A bond typically represents a close relationship in Scripture. It can carry positive or negative connotations, as do related words such as “bondage.” In the sense of “chains,” bonds literally hold a slave to the master or a prisoner to the jail. God’s exiled people are likewise said to be held in bonds, from which he will rescue them (Jer. 30:8). Spiritually speaking, “bond” may describe the firm covenant relationship between God and his people (Jer. 2:20; 5:5; Ezek. 20:37). In the new covenant, believers are freed from bondage to sin and become Christ’s bondspeople (Rom. 6:16–22). This relationship with Christ in turn joins Christians to one another; in Ephesians this unity is called “the bond of peace” (4:3).

In both Testaments of Scripture, marriage is used to illustrate the relationship between God and his chosen people. Isaiah and Jeremiah portray Israel as the bride of Yahweh, sometimes to emphasize his love for her, sometimes to lament her unfaithfulness to him. Isaiah says that Yahweh will one day rejoice over Israel “as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride” (Isa. 62:5; cf. 61:10). Jeremiah expresses God’s disappointment that his bride (Israel) has lost her first love for him and even forgotten him (Jer. 2:2, 32). Hosea uses this metaphor repeatedly to proclaim Yahweh’s undying love for his adulterous wife, the people of Israel (Hos. 1–3).

In the NT, the church becomes the bride of Christ, both in Paul’s letters and in the book of Revelation (Rev. 21:2, 9; 22:17). Paul compares the church to a bride expressly in Eph. 5, where the love of Christ for his church sets an example for ordinary husbands: they must love their wives “as Christ loved the church,” that is, sacrificially (v. 25). In Revelation the church adorns herself with righteous acts for the sake of Christ, her groom (19:6). Further along in Revelation, the new Jerusalem itself becomes the “bride” of Christ, inhabited by his saved people, the church (21:9–10).

The “bride” metaphor communicates powerfully in these contexts because of the duties that ancient marriages presupposed. Husbands were to lead, protect, and provide for their wives, and God does this perfectly for his people. He leads them safely out of Egypt, through the wilderness, and on to victory in battle. They are blessed in faithfulness, and God is slow to anger in spite of their adultery against him. When his people need a savior, he provides the Bridegroom-Messiah, through whom he gives lasting forgiveness, peace, and rest. On the other hand, the church must honor her Savior-Husband, who finds in her obedience the greatest beauty.

An arid environment challenging to life. Desert comprises about a third of the earth’s land surface, often overtaking verdant areas and squeezing human beings and animals into narrower oases. The deserts of the Bible—Negev, Sinai, Paran, and Zin—are part of the greater Saharo-Arabian desert system, the largest and driest in the world. Most of the land east (areas of present-day Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) and south (Egypt) of Palestine is desert. However, the desert experience of most Israelites was not vast sands but rather arid environments that could otherwise flourish with sufficient water. In this regard, the biblical “wilderness” and “desert” semantically overlap, but they are not the same environments.

With average precipitation of ten inches or less, these regions typically have sparse vegetation and little or no agriculture (Jer. 2:2). Pliny the Elder (AD 23/24–79) describes the Essenes, who lived near the Dead Sea, as having only “the company of palm trees” (Nat. 5.73). Temperatures are severe, often exceeding 110°F on summer days, but also falling below freezing on winter nights. The limited winter rains provide short-lived grass for grazing (1 Sam. 17:28; Ps. 65:13; Jer. 23:10), along with thorns and briers (Judg. 8:7). Cisterns were dug to collect the precious rain (Gen. 37:22).

The severity of the environment is not conducive for animal and human life. The Bible mentions wild asses (Job 24:5; Jer. 48:6), jackals (Mal. 1:3), ostriches (Lam. 4:3), owls (Ps. 102:7), poisonous snakes (Isa. 30:6), panthers, and wolves (Hab. 1:8). The desert came to be viewed as the haunt of demons (Matt. 12:43) but also as a place for spiritual refreshment. By definition, a desert is untouched by human hands. The patterns and sounds go back to God, not the noisy neighbors of urban life. The desert therefore can facilitate communion with God because of the absence of distractions and the inevitable deepening awareness of the fragility of existence. Scarcity of resources also requires communal sharing and cooperation for survival.

Instead of in major urban centers in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Palestine, the Bible presents God as training people in the desert by testing their faith, beginning with the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50). God redeems Israel out of Egypt into the desert (Exod. 15:22; 16:1; 17:1), leading them to Sinai (Exod. 18:5; 19:1–2) and then a forty-year sojourn (Num. 14:33; 32:13; Deut. 2:7). Following seasons of testing, concerning which the people routinely fail, God provides freshwater and manna, the “grain of heaven” (Ps. 78:24). However, except on the Sabbath, people are not allowed to store the food but must cultivate complete dependence upon God’s provision for their daily bread. Elijah flees into the wilderness and is provided for by an angel (1 Kings 19:1–8). He returns to Mount Sinai (Horeb) and experiences the immediate presence of God in a “thin silence” (1 Kings 19:8–13; NIV: “gentle whisper”).

This pattern is repeated in the NT, beginning with John the Baptist, who dresses like a desert nomad and subsists on locusts and wild honey—foods near at hand and not subject to agricultural tithing (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6). After John’s baptism, Jesus departs into the wilderness, where he fasts and is tempted for forty days and nights among the wild beasts but is also provided for by angels (Matt. 4:1–11 pars.). Paul, after his experience on the road to Damascus, departs into Arabia (Nabatea, present-day Jordan), the place “where the nomads live” and the traditional site of Mount Sinai (Pliny the Elder, Nat. 5.72; Gal. 1:17; 4:25). (Damascus, perhaps the oldest city in the world, is an oasis bordering the Arabian Desert on a highway connecting Egypt with Mesopotamia.) The author of Revelation depicts a woman, who represents the people of God, fleeing into the wilderness to escape the red dragon, Satan (Rev. 12:1–6).

A feeling of frustration, sadness, or distress because something has not happened or turned out as desired. Misplaced trust or hope will result in disappointment. Often in their apostasies, the people of Israel put trust in other gods or in foreign alliances. The prophets warn that such expectation will meet with disappointment (Jer. 2:36–37). In contrast, God is reliable and worthy of trust (Isa. 49:23). Three times the NT quotes Isa. 28:16 (Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Pet. 2:6), saying that those who believe “in him” (the cornerstone representing the Messiah) will not be disappointed. Although the working out of the plan of salvation and the future end of time are a hope that will not be disappointed, current disappointments nonetheless abound, even disappointment with God. When, in Ps. 22, the psalmist affirms God’s faithful pattern of deliverance, by which Israel’s forefathers have not been disappointed in their trust (v. 4), this affirmation comes in stark contrast to the disappointment expressed in the psalm’s opening question: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (v. 1). Thus, the surety of hope and trust in God does not mean a lack of disappointment or the suppression of its expression. See also Frustration; Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani; Hope.

Several words are used in the Bible to designate donkeys or asses, but they roughly point to two kinds: domestic and wild.

Fond of freedom (Job 39:5) and solitary places (Jer. 14:6), a wild donkey is mentioned several times in the Bible. The Israelites’ idolatry is compared to the lust of a wild donkey (Jer. 2:24). The mode of life of Ishmael and the desert dwellers is likened to that of a wild donkey (Gen. 16:12; Job 24:5). Israel’s political alliance with Assyria is also likened to the wild donkey’s wandering (Hos. 8:9). Such a derisive view is also found in Job 11:12, where the impossibility of a fool being wise is compared to the impossibility of the wild donkey being born a man.

Most of the biblical references to donkeys are about domestic animals. People, regardless of their social class or gender, primarily used this animal for riding. Riding a donkey usually means peaceful pursuits (Gen. 42:26; 1 Sam. 16:20), whereas riding a horse signifies war. However, riding a donkey to enter a city carries the connotation of a royal procession, as indicated in Solomon’s riding on David’s mule on the way to Gihon for anointing (1 Kings 1:33, 44) as well as in other ancient Near Eastern texts, such as the Mari letters (c. eighteenth century BC). Against this background, the Gospel writers understand Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem as the fulfillment of the prophecy about a messianic king in Zech. 9:9 (Matt. 21:1–11; John 12:12–16). (See also Colt; Mule.)

Donkeys were also important agricultural resources, used for tilling fields (Isa. 30:24; 32:20) and carrying burdens (Gen. 45:23; Isa. 30:6). Although these animals are small, other physical characteristics (e.g., long, hollow, sharp-edged hoofs, great strength, little thirst, fondness for prickly herbs) make them well suited for various tasks in the arid hilly regions of western Asia and northeastern Africa. Thus, they were highly valued as important assets (Gen. 12:16; Deut. 5:21; Job 1:3).

Domestic donkeys carry a variety of symbolic connotations. Proverbs characterizes them as stubborn, paralleling the necessity of discipline for fools with that of a bridle for a donkey (26:3). Isaiah uses their usual lack of freedom to portray the dramatic reversal in the time of restoration (32:20). Mosaic law forbids the yoking of a donkey with an ox in plowing (Deut. 22:10; cf. 2 Cor. 6:14). This prohibition may be intended to protect the weaker animal from being exhausted, but it may also be related to the general priestly prohibition of various types of mixtures. This conception of uncleanness helps to explain the descriptions of the severity of the famine in Samaria (2 Kings 6:25), of the Israelites’ spiritual adultery (Ezek. 23:20), and of Jehoiakim’s burial (Jer. 22:19).

Noteworthy is the use of donkeys as literary foils to their riders. For example, in the story of Balaam the prophet (Num. 22:21–30) the description of the donkey plays a crucial role in emphasizing the absurdity of the prophet. The donkey is able to see the angel of the Lord and refuses to move in fear, whereas the bribed prophet cannot see him and forces the donkey to move on by beating it three times. The donkey also delivers the word of God, rebuking the prophet for his disobedience to God. Although our modern conception of the donkey as stupid may draw out a sharper contrast between the prophet and the donkey, it is doubtful that ancient readers shared the same conception. Rather, the contrast is made between the ordinary animal’s recognition of the angel and the supposedly inspired prophet’s lack of discernment (cf. Isa. 1:3). Similarly, the donkey’s faithfulness in the story of the old prophet of Bethel (1 Kings 13) serves to highlight the prophet’s disobedience. Although the donkey here is not as active as in the Balaam story, its survival from the lion’s attack is contrasted with its owner’s miserable death. The portrayal of the donkey as faithfully standing by the corpse of its owner is also compared with that of the prophet lying dead because of his disobedience to God’s command.

Definition of Terms

The term “pagan” has two separate but related definitions in the English language, both of which are somewhat misleading when applied to religions in the ancient Near East. The first definition defines a pagan as someone who follows a less-established religion or a person who is outside the mainstream of belief within a given society. Applying this definition to an ancient Near Eastern religion is somewhat misleading because often within biblical society the Jewish or Christian belief system was the religion that was outside the mainstream. Being outside the mainstream certainly was a fact of life for first-century Christians, who often were persecuted as if they were atheists and for their failure to acknowledge a pantheon of gods, which was a mainstream belief. In OT society the competing religions, especially the Canaanite and Babylonian pantheons, certainly were more widely accepted and followed. Even within Israelite society these non-Israelite religions offered a viable alternative to the religion of Yahweh. Thus, if one were to use this definition either in the OT or the NT, it likely would need to be applied to the religion of the Jews and Christians and not the prevailing religions of the Canaanites, the Babylonians, the Greeks, or the Romans.

The second English definition of the term “pagan” involves the worship of the gods or forces of nature that control the world. This definition is applied specifically to agrarian societies, where the changing of seasons, the bringing of favorable weather and growing conditions for the crops, the possibility for prosperity that good weather brings, and a general desire for fertility are part of the religious understanding and belief system. While this definition certainly applies to many of the non-Israelite religions followed by the Israelites’ neighbors and to some of the Greeks and Romans of the NT, it also would apply to many of the followers of Yahweh in the OT who saw Yahweh as the God of the mountains and storms in direct conflict with the Baal myth, which ascribed these traits to Baal (see below). Therefore, it is prudent to remember that the label “pagan gods” is anachronistic and should be used with care when discussing the religions described in the Bible.

On a related note, the terminology of “idolatry” is also often misunderstood. Most of the non-Israelite religions discussed in the Bible would have understood the images of their gods to be representations of the deity (or even a throne or meeting place for the god) rather than an object of worship in its own right. While they would have believed that the god dwelled in the object and was present when worship was being performed, they would not have believed that the object was the god. Most of the idols made in the ancient Near East are indistinguishable from one another unless one observes their specific weapons. This, coupled with the idol’s anthropomorphic representation, rather than a heavenly representation, suggests that the concern for early worshipers was not to worship an inanimate image, but rather to see a representation of the god who indwelled the image if worshiped correctly. It was the presence of the god that was desired. Thus, the prohibition against images in the OT is a prohibition against trying to depict Yahweh in any physical form.

When dealing with the non-Israelite gods of the Bible, it is helpful to divide them into historical periods. Within the OT, the major groupings of non-Israelite gods should include the gods of the Canaanites and the gods of the Babylonians (which are very similar to the gods of the Assyrians). To a lesser degree the gods of the Philistines, the Egyptians, and the Persians can also be considered. In the NT, the gods of the Greeks and the Romans (which often are assimilated Greek gods with new names) can be considered. Along with these somewhat artificial historical divisions are innumerable personal gods and local gods worshiped by small groups of people or even by a single town or village. For example, Gen. 31:30 references Laban’s gods, which Rachel steals when she leaves home to travel with Jacob. These personal gods likely played a huge role in the day-to-day life of the average person, but most often they are lost to history. Similarly in the NT, the mystery religions of the Greeks and the Romans likely played an important role in the lives of many people, but they are difficult to reconstruct because of the limited amount of documentation that has survived.

Canaanite Pantheon

There is considerable overlap between the Canaanite pantheon and those of the Mesopotamian cultures, and often this can create some confusion about the deities being discussed, especially their names and functions. Further complicating matters, the descriptions of gods within the Mesopotamian pantheons often have fluid identities, as different textual traditions conflict with each other at times. Both the Canaanite and the Babylonian pantheons borrow heavily from the Sumerian pantheon, which adds both to their similarities and to the possibility of confusion.

Without question, the most important god within the Canaanite pantheon was Baal. The story of Baal, often called the “Baal Cycle,” describes the life and deeds of Baal. The cult of Baal was a fertility religion, and all the events of Baal’s life were connected to the changing seasons and nature’s fertility. The Baal Cycle also explained how the worship of Baal affected the agricultural success of farmers. This detailed story of Baal was all but unknown, except for a few details that could be gleaned from the Bible, prior to the accidental discovery of the city of Ugarit and its extensive library in 1928 by a farmer plowing his field. The city of Ugarit appears to have been a major trading center between the years of about 1450 and 1200 BC. Besides Baal, other important deities within the pantheon were El, the elderly, long-bearded father god; Asherah, El’s wife, or occasionally portrayed as Baal’s wife or sister; and Mot, the god of death, usually represented as a snake.

Baal was the god of weather, especially thunder, lightning, and rain (Baal is almost always depicted with a lightning bolt in one hand and a rod of power in the other). Other representations or symbols of Baal include the bull (the strongest and most powerful animal of the ancient Near East), water, mist, dew, grain, oil, and any other symbol of fertility. Worship of Baal was intended to keep him happy in order to assure the coming of spring (preferably, early), the necessary rain for crops, and finally the lengthening of summer so that two crops could be planted and harvested. The second crop, which often was the crop that a farmer could sell for a profit (the first being reserved for the farmer’s own food), was especially tied to the favor of Baal. Baal was worshiped not only in hope of agricultural prosperity but also for family fertility in terms of children and for help in battle. The primary means for producing and keeping the favor of Baal was by offering the firstfruits of any harvest to him. When the first portion of a crop was harvested, it was expected that a portion of that harvest (most often a tithe) be offered to Baal in hopes of receiving his favor and extending the growing season. Not only were the first of the crops to be given to Baal but also the firstborn of all herded animals. It was also a common practice for the firstborn of a family to be given to Baal in human sacrifice. Baal is often referred to as Molek in the Bible (e.g., Jer. 19) when describing human sacrifice. Another practice of Baal worship was ritual sexual intercourse between a worshiper and a priest or a priestess. This ritual sexual activity was thought to increase the fertility of the worshiper, thereby increasing the chances of having more children.

Apparently for much of the history of Israel, especially during the monarchy, Baal worship offered an enticing alternative to the worship of Yahweh. In fact, the stories of Elijah and Elisha serve as a direct polemic against Baal worship. Most of the stories of Elijah and Elisha use the symbols of Baal to demonstrate that Yahweh is much stronger than Baal. By the time of the first century AD, Baal worship was a thing of the past, but some vestiges of the worship remained. For example, in the Gospels Jesus says that a person cannot worship both “God and money” (KJV: “mammon”) (Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13). The Greek word translated “money,” mamōnas, is borrowed from Aramaic and actually refers to the worship of Baal, but by Jesus’ time it had evolved to take on the more generic definition “prosperity.”

Along with Baal, the worship of Asherah, a female member of the pantheon, was common. Although scholars are not completely sure of its form, it is believed that the reference in the OT to “Asherah poles” was likely a reference to a phallic symbol that represented fertility (Judg. 6:26; 1 Kings 14:23). Recently, several references to Asherah have been discovered in Kuntillet ‘Ajrud in northeastern Sinai, dated to about the eighth century. These inscriptions say that Asherah was the consort of Yahweh rather than Baal, providing further evidence for the amount of syncretism present in Israel during the monarchy. Another female deity, Ashtoreth (known also by her Mesopotamian name, “Ishtar”), is called “Queen of Heaven” several times in the book of Jeremiah (7:18; 44:17–19, 25).

In relationship to the infiltration of Baal worship into the northern kingdom is the debate about the nature of the “sin of Jeroboam” that was instituted by Jeroboam I when he, along with the ten northern tribes, ceded from Israel (1 Kings 12:25–33). At issue is whether Jeroboam was instituting a new religion based on the calves, thus becoming syncretistic with these tribes’ northern Phoenician neighbors (which would have been tantamount to introducing Baal worship into Israel), or simply rejecting the centrality of Jerusalem for Yahweh worship (which only a few years before had been centralized in Jerusalem by Solomon’s temple, resulting in the disenfranchisement of the Levites outside Jerusalem). Clearly, the southern kingdom viewed the events as apostasy, but whether the northern tribes did is unclear. Amos, for example, seems to focus his criticism of the cult at Bethel not on the worship itself but rather on the hypocrisy of the worshipers, who were not following the law as prescribed in the Torah.

Babylonian Pantheon

Although debate continues over the exact relationship between the two, the Babylonian pantheon had many elements similar to the Canaanite pantheon. There are dozens of primary documents about the religion of Babylon; the most important of them include the Enuma Elish, a creation story and apologetic for Marduk the chief of gods; the Atrahasis Epic, which has a version of the flood story in it; and the Epic of Gilgamesh, which describes the quest for eternal life by King Gilgamesh. Within the Babylonian pantheon, Marduk is the chief of gods, who is also the patron god of Babylonia. The Enuma Elish, which describes the creation of the world, deals primarily with the ascension of Marduk to the role of chief god by destroying the forces of chaos represented by the monster Tiamat and bringing order to both the pantheon and the natural world. Marduk, like Baal, had retained the most powerful cosmic weapons, which include water, rain, and war. The Epic of Gilgamesh describes the journey of King Gilgamesh, who is part human and part divine, in search of immortality. During the course of his trip, he learns that eternal life is reserved for the gods, and humans must make their mark on the world by what they do during their lives. The Babylonian religion and pantheon exerted its strongest influence on Israel during the exile. The biblical text clearly has been influenced by these Babylonian beliefs. However, the Bible consistently presents these viewpoints as contrary to the true worship of Yahweh and insists that only Yahweh deserves worship as the true creator of the world, vanquisher of chaos, and provider of prosperity and life.

Other Ancient Near Eastern Pantheons

The Egyptian gods are mentioned only briefly in the Bible. The most overt references to the gods of Egypt are found in the story of the ten plagues, which most scholars believe was a direct attack on the deities of Egypt by Yahweh. It is unclear if the calf described in Exod. 32 should be understood as an Egyptian god, a completely new or different god, or as a forbidden representation of Yahweh.

Little is known about the Philistine pantheon of gods, but it appears to be quite similar to the Canaanite pantheon (if not the same with local variations). The Philistines’ chief god, referred to in the Bible as “Dagon” (Judg. 16:23; 1 Sam. 5:2–7; 1 Chron. 10:10), likely also went by the name “Baal-Zebul” (“Lord Prince”), which in the OT is mocked by being changed to “Baal-Zebub” (“Lord of the Flies”) (2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). In the NT, this god is recalled when the Pharisees accuse Jesus of being in league with Satan (Matt. 12:24; Luke 11:15 [Gk. Beelzeboul]). Because the Philistines were known as the Sea Peoples, it is not surprising that this deity had several fishlike qualities (including a fish tail).

New Testament Religion

In the NT, the Greek pantheon that was subsumed by the Roman pantheon was the common religious expression of the day. Like other ancient pantheons, these pantheons tried to explain the natural world by the involvement of various deities in nature. Proof that Jews living in the province of Judah were under constant pressure to assimilate to the Greek religion is provided in the reports of the books of Maccabees that describe the Jewish revolt against the Seleucids in what was essentially a religious war against assimilation. In the Gospels, little is said about the Greek or Roman pantheons, but the book of Acts contains several reports of Paul’s interaction with the Greeks and their religious practices. Especially notable is Paul’s interaction with the Athenians when he debated philosophers who were followers of the “Unknown God” (Acts 17:23). Three other deities are named in Acts, including Artemis in Ephesus (Acts 19:24, 27–28, 34–35), whom the Romans called “Diana,” and Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14:12–13), called “Jupiter” and “Mercury” by the Romans, whom Paul and Barnabas were mistaken for in Lystra when Paul preached and healed a crippled man.

Summary

The problem of God’s people Israel worshiping other gods permeates most of biblical history. These reports range over time from the early story of Rachel in Genesis, to the period of the judges when Micah’s images (Judg. 17:1–6) and Gideon’s ephod (Judg. 8:26–27) were worshiped, to when Solomon and his wives were worshiping foreign gods (1 Kings 11:5–8), to the time of Ahab when all Israel followed Baal, whom Elijah vanquished on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:16–46). Depending on when one dates the book of Deuteronomy, the strong prohibitions against idolatry either went unheeded (if Moses wrote the book) or were a culminating statement of the anti-idolatry Deuteronomistic writer just before the exile. There is considerable debate about when Israel became an exclusively monotheistic nation (if it ever did), but by the eighth century BC, Isaiah and Amos castigate worshipers of these false gods. Clearly, by the time of Jeremiah, some factions within Israel (the prophet included) have begun to question whether the gods of the other nations even exist (Jer. 2:28). Finally, with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, ironically, the worship of other gods is ended. It is certain that by the time of the first century AD, the evolution to a monotheistic view is complete, and Paul can claim that an “idol is nothing” (1 Cor. 8:4), and that any sin is tantamount to idolatry (Eph. 5:5).

The law warns against those who claim to speak for God but whose words are not from God. Such false prophets are exposed when their predictions go unfulfilled, but even a prophet who makes true predictions is false if he or she encourages idolatry. False prophets must be put to death (Deut. 13:1–5; 18:20–22).

During the monarchy, some false prophets blatantly promoted Baalism (1 Kings 18:19; Jer. 2:8; 23:13). Others seemed orthodox but, motivated by greed (Jer. 6:13; 8:10; Mic. 3:5, 11; cf. Luke 6:26), actually said whatever people wanted to hear (1 Kings 22:6; cf. 2 Chron. 18:5; 28; Isa. 30:10; Jer. 5:31; Ezek. 22:27–28). A frequent mark of these prophets was that they stressed God’s faithfulness to promises of blessing while ignoring his faithfulness to promises of judgment. According to them, Israel would never be defeated, however much the people sinned (Jer. 6:14; 8:11; 23:17; Ezek. 13:10, 16; Mic. 2:6); the false prophets themselves set an example of licentiousness (Isa. 28:7; Jer. 23:14–15). Ironically, the complacency that this engendered increased Israel’s danger (Jer. 14:13–16; 23:19–22; 27:9–18; Lam. 2:14; Ezek. 13:5).

Often direct confrontations took place between true and false prophets (e.g., 1 Kings 18; Neh. 6:14; Jer. 20:1–6; 26:8–11; 28–29; Mic. 2:6). The true prophets pleaded with Israel to reject false prophecy (Jer. 23:16; 29:8–9). They pronounced judgment on both the prophets and their followers (Isa. 9:14–15; Jer. 2:26; 4:9; 8:1; 13:13; 23:33–39; 50:36; Ezek. 13; Zeph. 3:4; Zech. 13:2–6). False prophets would become blind to the truth they denied and become unable to prophesy at all (Isa. 29:10; Ezek. 7:26; Mic. 3:6). Their false predictions would be frustrated (Isa. 44:25; Jer. 37:19), and in particular the exile that they said would never happen was now inevitable (Jer. 14:15–18).

False prophecy was as much a danger in the NT era as it was in the OT. Jesus warned that “wolves in sheep’s clothing” would continue to lead many astray. Some would either promote the worship of false messiahs or even pretend to be the Messiah (Matt. 24:23–24; Mark 13:21–22), but, as ever, they could be identified by their “fruit” (Matt. 7:15–23; 24:11).

Paul said that any so-called prophet who opposed his own teaching, or who taught error while claiming that the teaching came from Paul himself, was false (1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Thess. 2:2; cf. 2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:8). Luke called Elymas the sorcerer, who opposed Paul, a false prophet (Acts 13:6–12). More generally, Peter saw all heretical teachers as direct successors of the false prophets of the OT, denying the Lord and exploiting the people for gain (2 Pet. 2:1). They replicate the error of Balaam (2 Pet. 2:15–16). For John, the particular mark of the false prophet was the denial that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 4:1–3). The third figure in the bestial false trinity in John’s Revelation is called “the false prophet” (Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10) and entices men and women to worship the dragon rather than Jesus.

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

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

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

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

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

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

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

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

Children, Parenting, and Education

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

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

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

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

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

Family as an Analogy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

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

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

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

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

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

Children, Parenting, and Education

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

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

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

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

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

Family as an Analogy

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

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

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

Several texts pertaining to the diagnosis of leprosy refer to the forehead (Lev. 13:41–43; 2 Chron. 26:19–20), possibly because it is an area of skin not covered by hair or clothing. Perhaps for the same reason, the forehead is often the location of an identifying mark, either of faithfulness (Ezek. 9:4–6; Rev. 7:3–4; 9:4; 14:1; 22:4) or apostasy (Rev. 13:16; 14:9; 20:4). These texts may be akin to passages in the Pentateuch instructing the Israelites to bind phylacteries on their foreheads—literally, “between your eyes” (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18). Aaron the priest is instructed to attach to his turban (i.e., on his forehead) a golden plaque inscribed with the words “Holy to Yahweh” (Exod. 28:36–38), intended to counteract any possible impurities of the people’s sacrifices.

In the writings of the OT prophets, the forehead is a symbol of obstinacy (Ezek. 3:7–9; Isa. 48:4). Jeremiah’s reference to the “brazen look of a prostitute” who refuses “to blush with shame” can be literally rendered “You have the forehead of a whore” (Jer. 3:3). This figure of speech may be an extension of the symbolism of stubbornness to the adulterous woman, or it may refer to the identification of prostitutes by some distinctive adornment of the forehead. Interestingly, Revelation describes a woman on a beast with a title written on her forehead, including the phrase “The Mother of Prostitutes” (Rev. 17:5).

A source of running water. Often, the word “fountain” carries the connotation of handmade architecture designed to enhance access to or the aesthetics of a natural spring. The vocabulary of the biblical languages does not rigidly distinguish between artificial fountains and natural springs, so that several Hebrew (’ayin, ma’yan, maqor) and Greek (pēgē, phrear) words can be rendered “fountain,” “spring,” “flow,” and so forth, depending on the context.

In Proverbs, the phrase “fountain [maqor] of life” refers to the mouth of a righteous man (10:11), the law of the wise (13:14; cf. 18:4), the fear of the Lord (14:27; cf. Ps. 36:9), and understanding (Prov. 16:22). Similarly, Jer. 2:13 describes God as a fountain of living water, an idea echoed in Rev. 21:6. In Prov. 5:18 the fountain (along with wells, cisterns, streams, and springs) symbolizes the fecundity of marriage.

The “fountains of the deep” mentioned in Gen. 7:11; 8:2 (NIV: “springs of the deep”); Prov. 8:28 refer to a particular aspect of ancient cosmology: the notion that the terrestrial earth is supported by pillars (see Job 9:6; Ps. 75:3) above a subterranean sea. In the story of the great flood, the “fountains” of this sea, the “great deep,” were a source of the waters of the flood. See also Fountain Gate.

The harvest was a major event on the yearly calendar of Israel’s agrarian society (Lev. 25:11; Judg. 15:1; Ruth 1:22; 2 Sam. 21:9–10). Life was dependent on the harvest. As a result, God set certain rules with respect to the harvest to help the Israelites keep proper priorities. Every seven years and every fiftieth year, the people were to give the land a rest (Exod. 23:10; Lev. 25:20–22). The people were to rest on the Sabbath, even during the harvesttime (Exod. 34:21). Some portions of crops were to be left in the field so that the poor might have food (Lev. 19:9; 23:22; Deut. 24:21). The people were to acknowledge God as the source of the harvest by offering the first of the produce (Lev. 23:10). Celebrating the harvest was commanded (Exod. 23:16; Deut. 16:15; Isa. 9:3). Planning for the harvest was a mark of wisdom (Prov. 6:8; 10:5; 20:4). Even as a good harvest was the blessing of God (Ps. 67:6; Isa. 62:9), so a bad harvest was a curse from God and the plight of a fool (1 Sam. 12:17; Job 5:5; Prov. 26:1; Isa. 18:4–5; Jer. 8:13, 20; Joel 3:12; Mic. 6:15). Failure to acknowledge God for the harvest was a sin (Jer. 5:24).

The harvest is often used in Scripture as an analogy. The prophets talk about the negative harvest of idolatry (Isa. 17:11). Israel is called the firstfruits of God’s harvest (Jer. 2:3). Hosea uses the idea of harvest to indicate that God’s people have a future (Hos. 6:11). In the Gospels, the harvest is used as an analogy for those needing to hear the good news (Matt. 9:37–38), for the end times (Matt. 13:24–30; Rev. 14:15), and for a lesson about unfaithful leadership (Matt. 21:33–46; 25:24). In the remainder of the NT, the harvest analogy usually refers to Christian growth and salvation (Rom. 1:13; 1 Cor. 9:10–11; 2 Cor. 9:10; Gal. 6:9; Heb. 12:11; James 3:18).

That which is given or designated as an enduring possession or lot, sometimes as recompense. “Heritage” is the common translation in the KJV in many instances where more-recent versions read “inheritance” (e.g., Jer. 2:7; Joel 2:17; Mic. 2:2). Sometimes “heritage,” which is more abstract than “inheritance” in modern English, is preferred in modern versions to speak broadly of recompense, either for godliness (Ps. 61:5; Isa. 54:17; 58:14) or for ungodliness (Job 20:29; 31:2). Other times, “heritage” is chosen when the object in question is human (Pss. 94:5; 127:3; Isa. 47:6; Jer. 50:11), or when the lasting nature of the object is prominent (Pss. 135:12; 136:21–22).

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

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

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

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

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

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

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

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

Children, Parenting, and Education

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

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

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

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

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

Family as an Analogy

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

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

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

Freedom from sin, guilt, impurity, blame, guile, or harm. This broad semantic range includes several Hebrew and Greek words. In the OT, one root, tsdq, which suggests “righteousness,” is used in a forensic sense (e.g., Gen. 44:16; Job 9:15), and another, nqh, which means “free from, clean,” appears in cultic contexts (e.g., Pss. 19:13; 26:6). However, because God is the ultimate judge, these spheres often overlap (e.g., 1 Kings 8:32; Jer. 2:35). Other words suggest a lack of guile (2 Sam. 15:11) or of impurity (Prov. 16:2; 21:8). The common phrase “innocent blood” (e.g., Deut. 19:10; Ps. 106:38) indicates that a victim of murder is undeserving of this fate. God warns Israel not to shed innocent blood (Deut. 27:25; Jer. 22:3). Innocence and guilt are calculated in the ultimate sense before God, who is “the Judge of all the earth” (Gen. 18:25). This is why the psalmist desires to be forgiven or declared innocent of hidden faults and kept from committing willful sins (Ps. 19:12–13).

In the NT, references to innocence are relatively rare, yet the range of meanings spans the forensic (Matt. 27:19) to the cultic (Matt. 12:5, 7), including the connotations of a lack of guile (Matt. 10:16; Rom. 16:19) or of impurity (Acts 20:26). The phrase “innocent blood” reappears, now applied to Jesus (Matt. 27:4; cf. 27:24), and the joining of the forensic and the cultic meanings of innocence in God’s judgment is explicitly stated (1 Cor. 4:4).

In Jesus’ trial and death, his innocence is clearly shown even though he is condemned as guilty. Judas acknowledges that he has betrayed innocent blood (Matt. 27:4), Pilate announces that he finds no basis for a charge against Jesus (John 19:4), and a centurion declares that Jesus is “righteous” (NIV) or “innocent” (NASB) (Luke 23:47, translating dikaios). God now “justifies the wicked” by faith in Jesus (Rom. 4:5).

(1) Renamed “Israel” by God (Gen. 32:28), he was the son of Isaac and Rebekah and was the father of twelve sons, whose descendants became the twelve tribes. Half the book of Genesis (25:19–49:33) narrates his story and that of his sons. The middle chapters of Genesis focus on his struggles with his brother, Esau, and with his uncle Laban, and the later chapters focus on his children Dinah, Judah, and particularly Joseph during his time in Egypt.

According to the Genesis narrative, Jacob’s mother, Rebekah, was barren, but God heard Isaac’s prayer, and she gave birth to twins, Esau the older and Jacob the younger (25:21–26). He was named “Jacob,” which means “supplanter,” because he gripped Esau’s heel during their birth. Isaac favored Esau, but Jacob was, so to speak, a “mama’s boy” (25:27–28). Jacob supplanted Esau twice, initially when Esau sold Jacob his birthright as firstborn son for some stew and later when Jacob pretended to be Esau, tricking his elderly father into giving him Esau’s blessing (25:29–34; 27:1–29). After the second incident, Esau swore to kill his brother, so Jacob fled to Harran, where his uncle Laban lived (27:41–28:5).

En route to Harran, Jacob had a dream of a stairway to heaven, and God spoke to him, repeating the Abrahamic promise of land, blessing, many descendants, and divine presence (28:10–22). He named the place “Bethel” (“house of God”) and made a vow to God. Upon his arrival in Harran, he fell in love with Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, and agreed to work seven years to marry her (29:9–30). When the wedding night came, Laban replaced Rachel with her older sister, Leah, and somehow Jacob did not notice until the next day. Jacob then agreed to work seven more years for both daughters.

The text records the births of Jacob’s thirteen children (29:31–30:24). Since Jacob loved Rachel more than her sister, God blessed Leah with four sons (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah), while Rachel remained barren. Following the precedent set by Sarah with Hagar, Rachel offered to Jacob her maidservant Bilhah, who gave birth to two more sons (Dan and Naphtali). Leah then offered her maidservant Zilpah, with whom Jacob fathered two more sons (Gad and Asher). Leah gave birth to two more sons (Issachar and Zebulun) and one daughter (Dinah). Finally, God opened Rachel’s womb, and she gave birth to Jacob’s last sons, Joseph and Benjamin, but she died when the latter was born (35:16–19).

Jacob ended up working for Laban a total of twenty years, during which God blessed both of them. God eventually told Jacob to return to the land of his ancestors, but Jacob did not tell Laban because he was worried that Laban would not allow Jacob to take his daughters to a distant land. Laban pursued Jacob, and eventually they made a covenant of peace (31:22–55).

After departing from Laban, Jacob received word that Esau was coming to meet him with four hundred men (32:1–6). Jacob was fearful and prayed for deliverance from his brother, reminding God of the promise to give him descendants as numerous as “the sand of the sea” (32:7–12). Jacob spent the night alone, and his prayers were answered in an unusual way in the form of a wrestler whom the text describes as both human and divine (32:22–32). The wrestler could not defeat Jacob, but he did put Jacob’s hip out of joint. The wrestler asked Jacob his name, but he had the authority to change it to “Israel” (“wrestles with God”). Jacob named the site “Peniel” (“face of God”) because he survived his face-to-face meeting with God. The next day, Jacob and Esau met not as foes but as friends, and Jacob told Esau that meeting him was like seeing the face of God (33:1–11).

The family crises that characterized Jacob’s life continued in Canaan. His daughter Dinah was raped by the Canaanite Shechem, so her older brothers Simeon and Levi retaliated and killed all the males of his city (chap. 34). After Jacob’s favorite son, Joseph, told his brothers about his two dreams in which their sheaves and stars bowed down to him, they sold him into slavery and told Jacob that a wild animal had killed Joseph, prompting Jacob to mourn for many days (chap. 37). Over twenty years later, during a famine in Canaan, Jacob learned that Egypt had grain, so he sent ten of his sons (but not Benjamin) there to purchase grain (42:1–5). When they arrived, the brothers did not recognize the official in charge of grain storage, Joseph, and bowed to him, fulfilling his dreams (42:6–9). When all eleven of the brothers later returned for more food, Joseph orchestrated a test to see if they would allow his younger brother, Benjamin, also to be enslaved, but when Judah sacrificially offered to be enslaved instead, Joseph broke down, revealed his identity, and wept (43:1–45:15).

Joseph told his brothers to bring Jacob and their families to Egypt because the famine would continue for five more years. Joseph rode his chariot out to the land of Goshen to be reunited with his father (46:28–34). In Egypt, Jacob blessed Pharaoh (47:7–10) and Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (chap. 48), and also uttered his final testament, involving blessings and curses on his twelve sons (49:1–28). He died in Egypt at the age of 147, but Joseph buried him in Canaan (47:28; 49:29–50:14).

Jacob is mentioned throughout the OT as a forefather to the nation of Israel (Exod. 2:24; 3:16; Deut. 1:8; 2 Kings 13:23) as well as in Psalms and prophetic literature as a synonym for the nation Israel (Pss. 22:23; 105:23; Isa. 41:8; Jer. 2:4). In the NT, he appears in the genealogies of Jesus (Matt. 1:2; Luke 3:34), alongside Abraham and Isaac (Matt. 8:11; Acts 3:13), and among the heroes of faith (Heb. 11:9, 20–21).

(2) The father of Joseph, who was the husband of Mary the mother of Jesus (Matt. 1:15–16).

This name means “mighty” or “dark, black.” (1) The second son of Ishmael and a grandson of Abraham (Gen. 25:13; 1 Chron. 1:29). (2) The nomadic tribe that took its name from this ancestor. These people lived in black tents (Ps. 120:5; Song 1:5) and possessed large flocks of sheep and goats, as well as camels (Isa. 60:7; Jer. 49:28–29). Their flocks were traded with countries as far away as Tyre (Ezek. 27:21). The Kedarites were known for their skillful archers (Isa. 21:17) and were ruled by princes (Ezek. 27:21). The importance of the Kedarites is reflected by Isaiah’s comment about the “splendor of Kedar” in his prophecy about their downfall (Isa. 21:16–17). Jeremiah contrasted the area of the Kedar, in the eastern Arabian Desert, with Cyprus, in the Mediterranean, as representatives for the extreme east and west (Jer. 2:10).

According to Gen. 10:4; 1 Chron. 1:7, the Kittites were the descendants of Javan, along with Elishah, Tarshish, and the Rodanites. Most translations read “Kittim,” and some treat it as the name of an individual (e.g., ESV, NASB, NKJV). Elishah is identified with the island of Cyprus, Tarshish with the coast of Spain, and the Rodanites may refer to the island of Rhodes. The Kittites are associated with the port of Kition (modern Larnaca) in Cyprus. Kition was a Phoenician port during the reign of Solomon. Biblical references speak of the coastlands (Jer. 2:10; Ezek. 27:6) as well as the land of Kittim (Isa. 23:1, 12 [NIV: “land of Cyprus”]). They were sea peoples vying for trade in the Mediterranean during the second millennium BC. Balaam (Num. 24:24) saw them as a military threat. During the first millennium BC the designation came to refer generally to the Greeks. The Qumran scholars who wrote 1QpHab and 1QM identified the “Kittim” of Dan. 11:30 (NIV mg.) with the Romans, recalling their defeat of the Greeks.

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).

Terminology

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

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

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

Types of Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

Torah in Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

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

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

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

Biblical Law and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Character of Biblical Law

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

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

The Law and the New Testament

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

Types of Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

Torah in Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

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

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

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

Biblical Law and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Character of Biblical Law

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

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

The Law and the New Testament

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

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

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

Several Hebrew words in the OT are translated as “lion,” most commonly ’ari, but also lebe’ (Ps. 57:4), layish (Prov. 30:30), and shakhal (Job 10:16). The terms kepir (Isa. 31:4) and gur (Deut. 33:22) probably refer to a young lion or cub, although the precise difference between the terms is not always clear. The only Greek term found in biblical texts is leōn. Lions appear to have lived widely throughout the ancient Near East in OT times, but by the time of the NT they appear to have been far less common in the wild, although the Romans used them for cruel entertainment.

The lion’s strength, ferocity, and unpredictability probably stand behind its symbolic use in reference to God (Job 10:16; Hos. 13:7), Israel’s enemies (Pss. 17:12; 22:21; Jer. 2:30; 5:6), and even the devil (1 Pet. 5:8). Overcoming a lion is a sign of strength and, in light of ancient Near Eastern royal connections, highlights the victor’s qualities as a leader (e.g., Judg. 14; 1 Sam. 17:34–37).

A harsh alkaline mineral cleansing agent leached from wood ashes. In some Bible translations, lye is referred to metaphorically in conjunction with soap, a vegetable alkali mixed with oil, to emphasize the inadequacy of human effort to eradicate guilt before God (Job 9:3 [NIV: “cleansing powder”]; Jer. 2:22 [NIV: “soap”]) as opposed to God’s ability to cleanse and redeem sinners (Isa. 1:25 NASB).

An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationship between a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.

Theology of Marriage

The biblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, which establishes a number of important points relating to marriage.

First, in Gen. 2:18 God highlights the first expressed inadequacy within creation: the man is alone. The solution to the man’s solitude is found not among the animals (a fact demonstrated by the careful search expressed by having the man name each of them) but in a creature specifically created to address the problem of his solitude: woman. She is created from his “rib” (a better translation is “side”), so that she is more like him than any of the animals. In spite of this, she is not a clone, but rather a complement to him. She is described as a “helper suitable for him,” which highlights her fulfillment of the inadequacy God had previously identified.

Second, the role of the wife is not restricted to providing a means by which to fulfill the command to fill the earth (through bearing children), for the problem identified in Gen. 2:18 cannot be reduced to this alone. The OT establishes that human beings are relational and social, and that isolation is not good, quite aside from considerations relating to childbearing. Indeed, when marriage is employed as a metaphor for the relationship between God and his people (see below), it can be conceptualized quite apart from the notion of procreation, suggesting that the latter should not be considered the primary purpose of marriage.

Third, Gen. 2:23 describes the relationship between the man and the woman in terms strongly reminiscent of the traditional kinship formula used with reference to family members elsewhere in the OT: “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (cf., e.g., Gen. 29:14; Judg. 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1; 19:13–14—similar to the modern English expression “my flesh and blood”; see also Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31). Although “be united” (other translations use “cleave”) and “one flesh” are frequently understood to refer to sexual union, this is not the only, or even the primary, implication of the words. Genesis 2:24 expresses the unification of the husband and the wife as the antithesis of the man’s leaving his father and mother. These terms (“leave” or “forsake,” “be united” or “cleave”) are used elsewhere in covenantal contexts. “Cleave” is usually used of people in the sense of clinging to another out of affection and loyalty (Gen. 34:3; Ruth 1:14; 2 Sam. 20:2; 1 Kings 11:2). It is also frequently used of Israel clinging to God (Deut. 10:20; 11:22; 13:5; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8). “Forsake” is used of breaking covenants (Deut. 12:19; 14:27; 29:25; Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17, 19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:9). The verb also appears in the context of marital divorce in Prov. 2:16–17; Isa. 54:6; 62:4.

The implication of Gen. 2:24 is that the man was formerly “united” to his parents in a familial relationship, but when he marries, the covenantal relationship with his parents is superseded by the new relationship with his wife. Thus, in establishing the covenantal relationship of marriage, the man and the woman form a new family unit (they become “one flesh,” which parallels the kinship formula more fully expressed in Gen. 2:23). It is noteworthy that Gen. 2 thus defines a family as husband and wife; a family is formed before any children are born. Furthermore, the emphasis on the priority of the relationship between husband and wife is particularly striking, given both the importance of honoring one’s parents (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) and the distinctly patrilocal nature of inheritance whereby sons would remain in the parents’ household after marriage and ultimately inherit a share of it, but daughters would leave their parents’ house to be with their husbands.

Fourth, the description of the woman as the man’s “helper” cannot alone be used to demonstrate that the wife’s role was either subordinate or superior to her husband’s. Although the term is elsewhere often used as a description of God, it is also used of subordinate helpers, and other contextual indications determine the relative status of the helper aside from the use of the term itself.

Marriage in the Old Testament

The Bible presents few formal legal, liturgical, or cultic requirements for marriage (whereas there are specific laws dealing with divorce), although it does record some details of specific marriages from which some insight into marriage practices can be gleaned. Marriages often were established through an arrangement between the parents of the husband and those of the wife or between the husband and the parents of his prospective wife (e.g., Gen. 24; 38:6), but there appears to be some diversity, with examples of a man choosing his own wife (e.g., Judah in Gen. 38:2) or instances when the consent of the woman is sought (e.g., Gen. 24:8, 58). The requirement of a formal certificate for divorce (Deut. 24:1, 3), together with examples of marriage contracts from the ancient Near East, are possible evidence that marriage within Israel required certification, although there is no explicit confirmation of this in the OT or in Israel prior to the rabbinic period. The marriages recorded in the OT often involved feasts of varying duration (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:12), the bride being accompanied to her home in a festive procession that included music and singing (Ps. 78:63; Jer. 7:34; 16:9), and a blessing pronounced over the bride that she might bear many children (Gen. 24:60; Ruth 4:11). Deuteronomy 22:15 suggests that evidence of the bride’s virginity was retained by the wife’s family to guard against false accusations by a husband seeking divorce.

Another aspect of marriage that appears to have been normative although not legislated was the payment of a mohar, or “bride-price” (Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1 Sam. 18:25), as well as the provision of a dowry (1 Kings 9:16). The former was a payment made by the groom’s family to the bride’s family, the latter an amount given by the father to his daughter. Typically, the former appears to have exceeded the latter in value. The bride-price, at least in later times, functioned as insurance should the wife be divorced.

The Bible does not issue any specific age constraints upon those being married, indicating that the OT practice probably did not differ significantly from that of other nations in the ancient Near East, where girls were considered ready for marriage once they had reached puberty or the age of twelve, and boys were generally slightly older. Constraints were placed on the eligibility of marriage partners, and generally marriages were endogamous: marriage partners were chosen from within the clan, tribe, or nation (e.g., Gen. 24:1–9; 27:46–28:5; cf. Deut. 7:3, which prohibits marriage with some, but not all, foreigners, and Deut. 21:10–14, which permits Israelite warriors to take a wife from among female prisoners of war). While there were exceptions to this constraint (e.g., Moses married a Midianite; Bathsheba was married to a Hittite; Boaz married Ruth, a Moabite), in later times the restriction was given legal sanction under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:2, 12; Neh. 13:25; cf. Luke 14:26; 18:29).

In spite of the likelihood that many marriages in the OT and the ancient world in general were arranged, the notion of romantic love as both an ideal for marriage and a basis for choosing one’s spouse clearly was known and even regarded as desirable. This is reflected in the approbation given romantic love in Song of Songs as well as in stories such as that of Jacob (Gen. 29:18; see also Judg. 14:1–3; 1 Sam. 18:20).

Socially, marriage was of particular import for a woman in the ancient world, for her well-being usually depended on her place within the house of either her father or her husband. Because inheritance was passed down the male line, women without connection to the house of a man were in a very tenuous state. Inheritance itself was also an important issue in the ancient world, and so great value was placed not just on marriage but also on bearing children (particularly male [see also Firstborn]). Associated with these social functions of marriage in ancient Israel is the fact that the OT permits and records a number of instances of polygamy (always polygyny, never polyandry). This afforded social security to widows (see also Levirate Law, Levirate Marriage) and helped ensure the line of inheritance. It should be noted, however, that neither the welfare aspect of marriage nor the related acceptance of polygamy is based on the biblical foundation for marriage in Gen. 2, and consequently, polygamy does not reflect the biblical ideal for marriage.

The fundamental importance of the marriage relationship is also highlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g., Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).

Marriage in the New Testament

Jesus reinforces the importance of marriage, emphasizing its divine origin and lifelong nature (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9) as well as its inviolability (Mark 10:2–12). In light of this, Jesus’ assertion that at the resurrection there will be no marriage is surprising (Matt. 22:30). Although Jesus offers no explanation as to why there will be no marriage following the resurrection, it is perhaps likely that the fundamental need identified by God in Gen. 2:18 (the man was alone) will be solved in a different manner in the age to come: the intimate help and companionship ideally found in marriage will be provided in perfected relationship with God and all others.

Paul elaborates somewhat on marriage in the Christian community. Christian marriage ought to be characterized by mutual submission in some respects (1 Cor. 7:4; Eph. 5:21) while reflecting some asymmetrical aspects of the relationship between Christ and the church in others (Eph. 5:22–33). Christians ought to marry within the church (2 Cor. 6:14–18, although this passage is not restricted to marriage); however, those who are married to nonbelievers are not to seek divorce, but are to remain faithful to their spouses for the sake of both the spouse and their children (1 Cor. 7:10–16).

The NT makes reference to some of the marriage customs of the day, including sharing a feast (Matt. 22:2–12; Luke 12:36; John 2:1–11), the expectation that guests be suitably attired (Matt. 22:11–12), and a procession to the groom’s home (Matt. 25:1–13; Luke 12:35–38).

Symbolic Use of Marriage

Marriage is used figuratively in both Testaments. The relationship between God and his people is described with marriage language (Isa. 62:4–5; Jer. 2:2). By using such language, the prophets emphasize the intimacy and unity inherent in the relationship between God and his chosen people, as well as the devastating betrayal when the covenant is broken. The use of the marriage metaphor is thus extended to the use of divorce language to describe God’s treatment of unfaithful Israel (Jer. 3:8), and the notion of adultery and promiscuity is equated with the worship of foreign gods (Ezek. 16; 23). The prophet Hosea’s marriage is itself a graphic representation of God’s relationship with his people and, in particular, their faithlessness; however, it also holds out the anticipation of a new covenant, one wherein God declares, “You will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master’ ” (Hos. 2:16). The metaphorical use of marriage to image the relationship between God and his people also reflects the implicit belief in the asymmetrical nature of the relationship between husband and wife in the ancient world.

The NT primarily identifies the church as the bride and Christ as the husband when using marriage language figuratively (e.g., Eph. 5:22–33). In so doing, the NT affirms Christ’s deity by explicitly depicting him in the place occupied by God in the OT’s use of marriage symbolism. Jesus uses marriage in his parabolic teaching about the kingdom of God (Matt. 22:2–14; 25:1–12), as well as in reference to himself as bridegroom when explaining the behavior of his disciples (Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35). Revelation depicts the return of Christ as the time of the marriage between the bride and the bridegroom (Rev. 19:7; 21:9).

The Hebrew name for Memphis, an important Egyptian city (Isa. 19:13; Jer. 2:16; 44:1; 46:14, 19; Ezek. 30:13, 16). See also Memphis.

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

Oral, ceremonial, or physical defilement, desecration, corruption, contamination; to make morally, ceremonially, or physically unclean or impure; to make filthy (Num. 35:33; 2 Chron. 36:14; Ezra 2:62; Neh. 7:64; Ps. 106:38; Prov. 25:26; Isa. 24:5; Jer. 3:1, 2, 9; 16:18; Ezek. 23:30; Zeph. 3:1, 4; Mal. 1:7, 12; Acts 15:20; 2 Pet. 2:10, 20). The choice of “pollution/pollute” rather than a synonym is a translation decision. The word occurs many other places in certain versions.

Pollution in modern secular usage generally refers to the dirtying of environmental spaces as a result of human activity, for example, air and water pollution. Proverbs 25:26 employs this understanding. More generally, the stewardship mandate given to humanity by God in Gen. 2:15 provides biblical support for the importance of caring for the environment. This would include reducing or eliminating known polluting activities and cleaning up previously polluted spaces. See also Clean, Cleanness.

The rendering of sexual services for payment. The biblical references to prostitution are perhaps best organized under three headings: common or secular prostitution, cultic or sacred prostitution, and prostitution as metaphor.

Common or Secular Prostitution

This type of prostitution is referred to in the OT by the Hebrew word zonah and its derivatives (though some argue that on occasion the word might refer to sexual infidelity in general) and in the NT by the Greek term pornē. Among the well-known prostitutes in the Bible are Rahab (Josh. 2:1–21), Jephthah’s mother (Judg. 11:1), Delilah (Judg. 16:1), and the two women in Solomon’s court (1 Kings 3:16–28). (Although tradition often identifies Mary Magdalene as a prostitute, she is not referred to this way in the Bible.)

Although there is no explicit, absolute prohibition of prostitution in the pentateuchal laws, there are major restrictions. No father should cause or allow his daughter to become a prostitute (Lev. 19:29). Priests were not permitted to marry prostitutes (Lev. 21:7, 14), though this seems to imply a less stringent standard for the general populace. A priest’s daughter who became a prostitute was to be burned in the fire (Lev. 21:9), but no such statement is made for Israelites in general. Earnings from prostitution could not be used for payment of vows (Deut. 23:18).

While prostitution was not absolutely banned, it was the object of severe disapproval and contempt in Israelite society (Gen. 34:31; Judg. 11:1–2). The book of Proverbs sternly warns young men against turning to prostitutes (Prov. 6:26; 7:10; 23:27; 29:3), but these warnings also give evidence that prostitution, however contemptible, was tolerated in some measure. This attitude toward prostitution accords with that in the larger ancient Near Eastern context, though law codes from other Mesopotamian civilizations restricted and regulated prostitution rather than banning it outright. In the NT, Paul particularly refers to the spiritual problem involved in a sexual relationship with prostitutes (1 Cor. 6:15–16). Strikingly, however, Jesus includes repentant prostitutes among the citizens of the kingdom of God (Matt. 21:31–32).

Sacred or Cultic Prostitution

The NIV in several places has the term “shrine prostitute” (Gen. 38:21–22; Deut. 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; Hos. 4:14). This is a translation of the Hebrew words qadesh (masc.) and qedeshah (fem.), which come from the word qadosh, which means “holy.” Traditionally, this has been understood to refer to male and female prostitutes who performed their services in connection with a temple or shrine. The payments went into the temple treasuries, and the sexual acts were intended to motivate the gods and goddesses to imitate them, assuring in turn the fertility of the land and fruitful crops. This was understood as being in accord with the practices of ancient Eastern fertility cults. In recent scholarship, this traditional understanding has been challenged on two points. First, a number of scholars have found little or no evidence that prostitution in the service of the temple was envisioned as stimulating similar activity among the gods, whether in Israel or in the larger Near Eastern world. Second, while qedeshah certainly refers to a female prostitute in the service of the temple, it is less certain that qadesh refers to a male prostitute; it may simply refer to male cultic personnel with no reference to sexual activity. Whatever the outcome of the discussion, the pentateuchal laws absolutely prohibit prostitution in connection with the temple or a shrine. Deuteronomy 23:17–18 seems to indicate that one of the motivations for women to offer sexual favors in the service of the temple was to pay off a vow, but clearly it condemns the practice.

Prostitution as Metaphor

Already in the pentateuchal legal texts, the sin of forsaking Yahweh, the God of Israel, to serve and worship other gods was analogized to prostitution (Exod. 34:15; Lev. 17:7; 20:5–6; Num. 15:39; Deut. 31:16). But the analogy becomes especially pronounced in the books of the prophets, which contain over half of the OT references to prostitution. Speaking through Jeremiah, God says to Israel, “Under every spreading tree you lay down as a prostitute (Jer. 2:20). In idolatry, Israel does not even “blush with shame” but instead has the “brazen look of a prostitute” (Jer. 3:1–3). Ezekiel portrays Israel and Judah as prostitutes who “lavished” their favors on any gods who passed by (Ezek. 16:15). Indeed, God complains that Israel acted even worse than a prostitute, for “you scorned payment. . . . All prostitutes receive gifts, but you give gifts to all your lovers” (Ezek. 16:31–34). Hosea, who was commanded by God to marry an adulterous woman in an extravagant act of love, mirroring God’s own love for the Israelites, buys and redeems his wife from her prostitution (Hos. 3:1–5). At times, other nations are also metaphorically identified as prostitutes, such as Tyre (Isa. 23:15–17), Nineveh (Nah. 3:4), and Babylon (Rev. 17:1, 15–16; 19:2).

Rivers in Cosmology

Genesis 2:10–14 describes the garden in Eden as the source of an unnamed river that subsequently divided into four “headwaters”: the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. This description defies any attempt to locate the purported site of Eden in terms of historical geography. The Tigris and the Euphrates do not diverge from a common source, but instead converge before emptying into the Persian Gulf. Moreover, the Gihon, if it is to be identified with the sacred spring of the same name in Jerusalem (1 Kings 1:45), is several hundred miles away from the Tigris and the Euphrates. The Pishon is otherwise unknown. If, as various commentators since antiquity have suggested, the Gihon and the Pishon are to be identified with other great rivers in the same class of importance as the Tigris and the Euphrates (the Nile, the Ganges, etc.), then this would further confound any attempt to understand Gen. 2:10–14 in terms of historical geography. The image of four rivers emanating from a primordial garden and dividing unnaturalistically from a common source is attested in ancient Near Eastern art, notably in the eighteenth-century BC wall painting illustrating the investiture of Zimri-Lim. In this image, two goddesses stand in a paradisiacal garden, guarded by mythical, sphinxlike creatures (cf. the cherubim in Gen. 3:24), holding vessels from which four rivers flow.

In his vision of the restored land of Israel, Ezekiel sees a great river emanating from the temple in Jerusalem, flowing into the Judean desert, and ultimately turning the Dead Sea into freshwater (Ezek. 47:1–12). Along the banks of the river, Ezekiel sees fishermen and perpetually fruitful trees. Similarly, the vision of the new Jerusalem in Rev. 22:1–2 describes a river of the “water of life” flowing through the city and watering trees that bear fruit in every month. In both cases, the visions draw on the notion that Jerusalem is the cultic and religious center of the world and therefore endow its spring—geologically speaking, an insignificant body of water—with a cosmological significance. It was perhaps this same impulse that led the author of Gen. 2:13, probably himself a Jerusalemite, to mention the Gihon in the same class as the Tigris and the Euphrates.

In Ps. 89:25, in the context of a poem describing the adoption of the Davidic king as a divine son, God is described as promising to “set his hand over the sea, his right hand over the rivers.” Like the sea, a symbol of cosmic chaos in ancient Near Eastern mythology, the rivers represent a force that is overcome by the divine warrior and then placed under the subjection of his human representative, the beloved king. In this connection, it is significant that the exodus—in many ways the preeminent foundational moment of the Israelite religion—involved the splitting of both a sea (Exod. 14:21–22) and a river (Josh. 3:16; Ps. 114:3) and the subsequent passage of the Israelites on dry ground. This people-creating deliverance, in turn, is comparable to the account of creation in Gen. 1, where the Creator God drives back the waters to prepare a dry-ground habitation for humanity (vv. 9–10). In Ugaritic mythology, Yamm, the sea god, also bore the epithet “judge river,” underscoring the cosmological connection between sea and river. As we will see, prophetic oracles of divine judgment, especially when they are directed against the river-based civilization of Egypt, often recapitulate the theme of the God of Israel fighting against the river.

The Nile River

The Nile (Heb. ye’or) is fed by two major tributaries: the White Nile, which begins at Lake Victoria, and the Blue Nile, which begins in Ethiopia. At over four thousand miles, the Nile is the longest river in the world. The ancient civilization of Egypt depended entirely on the flow of the Nile and upon its annual flood (the “gift of the Nile”) for irrigation of crops. Even today, arable land along the Nile is confined in some places to an area no more than a few miles from its banks.

Given the dependence of Egyptian civilization on the Nile, especially its annual flood and the accompanying deposit of silt, it is not surprising that the river figured prominently in Egyptian mythology and religion. In particular, the story of the dying and rising god Osiris was linked with the annual ebb and flow of the great river. The annual inundation is still impressive today; an ancient impression may be gleaned from Amos 9:5, where the prophet appeals to the rising and falling of the Nile as a description of divine, earth-melting judgment.

Two of the plagues sent by God upon the Egyptians took place at the Nile, an appropriate setting for a confrontation between the God of Israel and the Egyptian pharaoh, himself a living representation of the Egyptian pantheon. In Ezek. 29:3 the God of Israel says to Pharaoh, “I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, you great monster lying among your streams. You say, ‘The Nile belongs to me; I made it for myself.’  ” Since the Nile was perhaps the preeminent natural or environmental symbol of Egyptian culture, the God of Israel’s assertion of control of that river would have been understood as an unmistakable claim to sovereignty. At the time of the birth of Moses, the Nile was a place of extinction for the Israelites, for Pharaoh had commanded that every boy born to the Hebrews be thrown into the Nile (Exod. 1:22). Ironically, Moses was saved when his mother put him in the Nile in a pitch-coated basket, where he was found by the royal daughter of Pharaoh, who had come to the Nile to bathe (2:3, 5).

God told Moses to confront Pharaoh at the Nile (Exod. 7:15), and the first plague with which God afflicted the Egyptians consisted of turning the Nile into blood, causing its fish to die and rendering its water unsuitable for drinking. The Egyptians were forced to dig wells along its banks (7:20–21). The second plague involved the multiplication of frogs in the Nile, to the point of great inconvenience (8:3).

Isaiah continues the theme of God punishing the Egyptians by attacking the Nile: “The waters of the river will dry up, and the riverbed will be parched and dry. The canals will stink; the streams of Egypt will dwindle and dry up. The reeds and rushes will wither, also the plants along the Nile” (Isa. 19:5–7). The passage goes on to underscore the importance of the Nile as a source of irrigation water and fishing and the devastation that results from the failure of the Nile to flood as expected. In other texts, where the emphasis is on the better fortunes of Egypt, the power of Egypt is symbolized by the mighty Nile: “Who is this that rises like the Nile, like rivers of surging waters? Egypt rises like the Nile. . . . She says, ‘I will rise and cover the earth; I will destroy cities and their people’  ” (Jer. 46:7–8).

The Euphrates River

The Euphrates is the westernmost of the two great rivers of Mesopotamia (along with the Tigris [see below]), the land “between the rivers.” As mentioned above, the Euphrates was one of the four rivers flowing from the garden of Eden, according to Gen. 2:14. Along the Euphrates were located the ancient cities of Carchemish, Emar (Tell Meskeneh), Mari, Babylon, and Ur. The Euphrates runs over seventeen hundred miles from northwest to southeast, beginning in the mountains of eastern Turkey before joining with the Tigris and entering the Persian Gulf.

In the Bible, the Euphrates represents the northern boundary of the territory granted to Abraham (Gen. 15:18; see also Exod. 23:31). David extended his territory as far as the Euphrates when he fought the Aramean king Hada-de-zer (2 Sam. 8:3), and so the dimensions of Israel at its apex under Solomon are described as controlling all the kingdoms “from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt [i.e., the southern limit of his realm]” (1 Kings 4:21).

In addition to its significance as a political boundary, the Euphrates marked an important cultural boundary in Israelite thought. Abraham and his family are remembered as having come from “beyond the Euphrates River” (Josh. 24:2). The exile was described as a scattering “beyond the Euphrates River,” an expression that underscores complete dispossession from Israel’s own land (1 Kings 14:15). Interestingly, the cultures to the east of the Euphrates shared the notion that this river marked a major boundary, as evident from the convention among the Neo-Assyrians and the Persians of referring to western lands by the name “Beyond the River” or “Trans-Euphrates” (Akk. eber-nari; Aram. abar nahara). This was the name of the province encompassing the land of Israel in the time of Ezra (see Ezra 4:10).

Isaiah made use of the association between the Euphrates and the Mesopotamian empires when he likened the king of Assyria to the mighty waters of the river (Isa. 8:7). The Euphrates figures prominently in Revelation, where it restrains punishment from the north, a punishment that is released when God dries up the river, allowing “kings from the East” to cross over (Rev. 9:14; 16:12).

The Tigris River

Along with the Euphrates, the Tigris (Heb. khiddeqel ) was one of the two rivers of ancient Mesopotamia. The Tigris lies east of the Euphrates and runs over a course of approximately 1,150 miles from northwest to southeast, finally joining with the Euphrates and emptying into the Persian Gulf. In antiquity, the cities of Calah, Nineveh, and Ashur lay along the Tigris. The Tigris is mentioned twice in the Bible: first, as one of the four headwaters emanating from the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:14) and, second, as the location of Daniel’s visionary experience (Dan. 10:4).

The Jordan River

The Jordan (Heb. yarden) runs southward from the Hula Valley into the Sea of Galilee (also known as the Sea of Tiberias; modern Lake Kinneret) and from there through a river valley (the “plain of the Jordan” [see Gen. 13:10]) to the Dead Sea. Over its course of approximately 150 miles, it descends dramatically from an elevation of approximately 200 feet in the Hula Valley to an elevation of 690 feet below sea level at the Sea of Galilee, and then farther downward to an elevation of 1,385 feet below sea level at the Dead Sea. Fittingly, the name “Jordan” is related to the Hebrew word yarad (“to go down”).

In the story of the exodus and conquest, the Jordan River marked the boundary of the “promised land,” despite the fact that two and a half tribes received inheritances on the eastern side of the river (the Transjordan [see Num. 32:32; 34:12, 15]). For those living in the land of Israel, the river marked the boundary between them and what they termed “the other side of the Jordan” (Heb. ’eber hayyarden [Num. 32:19; Deut. 1:5]).

In the OT, several memorable stories are set near the Jordan. In addition to Joshua’s dramatic crossing of the Jordan (Josh. 3:1–17), the “fords of the Jordan” were strategic locations, and it was there that the Gileadites slaughtered forty-two thousand Ephraimites as they attempted to return to their territory on the western side of the Jordan (Judg. 12:5). Elisha instructed Naaman, the leprous Aramean general, to bathe seven times in the Jordan for the healing of his condition (2 Kings 5:10). When Elisha’s companions wished to build shelters for themselves, they went to the Jordan, where they knew they would find abundant vegetation and poles (2 Kings 6:2; cf. Zech. 11:3). When one of them dropped an iron ax head into the water, Elisha caused it to float to the surface (2 Kings 6:6–7).

In the NT, the Jordan was the site of much of John the Baptist’s ministry (Matt. 3:5–6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:3). John 1:28 specifies that John was on the eastern bank (also John 3:26; 10:40). It was in the waters of the Jordan that he baptized those who came to him, including Jesus (Matt. 3:13; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21).

Tributaries of the Jordan

South of the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan is fed by several tributaries. The Yarmuk River joins the Jordan just south of the lake, draining the biblical region of Bashan to the east. The Wadi Far’ah joins the Jordan from the west, halfway between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea, and drains the hill country of Ephraim. Nearly across from the Wadi Far’ah, the biblical Jabbok River (Wadi Zerqa) enters the Jordan from the east. In biblical times, the Jabbok was the limit of Ammonite territory (Num. 21:23–24). The Arnon River (Wadi Mujib), not a tributary of the Jordan, enters the Dead Sea from the east, opposite En Gedi. It was the border between the Moabites and the Amorites (Num. 21:13).

The Wadi of Egypt

In a number of texts the “wadi of Egypt” (or “brook of Egypt”) represents the far southern limit of Israelite territory. Some ancient interpreters understood this as referring to the Pelusian branch of the Nile River delta, while most modern scholars favor the Besor River, farther east, in present-day Israel. Besides the Bible, Assyrian texts also refer to the Wadi of Egypt. In 733 BC Tiglath-pileser III set up a victory stela there, perhaps to advertise to the Egyptians the southern extent of the territory that he claimed for Assyria.

Several biblical passages refer to the Shihor River as marking a boundary between Egypt and Israelite territory (Josh. 13:3; 19:26; 1 Chron. 13:5; Isa. 23:3; Jer. 2:18).

The Orontes River

Although it is not mentioned in the Bible, the Orontes marked an important international boundary in the biblical world. The Orontes begins in the Bekaa Valley in present-day Lebanon, then flows northward between the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon mountain ranges before turning sharply westward to empty into the Mediterranean Sea. Along the Orontes lay the kingdom of Hamath (see, e.g., 2 Sam. 8:9; 2 Chron. 8:3; Jer. 39:5). Because it ran through a valley that was an artery of travel from north to south, the Orontes was the perennial focus of strategic interest, and several important battles were fought at or near the Orontes. In 1274 BC the Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses II fought the Hittite king Muwatallis II at the Battle of Kadesh. In 853 BC the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III was challenged at Qarqar on the Orontes by a coalition led by Hadadezer of Damascus and including King Ahab of Israel.

A shadow may refer to shade generally, darkness, or to a specific shadow cast by something; “shadow” and “shade” also have other uses by extension. Perhaps because shade is a protection from the heat of the sun, shade and shadow are metaphors for protection (Pss. 91:1; 121:5; Isa. 49:2), as in the phrase “shadow of [God’s] wings” (Pss. 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 63:7). Since shadows change through the day and pass away, shadow becomes a metaphor for brevity, particularly the brevity of life (1 Chron. 29:15; Job 8:9; 14:2; Pss. 102:11; 109:23; 144:4), and for change (James 1:17 [though this text has other interpretations]). As darkness, shadow sometimes refers to a place to hide (Job 34:22) or to gloom or danger (Pss. 44:19; 107:10, 14; Isa. 9:2; Jer. 2:6). The “land of darkness and deep shadow” appears to be a reference to death (Job 10:21 ESV, NASB). And since a shadow’s shape resembles the outline of what casts the shadow, shadow may refer to that similarity as a copy, however imperfect (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5; 10:1).

Two miracles involved shadows. God gave Hezekiah a miraculous sign by moving the shadow on the steps backward (2 Kings 20:9–11). As people believed the apostles’ message, they brought the sick to Solomon’s Colonnade, where they were healed when Peter’s shadow fell on them (Acts 5:12–16).

The Hebrew word for “deep darkness,” tsalmawet, was seen as two words by LXX translators and rendered as “shadow of death” (skia thanatou). This wording came into the NT as a quotation or allusion (Matt. 4:16; Luke 1:79). Texts discovered from around the time of the judges in Ugaritic, a language closely related to Hebrew, have shown that tsalmawet is one word, meaning “deep darkness” or “gloom.” Modern translations have tended to change the rendering of this word, but some may leave “shadow of death” in Ps. 23:4 because of the popularity of this traditional wording.

A river that forms part of the boundary between the promised land and Egypt (Josh. 13:3; 1 Chron. 13:5). It is now connected with the Wadi el-’Arish, which forms the southern border of what was Canaan. In those cases where “Shihor” appears to be in reference to the Nile (Isa. 23:3; Jer. 2:18), it has been argued that the Wadi el-’Arish was once connected to the Nile and serves as the first sweet, freshwater that a traveler would come to en route to Egypt.

A river that forms part of the boundary between the promised land and Egypt (Josh. 13:3; 1 Chron. 13:5). It is now connected with the Wadi el-’Arish, which forms the southern border of what was Canaan. In those cases where “Shihor” appears to be in reference to the Nile (Isa. 23:3; Jer. 2:18), it has been argued that the Wadi el-’Arish was once connected to the Nile and serves as the first sweet, freshwater that a traveler would come to en route to Egypt.

A cleansing product made from alkali and mixed with certain oils. Alkali was a product of burning certain kinds of plants or trees and collecting the ash, potash. Soap was used to cleanse a person (Jer. 2:22; Job 9:30) and clothes (Mal. 3:2) and to purify metals (Isa. 1:25).

In the OT, heavenly beings or angels are sometimes referred to as “sons of God” (Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Pss. 82:6; 89:6). The more important background for the NT, however, is the use of the term with reference to the nation Israel and the messianic king from David’s line. Israel was God’s son by virtue of God’s unique calling, deliverance, and protection. Hosea 11:1 reads, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” Similar references to God as the father of his people appear throughout the OT (Exod. 4:22; Num. 11:12; Deut. 14:1; 32:5, 19; Isa. 43:6; 45:11; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9, 20; Hos. 2:1). The king from the line of David is referred to as the son of God by virtue of his special relationship to God and his representative role among the people. In the Davidic covenant, God promises David concerning his descendant, “I will be his father, and he will be my son” (2 Sam. 7:14; cf. Pss. 2:7; 89:26). Later Judaism appears to have taken up these passages and identified the coming Messiah as the “son of God.”

In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship. The angel Gabriel connects Jesus’ status as “Son of the Most High” with his reception of the throne of David (Luke 1:32). At Jesus’ baptism (which Luke identifies as Jesus’ messianic anointing [Luke 3:21; 4:1, 14, 18]), the Father declares Jesus to be “my Son, whom I love” (3:22), an allusion to Ps. 2:7. Satan tempts Jesus as the Son of God to abandon obedience to the Father and claim independent authority (Matt. 4:1–11; Luke 4:1–13). Peter confesses that Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16), and the high priest questions whether Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One” (Mark 14:61; Matt. 26:63). In these and other texts “Son of God” is almost synonymous with “Messiah” (cf. Mark 1:1; Luke 4:41; 22:70; John 11:27; 20:31; Acts 9:20, 22). In other contexts, Jesus’ divine sonship appears to exceed messianic categories. Jesus prays to God as his Father (“Abba” [Mark 14:36]) and refers to himself as the Son, who uniquely knows and reveals the Father. The Father has committed all things to him. No one knows the Father but the Son and those to whom the Son reveals him (Matt. 11:25–27; Luke 10:21–22). It is by virtue of Jesus’ unique sonship that he invites his disciples to pray to God as their Father (Matt. 6:9).

In the Fourth Gospel, the status of Jesus as the Son of God is especially important, indicating both Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father and his essential deity. John introduces the notion of preexistent sonship in which the “Word” from creation is the Son (John 1:1–18; 17:5, 24). God sends into the world his Son (3:16), who reflects the glory of the Father (1:14; 14:6–11) and who will soon return (14:28). Jesus affirms that “I and the Father are one” (10:30), that “the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (10:38). John’s purpose in writing is to provoke faith “that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (20:31).

Some scholars reject the royal Jewish background of “the Son of God” when investigating the phrase in the Gospels. Instead, they appeal to Hellenistic sources to argue that Jesus as the Son of God is a “divine man” (theios anēr), which accounts for his ability to work miracles. This line of thinking, however, is fraught with many difficulties, not least of which is that the epithet is never used to describe the “divine man” in Greek literature.

In Paul’s thinking, the corporate, Israelite background of “Son of God” is renewed with reference to the NT people of God. Paul states that “theirs [the people of Israel] is the adoption to sonship” (Rom. 9:4). Although ethnic Israelites are rightfully called “sons of God,” this status is contingent upon being people of faith: “So in Jesus Christ you are all children of God through faith” (Gal. 3:26); Jesus’ death as the Son effects salvation (Rom. 8:2, 32; Gal. 2:20). The Spirit also plays a role in testifying with the spirits of believers that they are indeed children of God (Rom. 8:15–16), by which they cry, “Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:3–6). The believers’ status as God’s children will be completely revealed when they share in Christ’s glory (Rom. 8:17).

The surface egression of underground water, a good source of water. Since water was scarce in the ancient Near East, spring locations determined human activities (cf. Gen. 24:13; Josh. 15:19; Judg. 7:1; Song 1:14). Owing to their perennial gushing, springs are also called “living waters” (Jer. 2:13 ESV). God applies the imagery of a spring’s dependability to himself (Jer. 17:13), and Jesus likens a spring’s ceaseless flow to the Spirit’s life-giving indwelling of the believer (John 4:10–14; 7:38).

A Hebrew transliteration of an Egyptian place name for an outpost bordering Sinai (see Jer. 2:16; 46:14). The word means “the fortress of Penhase” or “the house of the Nubian.” Penhase was a Theban general who quelled a rebellion in the Nile Delta (eleventh century BC). After the destruction of Jerusalem, a group of Israelites desired to escape to Tahpanhes. Jeremiah counseled against this, warning that Nebuchadnezzar would eventually reach Tahpanhes, and prophesying that if the people remained in the land, God would grant them mercy. However, the Jews did not listen and fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah with them. It was in Tahpanhes that Jeremiah finished out his prophetic career (Jer. 42:19; 43:7–9; 44:1). Ezekiel also included this city in his oracle against Egypt (Ezek. 30:18 [NRSV, KJV, ESV: “Tehaphnehes”]). The site of the city is associated with Daphnai (Tell Defneh, near Lake Manzaleh in the northeast Delta).

A Hebrew transliteration of an Egyptian place name for an outpost bordering Sinai (see Jer. 2:16; 46:14). The word means “the fortress of Penhase” or “the house of the Nubian.” Penhase was a Theban general who quelled a rebellion in the Nile Delta (eleventh century BC). After the destruction of Jerusalem, a group of Israelites desired to escape to Tahpanhes. Jeremiah counseled against this, warning that Nebuchadnezzar would eventually reach Tahpanhes, and prophesying that if the people remained in the land, God would grant them mercy. However, the Jews did not listen and fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah with them. It was in Tahpanhes that Jeremiah finished out his prophetic career (Jer. 42:19; 43:7–9; 44:1). Ezekiel also included this city in his oracle against Egypt (Ezek. 30:18 [NRSV, KJV, ESV: “Tehaphnehes”]). The site of the city is associated with Daphnai (Tell Defneh, near Lake Manzaleh in the northeast Delta).

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

Grape-producing plants are widely cultivated in Palestine. The first biblical reference to vine cultivation appears in Gen. 9:20, where the restoration of the earth is implied by Noah’s planting of a vineyard. The appearance of the vine in Pharaoh’s chief cupbearer’s dream implies widespread vine cultivation in Egypt (Gen. 40:9–11). Before the Israelites’ entry, the land of Canaan was also famous for the production of grapes and wine (cf. Num. 13:23; Deut. 6:11; 8:8). Several places around the region are named in the OT for their fruitful vines: Eshkol (Num. 13:23), Sorek (Judg. 16:4), Sibmah, Heshbon, Jazer, Elealeh (Isa. 16:8–10), Helbon (Ezek. 27:18), Lebanon (Hos. 14:7), and En Gedi (Song 1:14).

Vine cultivation. Vine cultivation is detailed in the Bible. A hilly terrain is terraced, stones are cleared, and soil is plowed (Ps. 80:9; Isa. 5:2). The walls are built up with stones, often with a hedge of thorny bushes, to protect the vineyard from thieves and wild animals (Isa. 5:2). Then young vines are planted where water is supplied (Ezek. 19:10). As their branches develop, they are raised up on supports (Ezek. 17:6). In the spring the vines are pruned so that they will bear good grapes (Lev. 25:3; John 15:2). Winepresses are hewn out of wood or rocky ground (Isa. 5:2). A watchtower is erected to overlook the vineyard, especially as the harvest season draws near (Job 27:18; Isa. 1:8; 27:3). When the grapes are ripe, they are gathered in baskets and taken to winepresses (Hos. 9:2), while some are dried into raisins. When the harvest is done, the poor in the village are allowed to enter the vineyard to gather the gleanings (Lev. 19:10; Deut. 24:21; cf. Isa. 24:13; Jer. 49:9; Mic. 7:1).

Since the production of grapes was of major importance to the Israelites, the continuing cycle of vine cultivation meant national peace and security (cf. “under their own vine and under their own fig tree” in 1 Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4; Zech. 3:10; joy of the harvest in Isa. 16:10; Jer. 48:33). Thus, the characteristic expression of planting vineyards and consuming their fruits signals God’s blessing (2 Kings 19:29; Ps. 107:37; Isa. 65:21–22; Jer. 31:5; 40:12; Ezek. 28:26; Amos 9:14), whereas not enjoying the fruit signifies misfortune (Deut. 20:6) or God’s judgment (Deut. 28:30; Ps. 78:47; Jer. 8:13; Amos 5:11; Hab. 3:17; Zeph. 1:13). Likewise, a feast with wine signifies God’s blessing (Isa. 25:6; 55:1; Jer. 31:12; Joel 2:19; cf. Jesus turning water into wine [John 2:1–11]), while the lack of wine means God’s judgment (Isa. 24:9, 11; 62:8; Hos. 2:9; 9:2; Joel 1:10).

Old Testament. The vine and the vineyard are important metaphors in the OT. The fruitfulness of the vine often symbolizes the fruitfulness or blessedness of a person (e.g., Joseph in Gen. 49:22; a fruitful wife in Ps. 128:3). In Song of Songs the vineyard is not only the main place of love (2:13, 15; 6:11; 7:12) but also a metaphor for the woman’s body (8:11); also, the “beloved” is compared to “henna blossoms from the vineyards of En Gedi” (1:14), and her breasts to the “clusters of grapes on the vine” (7:8).

The metaphors of the vine and the vineyard are also used of God’s people. In Ps. 80:8–13 Israel’s history is presented in terms of the vine-cultivation cycle (cf. Jer. 2:21; Hos. 10:1). A similar story is heard in Isa. 5:1–7, which compares the Israelites’ lack of justice and righteousness to the bearing of wild grapes (cf. “vine of Sodom” in Deut. 32:32; “a corrupt, wild vine” in Jer. 2:21). Ezekiel also uses the vine metaphor in rebuking the Israelites’ iniquity (Ezek. 15:2–4; 17:3–10; 19:10–14). If the aforementioned passages describe Israel’s history from its birth to judgment, Isa. 27:2–6 presents God’s promise of restoration through the story of the restored vineyard.

New Testament. In five parables Jesus refers to vines and cultivation (Matt. 9:17 pars.; 20:1–16; 21:28–32; 21:33–46 pars.; Luke 13:6–9). Notable is the fact that God often is portrayed as the owner of the vineyard (Matt. 20:1; 21:28, 33; Luke 13:6). In Rev. 14:18–20 God’s judgment upon his enemies is described by means of the imagery of the vine harvest, in which the enemies are trampled like harvested grapes in the “great winepress of God’s wrath” (cf. Isa. 63:1–6; Joel 3:13). In the vine metaphor in John 15:1–8, Jesus identifies God as the farmer, himself as the “true vine,” and the believers as its branches. No longer are God’s people identified as the vine, which is expected to bear good fruits; rather, Jesus is the vine, and the believers are his branches. So the fruitfulness of the branches depends on their adherence to the vine. Jesus’ use of the “fruit of the vine” at the Last Supper as the symbol of his atoning blood can be compared to his metaphorical self-identification as the vine (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18). See also Plants.

Water is mentioned extensively in the Bible due to its prevalence in creation and its association with life and purity. The cosmic waters of Gen. 1 are held back by the sky (Gen. 1:6–7; cf. Pss. 104:6, 13; 148:4). God is enthroned on these waters in his cosmic temple (Pss. 29:10; 104:3, 13; cf. Gen. 1:2; Ps. 78:69; Isa. 66:1). These same waters were released in the time of Noah (Gen. 7:10–12; Ps. 104:7–9).

Water is also an agent of life and fertility and is therefore associated with the presence of God. Both God himself and his temple are described as the source of life-giving water (Jer. 2:13; 17:13; Joel 3:18; cf. Isa. 12:2–3). Ezekiel envisions this water flowing from beneath the temple and streaming down into the Dead Sea, where it brings life and fecundity (Ezek. 47:1–12; cf. Zech. 14:8). The book of Revelation, employing the same image, describes “the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb” (22:1). This imagery is also illustrated in archaeological remains associated with temples. Cisterns are attested beneath the Dome of the Rock (presumably the location of the Jerusalem temple) and beneath the Judahite temple at Arad. Other temples, such as the Israelite high place at Tel Dan, are located close to freshwater springs. The Gihon Spring in the City of David may also be associated with the Jerusalem temple (Ps. 46:4; cf. Gen. 2:13).

This OT imagery forms the background for Jesus’ teaching regarding eternal life in the writings of the apostle John. Jesus claims to be the source of living water, and he offers it freely to everyone who thirsts (John 4:10–15; 7:37; Rev. 21:6; 22:17; cf. Rev. 7:17). This water, which produces “a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (John 4:14), is the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer (John 7:38–39).

Water is also described in the Bible as an agent of cleansing. It is extensively employed in purification rituals in the OT. In the NT, the ritual of water baptism signifies the purity and new life of the believer (Matt. 3:11, 16; Mark 1:8–10; Luke 3:16; John 1:26, 31–33; 3:23; Acts 1:5; 8:36–39; 10:47; 11:16; 1 Pet. 3:20–21; cf. Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22).

Finally, the NT also reveals Jesus as the Lord of water. He walks on water (Matt. 14:28–29; John 6:19), turns water into wine (John 2:7–9; 4:46), and controls water creatures (Matt. 17:27; John 21:6). Most important, Jesus commands “the winds and the water, and they obey him” (Luke 8:25; cf. Ps. 29:3).

Ceremonies marking entry into marriage. In the Bible, weddings initiate the formation of new households with the blessing of family and community.

Old Testament

In the OT, weddings were important to the patriarchs and to Israel because the new couple was expected to produce children to help fulfill the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:2; 17:6; 22:15–18; Ruth 4:11–13; Isa. 65:23). Heirs were also the assurance that a man’s name remained eternally with Israel, so much so that if a man died childless, his brother was obligated to wed the widow and produce children in his name (Gen. 38:8; Deut. 25:5–10). Moreover, weddings assured that property was kept within families and tribes and also transferred in an orderly way from one generation to the next (Num. 36:1–12; Ruth 4:5; Ps. 25:13).

Multiple wives were allowed in the OT (Gen. 30:26; Deut. 21:15; 1 Sam. 1:2; 2 Sam. 5:13; 1 Kings 11:3), as were multiple concubines, who had official standing in the household, though lower than that of wives. Weddings usually were associated with a man publicly taking a wife; he acquired concubines with less fanfare (Gen. 16:1–3; 30:3–5; Judg. 19:1, 3).

OT weddings included certain distinctive elements. The bridegroom or his father paid a bride-price, or dowry, to the father of the bridegroom’s prospective wife (Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16–17; 1 Sam. 18:25). The bridegroom had a more central role than the bride. He emerged from a chamber or tent to claim his wife (Ps. 19:5; Joel 2:16), who, in the case of a royal wedding, may have processed to him (Ps. 45:13–15). Both he and the bride were adorned (Song 3:11; Isa. 49:18; 61:10; Jer. 2:32); the woman was also veiled (Gen. 24:65; 29:23, 25; 38:14, 19; Song 4:1, 3; Isa. 47:1–3). Their wedding was the occasion of much rejoicing and feasting (Gen. 29:22; Jer. 7:34; 16:9; 25:10; 33:11) and lasted seven days (Gen. 29:27; Judg. 14:17). The main event was their sexual union (Isa. 62:5), which occurred on the first night (Gen. 29:23; Ruth 4:13). Unless she had been a widow, the bride was presumed to be a virgin on her wedding night, and evidence of her virginity, a bloodstained cloth, was retained as proof (Deut. 22:13–19). Virginity was essential to a previously unmarried bride; a woman who had been raped or otherwise engaged in premarital sexual relations was deemed defiled and unmarriageable to any but the first man with whom she had intercourse (Deut. 22:21; 2 Sam. 13:1–20). The importance of this underpins the shock value of the book of Hosea (see esp. 1:2), an extended metaphor that presents Israel as a prostitute nevertheless pursued by Yahweh as her husband.

New Testament

The NT continues to testify to many of these wedding traditions, significantly including the gathering of community (Matt. 22:2; John 2:1–2) in joyful celebration (Matt. 9:15; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34; John 2:9–10). Wedding feasts could be lavish affairs (Matt. 22:4; John 2:6–10), with protocols regarding seating (Luke 14:8–10) and attire (Matt. 22:11–13; Rev. 19:7–9).

In the NT, these and other first-century wedding customs illustrate aspects of the kingdom of heaven. The parable of the wedding feast (Matt. 22:1–14) contrasts the invited guests (corrupt religious leaders in Israel) who ignored the king’s wedding invitation and murdered his servants with those people, good and evil, gathered from the streets (the downtrodden) who took their place. Their willingness to attend is qualified only by their coming properly attired in wedding robes, which by inference were provided by the king himself (Rev. 19:7–8).

The parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–13) plays on the understanding that weddings occurred not at a specific time but when the bridegroom was ready. His readiness was determined by, among other things, the readiness of a dwelling place for his new bride. In first-century Capernaum, this would have been a room or rooms built onto his father’s insula, a multifamily compound surrounding an interior courtyard; the same image is behind John 14:2–4. The parable, identifying the Son of Man as the bridegroom, illustrates that while his coming in glory is certain, its timing is unknown. Therefore, the bridal party is to be vigilant and prepared.

Elsewhere, Jesus is specifically named as the bridegroom preparing to marry his bride, the church (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25–27, 31–32). The wedding feast at Cana (John 2:1–11), which begins Jesus’ public ministry, points proleptically to the marriage supper of the Lamb, which inaugurates the eschatological age (Rev. 19:7–9). The culminating picture of God with his people (Deut. 16:13–16; Matt. 1:23; John 1:14) is a magnificent wedding (Rev. 21:2, 9) between Christ and the new Jerusalem.

The rendering of sexual services for payment. The biblical references to prostitution are perhaps best organized under three headings: common or secular prostitution, cultic or sacred prostitution, and prostitution as metaphor.

Common or Secular Prostitution

This type of prostitution is referred to in the OT by the Hebrew word zonah and its derivatives (though some argue that on occasion the word might refer to sexual infidelity in general) and in the NT by the Greek term pornē. Among the well-known prostitutes in the Bible are Rahab (Josh. 2:1–21), Jephthah’s mother (Judg. 11:1), Delilah (Judg. 16:1), and the two women in Solomon’s court (1 Kings 3:16–28). (Although tradition often identifies Mary Magdalene as a prostitute, she is not referred to this way in the Bible.)

Although there is no explicit, absolute prohibition of prostitution in the pentateuchal laws, there are major restrictions. No father should cause or allow his daughter to become a prostitute (Lev. 19:29). Priests were not permitted to marry prostitutes (Lev. 21:7, 14), though this seems to imply a less stringent standard for the general populace. A priest’s daughter who became a prostitute was to be burned in the fire (Lev. 21:9), but no such statement is made for Israelites in general. Earnings from prostitution could not be used for payment of vows (Deut. 23:18).

While prostitution was not absolutely banned, it was the object of severe disapproval and contempt in Israelite society (Gen. 34:31; Judg. 11:1–2). The book of Proverbs sternly warns young men against turning to prostitutes (Prov. 6:26; 7:10; 23:27; 29:3), but these warnings also give evidence that prostitution, however contemptible, was tolerated in some measure. This attitude toward prostitution accords with that in the larger ancient Near Eastern context, though law codes from other Mesopotamian civilizations restricted and regulated prostitution rather than banning it outright. In the NT, Paul particularly refers to the spiritual problem involved in a sexual relationship with prostitutes (1 Cor. 6:15–16). Strikingly, however, Jesus includes repentant prostitutes among the citizens of the kingdom of God (Matt. 21:31–32).

Sacred or Cultic Prostitution

The NIV in several places has the term “shrine prostitute” (Gen. 38:21–22; Deut. 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; Hos. 4:14). This is a translation of the Hebrew words qadesh (masc.) and qedeshah (fem.), which come from the word qadosh, which means “holy.” Traditionally, this has been understood to refer to male and female prostitutes who performed their services in connection with a temple or shrine. The payments went into the temple treasuries, and the sexual acts were intended to motivate the gods and goddesses to imitate them, assuring in turn the fertility of the land and fruitful crops. This was understood as being in accord with the practices of ancient Eastern fertility cults. In recent scholarship, this traditional understanding has been challenged on two points. First, a number of scholars have found little or no evidence that prostitution in the service of the temple was envisioned as stimulating similar activity among the gods, whether in Israel or in the larger Near Eastern world. Second, while qedeshah certainly refers to a female prostitute in the service of the temple, it is less certain that qadesh refers to a male prostitute; it may simply refer to male cultic personnel with no reference to sexual activity. Whatever the outcome of the discussion, the pentateuchal laws absolutely prohibit prostitution in connection with the temple or a shrine. Deuteronomy 23:17–18 seems to indicate that one of the motivations for women to offer sexual favors in the service of the temple was to pay off a vow, but clearly it condemns the practice.

Prostitution as Metaphor

Already in the pentateuchal legal texts, the sin of forsaking Yahweh, the God of Israel, to serve and worship other gods was analogized to prostitution (Exod. 34:15; Lev. 17:7; 20:5–6; Num. 15:39; Deut. 31:16). But the analogy becomes especially pronounced in the books of the prophets, which contain over half of the OT references to prostitution. Speaking through Jeremiah, God says to Israel, “Under every spreading tree you lay down as a prostitute (Jer. 2:20). In idolatry, Israel does not even “blush with shame” but instead has the “brazen look of a prostitute” (Jer. 3:1–3). Ezekiel portrays Israel and Judah as prostitutes who “lavished” their favors on any gods who passed by (Ezek. 16:15). Indeed, God complains that Israel acted even worse than a prostitute, for “you scorned payment. . . . All prostitutes receive gifts, but you give gifts to all your lovers” (Ezek. 16:31–34). Hosea, who was commanded by God to marry an adulterous woman in an extravagant act of love, mirroring God’s own love for the Israelites, buys and redeems his wife from her prostitution (Hos. 3:1–5). At times, other nations are also metaphorically identified as prostitutes, such as Tyre (Isa. 23:15–17), Nineveh (Nah. 3:4), and Babylon (Rev. 17:1, 15–16; 19:2).

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

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

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

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

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

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

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

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

Children, Parenting, and Education

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

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

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

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

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

Family as an Analogy

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

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

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

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.

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

A valley on the southern slopes of Jerusalem, variously referred to as “Valley of Hinnom,” “Valley of Ben Hinnom” (lit., “son of Hinnom”), “Valley of the Sons of Hinnom,” or even just “the Valley” (e.g., Jer. 2:23). At least two kings of Judah, Ahaz (2 Chron. 28:3) and Manasseh (33:6), sacrificed their own sons in the fire at the Topheth, a site in the valley. The practice, which certainly extended beyond just royalty, was condemned by the prophets, Jeremiah in particular (Jer. 7:31–32; 32:35). King Josiah, as part of his reform movement, defiled the Topheth to prevent further child sacrifice (2 Kings 23:10). Three different gorges south of Jerusalem are candidates for the identified location of this valley. “Valley of Hinnom” becomes in Greek “Gehenna,” which in all its occurrences in the NT refers to hell.

“Go marry a prostitute” are the first words that the prophet Hosea hears from God in the book of Hosea (1:2 NET). His tragic marriage with Gomer provides an analogy for the relationship of God with his people Israel. God loves, confronts, pleads, becomes angry, and seeks reconciliation in this book containing words of judgment as well as hope.

The book of Hosea is one of the twelve Minor Prophets, but among these books Hosea is preeminent. It is the longest and appears first canonically, and it was one of the first of all the prophetic books to be written down. The emotive poetry depicting God’s heartbreak over the trauma of his broken relationship with his people is hardly matched anywhere else in Scripture.

Historical Background

The first verse sets the book into the reigns of Jeroboam II of Israel (784–748 BC) and Uzziah (769–733 BC), Jotham (758–743 BC), Ahaz (733–727 BC), and Hezekiah (727–698 BC) of Judah. It is difficult to pinpoint when it was during the reign of Jeroboam II that Hosea began his ministry or how far into the reign of Hezekiah he served. Scholars generally date Hosea’s ministry between 760 and 720 BC.

During Jeroboam’s reign, Israel expanded its borders (2 Kings 14:25, 28) due to the relative weakness of its two traditional northern enemies, Assyria and Aram. This expansion led to economic prosperity for the upper classes but oppression for the lower classes, which was condemned by the prophet Amos. Shortly after the death of Jeroboam, Tiglath-pileser III came to the throne of Assyria in 744 BC, and as Assyrian influence began to increase in Israel, political stability for the nation declined. The reigns of Israel’s final rulers were characterized by chaos, as six kings reigned over Israel in less than one generation (2 Kings 15:8–31; 17:1–6). Jeroboam’s son Zechariah was killed by Shallum, who was killed by Menahem, who was succeeded by his son Pekahiah, who was killed by Pekah, who was killed by Hoshea, who was exiled by Assyria.

Hosea’s oracles generally target the northern kingdom, with over forty references to “Israel” scattered throughout the book (e.g., 1:4–6), but the tribe of Ephraim is also mentioned over thirty times (e.g., 4:17; 5:3, 5). As the most influential northern tribe, Ephraim is often used synonymously for Israel, but some of the references to Ephraim may be due to the fact that after Assyria conquered and exiled most of Israel in 733 BC, Ephraim was all that remained until its destruction in 722 BC.

Outline

I. Historical Setting (1:1)

II. Hosea’s Family (1:2–2:1)

III. God’s Family (2:2–23)

IV. God Calls Hosea to Bring Gomer Back (3:1–5)

V. The First Set of Messages (4:1–11:11)

VI. The Second Set of Messages (11:12–14:9)

Message

The message of the book of Hosea is God’s; his voice dominates the book, whether he is speaking to the prophet or to the entire nation. While markers of God’s speech are concentrated in the first three chapters (1:2, 4, 6, 9; 2:1, 13, 16, 21; 3:1), clearly God is speaking in most of the remainder of the book (4:1; 11:11). Hosea’s first-person perspective appears explicitly only as he narrates how God has told him to go and bring back his wife, Gomer (3:1–5). Hosea may be speaking as the nation is called to return to God (6:1–3; 14:1–3), or these calls may be coming from the people. God also uses quotes from the people to illustrate his points (8:2; 9:7; 10:3).

God’s initial commission to Hosea to marry the prostitute Gomer serves as the frame on which to hang the content of the book. God’s primary message is that the people of Israel have been unfaithful to the covenant that they had initially established at Sinai after he had delivered them from enslavement in Egypt. God had said that he would be their God, and Israel would be his people (Exod. 6:7), so they had made a covenant that the people promised to obey (24:1–8). Just as Hosea’s heart has been broken by the unfaithfulness of his wife, God has been devastated by Israel’s adulterous behavior. Gomer gives birth to three children: Jezreel (“God Sows”), Lo-Ruhamah (“Not Pitied”), and Lo-Ammi (“Not My People”). The name of each child has significance in the book: “Jezreel” because God is going to judge Jeroboam’s house for the blood shed by his great-grandfather Jehu in the valley of Jezreel (see 2 Kings 9:36–37; 10:6–7, 11); “Not Pitied” because God will no longer show mercy to the nation; “Not My People” because he is no longer their God and they are no longer his people. The themes of sowing (Hos. 2:23; 8:7; 10:12), God showing pity (2:1, 4, 23; 14:3), and Israel as the people of God (2:1, 23; 4:6, 8, 12; 6:11; 11:7) reappear throughout the book.

The book cycles through patterns of accusation, punishment, and hope. God accuses his people of being unfaithful to their covenant. This unfaithfulness takes two primary forms: worship of foreign idols and reliance on foreign nations. Despite their commitment to follow God’s laws, they have blatantly broken the first two commandments: have no other gods, and make no idols (Exod. 20:3–4). The first ruler of the northern kingdom of Israel, Jeroboam I, had constructed two calves of gold, one in Dan and one in Bethel (1 Kings 12:25–33), similar to the one made by Aaron in the wilderness (Exod. 32:4). Jeroboam I’s golden calves have survived beyond the reign of Jeroboam II and contributed to Israelite apostasy during the period of the entire northern monarchy. The book of Hosea specifically condemns calf worship (8:5–6; 10:5), which even took the form of kissing the calves (13:2). Israel’s idolatry also involved consulting blocks of wood instead of God (4:12), joining themselves to idols (4:17), constructing idols of silver and gold (8:4), and sacrificing to idols (10:5).

Because God wants Israel to be exclusively committed to him, he has forbidden them from making treaties with other nations (Exod. 34:12, 15; Deut. 7:2; 23:6). The book of Hosea describes their disobedience to this command in their dealings with Assyria and Egypt. God accuses them of depending on Assyria (Hos. 5:13; 7:11; 8:9; 12:1) and declares that the calf they worship will be exiled to Assyria (10:6), and Assyria will become their king (11:5). God reminds Israel of the Egyptian deliverance in the past (2:15; 11:1; 12:13; 13:4), he condemns their reliance on Egypt in the present (7:11, 16; 12:1), and he proclaims that they will return to Egypt in the future (8:13; 9:3, 6; 11:5). The “return to Egypt” should be interpreted not geographically but figuratively, as a return to bondage and exile, which will be performed by Assyria first in 733 BC and finally in 722 BC.

Israel’s sins provoke God’s anger (5:10; 8:5; 13:11) and prompt him to declare that he will punish his people (1:4; 2:13; 4:9; 5:2, 9; 8:13; 9:7, 9; 10:10). The punishment sent by God specifically targets Israel’s king, though it is difficult to be certain which one. Jehu’s house is the subject of the first royal condemnation (1:4–5), which may refer to the assassination of Zechariah, Jeroboam II’s son (2 Kings 15:8–10). The king is called to listen to the judgment because it pertains to him (Hos. 5:1). Some of Israel’s kings have already fallen (7:7), which may refer to the period of monarchical instability after Jeroboam II. Eventually, Israel’s king will be completely cut off (3:4; 10:3, 7, 15; 13:10), which happened in 722 BC, when Assyria destroyed the capital Samaria.

In the midst of accusation and punishment, the book also includes words of hope, specifically that Israel will return to its God, and their relationship will be restored. Three times the people are called to return to God: in the beginning (2:14–23), in the middle (6:1–3), and at the end of the book (14:1–3). God views his people not only as his wife but also as his children (11:1–4), and he promises that because of his compassion his anger will cease (11:8–9) and he will lead his children as they return to their homes (11:11). In a surprising twist, immediately after telling Hosea to give the three children names signifying judgment (1:4–9), God declares that Israel will be called the “children of the living God,” and the children’s names change to “Ammi” (“My People”) and “Ruhamah” (“Pity”) (1:10–2:1 NET). God also promises that the people of Israel will be as numerous as the sand of the seashore (1:10), recalling his promise to Abraham (Gen. 22:17).

Both parental and marital imagery from the book of Hosea appear elsewhere in Scripture. While in Hosea the line “out of Egypt I called my son” (11:1) refers to God bringing his “children” out of Egyptian bondage, Matthew shows how it also describes early events in Jesus’ life as his family fled to Egypt (Matt. 2:15). Jeremiah graphically describes the sins of Judah as adultery and faithlessness (Jer. 3:1–25). Paul compares the relationship between a husband and a wife to that of Christ and the church (Eph. 5:23–24). The book of Revelation concludes by describing how the residents of the new Jerusalem will be adorned like a bride for her husband, and they will be his people and he will be their God (Rev. 21:2–9; 22:17).

Terminology

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

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

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

Types of Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

Torah in Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

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

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

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

Biblical Law and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Character of Biblical Law

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

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

The Law and the New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

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

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

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

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

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

Children, Parenting, and Education

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

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

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

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

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

Family as an Analogy

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

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

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

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

Heaven and Earth

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

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

The Theology of Land

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

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

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

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

Inheritance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A pagan religious practice with the object of securing fertility of both land and the womb. Its history can be traced back to the earliest periods in human history, originating with the basic human desire for abundant life. Its theology is similar to that of sympathetic magic. A characteristic feature of fertility cults is sacral sexual intercourse by priests and priestesses or other specially consecrated persons—“cultic prostitutes” of both sexes—intended to emulate and stimulate deities thought to bestow fertility.

In the early third millennium BC, the Mesopotamians developed the sacred marriage rite, as an essential element of their religious faith and ritual. The rite involved a priestess who represented Inanna (or Ishtar), the goddess of love, and a king who represented the dying and rising god Dumuzi (or Tammuz). This ritual was performed on New Year’s Eve and was informed by the belief that the union of gods and goddesses would increase the fertility of land, people, and beasts. In the high temple of some ziggurats was found a bedchamber in which sacred marriage ceremonies took place. This sacred “prostitution” was celebrated all over the ancient Near East for about two thousand years. The Canaanite culture into which ancient Israel came has often been described in terms of the depraved fertility cult, which involved boisterous wine drinking and ecstatic frenzy culminating in self-laceration, self-emasculation, or sexual orgy. Child sacrifice was also considered a feature of the Canaanite fertility cult. Although the evidence from second-millennium BC Ugarit provides little support for this portrayal of the fertility cult in Canaan, judging from the late first-millennium BC evidence from Phoenicia and Greece, one cannot rule out the possibility that during the Israelite monarchy the religious cult did include some degree of depravity.

There are many allusions in the Bible to the Canaanite fertility cult. These can be seen in biblical injunctions or stories that directly or indirectly impugn the practices of “inhabitants of the land.” Deuteronomy 23:18, for instance, states that God detests cultic prostitution. Later, 1 Kings 14:23–24 mentions, from the time of Rehoboam (tenth century BC), local shrines where male prostitutes were installed and Israelites engaged in “all the detestable practices of the nations.” Asa expelled male prostitutes from Israel (1 Kings 15:12). Josiah also pulled down the houses of qedeshim (“sacred prostitutes”) where women wove vestments in honor of Asherah (2 Kings 23:6–7). Jeremiah condemns the Israelites who engaged in the pagan cultic prostitution by asking, “Look up to the barren heights and see. Is there any place where you have not been ravished?” (Jer. 3:2). The cult of the Queen of Heaven (most likely Ishtar) may have been a fertility cult (44:15–30).

The influence of the Canaanite fertility cult on the Israelites is demonstrated by hordes of pillared figurines from the eighth and seventh centuries BC that were found in the debris of private homes in Jerusalem. The exaggerated sexual feature of the pillared figurines suggests that they were related to the cult of the mother goddess and were used as talismans to aid conception and childbirth. This discovery is not a surprise, given the prophetic condemnation of such images (Isa. 42:17; 44:9–17). By Hellenistic times, cultic prostitution seems to have been well established as a fertility cult. The temple of Aphrodite in Corinth had more than a thousand cultic prostitutes. Strabo, the classical historian, claimed that the prosperity of Corinth was dependent on these temple prostitutes. When Paul warns his congregation in Corinth against immorality (1 Cor. 6:12–20), he is warning them not only against ordinary prostitutes but also against cultic prostitutes.

The theology of the fertility cult stands in stark contrast to that of Yahwism. The fertility cult is informed by the belief in the autonomous power of cyclical nature and the belief that the balance in nature may be restored by magical manipulations of the gods. In Israel’s faith, however, Yahweh manifests himself not merely in the cyclical events of nature but rather in unrepeatable historical events, and in these events he, unlike the pagan gods, acts purposefully according to his sovereign will. Israel’s religion, therefore, offered no ritual technique for manipulating the unseen powers of nature for selfish ends. Yahweh was no pagan maintainer of the status quo to be appeased by ritual; rather he was the one who had called Israel from bondage to a new future as his people and demanded their obedience.

In the Bible, gestures are made with either parts of the body or items, such as clothing and rings, directly connected to the body. For this reason, it makes sense to classify biblical gestures in relation to the different body parts that are identified with the gestures. It is, however, challenging to know where to draw a line on classifying a gesture. For example, a devious person is described in Prov. 6:13 as one “who winks maliciously with his eye, signals with his feet and motions with his fingers.” It is unclear whether this is a single gesture or multiple ones, and whether all signify different things or the same thing.

Head

Gestures that relate to the head range from simple head motions to semiviolent acts such as hair pulling. Simple head motions include lifting of one’s head in honor (Gen. 40:13), bowing one’s head in mourning (Ps. 35:14), tossing one’s head in mockery and derision (2 Kings 19:21), and shaking one’s head as insult (Ps. 22:7; Mark 15:29).

A common action is the shaving of the head, which can be for purification (Lev. 14:8–9; Num. 6:9; 8:7 [includes all body hair]), mourning (Deut. 21:11–13; Job 1:20; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 16:6; 47:5; 48:37; Ezek. 27:31; Amos 8:10; Mic. 1:16), remorse (Jer. 41:5), or shaming (Jer. 2:16). However, priests are forbidden from shaving their heads even in mourning (Lev. 21:5; Ezek. 44:20), while the high priest is to wear a turban on his head during sacrificial duties (Exod. 29:6).

Anointing of the head is done when a priest or king is installed (Exod. 29:7; Ps. 23:5) or simply as a sign of God’s goodness and blessing on a person (Eccles. 9:8). Blessing may also involve placing a hand on the head of the person being blessed (Gen. 48:14–18; Exod. 29:19), while the same gesture on the head of sacrificial animals is a symbolic means of transferring sin (Lev. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33; 8:18, 22).

In the OT, a woman’s head can be shaved in mourning (Deut. 21:12–13; cf. Jer. 47:5), but in the NT, a shaved head can be a cause for disgrace (1 Cor. 11:5–6).

Face. Facial gestures range from expressions to actions such as touching or covering the face. A face can be downcast in anger (Gen. 4:5–6) or bowed to the ground in honor (Gen. 48:12), in dejection (Josh. 7:6), in humility (Ruth 2:10), in worship (2 Chron. 20:18; Ps. 138:2), in subjection, supplication, reverence (1 Sam. 20:41; 25:41; 28:14; 2 Sam. 14:4, 22; 18:28; 24:20; 1 Kings 1:23; 1 Chron. 21:20), or in dread (e.g., Moses before Yahweh [Exod. 3:6]).

The face can be covered or veiled as an indication of uncleanness (Lev. 13:45), in grief/mourning (2 Sam. 19:4; Ezek. 24:17), in resignation (1 Kings 19:13), with intent to deceive in adultery (Job 24:15), or in horror of judgment (Esther 7:8; Ezek. 12:6, 12). It can also be buried in the dust in remorse (Lam. 3:29).

God can be described as hiding or turning away his face against wickedness and evil (Deut. 31:18; 32:20; Ps. 34:16; Isa. 8:17; Jer. 33:5; Ezek. 7:22; 15:7; 20:46; 21:2) or in an act of withholding blessings (Job 13:15; Pss. 10:1; 13:1; 27:9; 30:7; 34:16; Isa. 54:8; 59:2; 64:7). God can also turn his face toward a place in judgment (Ezek. 4:3, 7; 6:2). In 1 Sam. 5:3–4 the idol of the Philistine god Dagon falls facedown before the ark of the covenant, apparently overpowered by Yahweh.

Acts of humiliation or dishonor can involve spitting in the face (Num. 12:14; Deut. 25:9; Job 17:6; 30:10; Isa. 50:6), slapping the face (1 Kings 22:24; 2 Chron. 18:23; Job 16:10; Lam. 3:30; Mic. 5:1), pulling a skirt up over someone’s face in shaming judgment (Jer. 13:26; Nah. 3:5), and hooking and dragging someone by the nose (2 Kings 19:28). Although being struck on the cheek is humiliating, Jesus instructs his disciples to “turn the other cheek” as a sign of resistance to violence (Matt. 5:39; Luke 6:29).

One can lift one’s face in worship (2 Kings 20:2; Job 22:26; Isa. 38:2) or in confidence (Job 11:15) and can fail to lift it in shame and disgrace (Ezra 9:6). Although the shaving of beards in mourning is common practice (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5; 48:37), the forced shaving of beards is an act of shaming and insulting (2 Sam. 10:4; 1 Chron. 19:4–5; Isa. 7:20; 50:6).

Eyes. Winking the eye is perceived as an evil, deceptive, or malicious act (Ps. 35:19; Prov. 6:13; 16:30). Eyes can be lifted up in worship and expectation (Pss. 121:1; 123:1).

Mouth. Pursed lips can characterize an evil person (Prov. 16:30), while a hand can be clapped over the mouth in awe and submission (Job 21:5; 40:4). Psalm 72:9 looks to the righteous king before whom the desert tribes will bow and whose “enemies lick the dust” in defeat.

Ears. An Israelite slave for life is to have a hole punched through his or her earlobe, held against a doorpost, with an awl (Exod. 21:6; Deut. 15:17). Blood is sprinkled on the lobe of the right ear for purification (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17), while supplication can be described as asking for the turning of an ear (2 Kings 19:16; Ps. 31:2). Turning one’s ear signifies paying attention or taking something to heart (Ps. 49:4; Prov. 4:20; 5:13).

Neck. The neck can be adorned (Song 1:10) as a sign of pride and honor (Gen. 41:42; Judg. 5:30; Prov. 1:9; Ezek. 16:11) or outstretched in arrogance (Ps. 75:5 TNIV: “Do not lift your horns against heaven; do not speak with outstretched neck”). Jeremiah put a yoke on his neck as a prophetic sign of the approaching Babylonian conquest (Jer. 27–28). While putting someone’s neck in a yoke is an act of triumphal conquest (Ps. 105:18), stepping on the neck of a subdued enemy is an act of subjugation and humiliation (Josh. 10:24).

Body

Nakedness in public is considered shameful (Gen. 9:22–23; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18), so that it is sometimes pictured as part of divine judgment (Deut. 28:48; Isa. 47:2–3; Lam. 1:8; Mic. 1:11) or as a sign of promiscuity (Isa. 57:8; Ezek. 16:36). An unkempt body can be a sign of mourning, as it is for Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 19:24). A certain kind of body covering is a sign of marriage proposal or protection (Ezek. 16:8; 23:18; Hos. 2:9). Body dismembering, even in war, is an act of humiliation (2 Sam. 4:12).

Chest. In self-mortification, one can pound one’s chest in mourning (Ezek. 21:12) or in remorse (Jer. 31:19; Luke 18:13). The breasts of sacrificial animals are waved before God as a “wave offering” before being eaten (Exod. 29:26; Lev. 7:30; Num. 6:20).

Hand, arm. Hand gestures include motions such as lifting hands in worship, clapping hands in joy, and clapping a hand over one’s mouth in awe. The expression “outstretched arm” (Exod. 6:6; Deut. 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 26:8; 1 Kings 8:42; 2 Kings 17:36; 2 Chron. 6:32; Ps. 136:12; Jer. 21:5; 27:5; 32:17, 21; Ezek. 20:33–34) indicates power, might, strength. It is often used of God to indicate his ability to defeat powerful armies and enemies. God is implored by the psalmist to lift his hand and act for the sake of the righteous (Ps. 10:12).

Since the right hand is the hand of power, the act of sitting at the right hand indicates being favored (1 Kings 2:19; Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22). When taking an oath, one places a hand under the thigh/crotch (Gen. 24:2; 47:29), most likely the right hand (see Gen. 48:14, 17–18; Lev. 8:23; 14:14).

Clapping the hands can be a sign of awe (Ezek. 6:11), malice, or remorse (25:6), while a bared arm can be a sign of judgment (4:7). Job claps his hand over his mouth in awe of God and in submission and repentance (Job 40:4–5).

Hands can be lifted in worship (1 Kings 8:22; 1 Tim. 2:8), to beseech (Ps. 28:2), to protect and bless (Ps. 10:12), in an oath (Deut. 32:40), or to harm (Exod. 24:11; 1 Sam. 24:6, 10; 2 Sam.1:14; 18:12).

Pilate washes his hands to proclaim his innocence over the death of Jesus (Matt. 27:24), while 1 Pet. 5:6 urges believers to humble themselves “under God’s mighty hand,” so that in due time they will be lifted up.

Buttocks. Exposure of the buttocks can serve as a humiliating insult and provocation, as happens to David’s men (2 Sam. 10:4; 1 Chron. 19:4) and Egyptian and Cushite captives (Isa. 20:4).

Leg. The leg or thigh is often a euphemism for the male reproductive organs, so that putting one’s hand under a thigh in oath (Gen. 24:2; 47:29) may involve actually grabbing the genitalia. Animal thighs are waved to God in offering before being consumed (Lev. 9:21; 10:14; Num. 6:20), while oaths administered to uncover adultery cause a guilty woman’s thighs to waste (Num. 5:2–27).

The most common gesture involving the knee is bowing, in worship or reverence (Deut. 33:3; Isa. 45:23; Rom. 11:4; 14:11; Phil. 2:10), in defeat (2 Sam. 22:40; Ps. 18:38; Isa. 60:14), in distress (Ps. 57:6), or in respect (1 Kings 1:31). In what seems to be a somewhat awkward position, Elijah puts his face between his knees in prayer (1 Kings 18:42).

Feet. Gestures involving the feet are probably the most common gestures in the Bible. Feet can be washed in hospitality (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; 1 Sam. 25:41), in ablution (Exod. 30:19, 21; 40:31), or in supplication (1 Sam. 25:41). Feet can be bathed in oil as a blessing (Deut. 33:24), uncovered in marriage proposals (Ezek. 16:8; cf. Ruth 3:4, 7), and stamped in remorse (Ezek. 25:6), and sandals can be removed from them in honor (Exod. 3:1–10) or disgrace (Deut. 25:9). The heavenly seraphs cover their feet in supplication before the throne of God (Isa. 6:2), while the feet of humans can signal deception (Prov. 6:13).

Enemies can be placed under one’s feet in subjugation (1 Kings 5:3; Pss. 8:6; 18:39; 45:5; 47:3; 110:1; Mal. 4:3; Rom. 16:20), have their feet shackled or ensnared (Job 13:27; 33:11; Pss. 25:15; 105:18), and be forced to lick the feet of victors in humiliation and defeat (Isa. 49:23). The righteous will bathe their feet in the blood of their enemies in revenge (Pss. 58:10; 68:23).

Those overwhelmed can grovel at the feet of the powerful (2 Kings 4:27, 37; Esther 8:3; Matt. 28:9; Mark 5:33; 7:25; Acts 10:25), while those emboldened can rise to their feet in confidence (Ezek. 2:1–2; 3:24; Dan. 8:18).

In the NT, dust can be shaken off one’s feet as an indication of divine judgment (Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5), even as lying at a person’s feet is a recognition of authority/submission (Matt. 15:30; Mark 5:33; Luke 8:28, 35, 41, 47; 10:39; 17:16; Acts 4:37; 5:2). A woman publicly washes Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipes them with her hair, and kisses and perfumes them in what seems an act of love and repentance; but Jesus indicates that she has prepared his body for burial (Luke 7:38–46; John 11:2; 12:3). Jesus washes his disciples’ feet as instruction on servanthood and discipleship (John 13:5–14).

Fingers, Toes. Different fingers seem to have different roles assigned them. A finger sprinkles blood in cleansing (Lev. 4:6, 17, 25, 30, 34; 8:15; 9:9; 14:16; 16:14, 19; Num. 19:4), while blood on the tip of the right thumb and on the right big toe is for cleansing (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17, 25, 28).

One wears a signet ring as a sign of power (Esther 3:10) or a gesture of restoration and forgiveness (Luke 15:22). But fingers can also motion in deception (Prov. 6:13) or point in blame (Isa. 58:9). Jesus writes with his finger on the ground, apparently as a gesture of indifference to those pointing accusing fingers (John 8:6).

Clothes and Shoes

Garments. Garments attain significance as they are related to specific emotions. Wearing sackcloth and ashes in mourning is common (Gen. 37:34; Ezek. 7:18; 2 Sam. 3:31), while ripping garments in mourning is also frequently attested (Gen. 37:34; 44:13; Lev. 10:6; 21:10; Josh. 7:6; 2 Sam. 1:11; 3:31; 13:31; 1 Kings 21:27; 2 Kings 2:12; 19:1; Esther 4:1; Isa. 32:11; 37:1; Jer. 41:5).

Ripping someone’s clothing to expose nakedness (Ezek. 16:39; 2 Sam. 10:4) or pulling a person’s skirts up over the face (Jer. 13:26) is an act of shaming or insulting. But tearing one’s clothes off can be a sign of fury (Matt. 26:65). Persons with defiling diseases are expected to warn off others by wearing torn clothes and shouting, “Unclean! Unclean!” (Lev. 13:45).

By laying their clothes at Saul’s feet, the crowd may be acknowledging his authority in the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58).

Sandals. A woman can remove a man’s sandal in contempt (Deut. 25:5–10), while a sandal can be removed by a kinsman-redeemer to indicate giving up a right or as a transfer of property (Ruth 4:7–8). A sandal can also be removed in mourning (Ezek. 24:17) or be cast over a piece of land to claim ownership (Pss. 60:8; 108:9).

Prophetic Gestures

Prophetic gestures in the OT are mostly concerned with the call to repentance and approaching judgments upon failure to heed the warning. Jeremiah puts a yoke on his neck (Jer. 27–28; cf. Deut. 28:48), Ezekiel cooks with dung (Ezek. 4:12) and sleeps on his left side for 390 days and then on his right side for 40 days (4:5–6), Isaiah strips off his clothing (Isa. 20:2–3; 32:11), and Hosea marries an unfaithful wife (Hos. 1:1–3).

In the NT, Jesus cleanses the temple as an act of symbolic judgment (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15). He also breaks bread and drinks wine (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30, 35; Acts 2:46; 20:11; 27:35; 1 Cor. 11:24–25) and washes his disciples’ feet (John 13:1–13), thereby establishing symbolic Christian practices.

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

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

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

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

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

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

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

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

Children, Parenting, and Education

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

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

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

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

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

Family as an Analogy

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

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

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

Imagery pertains to the literary use of colorful figures of speech that can be visualized in the imagination. The biblical writers employ imagery frequently, for the images they use help to communicate God’s message more powerfully. Imagery communicates with readers not only at the cognitive (knowledge) level but also at the emotional level. For example, the prophet Amos could have just said to Israel that “God is angry” with them. But such language is flat and bland. Instead, Amos paints a graphic picture with his words by stating, “The lion has roared!” (Amos 3:8). This is a figure of speech in which Amos compares God to a lion roaring over its prey. In a culture where people did encounter dangerous lions and where all people held respect for the power of lions, this imagery connected at both the knowledge level and the emotional level.

Since, in essence, images are figures of speech, they can be used in a variety of ways: as metaphors, similes, direct analogies, or anthropomorphisms. Like these other figures of speech, biblical images reflect both points of similarity and points of difference in the two items being compared in the image. In Amos 3:8 the prophet is telling his audience something about God by using language normally associated with lions. Both God and the lion are extremely dangerous, and both are about to pounce on their prey. However, Amos expects his readers to also keep in mind that God is quite different from a lion in many, many ways.

The Bible contains hundreds of colorful images. To celebrate God’s wonderful love and care, David describes God with the image of a caring shepherd (Ps. 23). To communicate the joy of God’s material blessings, David paints a picture of meadows and valleys shouting and singing in joy (Ps. 65:13). Jeremiah wants to convey God’s disgust with Israel’s idolatry, so he refers to Jerusalem as a prostitute (Jer. 3:1). To underscore the strong contrast between sin and forgiveness, Isaiah states, “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow” (Isa. 1:18).

Jesus uses imagery frequently in his teaching. For example, he compares the kingdom of heaven to a mustard seed, which starts small but slowly grows to become the largest of shrubs (Matt. 13:31–32). To illustrate the difficulty of a rich person entering the kingdom of heaven, Jesus paints a colorful and humorous image of a camel trying to get through the tiny eye of a needle (Matt. 19:24). He uses dozens of images to communicate different aspects of his personality and mission, comparing himself to a wide range of things: a gate, a vine, a light, a road, a shepherd, bread, and more. Paul uses imagery when he tells us to put on the armor of God (Eph. 6:10–18) and when he compares Jesus to a cornerstone (2:20). The book of Revelation is packed with vivid images, portraying, for example, Jesus as a lamb (Rev. 5:6) and Satan as a dragon (20:2).

Imagery pertains to the literary use of colorful figures of speech that can be visualized in the imagination. The biblical writers employ imagery frequently, for the images they use help to communicate God’s message more powerfully. Imagery communicates with readers not only at the cognitive (knowledge) level but also at the emotional level. For example, the prophet Amos could have just said to Israel that “God is angry” with them. But such language is flat and bland. Instead, Amos paints a graphic picture with his words by stating, “The lion has roared!” (Amos 3:8). This is a figure of speech in which Amos compares God to a lion roaring over its prey. In a culture where people did encounter dangerous lions and where all people held respect for the power of lions, this imagery connected at both the knowledge level and the emotional level.

Since, in essence, images are figures of speech, they can be used in a variety of ways: as metaphors, similes, direct analogies, or anthropomorphisms. Like these other figures of speech, biblical images reflect both points of similarity and points of difference in the two items being compared in the image. In Amos 3:8 the prophet is telling his audience something about God by using language normally associated with lions. Both God and the lion are extremely dangerous, and both are about to pounce on their prey. However, Amos expects his readers to also keep in mind that God is quite different from a lion in many, many ways.

The Bible contains hundreds of colorful images. To celebrate God’s wonderful love and care, David describes God with the image of a caring shepherd (Ps. 23). To communicate the joy of God’s material blessings, David paints a picture of meadows and valleys shouting and singing in joy (Ps. 65:13). Jeremiah wants to convey God’s disgust with Israel’s idolatry, so he refers to Jerusalem as a prostitute (Jer. 3:1). To underscore the strong contrast between sin and forgiveness, Isaiah states, “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow” (Isa. 1:18).

Jesus uses imagery frequently in his teaching. For example, he compares the kingdom of heaven to a mustard seed, which starts small but slowly grows to become the largest of shrubs (Matt. 13:31–32). To illustrate the difficulty of a rich person entering the kingdom of heaven, Jesus paints a colorful and humorous image of a camel trying to get through the tiny eye of a needle (Matt. 19:24). He uses dozens of images to communicate different aspects of his personality and mission, comparing himself to a wide range of things: a gate, a vine, a light, a road, a shepherd, bread, and more. Paul uses imagery when he tells us to put on the armor of God (Eph. 6:10–18) and when he compares Jesus to a cornerstone (2:20). The book of Revelation is packed with vivid images, portraying, for example, Jesus as a lamb (Rev. 5:6) and Satan as a dragon (20:2).

According to Gen. 10:4; 1 Chron. 1:7, the Kittites were the descendants of Javan, along with Elishah, Tarshish, and the Rodanites. Most translations read “Kittim,” and some treat it as the name of an individual (e.g., ESV, NASB, NKJV). Elishah is identified with the island of Cyprus, Tarshish with the coast of Spain, and the Rodanites may refer to the island of Rhodes. The Kittites are associated with the port of Kition (modern Larnaca) in Cyprus. Kition was a Phoenician port during the reign of Solomon. Biblical references speak of the coastlands (Jer. 2:10; Ezek. 27:6) as well as the land of Kittim (Isa. 23:1, 12 [NIV: “land of Cyprus”]). They were sea peoples vying for trade in the Mediterranean during the second millennium BC. Balaam (Num. 24:24) saw them as a military threat. During the first millennium BC the designation came to refer generally to the Greeks. The Qumran scholars who wrote 1QpHab and 1QM identified the “Kittim” of Dan. 11:30 (NIV mg.) with the Romans, recalling their defeat of the Greeks.

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

In the OT, “neighbor” is derived from the verb “to associate with.” This is an important connection because relationships of various kinds are central to the issue of neighbor. Depending on the context, a neighbor can include a friend (2 Sam. 13:3), a rival (1 Sam. 28:17), a lover (Jer. 3:1), or a spouse (Jer. 3:20). However, “neighbor” essentially defines someone who lives and works nearby, those with shared ethical responsibilities, rather than a family member (Prov. 3:29). Eventually, “neighbor” acquired the more technical meaning of “covenant member” or “fellow Israelite” (= “brother” [Jer. 31:34]). The legal literature prohibits bearing false witness against a neighbor (Deut. 5:20) as well as coveting a neighbor’s house, animal, slave, or wife (Deut. 5:21). Fraud, stealing, or withholding from a neighbor are prohibited (Lev. 19:13; Ps. 15:3). These are the negative stipulations. The theological ethics that arise from Lev. 19 are climactic—ethically, politically, socially, and economically. Positively, Israelites are to judge their neighbors justly (Lev. 19:15), loving their neighbors as themselves (19:18). Even the resident alien is to be protected by these core moral virtues (Lev. 19:33–34; cf. Exod. 12:43–49).

When the NT addresses the topic, not surprisingly it is Lev. 19:18 that is routinely cited. Asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus quotes Lev. 19:18 as the horizontal counterpart to loving the Lord (Matt. 19:16–30). A lawyer’s question put to Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” elicits the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:29). Jesus teaches that extending mercy is more important than conveniently defining “neighbor.” A neighbor was anyone someone met in need—Jew, Gentile, or Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). Jewish law came to define “neighbor” in purely legal terms within Judaism. Jesus addressed the limits of one’s responsibility, challenging the particularism of Judaism, denouncing prejudiced love, and including non-Jews. Beyond “in” or “out” groups, believers are now to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:43–48). Mission work continues to expand social, political, and economic boundaries. The OT reality of relationships is still in force, but “neighbor” in the NT now prioritizes fellow believers (Rom. 13:8–10; 15:2; Gal. 6:10; Eph. 4:25; James 2:8).

A harsh alkaline mineral cleansing agent leached from wood ashes. In some Bible translations, lye is referred to metaphorically in conjunction with soap, a vegetable alkali mixed with oil, to emphasize the inadequacy of human effort to eradicate guilt before God (Job 9:3 [NIV: “cleansing powder”]; Jer. 2:22 [NIV: “soap”]) as opposed to God’s ability to cleanse and redeem sinners (Isa. 1:25 NASB).

Divine pronouncements given to humankind that are either unsolicited (Isa. 7:3–9; Hag. 1:2–11; Zech. 12:1) or a response to an inquiry (2 Kings 8:8). It was common practice throughout the ancient Near East to seek pronouncements from deities and to identify holy sites where sacred individuals could query the deities (e.g., the shrine of Apollo at Delphi). How much time elapsed between the transmission of an oracle and its inscription is uncertain. Inscriptions from the surrounding Near Eastern milieu attest that messages received from a deity often were transcribed immediately upon reception, with the prophet’s name attached.

Reception and Delivery of Oracles

The Hebrew word massa’ (derived from nasa’, “to lift, take, carry”), variously translated “oracle” (Isa. 17:1; 19:1; 21:1; 30:6), “burden” (Isa. 17:1 JPS, KJV), or “prophecy” (Prov. 30:1; 31:1 KJV), is used in this figurative sense primarily in prophetic speech (Prov. 30:1; 31:1 are the exceptions) to refer to threatening pronouncements against Israel (Hab. 1:1; Zech. 12:1; Mal. 1:1), its neighbors (Isa. 13:1; 14:28; 15:1; Nah. 1:1), or an individual (2 Kings 9:25; 2 Chron. 24:27). Although the word itself is used infrequently, the prophetic activity of delivering divine pronouncements was prevalent throughout Israel’s history, rising in prominence during the monarchy and ceasing at the beginning of the intertestamental period.

Priests, judges (Deut. 17:9), and prophets (1 Sam. 9:9) could be the recipients and deliverers of divine oracles, although as the duties of these offices became more differentiated over time, delivery of oracles became more the province of the prophet (2 Kings 22:11–14; Jer. 21:2). A few oracles found in the OT are attributed to non-Israelites (Balaam [Num. 22–24]; Agur [Prov. 30:1]; King Lemuel [Prov. 31:1]). The Israelites were commanded to seek Yahweh (Isa. 55:6; Hos. 10:12), and they (Isa. 9:13) and their leaders (Jer. 10:21) were condemned both for failure to do so and for their dismissive response to a prophetic oracle once it had been delivered, whether solicited (Ezek. 33:30–32) or not (Zech. 7:12).

Prophets were often sought to inquire about obtaining an oracle (1 Sam. 9:9; 2 Kings 3:11; 22:13) during times of crisis or need. Such oracles were for the benefit of either an individual (Exod. 18:15; 2 Kings 8:8) or the nation (1 Kings 22:5; 2 Kings 3:11; 2 Chron. 18:6) and were sought by commoners (Gen. 25:22; Exod. 18:15; Ezek. 33:30), elders (Ezek. 14:1–3; 20:1; see also 8:1), royalty (1 Kings 14:5; 22:5–8; 2 Kings 22:18; 2 Chron. 26:5), army officials (Jer. 42:1–3), and foreigners (2 Kings 8:7; Isa. 14:32). Prophetic response to oracular inquiry was not automatic. Deliverance of an oracle after an inquiry could be immediate (Jer. 37:17), delayed for an extended period of time (Jer. 42:7 [ten days]), or the prophet could refuse to deliver an oracle (Jer. 23:33; Ezek. 14:1). A previous oracle could be superseded (Isa. 38 [compare v. 1 with vv. 4–6]). Various commodities could be used for payment, including silver (1 Sam. 9:7–8), food (1 Kings 14:3), and foreign goods (2 Kings 8:7–9).

Oracles could be pronounced publicly in various places, including the palace (2 Kings 20:4–5), the temple (Jer. 7:2; 26:2), the city gates (1 Kings 22:10; 2 Chron. 18:9), the roadside (1 Kings 20:38–43), or privately to individuals, including royalty (Jer. 37:17), officials (Isa. 22:15), and foreigners (Jer. 39:15–17). There are several mentions in Scripture of oracles that are not part of the canonical record (e.g., 2 Chron. 24:27).

Oracular pronouncements could be brief (1 Kings 17:1) or lengthy (the books of Nahum and Malachi), and they consisted of a variety of genres, including satire (Isa. 44:9–20), parable (2 Sam. 12:1–14), and lament (Jer. 9:20; Ezek. 19; Amos 5:1), to produce the desired rhetorical effect. The prophetic introductory or concluding oracular formulas “thus says the Lord” and “declares the Lord” echo the messenger terminology of the broader culture, in which a similar introductory “thus says X” was used by messengers delivering public proclamations on behalf of the one who commissioned them (2 Chron. 36:23). In this way, the prophet presented an oracle as God’s message to the people, not his own.

Nominal Israel was condemned for seeking pronouncements from false gods (2 Kings 1:3–4, 6, 16; 2 Chron. 25:15; Hos. 4:12), necromancy (Isa. 8:19), and failure to inquire of the true God of Israel (Zeph. 1:6). False prophets could also claim to have received communication from God (Deut. 13:1–11; 18:20; Ezek. 13), but they were indicted for delivering their own message without divine sanction (Jer. 23:34–39; 28; Lam. 2:14; Ezek. 13), turning the people away from the true God to worship false gods (Deut. 13:1–11) and delivering oracular pronouncements in order to enjoy personal pleasure (Mic. 2:11) and gain (Jer. 6:13–15; 8:10–12).

Often Scripture simply notes that a prophet received a “word of the Lord” (Jer. 1:2; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; cf. Isa. 14:28; Hab. 1:1) without explicitly stating the means by which the divine pronouncement was received. The prophetic witness mentions both seeing (Isa. 1:1; 13:1; Amos 8:1; Hab. 1:1) and hearing (Ezek. 1:24–25, 28) divine communication, but what actually happened to the prophet is not easily determined. The references to the Spirit coming upon an individual (Num. 11:25; 24:2; 1 Sam. 10:6, 10; Ezek. 8:1; 11:5; 37:1) point to some sort of divine intervention that seized the prophet’s consciousness in such a way as to prepare the prophet for a revelation from God.

Prophets were known to have ecstatic or visionary experiences that marked them as operating under divine influence. In addition, several of the prophets (Isa. 20; Jer. 13:1–11; Ezek. 5:1–4) acted out demonstrations (sign-acts) as part of their oracular ministry. These ecstatic experiences and peculiar actions offended many of their contemporaries (2 Kings 9:11; Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7). These phenomena were concentrated around the two great crises faced by Israel: the demise of the northern kingdom in 722 BC and of the southern kingdom in 586 BC. Having been given warning that national judgment was imminent, these prophets were led to augment their preaching with dramatizations in order to convey more persuasively to the audience the urgency of heeding their message (Ezek. 12:8–11).

Types of Oracles

Form critics have identified three main types of prophetic oracles: oracles of salvation, judgment, and repentance. The first is further divided into subcategories: individual salvation oracles (1 Kings 17:8–16) and community salvation oracles (1 Sam. 7:3–15). The prophets, however, were not tightly bound to the traditional forms, and they demonstrated great creativity in modifying the forms to fit their personal style and the situation before them.

These various types of oracles were not arbitrary pronouncements; they were founded on Israel’s covenantal relationship with Yahweh (Jer. 34:18). The prophets served as covenant prosecutors, and their oracles were part of the prosecution’s case on behalf of Yahweh against the people. Behavior, whether an individual’s or the nation’s, was evaluated in light of the demands of the covenant. So too, Yahweh’s response—judgment or salvation—was cast in terms of his faithfulness to the covenant(s) that he made with Israel.

Salvation oracles announced Yahweh’s glorious deliverance and restoration, mostly in response to the catastrophe of 586 BC (Ezek. 11:16–21; 36:24–38; 37:15–28; Amos 9:11–15; Zeph. 3:14–20), and they could include in the salvific pronouncement the destruction of the enemy (Zeph. 3:19). They often open with the formulaic “in that day” (Amos 9:11; Mic. 4:6), focusing Israel’s attention on a future time when all its enemies would be subdued and covenantal blessings would be established and enjoyed by the redeemed community.

Judgment oracles typically were introduced with an interjection, often translated into English as “woe,” followed by a formal address and accusation accompanied by an announcement of the punishment to be inflicted (Isa. 1:4; 5:8, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22; Jer. 22:13; Ezek. 34:2). These oracles could take the form of a lawsuit. In Isa. 1:2 “heaven and earth” are summoned as witnesses, harking back to Deut. 30:19; 31:28; 32:1, where these elements of nature were invoked by Moses to be witnesses of God’s covenant with Israel. Some oracles state explicitly that a case has been brought against the people (Isa. 3:13; Jer. 2:9; Hos. 4:1; 12:2; Mic. 6:1–2).

Repentance oracles specifically summon the addressee to repentance and a recommitment to the covenant in order to avoid destruction (Isa. 31:6; Jer. 4:1; Hos. 12:6).

Means of Oracles

Various objects were sanctioned for use in discerning God’s will. Scripture is silent on many of the details regarding the manipulation of these objects, but the validity of their use for discerning the divine will is not questioned. The mysterious Urim and Thummim, two stonelike objects kept in the high priest’s breastpiece, appear to have operated to give a “yes or no” response (Exod. 28:30; Lev. 8:8; Deut. 33:8; 1 Sam. 14:41), though sometimes there is no response at all (1 Sam. 28:6). The ephod, some sort of two-piece linen apron or loin cloth worn by priests under the breastpiece (Exod. 28:4, 6; 1 Sam. 23:9–12; 1 Sam. 30:7–8; but note that Samuel was wearing one as he assisted the high priest Eli [1 Sam. 2:18], and David, as he led the procession returning the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem [2 Sam. 6:14]), was also pressed into service for discerning God’s will. Another method, the casting of lots, is shrouded in mystery. This method was used to determine the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:8–10), the guilty party in the loss at Ai (Josh. 7:14), land allotment in Canaan (Josh. 14–19; 21), priestly assignments in the temple (1 Chron. 24:5; 25:8; 26:13), residency in Jerusalem in the postexilic community (Neh. 11:1), the day to massacre the Jews in Persia as plotted by Haman (Esther 3:7; 9:24), and dividing the Messiah’s clothing (Ps. 22:18; cf. John 19:24).

Oracles against the Foreign Nations

A special group of oracles are those addressed to Israel’s historic enemies, commonly referred to as “oracles against the [foreign] nations.” Blocks of these oracles are found in Amos 1–2; Isa. 13–23; Jer. 46–51; Ezek. 25–32 and the entire books of Nahum and Obadiah. These oracles were addressed to a specific foreign nation (the putative audience) but were heard by Israel. During a time when most people’s conception of deity was tied to a specific land, these oracles maintained that Yahweh was sovereign over the whole earth, and that his purposes included all humankind. All the nations do his bidding. These oracles were to be understood against the backdrop of Israel’s infidelity to Yahweh and its futile reliance on the support of foreign nations. The oracles demonstrated that Yahweh would bring down all that was haughty and would order events so that he alone would be high and exalted in the day of his coming. Those nations that cursed Israel would themselves be cursed (Gen. 12:1–3; 27:29).

New Testament Usage

In the NT, “oracle” (Gk. logion) occurs four times, always in the plural (logia [NIV: “words”]). It refers to the Mosaic law (Acts 7:38) and unspecified portions of revelation (Rom. 3:2; Heb. 5:12; 1 Pet. 4:11).

Definition of Terms

The term “pagan” has two separate but related definitions in the English language, both of which are somewhat misleading when applied to religions in the ancient Near East. The first definition defines a pagan as someone who follows a less-established religion or a person who is outside the mainstream of belief within a given society. Applying this definition to an ancient Near Eastern religion is somewhat misleading because often within biblical society the Jewish or Christian belief system was the religion that was outside the mainstream. Being outside the mainstream certainly was a fact of life for first-century Christians, who often were persecuted as if they were atheists and for their failure to acknowledge a pantheon of gods, which was a mainstream belief. In OT society the competing religions, especially the Canaanite and Babylonian pantheons, certainly were more widely accepted and followed. Even within Israelite society these non-Israelite religions offered a viable alternative to the religion of Yahweh. Thus, if one were to use this definition either in the OT or the NT, it likely would need to be applied to the religion of the Jews and Christians and not the prevailing religions of the Canaanites, the Babylonians, the Greeks, or the Romans.

The second English definition of the term “pagan” involves the worship of the gods or forces of nature that control the world. This definition is applied specifically to agrarian societies, where the changing of seasons, the bringing of favorable weather and growing conditions for the crops, the possibility for prosperity that good weather brings, and a general desire for fertility are part of the religious understanding and belief system. While this definition certainly applies to many of the non-Israelite religions followed by the Israelites’ neighbors and to some of the Greeks and Romans of the NT, it also would apply to many of the followers of Yahweh in the OT who saw Yahweh as the God of the mountains and storms in direct conflict with the Baal myth, which ascribed these traits to Baal (see below). Therefore, it is prudent to remember that the label “pagan gods” is anachronistic and should be used with care when discussing the religions described in the Bible.

On a related note, the terminology of “idolatry” is also often misunderstood. Most of the non-Israelite religions discussed in the Bible would have understood the images of their gods to be representations of the deity (or even a throne or meeting place for the god) rather than an object of worship in its own right. While they would have believed that the god dwelled in the object and was present when worship was being performed, they would not have believed that the object was the god. Most of the idols made in the ancient Near East are indistinguishable from one another unless one observes their specific weapons. This, coupled with the idol’s anthropomorphic representation, rather than a heavenly representation, suggests that the concern for early worshipers was not to worship an inanimate image, but rather to see a representation of the god who indwelled the image if worshiped correctly. It was the presence of the god that was desired. Thus, the prohibition against images in the OT is a prohibition against trying to depict Yahweh in any physical form.

When dealing with the non-Israelite gods of the Bible, it is helpful to divide them into historical periods. Within the OT, the major groupings of non-Israelite gods should include the gods of the Canaanites and the gods of the Babylonians (which are very similar to the gods of the Assyrians). To a lesser degree the gods of the Philistines, the Egyptians, and the Persians can also be considered. In the NT, the gods of the Greeks and the Romans (which often are assimilated Greek gods with new names) can be considered. Along with these somewhat artificial historical divisions are innumerable personal gods and local gods worshiped by small groups of people or even by a single town or village. For example, Gen. 31:30 references Laban’s gods, which Rachel steals when she leaves home to travel with Jacob. These personal gods likely played a huge role in the day-to-day life of the average person, but most often they are lost to history. Similarly in the NT, the mystery religions of the Greeks and the Romans likely played an important role in the lives of many people, but they are difficult to reconstruct because of the limited amount of documentation that has survived.

Canaanite Pantheon

There is considerable overlap between the Canaanite pantheon and those of the Mesopotamian cultures, and often this can create some confusion about the deities being discussed, especially their names and functions. Further complicating matters, the descriptions of gods within the Mesopotamian pantheons often have fluid identities, as different textual traditions conflict with each other at times. Both the Canaanite and the Babylonian pantheons borrow heavily from the Sumerian pantheon, which adds both to their similarities and to the possibility of confusion.

Without question, the most important god within the Canaanite pantheon was Baal. The story of Baal, often called the “Baal Cycle,” describes the life and deeds of Baal. The cult of Baal was a fertility religion, and all the events of Baal’s life were connected to the changing seasons and nature’s fertility. The Baal Cycle also explained how the worship of Baal affected the agricultural success of farmers. This detailed story of Baal was all but unknown, except for a few details that could be gleaned from the Bible, prior to the accidental discovery of the city of Ugarit and its extensive library in 1928 by a farmer plowing his field. The city of Ugarit appears to have been a major trading center between the years of about 1450 and 1200 BC. Besides Baal, other important deities within the pantheon were El, the elderly, long-bearded father god; Asherah, El’s wife, or occasionally portrayed as Baal’s wife or sister; and Mot, the god of death, usually represented as a snake.

Baal was the god of weather, especially thunder, lightning, and rain (Baal is almost always depicted with a lightning bolt in one hand and a rod of power in the other). Other representations or symbols of Baal include the bull (the strongest and most powerful animal of the ancient Near East), water, mist, dew, grain, oil, and any other symbol of fertility. Worship of Baal was intended to keep him happy in order to assure the coming of spring (preferably, early), the necessary rain for crops, and finally the lengthening of summer so that two crops could be planted and harvested. The second crop, which often was the crop that a farmer could sell for a profit (the first being reserved for the farmer’s own food), was especially tied to the favor of Baal. Baal was worshiped not only in hope of agricultural prosperity but also for family fertility in terms of children and for help in battle. The primary means for producing and keeping the favor of Baal was by offering the firstfruits of any harvest to him. When the first portion of a crop was harvested, it was expected that a portion of that harvest (most often a tithe) be offered to Baal in hopes of receiving his favor and extending the growing season. Not only were the first of the crops to be given to Baal but also the firstborn of all herded animals. It was also a common practice for the firstborn of a family to be given to Baal in human sacrifice. Baal is often referred to as Molek in the Bible (e.g., Jer. 19) when describing human sacrifice. Another practice of Baal worship was ritual sexual intercourse between a worshiper and a priest or a priestess. This ritual sexual activity was thought to increase the fertility of the worshiper, thereby increasing the chances of having more children.

Apparently for much of the history of Israel, especially during the monarchy, Baal worship offered an enticing alternative to the worship of Yahweh. In fact, the stories of Elijah and Elisha serve as a direct polemic against Baal worship. Most of the stories of Elijah and Elisha use the symbols of Baal to demonstrate that Yahweh is much stronger than Baal. By the time of the first century AD, Baal worship was a thing of the past, but some vestiges of the worship remained. For example, in the Gospels Jesus says that a person cannot worship both “God and money” (KJV: “mammon”) (Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13). The Greek word translated “money,” mamōnas, is borrowed from Aramaic and actually refers to the worship of Baal, but by Jesus’ time it had evolved to take on the more generic definition “prosperity.”

Along with Baal, the worship of Asherah, a female member of the pantheon, was common. Although scholars are not completely sure of its form, it is believed that the reference in the OT to “Asherah poles” was likely a reference to a phallic symbol that represented fertility (Judg. 6:26; 1 Kings 14:23). Recently, several references to Asherah have been discovered in Kuntillet ‘Ajrud in northeastern Sinai, dated to about the eighth century. These inscriptions say that Asherah was the consort of Yahweh rather than Baal, providing further evidence for the amount of syncretism present in Israel during the monarchy. Another female deity, Ashtoreth (known also by her Mesopotamian name, “Ishtar”), is called “Queen of Heaven” several times in the book of Jeremiah (7:18; 44:17–19, 25).

In relationship to the infiltration of Baal worship into the northern kingdom is the debate about the nature of the “sin of Jeroboam” that was instituted by Jeroboam I when he, along with the ten northern tribes, ceded from Israel (1 Kings 12:25–33). At issue is whether Jeroboam was instituting a new religion based on the calves, thus becoming syncretistic with these tribes’ northern Phoenician neighbors (which would have been tantamount to introducing Baal worship into Israel), or simply rejecting the centrality of Jerusalem for Yahweh worship (which only a few years before had been centralized in Jerusalem by Solomon’s temple, resulting in the disenfranchisement of the Levites outside Jerusalem). Clearly, the southern kingdom viewed the events as apostasy, but whether the northern tribes did is unclear. Amos, for example, seems to focus his criticism of the cult at Bethel not on the worship itself but rather on the hypocrisy of the worshipers, who were not following the law as prescribed in the Torah.

Babylonian Pantheon

Although debate continues over the exact relationship between the two, the Babylonian pantheon had many elements similar to the Canaanite pantheon. There are dozens of primary documents about the religion of Babylon; the most important of them include the Enuma Elish, a creation story and apologetic for Marduk the chief of gods; the Atrahasis Epic, which has a version of the flood story in it; and the Epic of Gilgamesh, which describes the quest for eternal life by King Gilgamesh. Within the Babylonian pantheon, Marduk is the chief of gods, who is also the patron god of Babylonia. The Enuma Elish, which describes the creation of the world, deals primarily with the ascension of Marduk to the role of chief god by destroying the forces of chaos represented by the monster Tiamat and bringing order to both the pantheon and the natural world. Marduk, like Baal, had retained the most powerful cosmic weapons, which include water, rain, and war. The Epic of Gilgamesh describes the journey of King Gilgamesh, who is part human and part divine, in search of immortality. During the course of his trip, he learns that eternal life is reserved for the gods, and humans must make their mark on the world by what they do during their lives. The Babylonian religion and pantheon exerted its strongest influence on Israel during the exile. The biblical text clearly has been influenced by these Babylonian beliefs. However, the Bible consistently presents these viewpoints as contrary to the true worship of Yahweh and insists that only Yahweh deserves worship as the true creator of the world, vanquisher of chaos, and provider of prosperity and life.

Other Ancient Near Eastern Pantheons

The Egyptian gods are mentioned only briefly in the Bible. The most overt references to the gods of Egypt are found in the story of the ten plagues, which most scholars believe was a direct attack on the deities of Egypt by Yahweh. It is unclear if the calf described in Exod. 32 should be understood as an Egyptian god, a completely new or different god, or as a forbidden representation of Yahweh.

Little is known about the Philistine pantheon of gods, but it appears to be quite similar to the Canaanite pantheon (if not the same with local variations). The Philistines’ chief god, referred to in the Bible as “Dagon” (Judg. 16:23; 1 Sam. 5:2–7; 1 Chron. 10:10), likely also went by the name “Baal-Zebul” (“Lord Prince”), which in the OT is mocked by being changed to “Baal-Zebub” (“Lord of the Flies”) (2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). In the NT, this god is recalled when the Pharisees accuse Jesus of being in league with Satan (Matt. 12:24; Luke 11:15 [Gk. Beelzeboul]). Because the Philistines were known as the Sea Peoples, it is not surprising that this deity had several fishlike qualities (including a fish tail).

New Testament Religion

In the NT, the Greek pantheon that was subsumed by the Roman pantheon was the common religious expression of the day. Like other ancient pantheons, these pantheons tried to explain the natural world by the involvement of various deities in nature. Proof that Jews living in the province of Judah were under constant pressure to assimilate to the Greek religion is provided in the reports of the books of Maccabees that describe the Jewish revolt against the Seleucids in what was essentially a religious war against assimilation. In the Gospels, little is said about the Greek or Roman pantheons, but the book of Acts contains several reports of Paul’s interaction with the Greeks and their religious practices. Especially notable is Paul’s interaction with the Athenians when he debated philosophers who were followers of the “Unknown God” (Acts 17:23). Three other deities are named in Acts, including Artemis in Ephesus (Acts 19:24, 27–28, 34–35), whom the Romans called “Diana,” and Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14:12–13), called “Jupiter” and “Mercury” by the Romans, whom Paul and Barnabas were mistaken for in Lystra when Paul preached and healed a crippled man.

Summary

The problem of God’s people Israel worshiping other gods permeates most of biblical history. These reports range over time from the early story of Rachel in Genesis, to the period of the judges when Micah’s images (Judg. 17:1–6) and Gideon’s ephod (Judg. 8:26–27) were worshiped, to when Solomon and his wives were worshiping foreign gods (1 Kings 11:5–8), to the time of Ahab when all Israel followed Baal, whom Elijah vanquished on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:16–46). Depending on when one dates the book of Deuteronomy, the strong prohibitions against idolatry either went unheeded (if Moses wrote the book) or were a culminating statement of the anti-idolatry Deuteronomistic writer just before the exile. There is considerable debate about when Israel became an exclusively monotheistic nation (if it ever did), but by the eighth century BC, Isaiah and Amos castigate worshipers of these false gods. Clearly, by the time of Jeremiah, some factions within Israel (the prophet included) have begun to question whether the gods of the other nations even exist (Jer. 2:28). Finally, with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, ironically, the worship of other gods is ended. It is certain that by the time of the first century AD, the evolution to a monotheistic view is complete, and Paul can claim that an “idol is nothing” (1 Cor. 8:4), and that any sin is tantamount to idolatry (Eph. 5:5).

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

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

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

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

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

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

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

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

Children, Parenting, and Education

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

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

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

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

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

Family as an Analogy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

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

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

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

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

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

Children, Parenting, and Education

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

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

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

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

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

Family as an Analogy

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

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

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

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

Oral, ceremonial, or physical defilement, desecration, corruption, contamination; to make morally, ceremonially, or physically unclean or impure; to make filthy (Num. 35:33; 2 Chron. 36:14; Ezra 2:62; Neh. 7:64; Ps. 106:38; Prov. 25:26; Isa. 24:5; Jer. 3:1, 2, 9; 16:18; Ezek. 23:30; Zeph. 3:1, 4; Mal. 1:7, 12; Acts 15:20; 2 Pet. 2:10, 20). The choice of “pollution/pollute” rather than a synonym is a translation decision. The word occurs many other places in certain versions.

Pollution in modern secular usage generally refers to the dirtying of environmental spaces as a result of human activity, for example, air and water pollution. Proverbs 25:26 employs this understanding. More generally, the stewardship mandate given to humanity by God in Gen. 2:15 provides biblical support for the importance of caring for the environment. This would include reducing or eliminating known polluting activities and cleaning up previously polluted spaces. See also Clean, Cleanness.

Oral, ceremonial, or physical defilement, desecration, corruption, contamination; to make morally, ceremonially, or physically unclean or impure; to make filthy (Num. 35:33; 2 Chron. 36:14; Ezra 2:62; Neh. 7:64; Ps. 106:38; Prov. 25:26; Isa. 24:5; Jer. 3:1, 2, 9; 16:18; Ezek. 23:30; Zeph. 3:1, 4; Mal. 1:7, 12; Acts 15:20; 2 Pet. 2:10, 20). The choice of “pollution/pollute” rather than a synonym is a translation decision. The word occurs many other places in certain versions.

Pollution in modern secular usage generally refers to the dirtying of environmental spaces as a result of human activity, for example, air and water pollution. Proverbs 25:26 employs this understanding. More generally, the stewardship mandate given to humanity by God in Gen. 2:15 provides biblical support for the importance of caring for the environment. This would include reducing or eliminating known polluting activities and cleaning up previously polluted spaces. See also Clean, Cleanness.

An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationship between a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.

Theology of Marriage

The biblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, which establishes a number of important points relating to marriage.

First, in Gen. 2:18 God highlights the first expressed inadequacy within creation: the man is alone. The solution to the man’s solitude is found not among the animals (a fact demonstrated by the careful search expressed by having the man name each of them) but in a creature specifically created to address the problem of his solitude: woman. She is created from his “rib” (a better translation is “side”), so that she is more like him than any of the animals. In spite of this, she is not a clone, but rather a complement to him. She is described as a “helper suitable for him,” which highlights her fulfillment of the inadequacy God had previously identified.

Second, the role of the wife is not restricted to providing a means by which to fulfill the command to fill the earth (through bearing children), for the problem identified in Gen. 2:18 cannot be reduced to this alone. The OT establishes that human beings are relational and social, and that isolation is not good, quite aside from considerations relating to childbearing. Indeed, when marriage is employed as a metaphor for the relationship between God and his people (see below), it can be conceptualized quite apart from the notion of procreation, suggesting that the latter should not be considered the primary purpose of marriage.

Third, Gen. 2:23 describes the relationship between the man and the woman in terms strongly reminiscent of the traditional kinship formula used with reference to family members elsewhere in the OT: “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (cf., e.g., Gen. 29:14; Judg. 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1; 19:13–14—similar to the modern English expression “my flesh and blood”; see also Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31). Although “be united” (other translations use “cleave”) and “one flesh” are frequently understood to refer to sexual union, this is not the only, or even the primary, implication of the words. Genesis 2:24 expresses the unification of the husband and the wife as the antithesis of the man’s leaving his father and mother. These terms (“leave” or “forsake,” “be united” or “cleave”) are used elsewhere in covenantal contexts. “Cleave” is usually used of people in the sense of clinging to another out of affection and loyalty (Gen. 34:3; Ruth 1:14; 2 Sam. 20:2; 1 Kings 11:2). It is also frequently used of Israel clinging to God (Deut. 10:20; 11:22; 13:5; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8). “Forsake” is used of breaking covenants (Deut. 12:19; 14:27; 29:25; Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17, 19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:9). The verb also appears in the context of marital divorce in Prov. 2:16–17; Isa. 54:6; 62:4.

The implication of Gen. 2:24 is that the man was formerly “united” to his parents in a familial relationship, but when he marries, the covenantal relationship with his parents is superseded by the new relationship with his wife. Thus, in establishing the covenantal relationship of marriage, the man and the woman form a new family unit (they become “one flesh,” which parallels the kinship formula more fully expressed in Gen. 2:23). It is noteworthy that Gen. 2 thus defines a family as husband and wife; a family is formed before any children are born. Furthermore, the emphasis on the priority of the relationship between husband and wife is particularly striking, given both the importance of honoring one’s parents (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) and the distinctly patrilocal nature of inheritance whereby sons would remain in the parents’ household after marriage and ultimately inherit a share of it, but daughters would leave their parents’ house to be with their husbands.

Fourth, the description of the woman as the man’s “helper” cannot alone be used to demonstrate that the wife’s role was either subordinate or superior to her husband’s. Although the term is elsewhere often used as a description of God, it is also used of subordinate helpers, and other contextual indications determine the relative status of the helper aside from the use of the term itself.

Marriage in the Old Testament

The Bible presents few formal legal, liturgical, or cultic requirements for marriage (whereas there are specific laws dealing with divorce), although it does record some details of specific marriages from which some insight into marriage practices can be gleaned. Marriages often were established through an arrangement between the parents of the husband and those of the wife or between the husband and the parents of his prospective wife (e.g., Gen. 24; 38:6), but there appears to be some diversity, with examples of a man choosing his own wife (e.g., Judah in Gen. 38:2) or instances when the consent of the woman is sought (e.g., Gen. 24:8, 58). The requirement of a formal certificate for divorce (Deut. 24:1, 3), together with examples of marriage contracts from the ancient Near East, are possible evidence that marriage within Israel required certification, although there is no explicit confirmation of this in the OT or in Israel prior to the rabbinic period. The marriages recorded in the OT often involved feasts of varying duration (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:12), the bride being accompanied to her home in a festive procession that included music and singing (Ps. 78:63; Jer. 7:34; 16:9), and a blessing pronounced over the bride that she might bear many children (Gen. 24:60; Ruth 4:11). Deuteronomy 22:15 suggests that evidence of the bride’s virginity was retained by the wife’s family to guard against false accusations by a husband seeking divorce.

Another aspect of marriage that appears to have been normative although not legislated was the payment of a mohar, or “bride-price” (Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1 Sam. 18:25), as well as the provision of a dowry (1 Kings 9:16). The former was a payment made by the groom’s family to the bride’s family, the latter an amount given by the father to his daughter. Typically, the former appears to have exceeded the latter in value. The bride-price, at least in later times, functioned as insurance should the wife be divorced.

The Bible does not issue any specific age constraints upon those being married, indicating that the OT practice probably did not differ significantly from that of other nations in the ancient Near East, where girls were considered ready for marriage once they had reached puberty or the age of twelve, and boys were generally slightly older. Constraints were placed on the eligibility of marriage partners, and generally marriages were endogamous: marriage partners were chosen from within the clan, tribe, or nation (e.g., Gen. 24:1–9; 27:46–28:5; cf. Deut. 7:3, which prohibits marriage with some, but not all, foreigners, and Deut. 21:10–14, which permits Israelite warriors to take a wife from among female prisoners of war). While there were exceptions to this constraint (e.g., Moses married a Midianite; Bathsheba was married to a Hittite; Boaz married Ruth, a Moabite), in later times the restriction was given legal sanction under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:2, 12; Neh. 13:25; cf. Luke 14:26; 18:29).

In spite of the likelihood that many marriages in the OT and the ancient world in general were arranged, the notion of romantic love as both an ideal for marriage and a basis for choosing one’s spouse clearly was known and even regarded as desirable. This is reflected in the approbation given romantic love in Song of Songs as well as in stories such as that of Jacob (Gen. 29:18; see also Judg. 14:1–3; 1 Sam. 18:20).

Socially, marriage was of particular import for a woman in the ancient world, for her well-being usually depended on her place within the house of either her father or her husband. Because inheritance was passed down the male line, women without connection to the house of a man were in a very tenuous state. Inheritance itself was also an important issue in the ancient world, and so great value was placed not just on marriage but also on bearing children (particularly male [see also Firstborn]). Associated with these social functions of marriage in ancient Israel is the fact that the OT permits and records a number of instances of polygamy (always polygyny, never polyandry). This afforded social security to widows (see also Levirate Law, Levirate Marriage) and helped ensure the line of inheritance. It should be noted, however, that neither the welfare aspect of marriage nor the related acceptance of polygamy is based on the biblical foundation for marriage in Gen. 2, and consequently, polygamy does not reflect the biblical ideal for marriage.

The fundamental importance of the marriage relationship is also highlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g., Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).

Marriage in the New Testament

Jesus reinforces the importance of marriage, emphasizing its divine origin and lifelong nature (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9) as well as its inviolability (Mark 10:2–12). In light of this, Jesus’ assertion that at the resurrection there will be no marriage is surprising (Matt. 22:30). Although Jesus offers no explanation as to why there will be no marriage following the resurrection, it is perhaps likely that the fundamental need identified by God in Gen. 2:18 (the man was alone) will be solved in a different manner in the age to come: the intimate help and companionship ideally found in marriage will be provided in perfected relationship with God and all others.

Paul elaborates somewhat on marriage in the Christian community. Christian marriage ought to be characterized by mutual submission in some respects (1 Cor. 7:4; Eph. 5:21) while reflecting some asymmetrical aspects of the relationship between Christ and the church in others (Eph. 5:22–33). Christians ought to marry within the church (2 Cor. 6:14–18, although this passage is not restricted to marriage); however, those who are married to nonbelievers are not to seek divorce, but are to remain faithful to their spouses for the sake of both the spouse and their children (1 Cor. 7:10–16).

The NT makes reference to some of the marriage customs of the day, including sharing a feast (Matt. 22:2–12; Luke 12:36; John 2:1–11), the expectation that guests be suitably attired (Matt. 22:11–12), and a procession to the groom’s home (Matt. 25:1–13; Luke 12:35–38).

Symbolic Use of Marriage

Marriage is used figuratively in both Testaments. The relationship between God and his people is described with marriage language (Isa. 62:4–5; Jer. 2:2). By using such language, the prophets emphasize the intimacy and unity inherent in the relationship between God and his chosen people, as well as the devastating betrayal when the covenant is broken. The use of the marriage metaphor is thus extended to the use of divorce language to describe God’s treatment of unfaithful Israel (Jer. 3:8), and the notion of adultery and promiscuity is equated with the worship of foreign gods (Ezek. 16; 23). The prophet Hosea’s marriage is itself a graphic representation of God’s relationship with his people and, in particular, their faithlessness; however, it also holds out the anticipation of a new covenant, one wherein God declares, “You will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master’ ” (Hos. 2:16). The metaphorical use of marriage to image the relationship between God and his people also reflects the implicit belief in the asymmetrical nature of the relationship between husband and wife in the ancient world.

The NT primarily identifies the church as the bride and Christ as the husband when using marriage language figuratively (e.g., Eph. 5:22–33). In so doing, the NT affirms Christ’s deity by explicitly depicting him in the place occupied by God in the OT’s use of marriage symbolism. Jesus uses marriage in his parabolic teaching about the kingdom of God (Matt. 22:2–14; 25:1–12), as well as in reference to himself as bridegroom when explaining the behavior of his disciples (Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35). Revelation depicts the return of Christ as the time of the marriage between the bride and the bridegroom (Rev. 19:7; 21:9).

Rivers in Cosmology

Genesis 2:10–14 describes the garden in Eden as the source of an unnamed river that subsequently divided into four “headwaters”: the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. This description defies any attempt to locate the purported site of Eden in terms of historical geography. The Tigris and the Euphrates do not diverge from a common source, but instead converge before emptying into the Persian Gulf. Moreover, the Gihon, if it is to be identified with the sacred spring of the same name in Jerusalem (1 Kings 1:45), is several hundred miles away from the Tigris and the Euphrates. The Pishon is otherwise unknown. If, as various commentators since antiquity have suggested, the Gihon and the Pishon are to be identified with other great rivers in the same class of importance as the Tigris and the Euphrates (the Nile, the Ganges, etc.), then this would further confound any attempt to understand Gen. 2:10–14 in terms of historical geography. The image of four rivers emanating from a primordial garden and dividing unnaturalistically from a common source is attested in ancient Near Eastern art, notably in the eighteenth-century BC wall painting illustrating the investiture of Zimri-Lim. In this image, two goddesses stand in a paradisiacal garden, guarded by mythical, sphinxlike creatures (cf. the cherubim in Gen. 3:24), holding vessels from which four rivers flow.

In his vision of the restored land of Israel, Ezekiel sees a great river emanating from the temple in Jerusalem, flowing into the Judean desert, and ultimately turning the Dead Sea into freshwater (Ezek. 47:1–12). Along the banks of the river, Ezekiel sees fishermen and perpetually fruitful trees. Similarly, the vision of the new Jerusalem in Rev. 22:1–2 describes a river of the “water of life” flowing through the city and watering trees that bear fruit in every month. In both cases, the visions draw on the notion that Jerusalem is the cultic and religious center of the world and therefore endow its spring—geologically speaking, an insignificant body of water—with a cosmological significance. It was perhaps this same impulse that led the author of Gen. 2:13, probably himself a Jerusalemite, to mention the Gihon in the same class as the Tigris and the Euphrates.

In Ps. 89:25, in the context of a poem describing the adoption of the Davidic king as a divine son, God is described as promising to “set his hand over the sea, his right hand over the rivers.” Like the sea, a symbol of cosmic chaos in ancient Near Eastern mythology, the rivers represent a force that is overcome by the divine warrior and then placed under the subjection of his human representative, the beloved king. In this connection, it is significant that the exodus—in many ways the preeminent foundational moment of the Israelite religion—involved the splitting of both a sea (Exod. 14:21–22) and a river (Josh. 3:16; Ps. 114:3) and the subsequent passage of the Israelites on dry ground. This people-creating deliverance, in turn, is comparable to the account of creation in Gen. 1, where the Creator God drives back the waters to prepare a dry-ground habitation for humanity (vv. 9–10). In Ugaritic mythology, Yamm, the sea god, also bore the epithet “judge river,” underscoring the cosmological connection between sea and river. As we will see, prophetic oracles of divine judgment, especially when they are directed against the river-based civilization of Egypt, often recapitulate the theme of the God of Israel fighting against the river.

The Nile River

The Nile (Heb. ye’or) is fed by two major tributaries: the White Nile, which begins at Lake Victoria, and the Blue Nile, which begins in Ethiopia. At over four thousand miles, the Nile is the longest river in the world. The ancient civilization of Egypt depended entirely on the flow of the Nile and upon its annual flood (the “gift of the Nile”) for irrigation of crops. Even today, arable land along the Nile is confined in some places to an area no more than a few miles from its banks.

Given the dependence of Egyptian civilization on the Nile, especially its annual flood and the accompanying deposit of silt, it is not surprising that the river figured prominently in Egyptian mythology and religion. In particular, the story of the dying and rising god Osiris was linked with the annual ebb and flow of the great river. The annual inundation is still impressive today; an ancient impression may be gleaned from Amos 9:5, where the prophet appeals to the rising and falling of the Nile as a description of divine, earth-melting judgment.

Two of the plagues sent by God upon the Egyptians took place at the Nile, an appropriate setting for a confrontation between the God of Israel and the Egyptian pharaoh, himself a living representation of the Egyptian pantheon. In Ezek. 29:3 the God of Israel says to Pharaoh, “I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, you great monster lying among your streams. You say, ‘The Nile belongs to me; I made it for myself.’  ” Since the Nile was perhaps the preeminent natural or environmental symbol of Egyptian culture, the God of Israel’s assertion of control of that river would have been understood as an unmistakable claim to sovereignty. At the time of the birth of Moses, the Nile was a place of extinction for the Israelites, for Pharaoh had commanded that every boy born to the Hebrews be thrown into the Nile (Exod. 1:22). Ironically, Moses was saved when his mother put him in the Nile in a pitch-coated basket, where he was found by the royal daughter of Pharaoh, who had come to the Nile to bathe (2:3, 5).

God told Moses to confront Pharaoh at the Nile (Exod. 7:15), and the first plague with which God afflicted the Egyptians consisted of turning the Nile into blood, causing its fish to die and rendering its water unsuitable for drinking. The Egyptians were forced to dig wells along its banks (7:20–21). The second plague involved the multiplication of frogs in the Nile, to the point of great inconvenience (8:3).

Isaiah continues the theme of God punishing the Egyptians by attacking the Nile: “The waters of the river will dry up, and the riverbed will be parched and dry. The canals will stink; the streams of Egypt will dwindle and dry up. The reeds and rushes will wither, also the plants along the Nile” (Isa. 19:5–7). The passage goes on to underscore the importance of the Nile as a source of irrigation water and fishing and the devastation that results from the failure of the Nile to flood as expected. In other texts, where the emphasis is on the better fortunes of Egypt, the power of Egypt is symbolized by the mighty Nile: “Who is this that rises like the Nile, like rivers of surging waters? Egypt rises like the Nile. . . . She says, ‘I will rise and cover the earth; I will destroy cities and their people’  ” (Jer. 46:7–8).

The Euphrates River

The Euphrates is the westernmost of the two great rivers of Mesopotamia (along with the Tigris [see below]), the land “between the rivers.” As mentioned above, the Euphrates was one of the four rivers flowing from the garden of Eden, according to Gen. 2:14. Along the Euphrates were located the ancient cities of Carchemish, Emar (Tell Meskeneh), Mari, Babylon, and Ur. The Euphrates runs over seventeen hundred miles from northwest to southeast, beginning in the mountains of eastern Turkey before joining with the Tigris and entering the Persian Gulf.

In the Bible, the Euphrates represents the northern boundary of the territory granted to Abraham (Gen. 15:18; see also Exod. 23:31). David extended his territory as far as the Euphrates when he fought the Aramean king Hada-de-zer (2 Sam. 8:3), and so the dimensions of Israel at its apex under Solomon are described as controlling all the kingdoms “from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt [i.e., the southern limit of his realm]” (1 Kings 4:21).

In addition to its significance as a political boundary, the Euphrates marked an important cultural boundary in Israelite thought. Abraham and his family are remembered as having come from “beyond the Euphrates River” (Josh. 24:2). The exile was described as a scattering “beyond the Euphrates River,” an expression that underscores complete dispossession from Israel’s own land (1 Kings 14:15). Interestingly, the cultures to the east of the Euphrates shared the notion that this river marked a major boundary, as evident from the convention among the Neo-Assyrians and the Persians of referring to western lands by the name “Beyond the River” or “Trans-Euphrates” (Akk. eber-nari; Aram. abar nahara). This was the name of the province encompassing the land of Israel in the time of Ezra (see Ezra 4:10).

Isaiah made use of the association between the Euphrates and the Mesopotamian empires when he likened the king of Assyria to the mighty waters of the river (Isa. 8:7). The Euphrates figures prominently in Revelation, where it restrains punishment from the north, a punishment that is released when God dries up the river, allowing “kings from the East” to cross over (Rev. 9:14; 16:12).

The Tigris River

Along with the Euphrates, the Tigris (Heb. khiddeqel ) was one of the two rivers of ancient Mesopotamia. The Tigris lies east of the Euphrates and runs over a course of approximately 1,150 miles from northwest to southeast, finally joining with the Euphrates and emptying into the Persian Gulf. In antiquity, the cities of Calah, Nineveh, and Ashur lay along the Tigris. The Tigris is mentioned twice in the Bible: first, as one of the four headwaters emanating from the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:14) and, second, as the location of Daniel’s visionary experience (Dan. 10:4).

The Jordan River

The Jordan (Heb. yarden) runs southward from the Hula Valley into the Sea of Galilee (also known as the Sea of Tiberias; modern Lake Kinneret) and from there through a river valley (the “plain of the Jordan” [see Gen. 13:10]) to the Dead Sea. Over its course of approximately 150 miles, it descends dramatically from an elevation of approximately 200 feet in the Hula Valley to an elevation of 690 feet below sea level at the Sea of Galilee, and then farther downward to an elevation of 1,385 feet below sea level at the Dead Sea. Fittingly, the name “Jordan” is related to the Hebrew word yarad (“to go down”).

In the story of the exodus and conquest, the Jordan River marked the boundary of the “promised land,” despite the fact that two and a half tribes received inheritances on the eastern side of the river (the Transjordan [see Num. 32:32; 34:12, 15]). For those living in the land of Israel, the river marked the boundary between them and what they termed “the other side of the Jordan” (Heb. ’eber hayyarden [Num. 32:19; Deut. 1:5]).

In the OT, several memorable stories are set near the Jordan. In addition to Joshua’s dramatic crossing of the Jordan (Josh. 3:1–17), the “fords of the Jordan” were strategic locations, and it was there that the Gileadites slaughtered forty-two thousand Ephraimites as they attempted to return to their territory on the western side of the Jordan (Judg. 12:5). Elisha instructed Naaman, the leprous Aramean general, to bathe seven times in the Jordan for the healing of his condition (2 Kings 5:10). When Elisha’s companions wished to build shelters for themselves, they went to the Jordan, where they knew they would find abundant vegetation and poles (2 Kings 6:2; cf. Zech. 11:3). When one of them dropped an iron ax head into the water, Elisha caused it to float to the surface (2 Kings 6:6–7).

In the NT, the Jordan was the site of much of John the Baptist’s ministry (Matt. 3:5–6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:3). John 1:28 specifies that John was on the eastern bank (also John 3:26; 10:40). It was in the waters of the Jordan that he baptized those who came to him, including Jesus (Matt. 3:13; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21).

Tributaries of the Jordan

South of the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan is fed by several tributaries. The Yarmuk River joins the Jordan just south of the lake, draining the biblical region of Bashan to the east. The Wadi Far’ah joins the Jordan from the west, halfway between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea, and drains the hill country of Ephraim. Nearly across from the Wadi Far’ah, the biblical Jabbok River (Wadi Zerqa) enters the Jordan from the east. In biblical times, the Jabbok was the limit of Ammonite territory (Num. 21:23–24). The Arnon River (Wadi Mujib), not a tributary of the Jordan, enters the Dead Sea from the east, opposite En Gedi. It was the border between the Moabites and the Amorites (Num. 21:13).

The Wadi of Egypt

In a number of texts the “wadi of Egypt” (or “brook of Egypt”) represents the far southern limit of Israelite territory. Some ancient interpreters understood this as referring to the Pelusian branch of the Nile River delta, while most modern scholars favor the Besor River, farther east, in present-day Israel. Besides the Bible, Assyrian texts also refer to the Wadi of Egypt. In 733 BC Tiglath-pileser III set up a victory stela there, perhaps to advertise to the Egyptians the southern extent of the territory that he claimed for Assyria.

Several biblical passages refer to the Shihor River as marking a boundary between Egypt and Israelite territory (Josh. 13:3; 19:26; 1 Chron. 13:5; Isa. 23:3; Jer. 2:18).

The Orontes River

Although it is not mentioned in the Bible, the Orontes marked an important international boundary in the biblical world. The Orontes begins in the Bekaa Valley in present-day Lebanon, then flows northward between the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon mountain ranges before turning sharply westward to empty into the Mediterranean Sea. Along the Orontes lay the kingdom of Hamath (see, e.g., 2 Sam. 8:9; 2 Chron. 8:3; Jer. 39:5). Because it ran through a valley that was an artery of travel from north to south, the Orontes was the perennial focus of strategic interest, and several important battles were fought at or near the Orontes. In 1274 BC the Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses II fought the Hittite king Muwatallis II at the Battle of Kadesh. In 853 BC the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III was challenged at Qarqar on the Orontes by a coalition led by Hadadezer of Damascus and including King Ahab of Israel.

A bond typically represents a close relationship in Scripture. It can carry positive or negative connotations, as do related words such as “bondage.” In the sense of “chains,” bonds literally hold a slave to the master or a prisoner to the jail. God’s exiled people are likewise said to be held in bonds, from which he will rescue them (Jer. 30:8). Spiritually speaking, “bond” may describe the firm covenant relationship between God and his people (Jer. 2:20; 5:5; Ezek. 20:37). In the new covenant, believers are freed from bondage to sin and become Christ’s bondspeople (Rom. 6:16–22). This relationship with Christ in turn joins Christians to one another; in Ephesians this unity is called “the bond of peace” (4:3).

A Hebrew transliteration of an Egyptian place name for an outpost bordering Sinai (see Jer. 2:16; 46:14). The word means “the fortress of Penhase” or “the house of the Nubian.” Penhase was a Theban general who quelled a rebellion in the Nile Delta (eleventh century BC). After the destruction of Jerusalem, a group of Israelites desired to escape to Tahpanhes. Jeremiah counseled against this, warning that Nebuchadnezzar would eventually reach Tahpanhes, and prophesying that if the people remained in the land, God would grant them mercy. However, the Jews did not listen and fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah with them. It was in Tahpanhes that Jeremiah finished out his prophetic career (Jer. 42:19; 43:7–9; 44:1). Ezekiel also included this city in his oracle against Egypt (Ezek. 30:18 [NRSV, KJV, ESV: “Tehaphnehes”]). The site of the city is associated with Daphnai (Tell Defneh, near Lake Manzaleh in the northeast Delta).

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

The Torah of Moses

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

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

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

Other Uses of Torah

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

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

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

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

Today, vengeance normally is understood as retaliation for a suffered wrong, an action arising from vindictiveness and antipathy toward its object. Such an understanding runs counter to the biblical concept of vengeance. Indeed, the negative individual vengefulness associated with the term is either unequivocally forbidden or shown to be wrongheaded (Exod. 23:4–5; Lev. 19:18; Ezek. 25:12–16; Jer. 20:10–11; 1 Pet. 3:9). Thus, the term is better understood by considering the Hebrew term naqam (or its synonyms baqash and gemul [Josh. 22:23; 1 Sam. 20:16; 2 Sam. 4:11; Ps. 94:2; Isa. 59:18; Obad. 15]) and the Greek term ekdikēsis. A close study of the biblical terms suggests that vengeance has to do with the administration of justice: the rendition of appropriate sanctions against a violator of established norms, and the provision of justice or vindication to the victimized or oppressed. One recurrent motif in the incidences of God’s vengeance is its function in stopping or recompensing injustice (Isa. 59:14–18). The prerogative of such a solemn task rests with someone with legitimate authority. Such authority is ultimately God’s (Deut. 32:35, 39; cf. Ps. 94:1–3; Prov. 20:22; Rom. 12:19). Indeed, the subject of four out of every five occurrences of “vengeance” in the Bible is God.

In that capacity, God combines, almost indistinguishably, the roles of a sovereign, supreme judge, and warrior in his execution of vengeance on the errant (Exod. 15:1–7; Ps. 89:6–18; Isa. 51:4–5; 52:10; Jer. 20:12). He sometimes delegates this function to angels (Gen. 18–19; Exod. 12:23; 2 Kings 19:35; Acts 12:23); nations, or national armies (Deut. 28:45–50; Isa. 10:5; Jer. 50:9–15); Israel (Deut. 9:1–5; 7:1; 20:16–17; Josh. 6:17–25; 8:24); kings, political leaders, and judicial officers (Deut. 25:1; Jer. 27:6; Rom. 13:1–4; 1 Pet. 2:13–14); and nonintelligent beings or elements of nature (Exod. 23:28–30; Amos 4:6–11).

God’s vengeance has its moorings in his holiness (Jer. 50:28–29; cf. Deut. 32:4). The violation of his holiness arouses his justice, which demands just retribution for the offense (2 Sam. 12:1–12; Jer. 50:6–7; Ezek. 31:3–11). Put differently, God’s righteousness is the obverse of his vengeance. One’s experience of either is contingent upon one’s relationship with God. In other words, his vengeance flows from his justice (Ps. 89:31–32; Nah. 1:3). God’s justice is counterbalanced by his love (cf. James 2:13). For that reason, his vengeance on his covenant people is often more corrective than punitive and anticipates their repentance, redemption, and restoration (Isa. 1:24–26; Jer. 3:1–17; 46:28). Ultimately, he forgives his people, whom he disciplines (Pss. 89:19–33; 99:8; Zeph. 3:7; Rom. 5:6–11).

Therefore, there always is a close link between God’s vengeance on the wicked and the salvation of his people (Isa. 34:8; 49:26; 61:1–3; Jer. 51:36). This is why the nations that he uses to punish Israel end up being punished themselves because of their hubris and overreaching attempts to annihilate his covenant people (Isa. 47:1–11; Jer. 46:10; 50–51), their failure to recognize the God who has prospered them, and their opposition to him (Deut. 32:26; Mic. 5:14). Thus, God’s people come to expect or even call for God’s vengeance on their enemies (Ps. 94:1–7; Jer. 11:20; 15:15; Lam. 3:60–66; Hab. 1:2–4). Such expectation is usually futuristic and parallels Israelite hope for the impending “day of the Lord” (Isa. 13:9–11; Jer. 46:10; Luke 21:20–24; 2 Thess. 1:6–8). Thus, the cries of God’s people for his vengeance on their enemies represent the abandonment of personal revenge in favor of God’s acts of justice and vindication—petitions for the rule of God’s law over mere human justice (Pss. 58:11; 79:10; Rev. 6:10).

Grape-producing plants are widely cultivated in Palestine. The first biblical reference to vine cultivation appears in Gen. 9:20, where the restoration of the earth is implied by Noah’s planting of a vineyard. The appearance of the vine in Pharaoh’s chief cupbearer’s dream implies widespread vine cultivation in Egypt (Gen. 40:9–11). Before the Israelites’ entry, the land of Canaan was also famous for the production of grapes and wine (cf. Num. 13:23; Deut. 6:11; 8:8). Several places around the region are named in the OT for their fruitful vines: Eshkol (Num. 13:23), Sorek (Judg. 16:4), Sibmah, Heshbon, Jazer, Elealeh (Isa. 16:8–10), Helbon (Ezek. 27:18), Lebanon (Hos. 14:7), and En Gedi (Song 1:14).

Vine cultivation. Vine cultivation is detailed in the Bible. A hilly terrain is terraced, stones are cleared, and soil is plowed (Ps. 80:9; Isa. 5:2). The walls are built up with stones, often with a hedge of thorny bushes, to protect the vineyard from thieves and wild animals (Isa. 5:2). Then young vines are planted where water is supplied (Ezek. 19:10). As their branches develop, they are raised up on supports (Ezek. 17:6). In the spring the vines are pruned so that they will bear good grapes (Lev. 25:3; John 15:2). Winepresses are hewn out of wood or rocky ground (Isa. 5:2). A watchtower is erected to overlook the vineyard, especially as the harvest season draws near (Job 27:18; Isa. 1:8; 27:3). When the grapes are ripe, they are gathered in baskets and taken to winepresses (Hos. 9:2), while some are dried into raisins. When the harvest is done, the poor in the village are allowed to enter the vineyard to gather the gleanings (Lev. 19:10; Deut. 24:21; cf. Isa. 24:13; Jer. 49:9; Mic. 7:1).

Since the production of grapes was of major importance to the Israelites, the continuing cycle of vine cultivation meant national peace and security (cf. “under their own vine and under their own fig tree” in 1 Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4; Zech. 3:10; joy of the harvest in Isa. 16:10; Jer. 48:33). Thus, the characteristic expression of planting vineyards and consuming their fruits signals God’s blessing (2 Kings 19:29; Ps. 107:37; Isa. 65:21–22; Jer. 31:5; 40:12; Ezek. 28:26; Amos 9:14), whereas not enjoying the fruit signifies misfortune (Deut. 20:6) or God’s judgment (Deut. 28:30; Ps. 78:47; Jer. 8:13; Amos 5:11; Hab. 3:17; Zeph. 1:13). Likewise, a feast with wine signifies God’s blessing (Isa. 25:6; 55:1; Jer. 31:12; Joel 2:19; cf. Jesus turning water into wine [John 2:1–11]), while the lack of wine means God’s judgment (Isa. 24:9, 11; 62:8; Hos. 2:9; 9:2; Joel 1:10).

Old Testament. The vine and the vineyard are important metaphors in the OT. The fruitfulness of the vine often symbolizes the fruitfulness or blessedness of a person (e.g., Joseph in Gen. 49:22; a fruitful wife in Ps. 128:3). In Song of Songs the vineyard is not only the main place of love (2:13, 15; 6:11; 7:12) but also a metaphor for the woman’s body (8:11); also, the “beloved” is compared to “henna blossoms from the vineyards of En Gedi” (1:14), and her breasts to the “clusters of grapes on the vine” (7:8).

The metaphors of the vine and the vineyard are also used of God’s people. In Ps. 80:8–13 Israel’s history is presented in terms of the vine-cultivation cycle (cf. Jer. 2:21; Hos. 10:1). A similar story is heard in Isa. 5:1–7, which compares the Israelites’ lack of justice and righteousness to the bearing of wild grapes (cf. “vine of Sodom” in Deut. 32:32; “a corrupt, wild vine” in Jer. 2:21). Ezekiel also uses the vine metaphor in rebuking the Israelites’ iniquity (Ezek. 15:2–4; 17:3–10; 19:10–14). If the aforementioned passages describe Israel’s history from its birth to judgment, Isa. 27:2–6 presents God’s promise of restoration through the story of the restored vineyard.

New Testament. In five parables Jesus refers to vines and cultivation (Matt. 9:17 pars.; 20:1–16; 21:28–32; 21:33–46 pars.; Luke 13:6–9). Notable is the fact that God often is portrayed as the owner of the vineyard (Matt. 20:1; 21:28, 33; Luke 13:6). In Rev. 14:18–20 God’s judgment upon his enemies is described by means of the imagery of the vine harvest, in which the enemies are trampled like harvested grapes in the “great winepress of God’s wrath” (cf. Isa. 63:1–6; Joel 3:13). In the vine metaphor in John 15:1–8, Jesus identifies God as the farmer, himself as the “true vine,” and the believers as its branches. No longer are God’s people identified as the vine, which is expected to bear good fruits; rather, Jesus is the vine, and the believers are his branches. So the fruitfulness of the branches depends on their adherence to the vine. Jesus’ use of the “fruit of the vine” at the Last Supper as the symbol of his atoning blood can be compared to his metaphorical self-identification as the vine (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18). See also Plants.