond blossoms. The almond tree is among the first of flowering trees to bloom in the spring. Almond blossoms were part of the almond-tree design on the seven-branched lampstands of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:33–34; 37:19–20). In Eccles. 12:5, almond tree blossoms are likely an allegorical reference to an elderly person’s hair turning white like the almond tree.

Camphire flower. In Song 1:14; 4:13, the KJV refers to camphire, while the NIV and most modern versions have “henna.” The camphire is a small plant or shrub that bears highly scented, cream-colored flowers that hang in clusters and were used for orange dye.

Caperberry flower. The caperberry was a common prickly shrub with large, white flowers that produced small, edible berries. The berries had a reputation for exciting sexual desire, so the caperberry is used in Eccles. 12:5 to allude to the waning sexual potency that comes with age (NIV: “desire is no longer stirred”).

Cockle flower. The KJV of Job 31:40 refers to a “cockle” (NIV: “stinkweed”), a plant whose name is spelled like the Hebrew word for “stink.” This noxious weed with purplish red flowers grew abundantly in Palestinian grain fields.

Crocus. A plant with a long yellow floral tube tinged with purple specks or stripes. The abundant blossoms of the crocus symbolize beauty and splendor (Isa. 35:1).

Fitch. Named in the KJV at Isa. 28:25, 27 (NIV: “caraway”; NRSV: “dill”) and Ezek. 4:9 (NIV: “spelt”). The flower referred to is probably the nutmeg flower, which is a member of the buttercup family; it grew wild in most Mediterranean lands. The plant is about two feet high, with bright blue flowers. The pods of the plant were used like pepper.

Lily. A symbol of fruitfulness, purity, and resurrection, this plant grows from a bulb to a height of three feet, with large white flowers. The term “lily” covers a wide range of flowers. The lily mentioned in Song 5:13 refers to a rare variety of lily that had a bloom similar to a glowing flame. The “lily of the valleys” (Song 2:1) is known as the Easter lily. The lily mentioned in Hos. 14:5 is more like an iris. The water lily or lotus was a favorite flower in Egypt and was used to decorate Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:19, 22, 26; 2 Chron. 4:5). The “lilies of the field” (Matt. 6:28) probably were numerous kinds of colorful spring flowers such as the crown anemone (see NIV: “flowers of the field”).

Mint. This aromatic plant, with hairy leaves, has dense white or pink flowers. It is listed with other spices and herbs as something that the Pharisees tithe (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).

Myrtle branch. This bush has fragrant evergreen leaves. Its scented white flowers were used for perfumes. The bush grew to considerable height (Zech. 1:8, 10) and is listed among the trees used to build shelters during the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. 8:15; see also Isa. 41:19; 55:13).

Pomegranate blossom. The blossom of the pomegranate tree is large and orange-red in color. The fruit of the tree was a symbol of fertile and productive land (Num. 13:23; Deut. 8:8; cf. Hag. 2:19) and was used to produce spiced wine (Song 8:2). Pomegranates were part of the decoration that adorned Aaron’s garments (Exod. 28:33–34) and the temple of Solomon (1 Kings 7:18–20).

Rose. The Hebrew word translated as “rose” in Song 2:1 is translated as “crocus” in Isa. 35:1. Crocus was probably the family name of this flower.

Saffron. This is a species of crocus. Petals of the saffron were used to perfume banquet halls (cf. Song 4:14).

The blossoms of seed-bearing plants that contain the plant’s reproductive organs. Used generally, “flowers” refers to the colorful array of blossoms that grew mostly in the open fields of the Holy Land. Numerous kinds of wild flowers could be found in the plains and mountains of Palestine. When winter rains were followed by the moderate temperatures of spring, renewal abounded (Song 2:11–12). Early spring blossoms presented an array of vibrant color and form. As early as January, cyclamen poured forth pink, white, and lilac blossoms, followed by various shades of red and pink of the crown anemones, poppies, and mountain tulips. The flowers of the diverse tuberous plants of the lily family also added to the colorful mosaic. Summer brought fields of chamomile and chrysanthemums, with their yellow and white daisylike flowers. The blossoms from plants such as mints, mustards, and other native herbaceous plants, along with those of flowering trees, shrubs, and field flowers, provided ample nectar for bees in the land of milk and honey (Num. 13:27). Healing or soothing ointments and various perfumes were produced from the essential oils extracted from the crushing of blossoms from a variety of flowers.

Flower Imagery

Traditionally, the language of flowers functions to illustrate some prominent themes, such as love and beauty. Flower imagery in descriptions of the tabernacle, of Solomon’s temple, and in the Song of Solomon develops the themes of beauty, purity, sweetness, and love (Song 2:1–5; 5:13; Isa. 28:4). The Song of Solomon is set in a garden scene where the sensuous quality of flowers—their colors, shapes, and scents, their delicate touch—are analogous to the captivating sexuality of physical love. The spring setting assures that the flowers are at their pinnacle of brilliance and the air is filled with the fragrance of vine blossoms (Song 2:12–13).

Used metaphorically, flowers can also refer to transience, pride, restoration, and the glory of the holy and eternal. Such references are found in both Testaments. The short life of flowers is representative of the brevity and fragility of human life on earth (Job 14:2; Ps. 103:15; Isa. 40:6–8; 1 Pet. 1:24). After a brief moment of splendor, decline and decay are close behind. Such is the metaphor used in psalms, by the prophets, and in the NT for the life of a person who flourishes like the flower, is like the grass one day, but is gone the next day.

As surely as flower imagery points out our human mortality, it also serves to illustrate the judgment of the proud or ungodly, as when Isaiah prophesies the speedy downfall of the kingdom of Israel like flowers being trampled under-foot (Isa. 28:1–3), turned to dust (5:24), or cut off with pruning knives (18:5). Nahum sees God’s power to rebuke his enemies in his ability to dry up seas and rivers and to make the many flowers of Carmel and Lebanon wilt (Nah. 1:4). James applies the flower imagery to describe the sudden departure of the rich person, passing away as quickly as the flowers of the field, whose beauty perishes under the burning heat of the sun (James 1:10–11).

The usual contexts of this flower imagery are judgment on the proud and the wicked, whose deeds will be short-lived. The insignificant and contemptible deeds of the wicked are contrasted with God’s power; our human transience and frailty with God’s permanence (Ps. 103:15); and our human weakness with the eternal word of God (Isa. 40:6, 8; 1 Pet. 1:24–25).

The flower can also represent a blessing. The righteous are compared to the flowering or flourishing of a plant (Isa. 5:24; 18:5; 28:1–4), since the flowering of a plant represents the peak of its life process, its most glorious moment. This beautifully pictures the restoration themes of the prophets as they utilize flower imagery. Isaiah’s words “The desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom; it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy” (Isa. 35:1–2; cf. 27:6) are one example of God’s restorative ability to turn a wasteland into a garden. Hosea illustrates this theme: “I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily. Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots” (Hos. 14:5). The psalmists also sing of the righteous, not the wicked, flourishing like grass or the flower (Pss. 72:7, 16; 92:12–14). Proverbs too reminds us that the righteous will “flourish,” or break forth and sprout like foliage (Prov. 14:11).

Flowers Named in the Bible

The Bible often identifies flowering plants by a more generic name rather than mentioning specific flowers. Sometimes context can help in determining more specific species. According to 1 Kings 7:19–20, 26, lily blossoms, along with pomegranates, adorned the top of the bronze columns that stood before King Solomon’s temple. In a musical aspect, three psalms are identified as those to be sung to the tune “Lilies” (Pss. 45; 69; 80).

The most frequently mentioned specific flowers are traditionally translated “lily” and “rose” (though these are probably not accurate renderings since these flowers are not native to the region and so would have been unfamiliar to most readers). Many commentators believe that the phrase “lilies of the field” referred to the showy, attractive springtime flowers that grow profusely in the plains, pastures, and hills of the Carmel and Sharon regions. These flowers can include ranunculus, anemone, cyclamen, tulip, hyacinth, narcissus, crocus, iris, and orchid. The tulip, asphodel, star-of-Bethlehem, hyacinth, and related narcissus, daffodil, crocus, and iris inhabit the rocky ground and dry places of the hill country. The “lily of the valleys” of Song 2:1–2 is probably the blue hyacinth.

Consider Jesus’ words “Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these” (Matt. 6:28–29 NASB). Although these flowers may not be true lilies but rather one of the numerous showy spring flowers such as the crown anemone, Jesus proclaims that the beauty of a single flower in a meadow was more striking than all the riches of Solomon, and that the flower did not concern itself with working and getting riches to be clothed. Jesus’ comments about flowers demonstrate that their beauty was appreciated in Israel.

The flowers listed below are specifically named in various Bible versions.

Almond blossoms. The almond tree is among the first of flowering trees to bloom in the spring. Almond blossoms were part of the almond-tree design on the seven-branched lampstands of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:33–34; 37:19–20). In Eccles. 12:5, almond tree blossoms are likely an allegorical reference to an elderly person’s hair turning white like the almond tree.

Camphire flower. In Song 1:14; 4:13, the KJV refers to camphire, while the NIV and most modern versions have “henna.” The camphire is a small plant or shrub that bears highly scented, cream-colored flowers that hang in clusters and were used for orange dye.

Caperberry flower. The caperberry was a common prickly shrub with large, white flowers that produced small, edible berries. The berries had a reputation for exciting sexual desire, so the caperberry is used in Eccles. 12:5 to allude to the waning sexual potency that comes with age (NIV: “desire is no longer stirred”).

Cockle flower. The KJV of Job 31:40 refers to a “cockle” (NIV: “stinkweed”), a plant whose name is spelled like the Hebrew word for “stink.” This noxious weed with purplish red flowers grew abundantly in Palestinian grain fields.

Crocus. A plant with a long yellow floral tube tinged with purple specks or stripes. The abundant blossoms of the crocus symbolize beauty and splendor (Isa. 35:1).

Fitch. Named in the KJV at Isa. 28:25, 27 (NIV: “caraway”; NRSV: “dill”) and Ezek. 4:9 (NIV: “spelt”). The flower referred to is probably the nutmeg flower, which is a member of the buttercup family; it grew wild in most Mediterranean lands. The plant is about two feet high, with bright blue flowers. The pods of the plant were used like pepper.

Lily. A symbol of fruitfulness, purity, and resurrection, this plant grows from a bulb to a height of three feet, with large white flowers. The term “lily” covers a wide range of flowers. The lily mentioned in Song 5:13 refers to a rare variety of lily that had a bloom similar to a glowing flame. The “lily of the valleys” (Song 2:1) is known as the Easter lily. The lily mentioned in Hos. 14:5 is more like an iris. The water lily or lotus was a favorite flower in Egypt and was used to decorate Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:19, 22, 26; 2 Chron. 4:5). The “lilies of the field” (Matt. 6:28) probably were numerous kinds of colorful spring flowers such as the crown anemone (see NIV: “flowers of the field”).

Mint. This aromatic plant, with hairy leaves, has dense white or pink flowers. It is listed with other spices and herbs as something that the Pharisees tithe (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).

Myrtle branch. This bush has fragrant evergreen leaves. Its scented white flowers were used for perfumes. The bush grew to considerable height (Zech. 1:8, 10) and is listed among the trees used to build shelters during the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. 8:15; see also Isa. 41:19; 55:13).

Pomegranate blossom. The blossom of the pomegranate tree is large and orange-red in color. The fruit of the tree was a symbol of fertile and productive land (Num. 13:23; Deut. 8:8; cf. Hag. 2:19) and was used to produce spiced wine (Song 8:2). Pomegranates were part of the decoration that adorned Aaron’s garments (Exod. 28:33–34) and the temple of Solomon (1 Kings 7:18–20).

Rose. The Hebrew word translated as “rose” in Song 2:1 is translated as “crocus” in Isa. 35:1. Crocus was probably the family name of this flower.

Saffron. This is a species of crocus. Petals of the saffron were used to perfume banquet halls (cf. Song 4:14).

The term “salvation” is the broadest one used to refer to God’s actions to solve the plight brought about by humankind’s sinful rebellion and its consequences. It is one of the central themes of the entire Bible, running from Genesis through Revelation.

Old Testament

In many places in the OT, salvation refers to being rescued from physical rather than spiritual trouble. Fearing the possibility of retribution from his brother Esau, Jacob prays, “Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau” (Gen. 32:11). The actions of Joseph in Egypt saved many from famine (45:5–7; 47:25; 50:20). Frequently in the psalms, individuals pray for salvation from enemies that threaten one’s safety or life (Pss. 17:14; 18:3; 70:1–3; 71:1–4; 91:1–3).

Related to this usage are places where the nation of Israel and/or its king were saved from enemies. The defining example of this is the exodus, whereby God delivered his people from their enslavement to the Egyptians, culminating in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army (Exod. 14:1–23). From that point forward in the history of Israel, God repeatedly saved Israel from its enemies, whether through a judge (e.g., Judg. 2:16; 3:9), a king (2 Kings 14:27), or even a shepherd boy (1 Sam. 17:1–58).

But these examples of national deliverance had a profound spiritual component as well. God did not save his people from physical danger as an end in itself; it was the necessary means for his plan to save them from their sins. The OT recognizes the need for salvation from sin (Pss. 39:8; 51:14; 120:2) but, as the NT makes evident, does not provide a final solution (Heb. 9:1–10:18). One of the clearest places that physical and spiritual salvation come together is Isa. 40–55, where Judah’s exile from the land and prophesied return are seen as the physical manifestation of the much more fundamental spiritual exile that resulted from sin. To address that far greater reality, God announces the day when the Suffering Servant would once and for all take away the sins of his people (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

New Testament

As in the OT, the NT has places where salvation refers to being rescued from physical difficulty. Paul, for example, speaks of being saved from various physical dangers, including execution (2 Cor. 1:8–10; Phil. 1:19; 2 Tim. 4:17). In the midst of a fierce storm, Jesus’ disciples cry out, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” (Matt. 8:25). But far more prominent are the places in the Gospels and Acts where physical healings are described with the verb sōzō, used to speak of salvation from sin. The healing of the woman with the hemorrhage (Mark 5:25–34), the blind man along the road (Luke 18:35–43), and even the man possessed by a demon (Luke 8:26–39), just to name a few, are described with the verb sōzō. The same verb, however, is also used to refer to Jesus forgiving someone’s sins (Luke 7:36–50) and to his mission to save the lost from their sins (Luke 19:10). Such overlap is a foretaste of the holistic salvation (physical and spiritual) that will be completed in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21–22). The NT Epistles give extensive descriptions of how the work of Jesus Christ saves his people from their sins (see below).

Components

In several passages (e.g., Rom. 5:1–11; Eph. 2:1–10; Titus 3:4–7) “salvation” is clearly a summary term for the totality of what God has done for his people in and through Christ. Salvation is such a rich and multifaceted work of God that it takes a variety of terms to bring out its fullness. “Regeneration” refers to the new life that God imparts, bringing a person from spiritual death to spiritual life (John 3:3–8; Eph. 2:4–7; Titus 3:4–7). “Justification” speaks of God declaring a person not guilty in his court of law on the basis of Christ’s sacrificial death and life of perfect obedience (Rom. 3:21–5:12; Gal. 2:14–21). “Atonement” describes Christ’s payment for sin and resulting forgiveness (Rom. 3:21–26; Heb. 2:17). “Redemption” captures the reality of God paying the price to bring his people out of their slavery to sin and into the freedom of the Spirit (Gal. 4:1–7; 5:1). “Reconciliation” refers to God turning hardened rebels and enemies into his friends (Rom. 5:10–11; 2 Cor. 5:18–21; Col. 1:20–22). “Adoption” extends that reality into the astonishing truth that God makes those whom he reconciles not just his friends but his sons and daughters (Rom. 8:14–25; Gal. 4:1–7). In “sanctification” God sets his people apart for his special purposes and progressively changes them into the image of Christ (1 Cor. 1:30 ESV, NRSV, NASB; cf. Rom. 8:29). The final component is “glorification,” when God brings to completion the work of salvation by granting his people resurrection bodies, removing every last stain of sin, death, and the curse and placing them in a new heaven and earth (Rom. 8:30; 1 Cor. 15:35–57; Rev. 21–22).

Prepositions of Salvation

Another way that the Bible fills out the nature of salvation is through the various prepositions connected to it. The prepositions in the following list are among the more significant.

From. Since the basic idea of salvation is rescue from danger, it is not surprising that Scripture describes that from which believers are saved. David cries out to God, “Save me from all my transgressions” (Ps. 39:8). Salvation from sin is possible only through Jesus, for it is he who “will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). Reflecting on the work of Jesus on the cross, Paul claims that because of the sacrificial death of Christ believers are saved from God’s wrath (Rom. 5:9–10). At the same time, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus saved people from their slavery to sin (Rom. 6:1–11). As a result of these and other things from which Christ has saved people, on the day of Pentecost Peter exhorts his audience to be saved “from this corrupt generation” (Acts 2:40). Thus, the unanimous testimony of Scripture is that believers have been saved from their sin and its consequences.

To/into. Believers are saved not merely from something; they are saved to/into certain states or conditions. Whereas they were once slaves, believers have now been saved “into the freedom and glory of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21 [cf. Gal. 5:1]). Through the cross God “has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Col. 1:13). Another way of stating this reality is to speak of the peace into which believers now have been brought as a result of Christ’s work on their behalf (John 14:27).

By. Scripture frequently uses the preposition “by” to express the instrument of salvation. Stated negatively, “It is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves” (1 Sam. 17:47). In the broadest sense, believers are saved from their sins by the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1–2). More specifically, salvation is by the grace of God (Eph. 2:5, 8). The preposition “by” can also express the agent of salvation. A distinguishing feature of Israel was that it was saved from its enemies by God (Deut. 33:29; Isa. 45:17). The same thing is meant when Scripture speaks of God saving his people by his right hand (Ps. 17:7) or his name (Ps. 54:1).

Through. The consistent testimony of the Bible is that salvation comes through faith (e.g., Eph. 2:8–9). Through faith, believers have been justified (Rom. 3:22; 5:1–2) and made children of God (Gal. 3:26). It is not righteousness based on the law that matters, “but that which is through faith in Christ” (Phil. 3:9). The remarkable actions of God’s people throughout history have been accomplished through faith (Heb. 11:1–40).

In. Especially in Paul’s writings the various components of salvation (see above) are modified with the phrase “in Christ” or “in him.” Believers are chosen (Eph. 1:4), redeemed (Eph. 1:7), justified (Gal. 2:17), and sanctified (1 Cor. 1:2) in Christ. Indeed, God has blessed believers “in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ” (Eph. 1:3).

With. Many of the components of salvation that believers experience are said to happen “with Christ.” Believers are united with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:4–11; Gal. 2:20). With Christ, believers have been made alive, raised up, and seated in the heavenly realms (Eph. 2:4–6; Col. 2:13). Because of their union with Christ, believers share in his inheritance (Rom. 8:16–17; Gal. 3:29; 1 Pet. 1:4). Even the very life of the believer is said to be currently “hidden with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3).

Tenses of Salvation

The Bible speaks of salvation in the past, present, and future tenses. Pointing to a definitive experience in the past, Paul tells believers that “in this hope we were saved” (Rom. 8:24). Yet he can also speak of himself and other believers as those “who are being saved” (1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15), pointing to a process that is ongoing. Just a few sentences after assuring believers that they have been justified already (Rom. 5:1–2), he can still say that believers will “be saved from God’s wrath” through Christ (Rom. 5:9–10).

The use of these three tenses reflects the “already and not yet” dynamic of salvation. Through the obedience, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, God has rescued his people from their sins. But the final and complete realization of all the benefits of salvation must still await the return of Christ and the establishment of a new heaven and earth (Rev. 19–22).

Conclusion

Without a proper understanding of humankind’s plight as a result of its rebellion, the Bible’s repeated emphasis on salvation makes little sense. Because sin is humanity’s greatest problem, salvation is humanity’s greatest need. Given the breadth, width, and depth of what God has done to save his people from their sins through Jesus Christ, it is no wonder that the author of Hebrews asks, “How shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?” (2:3).

Since the early apologists’ first attempts to defend the Christian faith against contemporary Greco-Roman philosophers, explanations of God’s sovereignty have found support from Platonic, Neoplatonic, and Aristotelian categories. This unfortunate “marriage” pushed theologians to identify God’s power in static and absolute categories that explained God as unmoved and impassible. God’s sovereign will must be perfect and cannot be affected by the world or by human suffering. In his perfection, God is necessarily apatheia (Aristotle), beyond joy or sorrow (Plato). This notion led medieval and Reformation theologians to assert that Jesus suffered in his human nature, but not in his divine nature. To protect God’s integrity (incapability of corruption), the biblical emphasis on God’s passionate involvement with his creation and people (e.g., Isa. 34:2; Zeph. 3:17) was squelched.

Christian speculation on God’s sovereignty followed the Neoplatonic principle of plenitude, in which the created universe is little more than the divine being’s necessary overflow of temporal diversity. God’s perfection requires the unlimited actualization of all possibilities. For Augustine, this meant that all human experience is foreclosed in God’s eternity; for Anselm, it gave an ontological argument for God’s existence; for Abelard, it meant that God cannot do or leave undone anything other than what he has done; for Beza (Calvinism), double predestination was a given; for Schleiermacher, human self-consciousness had its roots in the divine being; for Tillich, a “God above God” was the ground of all being; and we could add many others. “Sovereignty,” in these delineations, expresses the necessary manifestation of God’s perfection and absolute power.

The biblical language of sovereignty does not parallel such logic. Broadly speaking, the Bible describes sovereignty as God’s divine authority to rule his creation in general and Israel in particular. He is the Lord of all creation and the King of Israel. He is almighty (sovereign) to accomplish his purpose, which is to restore his kingdom on earth through Christ (1 Tim. 6:14–15), to whom he now has given all authority (Matt. 28:18). Rather than an aloof divinity of perfection, God is presented in the Bible as intensely personal and superbly engaged in the affairs of his creation. He remains outside his creation as its supreme, infinite Creator (transcendence), while allowing his love to instruct both his justice and his power (immanence). He creates not because the necessity of his perfection requires it but rather out of sovereign freedom and love. He is both protective of his position as Lord of creation and concerned for his people’s welfare (Deut. 6:13–19). His sovereignty displays his moral character (Exod. 15:11–18) while demanding reciprocal love and relational obedience from his people.

As sovereign, God has power and rule that are above all other powers and rulers (Pss. 22:28; 103:19; Dan. 5:21). His providential care for all creation exhibits his loving kingship and confirms his essential goodness. God’s sovereignty affirms that human life has meaning and purpose; he does not leave us alone to create our own happiness, nor are we subject to whatever misery presses upon us (1 Chron. 29:11). Rather than an indivisible attribute, God’s power is subject to his control and expresses itself relationally. This same relationality lies behind the biblical understanding of God’s will and unchangeable character (James 1:17; cf. Ps. 102:25–27; Isa. 40:8). As a comparison of 1 Sam. 15:11 with 15:29 shows, God’s sovereignty does not militate against his freedom to change his mind. Rather, God remains unchangeably faithful and true to his character even when humans prove faithless and false (2 Tim. 2:13).

This relational quality of God’s sovereignty is rooted in his triunity. His existence is coexistence as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This makes love the distinctive mark of his sovereignty. The doctrine of the Trinity safeguards against metaphysical understandings of God that make light of his self-revelation in Christ. Opposite the self-expanding god of philosophical speculations, the biblical God manifests his sovereignty through the self-limiting and self-denying Christ (Phil. 2:5–11), who reveals God’s absolute power as the servant of his absolute love.

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).

In NT studies, “Synoptic” refers to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which, due to their similarities, can be compared side by side (synoptic = seeing together). Although coined earlier, the term “Synoptic” did not become the commonly used reference to the first three Gospels until the nineteenth century.

Synoptical comparisons reveal texts that are similar in wording (e.g., Matt. 19:13–18 // Mark 10:13–16 // Luke 18:15–17), order (e.g., Matt. 12:46–13:58 // Mark 3:31–6:6a // Luke 8:19–56), and parenthetical material (e.g., Matt. 9:6 // Mark 2:10 // Luke 5:20). Most interestingly, the Synoptics agree in their quotation of the OT even when they differ from the Hebrew OT text itself (compare Matt. 3:3 // Mark 1:3 // Luke 3:4 to Isa. 40:3). Beyond such similarities, significant differences prevail that raise difficult questions. How, for example, could Mark escape any reference to the Sermon on the Mount (including the Lord’s Prayer), which holds such a prominent position in Matthew?

Relationships among the three Gospels. Due to these and other factors, multiple theories on the Synoptic Gospels’ relationship to one another have arisen. Yet none have found universal acceptance. Historically, based primarily on Augustine’s claim, the church affirmed Matthew as the first Gospel, with Mark as his abridgment and Luke as employing both. The German text critic J. J. Griesbach developed this thesis of Matthean priority in his 1774 Synopsis, arguing that Luke was the first to use Matthew, and Mark was drawing from both. The Griesbach Hypothesis continues to have advocates.

Matthew covers the substance of 97.2 percent of Mark’s 661 verses, while 88.4 percent reappear in Luke. Although such statistics could be explained as Mark’s combination and abbreviation of Matthew and Luke, in fact Matthew generally shortens Mark where they cover the same material. In search of explanations that better validate the evidence, NT scholars proposed the Two Source Hypothesis, arguing that Mark wrote first, and that Matthew and Luke drew from Mark and from another, unknown source (which scholars call “Q,” from German Quelle, meaning “source”). H. J. Holzmann gave significant credence to this theory in 1863, and after B. H. Streeter’s persuasive publication in 1924 it became the leading theory. Rather than the reverse, it seems easier to understand Matthew and Luke as expansions of Mark’s narrative, just as evidence suggests that they “cleaned up” Mark’s poorer Greek and more difficult readings. Furthermore, although Matthew and Luke often disagree with each other both verbally and in their order of events, they rarely agree with one another against Mark. This suggests that in the triple tradition (passages in all three Synoptic Gospels), Matthew and Luke are not borrowing from each other but are independently using Mark.

The suggestion of the unknown source Q (which could be either written or oral) proved necessary to make sense of the significant agreements between Matthew and Luke in material not covered by Mark. Streeter suggested further that the material that was unique to Matthew and Luke respectively came from sources designated as “M” and “L.”

Although the Two Source Hypothesis remains the working theory preferred by most scholars, others claim that the issue is far from unresolved. To reconstruct the precise development of the Synoptic Gospels has proven extremely difficult. Each Gospel may have been influenced by a variety of sources. Rather than being well defined, the process likely was fluid, bringing together commonly known and accepted memorizations of specific Jesus sayings, repeated retellings of specific sequences of events (shorter and longer) that had turned into strings of established tradition among early churches, written records made by disciples such as Matthew, oral preaching of apostles such as Peter, accounts possibly from Mary the mother of Jesus (cf. Luke 2:19), and other things.

Mark’s Gospel has historically been considered a written condensation of Peter’s preaching, but as C. H. Dodd showed in his 1936 Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, Mark shaped his Gospel according to a common apostolic pattern observable in the speeches in Acts. Except for a few parables and the action-filled apocalypse in chapter 13, Mark’s Gospel consists almost exclusively of descriptive narrative that delineates the power and purpose of Jesus, the Son of God. Mark is kerygma, preaching about Jesus. Q, or the material common to Matthew and Luke absent in Mark, consists almost exclusively of teaching material, Jesus sayings. It is didachē, teaching from Jesus.

Distinctives of each Gospel. Griesbach’s “synoptic” approach of placing these three Gospels side by side for comparison has prompted new scholarly approaches such as redaction criticism and has provided beginning students with a helpful way to recognize specific emphases of each Gospel. As noted above, Mark is a fast-paced narrative (“immediately” occurs nine times in chap. 1 alone) with vivid picturesque detail (e.g., 14:51–52). Matthew writes for a Jewish audience. He weaves his narrative around five major teaching discourses (chaps. 5–7; 10; 13; 18; 24–25) while highlighting Jesus’ relationship to Abraham (chap. 1), his mission to “the lost sheep of Israel” (chaps. 10; 15), and his birth and death as the “King of the Jews” (chaps. 2; 27) and using the Jewish expression “kingdom of heaven.” Luke, while portraying the comprehensive scope of Jesus’ mission by relating Jesus directly to Adam and God (3:38) and placing the events in secular history (chap. 2), reveals a special interest in the downtrodden (women, poor, children, Samaritans), prayer (nine prayers), the Holy Spirit, and joyfulness.

In the ancient Near East, tents were used as shelters, particularly for nomadic peoples (Gen. 13:5, 18), seminomadic herders (Song 1:8), wealthy travelers or caravans, and military encampments (2 Kings 7:5–8). Tent coverings could be made of fabric (often woven from goat hair [e.g., Exod. 26:7]) or animal skins. Poles, pegs, and ropes were used to raise the tent and hold it in place (Isa. 33:20; 54:2). Tents were used both as dwellings (Gen. 4:20) and as meeting or worship spaces (2 Sam. 6:17). The term “tabernacle” also refers to a tent structure (e.g., Job 18:6 KJV), especially to the tent God inhabited from the time of the exodus until Solomon built him a more permanent dwelling (see Tabernacle, Tent of Meeting). A tent is used as a metaphor for the sky or the heavens (Pss. 19:4; 104:2; Isa. 40:22) and often symbolizes protection or habitation (Job 18:14; 22:23; Ps. 61:4). In the NT, the image of a tent is used figuratively of human flesh and earthly existence (2 Cor. 5:1–4; 2 Pet. 1:13; cf. John 1:14; see also Shekinah). Paul was a tentmaker by trade, as were Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:2–3). See also Pavilion.

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).

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

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

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

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

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

Travel by Land

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

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

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

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

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

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

Travel by Sea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Travel by Land

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

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

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

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

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

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

Travel by Sea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

Relationships between Father, Son, and Spirit

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

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

Trinitarian Heresies

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

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

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

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).