In biblical times, a wheeled vehicle, usually drawn by animals such as oxen and cows and used in agricultural contexts (Num. 7:3; 1 Sam. 6:7; Isa. 28:27; Amos 2:13). The Hebrew word ’agalah can be translated as “cart” or “wagon.” Carts were used to transport objects, but the hilly terrain of Palestine was not conducive to their use (cf. 2 Sam. 6:3–6; 1 Chron. 13:7–9). Thus, they were used primarily in the plains of Palestine (1 Sam. 6:7–8, 10, 11–14). The cart or wagon likely was of Assyrian origin.

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

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

Articles of Clothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Functions of Clothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles of Clothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Functions of Clothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles of Clothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Functions of Clothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles of Clothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Functions of Clothing

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

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

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

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

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

In the OT, humility often refers to people of low social status, the disenfranchised, and those who suffer oppression and poverty (e.g., Prov. 22:22–23; Amos 2:7; Zech. 7:10). Such people often are referred to as the ’anawim (e.g., Ps. 9:12, 18; Isa. 32:7; 61:1; Amos 2:7; 8:4). The Hebrew word ’anah is frequently translated by the English words “oppress” and “afflict.” The word denotes the sexual humiliation of women (Gen. 31:50; Ezek. 22:10–11), military oppression (Judg. 16:5–6, 19), and oppression that comes with slavery (Gen. 15:13; Exod. 1:12; Deut. 26:6). As a social status, humility is synonymous with those marginalized by society.

Scripture sometimes associates those socially marginalized with the ethical dimension of humility, thus making the social status equivalent to a subjective spiritual quality (Pss. 22:26; 37:11–17; 146:7–9; Zeph. 3:11–13). Social humiliation, however, does not necessarily lead to humility as a virtue. In a number of instances in the OT, the two remain distinct. In its subjective quality, humility involves submission to one in authority, usually to God (Exod. 10:3; Deut. 8:2–3, 16; Ps. 119:67, 71, 75). On some occasions humility is related to the act of repentance before God (e.g., Zeph. 2:1–3). When paired with “fear of the Lord,” humility implies a person who lives in a posture of pious submission before God (Prov. 15:31–33; 22:4).

Such is the case with Moses, whom the writer of Numbers describes in the following way: “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3). Moses’ humility in this situation is displayed in his intimate relationship with, and by his submissive attitude toward, the sovereign God (12:4–9).

In the NT, Christians take Christ as their model of humility (Matt. 11:29; Phil. 2:6–11). The NT writers also call on Christians to humble themselves before God (James 4:10; 1 Pet. 5:5–6) as well as others, including their enemies (Rom. 12:14–21; Phil. 2:3).

In the OT, humility often refers to people of low social status, the disenfranchised, and those who suffer oppression and poverty (e.g., Prov. 22:22–23; Amos 2:7; Zech. 7:10). Such people often are referred to as the ’anawim (e.g., Ps. 9:12, 18; Isa. 32:7; 61:1; Amos 2:7; 8:4). The Hebrew word ’anah is frequently translated by the English words “oppress” and “afflict.” The word denotes the sexual humiliation of women (Gen. 31:50; Ezek. 22:10–11), military oppression (Judg. 16:5–6, 19), and oppression that comes with slavery (Gen. 15:13; Exod. 1:12; Deut. 26:6). As a social status, humility is synonymous with those marginalized by society.

Scripture sometimes associates those socially marginalized with the ethical dimension of humility, thus making the social status equivalent to a subjective spiritual quality (Pss. 22:26; 37:11–17; 146:7–9; Zeph. 3:11–13). Social humiliation, however, does not necessarily lead to humility as a virtue. In a number of instances in the OT, the two remain distinct. In its subjective quality, humility involves submission to one in authority, usually to God (Exod. 10:3; Deut. 8:2–3, 16; Ps. 119:67, 71, 75). On some occasions humility is related to the act of repentance before God (e.g., Zeph. 2:1–3). When paired with “fear of the Lord,” humility implies a person who lives in a posture of pious submission before God (Prov. 15:31–33; 22:4).

Such is the case with Moses, whom the writer of Numbers describes in the following way: “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3). Moses’ humility in this situation is displayed in his intimate relationship with, and by his submissive attitude toward, the sovereign God (12:4–9).

In the NT, Christians take Christ as their model of humility (Matt. 11:29; Phil. 2:6–11). The NT writers also call on Christians to humble themselves before God (James 4:10; 1 Pet. 5:5–6) as well as others, including their enemies (Rom. 12:14–21; Phil. 2:3).

The concept of justice pervades the Bible, especially, though not exclusively, the OT. The key biblical terms that convey this concept include mishpat, tsedeq/tsedaqah, yashar in the OT and the dik- word group in the NT (whose noun and verb forms are translated respectively as “righteous” and “justify” or their respective cognates). The biblical concept of justice is an embodiment of two contemporary concepts: righteousness and justice. The former designates compliance with the divine norm, while the latter emphasizes conformity to a societal standard of what is right and equitable. Focusing exclusively on the latter hinders the correct understanding of justice in the biblical sense. Additionally, the biblical understanding of this concept is encumbered by the use of differing English terms to translate the same Hebrew or Greek terms.

Mishpat and Tsedaqah

Mishpat inherently encompasses the idea of judicial activism consisting in the provision of standard criteria (legislation, instructions, directives) for conduct and adjudication, and/or the actual arbitration between parties with the goal of ascertaining culpability or otherwise and administering the requisite sanctions or acquittal. Tsedaqah, on the other hand, emphasizes the established norm of just order for right conduct both in the larger society and for individuals. Whereas mishpat emphasizes the action that seeks to establish or enforce right patterns of behavior for the common good, tsedaqah stresses the practice (or lack thereof) of such a norm in society, or between individuals, or an individual’s compliance with such a norm.

When used in combination as a hendiadys (or word pair), these two terms signify an inherent requirement for conformity to an established norm (whether in the religious sphere or in civil society) or the requirement of loyalty or right conduct between individuals. To the person who stands to benefit from this norm, it approximates a right (i.e., a claim). Conversely, implicit duty is placed upon the person who ensures the conformity to such an established norm. This fact is better appreciated when we reckon with the covenantal nature of requirements for justice in the ancient world, in which both parties have both claim and responsibility. Broadly speaking, this concept also implies good governance, which accrues order to life and common benefits to all members of the community.

This idea is exemplified even in passages that do not use this precise phraseology (mishpat utsedaqah). Judah’s widowed daughter-in-law, Tamar, had an inherent right to be provided with a (kinsman-redeemer) husband to raise up progeny for her deceased husband, while Judah had the incumbent duty of giving her in levirate marriage to his surviving son. When Judah failed to execute his duty, Tamar entrapped him into an incestuous relationship, from which she conceived. When condemned to die for adultery in a clannish court setting, Tamar revealed the identity of her unborn child’s father, to which Judah responded by saying, “She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah” (Gen. 38:26). That is, she acted more in conformity to the norm than he did. In another instance, Yahweh, while challenging the Judeans concerning their loyalty to him in a covenant lawsuit setting, asks, “A son honors his father, and a slave his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” (Mal. 1:6). It is Yahweh’s right as father and master to receive honor and respect, while it is their duty to give him both.

God as the Source and Model of Justice

To be just, then, implies conformity to that which is right—yashar (the standard or norm). In Scripture, this standard is the revealed divine will and character. Compliance to it is often expressed in biblical narrative as doing what is “right [or good] in the Lord’s sight” (Deut. 6:18; 12:28; 1 Kings 14:8; 22:43), while its antithesis is doing what is “evil in the eyes of the Lord” (Judg. 2:11; 1 Kings 11:6; 14:22) or doing what some human figure(s) “saw fit” (Deut. 12:8; Judg. 17:6; 21:25).

Therefore, the source of justice is God himself. It flows from his essential character as one who is both just and righteous, whose actions are flawless, perfect, upright, and just (Deut. 32:4; 1 Sam. 12:7; 2 Sam. 22:31; Job 37:23; Ps. 89:14). God is the righteous lawgiver, hence the one who establishes the norm for right conduct (Deut. 4:4–8; Ps. 19:7–9). He requires justice of all his creatures (cf. Gen. 9:5–6; Exod. 21:12, 28–29). God also judges righteously (Gen. 18:25; 1 Kings 8:32; Ps. 9:4, 9; Jer. 9:24) and defends and vindicates the weak and oppressed (Deut. 10:18; Ps. 103:6). The responsibility of maintaining justice in the human community, however, he delegates to its leaders, such as civil magistrates or political officials, and requires them to execute this responsibility with integrity, equity, and impartiality (Deut. 1:16–17; 16:18–20; Ps. 82:2–4; Prov. 31:8–9; John 7:24; 1 Pet. 2:13–14). God’s requirement of justice in the human community is not limited to its leaders only; it is incumbent upon everyone therein (Ps. 15:1–5; Mic. 6:8; Zech. 7:9; 8:17; Matt. 23:23).

Executing justice requires doing all that is essential to bring about the divine order implicit in creation and explicit in revealed truth, to produce harmony in all relationships in which humankind is involved (divine-human, human-human, and human-nature). This has the twofold result of restraining evil and advancing the benefits of just living within the human society. Thus, the fruits of justice are to be seen in all spheres of human life, such as spirituality (2 Cor. 5:17–21), morality and ethics (Phil. 4:8; Col. 3:5–9; Titus 2:11–13), social justice (Exod. 22:21–24; Isa. 56:1; Amos 2:6–7; Ezek. 22:7–29; James 2:1–9), and economic justice (Amos 5:11; 8:4–6; James 5:1–6), as well as in the environment (Deut. 20:19–20; Pss. 96:9–13; 104:1–31; Eccles. 2:5–6; Rom. 8:19–22).

Additionally, the outworking of justice produces (re)distribution and retribution. Distribution means that those blessed materially share of their blessings with those in need (Deut. 15:1–15; Ps. 112:5–9; Prov. 28:27; Isa. 58:1–11; 2 Cor. 8–9). Retribution relates to the vindication and deliverance of the oppressed and judgment on the wicked (1 Sam. 2:7–10; Job 36:5–10; Ps. 72:4; Luke 4:17–20). This is both attested in biblical Israel’s experience (Isa. 1:17–20; 5:1–9; Jer. 5:26–29; Mic. 2:1–3) and is being anticipated at the final judgment (Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:1–3; Matt. 25:31–46; 2 Thess. 1:5–10). The vindicated obtain God’s love and grace, while the judged receive his justice. Justice and love, therefore, are the two sides of God’s holiness.

Both men and women could take the Nazirite vow (Num. 6:1–21), consecrating themselves to God and abstaining from all grapevine products, avoiding contact with corpses, and allowing their hair to grow long. The first two stipulations mandate separation from conditions reflective of decay and corruption, clearly an affront to God’s holiness (cf. Amos 2:11–12). Long hair was the sign of the vow, symbolic of the power of God (Judg. 16:17).

Inadvertently touching a corpse interrupted the vow. Rededication necessitated shaving the head and sacrificing sin and burnt offerings, along with a guilt offering for having defiled something holy (Lev. 5:14–19). The vow could last one’s entire life, as was intended for Samson (Judg. 13:7) and Samuel (1 Sam. 1:11), or it could simply be for a period of time (Acts 18:18; 21:24). In the latter case, the vow was terminated with the presentation of sin, burnt, and fellowship offerings and shaving and burning the hair at the tabernacle.

An individual could take the vow by personal volition, or it could be imposed by others. Most of the biblical examples fall into the latter category. The angel of the Lord declared that Samson would be a Nazirite for his entire life, although Samson despised the sanctity of the vow in just about every way (Judg. 13–16). Hannah dedicated Samuel for his life (1 Sam. 1:11). John the Baptist was also apparently given over to these conditions by the word of the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:15).

The practice of giving and taking pledges as securities on loans was common in the ancient Near East, including Israel. One notable example is that of Judah, who gave the pledge of his seal and cord as well as his staff to Tamar until he could return and pay a goat from his flock (Gen. 38:17–20). Taking a pledge was acknowledged as an alternative to exacting interest from debtors (Exod. 22:25–26). The poor likely did not have the means to pay interest, and it was illegal to exact it from the poor or from one’s kin (Lev. 25:35–38; Deut. 23:19). The giving of a pledge allowed the poor the opportunity to borrow. The practice was highly regulated in an attempt to protect the penurious of society. Some things were not to be taken as pledges because they were necessary for life. For example, an upper millstone could not be taken in pledge because of its necessity in food processing (Deut. 24:6). Some garments were acceptable as a pledge, but the widow’s was exempt (Deut. 24:12–13, 17), and transgressors of this rule were condemned by the prophets (Ezek. 18:7, 12; Amos 2:8). To give a pledge or to be guarantor of a debt on behalf of someone else was not always considered wise and might result in loss unless immediate action was taken (Prov. 6:1–5; 22:26).

In biblical times, a wheeled vehicle, usually drawn by animals such as oxen and cows and used in agricultural contexts (Num. 7:3; 1 Sam. 6:7; Isa. 28:27; Amos 2:13). The Hebrew word ’agalah can be translated as “cart” or “wagon.” Carts were used to transport objects, but the hilly terrain of Palestine was not conducive to their use (cf. 2 Sam. 6:3–6; 1 Chron. 13:7–9). Thus, they were used primarily in the plains of Palestine (1 Sam. 6:7–8, 10, 11–14). The cart or wagon likely was of Assyrian origin.

Amos was the first of the writing prophets, ministering during the long reigns of Uzziah (769–733 BC) and Jeroboam II (784–748 BC). During this period Judah and Israel were prosperous and secure, which made Amos’s threats sound ridiculous; however, they were quickly fulfilled. After Jeroboam’s death the northern kingdom rapidly deteriorated (ending in 722 BC).

Amos was a noqed (“sheep raiser”), a word used of Mesha king of Moab (2 Kings 3:4) and indicating a sheep breeder or dealer, not a rustic shepherd (ro’eh). Though a champion of the poor (Amos 2:6–7), Amos may have been wealthy, so that it was his own social class that he criticized. His hometown of Tekoa, ten miles south of Jerusalem, was a center for pastoral work. Amos called himself a boqer (“herdsman”), a word that does not specify what animals he raised, and said that he cared for “sycamore-fig trees” (7:14). The fruit and leaves of sycamores were used as winter feed for stock, so these were two linked professional activities. Amos was no career prophet, and presumably he eventually went back to his profession.

Amos’s Judean origins influenced his preaching to sinful Israel. The book of the prophecy of Amos begins with oracles against eight nations that were once part of the Davidic empire (1:3–2:16) and ends with the promise of a restored Davidic empire (9:11–12). The fact that Amos was from the south yet spoke in the north hinted at a coming Davidic reunification of the twin nations. God’s words through Amos are pictured as coming from Zion (= Jerusalem), the Davidic capital (1:2).

Amos’s prophecy records what he “saw” (1:1), the word indicating “saw [in a vision],” and climaxes with five visions. The priest Amaziah used the term “seer” in a derogatory sense: “Get out, you seer!” (7:12). The altercation with Amaziah is the one incident of Amos’s ministry narrated (7:10–17). Amaziah accused him of sedition because he spoke at the royal sanctuary of Bethel. Amos was told to “eat bread” (literally) back in Judah—that is, earn his living there—with Amaziah implying that Amos was commercially motivated. In response to Amaziah’s taunts, Amos said, “I was neither a prophet nor a prophet’s son,” meaning not a prophet by profession, and he denied being a member of any prophetic guild (cf. “the sons of the prophets” in 2 Kings 2). Instead, Amos stressed the divine initiative and call that alone explained his prophetic activities (7:15).

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

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

Articles of Clothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Functions of Clothing

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

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

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

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

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

Obadiah is the shortest book in the OT (twenty-one verses). It is a prophecy against one of ancient Israel’s most persistent enemies, the Edomites.

Historical Background

The superscription (1:1a) names Obadiah as the author of the book but adds nothing more. About a dozen people have the name “Obadiah” elsewhere in the OT, but we cannot be certain that any one of them can be identified with the prophet. His name means “servant of Yahweh.”

The prophecy is totally directed toward Edom, a nation located south of Moab, in the area to the southeast of the Dead Sea. It is a region of rugged mountains and wadis, thus difficult to attack.

The Bible attributes the Edomites’ origins to Esau, Jacob’s brother, whose other name is Edom, or “Red” (see Gen. 36). Notice that by the time Jacob returned from his sojourn in Paddan Aram, Esau, having already amassed a significant fortune, was dwelling in the region of Seir (a common synonym for Edom [see Gen. 32]).

It is true that Edom, like Moab and Ammon, refused the Israelites passage during the wilderness wanderings (Num. 20:14–21), but they found another way, thus avoiding violent confrontation. Still, there were subsequent battles between Edom and Israel. Later, for instance, David is described as having taken Edom as a vassal (2 Sam. 8:14). Jehoshaphat had control over it (1 Kings 22:47). An Edomite monarchy came about during the time of Jehoram (2 Kings 8:20), at which time Edom rebelled against Judah and won its independence. Elath, an important seaport, was taken by the Edomites during the reign of Ahaz.

At the time of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, Edom had taken advantage of the situation in some way. While not precisely described, this point can be established by reference to texts such as Ps. 137:7; Lam. 4:22; Ezek. 35:15.

The issue, then, is at what point in this long history the book of Obadiah is to be placed. One option is the mid-ninth century BC during the time of Jehoram (2 Kings 8:20–22; 2 Chron. 21:8–10). A much better setting for the book, however, is found in the early exilic period, described in the previous paragraph, thus dating the book to the sixth century BC.

Literary Considerations

The superscription refers to the book of Obadiah as a “vision.” It is a prophetic vision of the destruction of Edom for its sins against the people of God. It also presents a prophecy of encouragement to beleaguered Israel.

Obadiah may also be described as a prophetic oracle, specifically an oracle against a foreign nation. Such oracles are found in larger prophetic books as part of their overall collection (Isa. 13–23; Jer. 46–51; Ezek. 25–32; 35; Amos 1–2). Indeed, oracles against Edom are found in Isa. 34:5–15; Jer. 49:7–22; Ezek. 25:12–14; 35; Amos 1:11–12; Mal. 1:2–5. An especially close relationship exists between the Jeremiah passage and Obadiah, though the question of dependence of one on the other is debated and cannot be resolved with certainty.

Outline

I. Judgment on Edom (vv. 1–16)

II. Salvation of Israel (vv. 17–21)

Theological Message

The book of Obadiah is a prophecy against Israel’s enemy Edom. Many other oracles against Edom occur in the OT, but Obadiah is the only case where an entire book is dedicated to this purpose. Conflict between Edom and Israel goes back all the way to the patriarchal period, when their respective ancestors, the brothers Esau and Jacob, experienced conflict.

But ultimately, Obadiah is more than a book that is against Edom. The book proclaims that God is over all the nations, and though the enemies of God’s people may have momentary moments of glory, ultimately they will give way to those whom God has chosen. Indeed, the book ends with the triumphant statement “And the kingdom will be the Lord’s” (v. 21).

New Testament Connections

The ancient rivalry between Jacob and Esau, Israel and Edom, has echoes in the NT. We see it when Herod the Great, an Idumean and a descendant of Edom, tries to kill the child Jesus, who represents everything that Israel was meant to be (Matt. 2:16).

Obadiah also provides a picture of the ultimate downfall of an oppressor of God’s people. It is a lesson that those who try to take advantage of God’s people may win the battle but will not win the war. Christians who read this are reminded of the book of Revelation, which functions similarly, informing God’s people that while sometimes it appears that evil has the upper hand, Christ’s return is certain and will result in the ultimate victory of righteousness.

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.

Though often involving money, a loan can be anything that one party lends to another party without relinquishing ownership. Loans are discussed as a way in which to provide for the needy within one’s community (Deut. 15:7). Although accruing debt is not desirable (Deut. 15:6; Prov. 22:7), loans are allowed and even commanded, albeit with regulations that mitigate some of the risk. A pledge may serve as collateral to help ensure that the loan will be repaid and then is to be returned upon repayment (Ezek. 18:7; 33:15). The pledge is optional (Ezek. 18:16), but when enacted, the item must belong to the debtor and not be provided by another party (Prov. 22:26). When waiting to receive a pledge, one must not enter the neighbor’s house but rather must wait outside (Deut. 24:10–11). An item needed for one’s livelihood is not an appropriate pledge (Deut. 24:6; Job 24:3). If the borrower is poor and uses a cloak as a pledge, the creditor should allow the person to use it for warmth at night (Exod. 22:26; Deut. 24:12–13; Amos 2:8).

Making loans is a means of providing for the neighbor in need and is not intended as a way to increase one’s wealth. When a loan is made between Israelites, no interest is to be exacted (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:35–38; Deut. 23:19; Neh. 5:7), although interest is allowed when lending to a foreigner (Deut. 23:20). Lending money without interest is expected of one whose walk is blameless and who does what is right (Ps. 15:1–5; Prov. 28:8). In Deuteronomy the community is encouraged to lend freely to needy neighbors so that all the needs within the community will be met and the community will enjoy blessings from God, who hears the cry of the needy (15:7–11).

While it is expected that loans be repaid, the goal of a loan is not repayment but rather provision. Loans therefore are not to endure for a lengthy period of time. Every seventh year all creditors are expected to cancel the loans made to fellow Israelites as a part of God’s time for canceling debts (Deut. 15:1–2).

Though often involving money, a loan can be anything that one party lends to another party without relinquishing ownership. Loans are discussed as a way in which to provide for the needy within one’s community (Deut. 15:7). Although accruing debt is not desirable (Deut. 15:6; Prov. 22:7), loans are allowed and even commanded, albeit with regulations that mitigate some of the risk. A pledge may serve as collateral to help ensure that the loan will be repaid and then is to be returned upon repayment (Ezek. 18:7; 33:15). The pledge is optional (Ezek. 18:16), but when enacted, the item must belong to the debtor and not be provided by another party (Prov. 22:26). When waiting to receive a pledge, one must not enter the neighbor’s house but rather must wait outside (Deut. 24:10–11). An item needed for one’s livelihood is not an appropriate pledge (Deut. 24:6; Job 24:3). If the borrower is poor and uses a cloak as a pledge, the creditor should allow the person to use it for warmth at night (Exod. 22:26; Deut. 24:12–13; Amos 2:8).

Making loans is a means of providing for the neighbor in need and is not intended as a way to increase one’s wealth. When a loan is made between Israelites, no interest is to be exacted (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:35–38; Deut. 23:19; Neh. 5:7), although interest is allowed when lending to a foreigner (Deut. 23:20). Lending money without interest is expected of one whose walk is blameless and who does what is right (Ps. 15:1–5; Prov. 28:8). In Deuteronomy the community is encouraged to lend freely to needy neighbors so that all the needs within the community will be met and the community will enjoy blessings from God, who hears the cry of the needy (15:7–11).

While it is expected that loans be repaid, the goal of a loan is not repayment but rather provision. Loans therefore are not to endure for a lengthy period of time. Every seventh year all creditors are expected to cancel the loans made to fellow Israelites as a part of God’s time for canceling debts (Deut. 15:1–2).

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

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

Articles of Clothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Functions of Clothing

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

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

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

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

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

Although the Bible does acknowledge the limited value of alcohol or inebriation as a palliative (Prov. 31:6–7), drunkenness is generally presented as the cause of all sorts of problems in life: woe, sorrow, strife, bruises, red eyes, lust (Prov. 23:29–35), poverty (Prov. 23:21), staggering, vomiting, loss of discernment (Isa. 28:7–8), and public shame (Hab. 2:15; cf. Gen. 9:21). Drunkenness is named as a mark of the disobedient son (Deut. 21:20–21; cf. Luke 15:11–13). It is also a characteristically negative feature in several incidents (e.g., the incest in Lot’s family [Gen. 19:33–35]; David’s plan to cover up his adultery [2 Sam. 11:13]; assassinations of Amnon, Elah, Ben-Hadad and his allies [2 Sam. 13:28; 1 Kings 16:9; 20:16]; Nabal’s feast of wine [1 Sam. 25:36]), although it is mistakenly attributed to Hannah in prayer (1 Sam. 1:13) and the disciples on the Pentecost (Acts 2:13). Drunkenness of civic and religious leaders represents the religious and moral corruption of God’s people (Isa. 5:11–12, 22–23; 28:1, 3; 28:7–8; 56:11–12; Amos 2:12; 6:6). It is also mentioned as a characteristic of the wicked servant (Matt. 24:49) and a sign of division among the believers (1 Cor. 11:21).

In the OT, therefore, abstinence from strong drink not only is regarded as a virtue of the leaders of society (Prov. 31:4–5; Eccles. 10:16–17) but also is required of those who should maintain spiritual purity (priests on duty [Lev. 10:9; Ezek. 44:21]; Nazirites during their vows [Num. 6:3–4; cf. Judg. 13:7]; cf. voluntary abstainers [Jer. 35:6; Dan. 1:8]). In the NT sobriety is required of all believers in Christ (Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:18; especially living in the last days [Luke 21:34; 1 Thess. 5:7]), particularly church leaders (1 Tim. 3:2–3; Titus 1:7–8; 2:2–3).

Drunkenness is also a metaphor widely employed in the Bible (e.g., storm-tossed sailors [Ps. 107:27]; Jeremiah before God [Jer. 23:9]; the spiritual adultery of the kings of the earth [Rev. 17:2]; slaughter [Deut. 32:42; Jer. 46:10; Rev. 17:6]). Notably, drunkenness signifies God’s judgment (Jer. 13:13; Ezek. 23:33), and Isaiah frequently compares drunkenness to the lack of discernment and wisdom among the leaders of society (Isa. 19:13–14; 24:20; 29:9–10; 63:6; also Job 12:25). A wine cup also symbolizes God’s wrath (Ps. 75:8; Isa. 51:17, 22; Jer. 25:15–28; 51:7; Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:31–34; Hab. 2:16; Matt. 20:22–23; 26:39, 42; John 18:11; Rev. 14:10; 16:19).

Various terms in the OT have been interpreted as references to giants. “Anakim,” “Emim,” and “Zamzummim” (ESV, NRSV, NKJV; NIV: “Anakites,” “Emites,” “Zamzummites”) are the names designated by individual nations (i.e., the Israelites, the Moabites, and the Ammonites) for the giant aboriginal inhabitants of their respective territories (Num. 13:31–33; Deut. 2:10–21). “Rephaim” and “Nephilim,” on the other hand, are more general designations that are not necessarily restricted to specific territories. The two terms are difficult to define, but they seem to designate certain types of people such as those with legendary qualities or reputation (Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33; Deut. 2:11; 3:11; 1 Chron. 20:4). Thus, Rephaim and Nephilim are not necessarily people of gigantic proportions, but a gigantic person would certainly be regarded among them (Num. 13:33; Deut. 2:11; 3:11). It is likely that all these terms had pejorative meanings (e.g., “Nephilim” might literally mean “fallen ones”). Furthermore, these terms share a common literary function in that they designate people who must be destroyed or displaced. Their demise was something that God required or even executed himself (e.g., Deut. 2:21; 9:1–6; Amos 2:9).

Some scholars have theorized that the biblical references to giants are a form of military hyperbole, or that they are embellished legends stemming from the sight of megalithic structures, but these theories fail to account for the fact that the Bible represents giants as living simultaneously (and interacting) with the Israelites. The Bible even preserves the personal names of giants such as “Og,” “Talmai,” and “Goliath.” Although no gigantic skeletal remains have yet been recovered from excavations, there is some evidence for giants in Egyptian texts. Papyrus Anastasi I describes Canaanites who were four or five cubits tall (i.e., between 7 and 8.5 feet) in the late thirteenth century BC. The Execration texts also refer to a place called “Anaq” (cf. “Anakim”) in southern Canaan (c. 1800 BC).

God’s “repenting” (KJV) or “relenting” (NIV) may seem to be in tension with his sovereignty, but it makes sense on several assumptions. God wills to accomplish certain overall ends, but he retains freedom to modify the path that he takes to achieve them, as needed. This in turn assumes that God’s interaction with humanity involves genuine give-and-take. Therefore, God’s way in history may be recounted as a story with surprise twists and turns that are integral to the plot. We may affirm all this and also uphold divine sovereignty if we understand both human prayer and God’s response as divinely ordained means for God to achieve his purposes.

Texts that speak of God relenting indicate that God is adopting a new course of action, a change of mind. In a sense, divine judgment itself represents a kind of “change of mind” from God’s basic, original intent to bless. Whereas judgment is “his strange work . . . his alien task” (Isa. 28:21), undertaken when necessary, God’s character is to be gracious and compassionate, to relent from sending calamity (Isa. 48:9; Joel 2:13), and to bring restoration after judgment (Gen. 9:11; Isa. 54:7–8; Hos. 2).

Terminology. To portray God relenting, the OT often uses the Hebrew word nakham, which carries a strong emotional content and an element of regret. On certain occasions, it refers to profound grief that God feels in reaction to human sin and calamity (Gen. 6:6–7; Judg. 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:35; 2 Sam. 24:16). This is not to suggest that God is making amends for wrongs or has the same kinds of regret for mistakes that humans have. But we should recognize that when nakham is used to speak of God “relenting,” it means something more than a change in the direction of the wind: it involves the heart of God, engaged deeply with his people’s welfare (cf. Hos. 11:8–9). Conversely, the human cry for God to relent is wrung from experiences of deep crisis (Job 6:29; Pss. 90:13; 106:44–45).

Exodus and Jonah. Two classic OT narratives about divine relenting may be contrasted. In Exod. 32 the Israelites’ idolatry with the golden calf is followed by God’s indictment and intention to destroy them. A dramatic turning point comes with Moses’ intercession, in response to which God relents. The book of Jonah turns this sequence on its head. Here the prophet resists his mission of announcing Nineveh’s doom because he fears that its people may repent, which they do (Jon. 3:5–9), and that God may then relent from bringing on them the judgment that he had sent Jonah to announce, which he does (4:2). The book of Jonah portrays the prophet as an antihero, out of step with the compassion and larger purposes of God, unhappy with the freedom of God. But it preserves the link between human repentance for sin and divine relenting from previously announced judgment, as seen in Exod. 32.

The prophets. Through the OT prophets, God wrestles with Israel, announcing one course of action, judgment, while often holding open the possibility of an alternate ending: if Israel repents (Jer. 18:8; 26:3, 13) or if a prophet (Amos 7:1–6) or a king (Jer. 26:19) intercedes, then God may relent. At the end of the day, relenting remains a move that God chooses to make or not to make (Isa. 57:6; Jer. 7:16–20; Ezek. 24:14), in faithfulness to his own purpose (Ps. 7:10–12; Jer. 23:20; 30:24; Zech. 8:14–15).

In the book of Amos, God does both. Amos 1–2 comprises a cycle of seven judgment speeches against Israel’s neighbors, culminating in the eighth, lengthiest judgment speech against Israel. Each speech opens with the formula “For three sins of X, and for four, I will not turn back [my wrath].” Here God declares that he has committed himself to carrying out judgment. With the use of the verb shub (“to turn, turn back”), any implied question of reprieve is answered immediately: the nation’s condemnation is irrevocable. But in 7:1–6 God is twice said to “relent” (nakham) from sending the locusts and fire that he has just shown Amos in visions. Granting stays from specific forms of punishment is not the same as forgiving Israel’s sin, however, and these temporary measures are followed by a reassertion of God’s determination to spare Israel no longer (7:7–9). Moreover, even though Israel’s doom is sealed, Amos can still urge his hearers to repent and turn to God, on the grounds that God may relent—that is, freely respond with mercy and allow some to survive the nation’s fall (5:4–6, 14–15).

Salvation and judgment. This divine freedom, compassion, and judgment that dovetail in OT accounts of God relenting are embodied in Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom, which signals both salvation and its corollary, judgment. Hence come his summons to “Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15) and the apostolic call for hearers to escape their generation’s doom by repentance and faith in Jesus (Acts 2:40).

In the OT, humility often refers to people of low social status, the disenfranchised, and those who suffer oppression and poverty (e.g., Prov. 22:22–23; Amos 2:7; Zech. 7:10). Such people often are referred to as the ’anawim (e.g., Ps. 9:12, 18; Isa. 32:7; 61:1; Amos 2:7; 8:4). The Hebrew word ’anah is frequently translated by the English words “oppress” and “afflict.” The word denotes the sexual humiliation of women (Gen. 31:50; Ezek. 22:10–11), military oppression (Judg. 16:5–6, 19), and oppression that comes with slavery (Gen. 15:13; Exod. 1:12; Deut. 26:6). As a social status, humility is synonymous with those marginalized by society.

Scripture sometimes associates those socially marginalized with the ethical dimension of humility, thus making the social status equivalent to a subjective spiritual quality (Pss. 22:26; 37:11–17; 146:7–9; Zeph. 3:11–13). Social humiliation, however, does not necessarily lead to humility as a virtue. In a number of instances in the OT, the two remain distinct. In its subjective quality, humility involves submission to one in authority, usually to God (Exod. 10:3; Deut. 8:2–3, 16; Ps. 119:67, 71, 75). On some occasions humility is related to the act of repentance before God (e.g., Zeph. 2:1–3). When paired with “fear of the Lord,” humility implies a person who lives in a posture of pious submission before God (Prov. 15:31–33; 22:4).

Such is the case with Moses, whom the writer of Numbers describes in the following way: “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3). Moses’ humility in this situation is displayed in his intimate relationship with, and by his submissive attitude toward, the sovereign God (12:4–9).

In the NT, Christians take Christ as their model of humility (Matt. 11:29; Phil. 2:6–11). The NT writers also call on Christians to humble themselves before God (James 4:10; 1 Pet. 5:5–6) as well as others, including their enemies (Rom. 12:14–21; Phil. 2:3).

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.

Though often involving money, a loan can be anything that one party lends to another party without relinquishing ownership. Loans are discussed as a way in which to provide for the needy within one’s community (Deut. 15:7). Although accruing debt is not desirable (Deut. 15:6; Prov. 22:7), loans are allowed and even commanded, albeit with regulations that mitigate some of the risk. A pledge may serve as collateral to help ensure that the loan will be repaid and then is to be returned upon repayment (Ezek. 18:7; 33:15). The pledge is optional (Ezek. 18:16), but when enacted, the item must belong to the debtor and not be provided by another party (Prov. 22:26). When waiting to receive a pledge, one must not enter the neighbor’s house but rather must wait outside (Deut. 24:10–11). An item needed for one’s livelihood is not an appropriate pledge (Deut. 24:6; Job 24:3). If the borrower is poor and uses a cloak as a pledge, the creditor should allow the person to use it for warmth at night (Exod. 22:26; Deut. 24:12–13; Amos 2:8).

Making loans is a means of providing for the neighbor in need and is not intended as a way to increase one’s wealth. When a loan is made between Israelites, no interest is to be exacted (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:35–38; Deut. 23:19; Neh. 5:7), although interest is allowed when lending to a foreigner (Deut. 23:20). Lending money without interest is expected of one whose walk is blameless and who does what is right (Ps. 15:1–5; Prov. 28:8). In Deuteronomy the community is encouraged to lend freely to needy neighbors so that all the needs within the community will be met and the community will enjoy blessings from God, who hears the cry of the needy (15:7–11).

While it is expected that loans be repaid, the goal of a loan is not repayment but rather provision. Loans therefore are not to endure for a lengthy period of time. Every seventh year all creditors are expected to cancel the loans made to fellow Israelites as a part of God’s time for canceling debts (Deut. 15:1–2).

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).

God’s “repenting” (KJV) or “relenting” (NIV) may seem to be in tension with his sovereignty, but it makes sense on several assumptions. God wills to accomplish certain overall ends, but he retains freedom to modify the path that he takes to achieve them, as needed. This in turn assumes that God’s interaction with humanity involves genuine give-and-take. Therefore, God’s way in history may be recounted as a story with surprise twists and turns that are integral to the plot. We may affirm all this and also uphold divine sovereignty if we understand both human prayer and God’s response as divinely ordained means for God to achieve his purposes.

Texts that speak of God relenting indicate that God is adopting a new course of action, a change of mind. In a sense, divine judgment itself represents a kind of “change of mind” from God’s basic, original intent to bless. Whereas judgment is “his strange work . . . his alien task” (Isa. 28:21), undertaken when necessary, God’s character is to be gracious and compassionate, to relent from sending calamity (Isa. 48:9; Joel 2:13), and to bring restoration after judgment (Gen. 9:11; Isa. 54:7–8; Hos. 2).

Terminology. To portray God relenting, the OT often uses the Hebrew word nakham, which carries a strong emotional content and an element of regret. On certain occasions, it refers to profound grief that God feels in reaction to human sin and calamity (Gen. 6:6–7; Judg. 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:35; 2 Sam. 24:16). This is not to suggest that God is making amends for wrongs or has the same kinds of regret for mistakes that humans have. But we should recognize that when nakham is used to speak of God “relenting,” it means something more than a change in the direction of the wind: it involves the heart of God, engaged deeply with his people’s welfare (cf. Hos. 11:8–9). Conversely, the human cry for God to relent is wrung from experiences of deep crisis (Job 6:29; Pss. 90:13; 106:44–45).

Exodus and Jonah. Two classic OT narratives about divine relenting may be contrasted. In Exod. 32 the Israelites’ idolatry with the golden calf is followed by God’s indictment and intention to destroy them. A dramatic turning point comes with Moses’ intercession, in response to which God relents. The book of Jonah turns this sequence on its head. Here the prophet resists his mission of announcing Nineveh’s doom because he fears that its people may repent, which they do (Jon. 3:5–9), and that God may then relent from bringing on them the judgment that he had sent Jonah to announce, which he does (4:2). The book of Jonah portrays the prophet as an antihero, out of step with the compassion and larger purposes of God, unhappy with the freedom of God. But it preserves the link between human repentance for sin and divine relenting from previously announced judgment, as seen in Exod. 32.

The prophets. Through the OT prophets, God wrestles with Israel, announcing one course of action, judgment, while often holding open the possibility of an alternate ending: if Israel repents (Jer. 18:8; 26:3, 13) or if a prophet (Amos 7:1–6) or a king (Jer. 26:19) intercedes, then God may relent. At the end of the day, relenting remains a move that God chooses to make or not to make (Isa. 57:6; Jer. 7:16–20; Ezek. 24:14), in faithfulness to his own purpose (Ps. 7:10–12; Jer. 23:20; 30:24; Zech. 8:14–15).

In the book of Amos, God does both. Amos 1–2 comprises a cycle of seven judgment speeches against Israel’s neighbors, culminating in the eighth, lengthiest judgment speech against Israel. Each speech opens with the formula “For three sins of X, and for four, I will not turn back [my wrath].” Here God declares that he has committed himself to carrying out judgment. With the use of the verb shub (“to turn, turn back”), any implied question of reprieve is answered immediately: the nation’s condemnation is irrevocable. But in 7:1–6 God is twice said to “relent” (nakham) from sending the locusts and fire that he has just shown Amos in visions. Granting stays from specific forms of punishment is not the same as forgiving Israel’s sin, however, and these temporary measures are followed by a reassertion of God’s determination to spare Israel no longer (7:7–9). Moreover, even though Israel’s doom is sealed, Amos can still urge his hearers to repent and turn to God, on the grounds that God may relent—that is, freely respond with mercy and allow some to survive the nation’s fall (5:4–6, 14–15).

Salvation and judgment. This divine freedom, compassion, and judgment that dovetail in OT accounts of God relenting are embodied in Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom, which signals both salvation and its corollary, judgment. Hence come his summons to “Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15) and the apostolic call for hearers to escape their generation’s doom by repentance and faith in Jesus (Acts 2:40).

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

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

Articles of Clothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Functions of Clothing

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

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

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

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

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