Allegory is the use of symbolism to express or represent certain truths. It can be understood in two different ways.

First, some writers intentionally express concepts that conceal behind the literal meaning of their words a more significant meaning. For example, in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, Hopeful helps Christian see Christ again so that he may avoid the Wicked Gate. Similarly, the dark wood where Dante loses himself at the beginning of the Divine Comedy is intended by the author as a symbol of sin, and the three animals that he encounters there are symbols for three particular sins. In both cases, the author intentionally presents the true meaning of the story through figures or symbols. This use of allegory is sometimes described as a prolonged metaphor.

The second way allegory can be understood is as a perspective taken up by the interpreter or reader. Here the reader assumes that the text has a secondary or hidden meaning underlying the primary, literal meaning of the words. Often, but not always, this kind of allegorical interpretation ignores the literal sense of the words and at times denies the usefulness of the literal meaning all together.

Allegory in the Bible. Some passages of Scripture come very close to the first use of allegory: in Ezek. 17:2 God instructs the prophet to “set forth an allegory [NASB, NRSV: “riddle”] and tell the house of Israel a parable.” In the account that follows the prophet carefully explains each element of the story: the first eagle is Babylon, the twigs carried to a land of trade are the captive Israelites taken to Babylon, and so forth. In Ezek. 24:2–14 the prophet gives a similar account, this time pointing out Israel’s unfaithfulness.

Jesus’ parable of the sower (Matt. 13:1–9 pars.) comes very close to this kind of allegory because each feature of the story is explained by Jesus to convey his teaching regarding the kingdom (13:18–23 pars.). However, care must be taken not to confuse the literary category of parable with this type of allegory. A parable is a particular type of story that only at times bears a resemblance to an allegory.

Allegorical interpretation in the early church. The early church fathers, facing the need to distinguish Christianity from Judaism, focused on the person and work of Christ as a means of reading the Bible (one might call this “christocentric” reading). They explained that the Jews could read the OT and yet reject Jesus as the Messiah because they read according to the letter and not according to the Spirit (“for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” [2 Cor. 3:6]). Therefore, the church fathers claimed that the spiritual interpretation of the Bible conveyed its true meaning—the sense that Jesus is the Son of God.

The Alexandrian fathers and allegorization. Clement, traditionally the third bishop of Rome (c. AD 96), provides a very early example of Christian allegorical interpretation. Referring to the story of Rahab and the Israelite spies in Josh. 2, he argues that the scarlet cord is symbolic of a spiritual reality: “And in addition they gave her a sign, that she should hang from her house something scarlet—making it clear that through the blood of the Lord redemption will come to all who believe and hope in God” (1 Clem. 12:7). Another classic example of allegorical interpretation of the OT is the almost universally accepted early Christian understanding of Song of Songs. According to this interpretation, the literal sense of the song (romantic love) could not be its real meaning. Rather, the text refers to the relationship between Christ and his church; thus, the woman represents the church, and the man represents Christ. The passage “He brought me to his banqueting table, and his banner over me is love” (Song 2:4 KJV) refers not to a romantic encounter between lovers but rather to Christ and his delight in the church.

Origen, an early Christian leader and influential biblical scholar from Alexandria, argued that every passage in the Bible had a threefold sense, corresponding to body, soul, and spirit: the literal, moral, and spiritual. Origen usually began with the literal sense of the words, but he insisted that one should move on to the higher sense of the text (moral and spiritual) because it leads the believer closer to Christ. The only way to grasp the spiritual sense of the text, according to Origen, is through revelation. He also was one of the first to claim that Paul himself used allegorical interpretation: in his identification of the wilderness rock with Christ (1 Cor. 10:1–4) and of Sarah and Hagar with two covenants (Gal. 4:22–26). It is debated whether these are examples of allegory or of typology; much depends on how one defines both terms. Many draw a firm distinction between allegory, which derives from a correspondence of ideas, and typology, which derives from a correspondence between historical events. Even in contemporary debate some insist that these passages rely more upon typological connections than allegorical ones.

Allegorical versus typological interpretation. In contrast to those church fathers who followed Origen and others from Alexandria, the fathers of Antioch, especially Theodore of Mopsuestia (AD 350–428) and John Chry­sos­tom (c. AD 354–407), opposed finding the spiritual sense of the text by means of allegorical interpretation. Rather, these interpreters argued that the spiritual sense of the Bible is not allegorical but is to be found in the literal sense itself. Theodore, when challenged to account for the use of the term “allegory” (Gal. 4:24 KJV, RSV, NRSV), argued that Paul used it to indicate a historical correspondence; that is, Paul was interpreting the OT typologically.

Summary. Positively, allegory emphasizes that the Bible should be approached spiritually, and that it should find practical application in the life of the believer. Often allegory made it possible for the church to apply obscure passages of the Bible that otherwise might have been ignored as irrelevant. Negatively, allegory largely removes the text of the Bible from history and fosters irresponsible and fanciful interpretations. See also Typology.

An ambassador is the official representative of a king or government outside the realm of that ruler. In terms of the underlying Hebrew and Greek vocabulary, the concept of ambassador in the Bible largely overlaps with that of messenger, for which there are several biblical terms. In other words, ambassadors (in the modern sense) are not easily distinguished from the numerous biblical messengers in terms of vocabulary alone. However, several biblical narratives involve royal or government messengers operating in an official capacity, on behalf of Moses (Num. 20:14), Judah (Ezek. 17:15), Babylon (2 Chron. 32:31), and Egypt (2 Chron. 35:21; Isa. 30:4). Several of these ambassadors were charged with forging a treaty with a foreign power.

Paul twice describes his own evangelistic ministry as an embassy on behalf of God. In 2 Cor. 5:20 he describes himself as one of “Christ’s ambassadors,” and in Eph. 6:20 paradoxically as an “ambassador in chains,” referring to his incarceration.

A wood valued for its pleasing fragrance, color, and composition. Cedar was used in cleansing and purification ceremonies described in Jewish law (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49, 51–52; Num. 19:6). King David built his palace from cedar wood (2 Sam. 5:11). King Solomon utilized cedar wood in the construction of God’s temple (1 Kings 5:8, 10; 6:9–10, 15–16, 18, 20; 7:2–3). Later, cedar was used to rebuild the temple (Ezra 3:7). The prophets used cedar as a symbol of rarity, strength, and wealth (Isa. 41:19; Jer. 22:7, 14–15; 23:23; Ezek. 17:3, 22–23; 27:5; 31:1).

The Bible does not have a generic term for the idea of color, but it does use various colors for descriptive and symbolic purposes, and it also refers to different coloring processes. Items can be described as “dyed” (Exod. 25:5), “multicolored” (Ezek. 27:24), or “speckled” (Gen. 30:32) to indicate changes or variety of color.

Certain colors are commonly used in the Bible (listed below), while others occur rarely (e.g., brown and yellow) or not at all (e.g., orange), reflecting the range of colors and dyes available in the ancient Near East. Colors are most often used for two purposes: to describe luxury items indicating wealth and power, and to describe the earthly and heavenly dwelling places of God. Ordinary people and places are not usually described in terms of the colors of their appearance. Exceptions to this include Esau (Gen. 25:25), David (1 Sam. 17:42), and the male lover in Song of Songs (5:10–11).

The following colors have particular significance or symbolic meaning in the Bible:

White. Used to describe the symptoms of leprosy (Lev. 13:3–4), white much more commonly has a positive association, being the color of purity (Isa. 1:18; Rev. 3:4) and glory (Dan. 7:9; Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:14). Angels appear white (Matt. 28:3) or are dressed in white (Mark 16:2; Acts 1:10). The multitude of worshipers in heaven will wear white robes (Rev. 7:9), having been washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Black. The female lover in the Song of Songs admires the raven black hair of her beloved (Song 5:11). However, black things usually have less positive connotations: storm clouds (1 Kings 18:45), diseased skin (Job 30:30), and the effects of the plague of locusts (Exod. 10:15). Blackness can also be a sign of judgment (Rev. 6:5, 12).

Red. Red is the color of the earth, the color of wine, and the color of blood. Red dyes could be made from crushed insects, plants, and minerals, giving a wide range of different shades (red, scarlet, and crimson are common in the Bible). Scarlet yarn and red-dyed animal skins were included in the offerings made for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:3–5). Red was used to symbolize sin (Isa. 1:18) and was also associated with warfare (Nah. 2:3; Rev. 6:4).

Blue. Blue tassels adorned every Hebrew garment as a reminder of God’s commandments (Num. 15:38). In the Persian court the royal colors were blue, white, and purple (Esther 1:6; 8:15), and blue garments were worn by the young Assyrian governors (Ezek. 23:6).

Purple. Purple dye was very expensive, so purple cloth was used as a sign of wealth (Prov. 31:22; Acts 16:14) and a sign of authority: the kings of Midian wore purple garments (Judg. 8:26); the wedding carriage of King Solomon was upholstered in purple (Song 3:10); the Babylonian king Belshazzar offered purple robes as a reward for service (Dan. 5:7). Purple robes were put on Jesus before his crucifixion in a mockery of his kingship (John 19:2–5).

Blue, purple, and scarlet were each separately associated with wealth and power, but when used together these three colors were the epitome of opulence and, as such, were associated with the divine presence. The tabernacle curtains were woven from blue, purple, and scarlet yarn (Exod. 26:1), as were the high-priestly garments (28:4–15, 33). The same colors were later used in the temple curtains (2 Chron. 3:14). Blue, purple, and red cloths were used for covering the Ark of the Covenant and its furnishings (Num. 4:6–12). Jeremiah describes idols adorned in blue and purple, an attempt to conceal their worthlessness (10:9).

Gray. Gray hair indicated old age and thus wisdom (Ps. 71:18; Prov. 16:31).

Green. Green is the color of plants and thus was associated with life-giving food and therefore God’s blessing. Green plants were given by God for food (Gen. 1:30), so their removal or destruction was a devastating judgment (Exod. 10:15; Ezek. 17:24; Rev. 8:7). People could be symbolized as green plants when they were fruitful and blessed (Ps. 92:14; Jer. 17:8) or when they were easily destroyed (2 Kings 19:26; Ps. 37:2).

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Israelites associated the east with the rising sun (the same Hebrew word, mizrakh, describes both), the desert (Deut. 1:1; Hos. 13:15), scorching winds (Isa. 27:8; Ezek. 17:10; Hos. 13:15; Jon. 4:8), wisdom (1 Kings 4:30; Job 1:3; cf. Matt. 2:1), and, along with the west country, the whole world (Zech. 8:7). The east country is a broad expanse stretching from the middle Euphrates to North Arabia (Gen. 29:1; Num. 23:7; Judg. 6:3, 33; 7:15). Abraham sent the sons of his concubines there (Gen. 25:6).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nets, probably manufactured from thread fiber made from the bark of trees and knotted together, are used in the OT mostly for warfare or hunting/trapping people (literally and figuratively) (Job 18:8; 19:6; Ps. 10:9; Prov. 29:5; Lam. 1:13; Ezek. 12:13; 17:20; 19:8; 32:3; Hos. 5:1; 7:12; Mic. 7:2) and for trapping wildlife and birds (Prov. 1:17; Isa. 51:20; Ezek. 13:20). The methods of entrapping prey, including humans, involved digging and covering a pit with a net into which prey would fall and be trapped (Pss. 9:15; 35:7; 57:6; 140:5; 141:10); thus, in Ps. 9:15, “The nations have fallen into the pit they have dug; their feet are caught in the net they have hidden.”

There is also reference to use of nets for fishing in the OT, though these are more limited (Eccles. 9:12; Isa. 19:8; Ezek. 47:10; Hab. 1:15–17). In Hab. 1:15–17 nets (kherem) and dragnets (mikmeret) become symbolic objects of idolatry as they supply the needs of the users who in turn offer sacrifices to them in gratitude.

In the NT, nets are mentioned only in connection with fishing (Matt. 4:18–21; 13:47; Mark 1:16–19; Luke 5:2, 4–9; John 21:6, 8, 11).

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word “parable” is used to speak of a particular literary form that communicates indirectly by means of comparative language, often for the purpose of challenging the listener to accept or reject a new way of thinking about a particular matter. Parables regularly incorporate concrete and accessible images from the daily life of the audience, and often they are terse and pointed, mentioning only the details relevant for an effective comparison. However, any attempt to define the term “parable” in a clear and concise way is complicated by the fact that both the Hebrew (mashal) and the Greek (parabolē) words regularly translated by the English word “parable” have much broader connotations. For instance, in the OT mashal can designate proverbs (Prov. 1:1), riddles (Ezek. 17:2), prophetic utterances (Num. 23:7, 18; 24:3, 15, 20, 21, 23), and sayings (1 Sam. 10:12); similarly, in the NT parabolē denotes proverbs (Luke 4:23), riddles (Mark 3:23), analogies (Mark 7:17), and more. Therefore, no comprehensive definition of parables is agreed upon by biblical scholars, and very little said about parables in general will apply to every parable.

Parables in the Bible

Although not designated with the Hebrew word mashal, the story of the trees (Judg. 9:7–15) and the story of the ewe lamb (2 Sam. 12:1–4) may be considered to be parables. Like many parables, the story about the ewe lamb told by Nathan prompts its audience, in this case David, to condemn the actions of a character in the parable before being confronted with the fact that the character and his conduct are symbolic of David himself. The parable is the vehicle used to bring about self-condemnation of its audience.

Although Jesus is not the only speaker of parables in the ancient world, the Gospels narrate a tremendous number of parables within his teaching. The major parables of Jesus are listed in table 4. The diversity of form represented in this list is striking. Some of the parables consist of short, relatively simple comparisons that lack the development of any significant story line. This is true, for instance, of the parables of the mustard seed, yeast, hidden treasure, and the pearl. Each of these offers a simple simile to explain some feature of the kingdom of God, a frequent topic in Jesus’ parables, and may include an additional sentence of clarification.

Table 4. Major Parables of Jesus

Wise and foolish builders (Matt. 7:24-27; Luke 6:46-49)

Sower and the soils (Matt. 13:3–8, 18–23; Mark 4:3–8, 14–20; Luke 8:5–8, 11–15)

Weeds (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43)

Mustard seed (Matt. 13:31–32; Mark 4:30–32; Luke 13:18–19)

Yeast (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:20-21)

Hidden treasure (Matt. 13:44)

Pearl (Matt. 13:45-46)

Net (Matt. 13:47-50)

Lost sheep (Matt. 18:12-14; Luke 15:4-7)

Unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23-35)

Workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16)

Two sons (Matt. 21:28-32)

Wicked tenants (Matt. 21:33–44; Mark 12:1–11; Luke 20:9–18)

Wedding banquet (Matt. 22:2-14)

Faithful and wise servant (Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-48)

Ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13)

Talents (Matt. 25:14–30; Luke 19:12–27)

Sheep and goats (Matt. 25:31-46)

Growing seeds (Mark 4:26-29)

Money lender (Luke 7:41-47)

Good Samritan (Luke 10:30-37)

Friend in need (Luke 11:5-8)

Rich fool (Luke 12:16-21)

Unfruitful fig tree (Luke 13:6-9)

Lowest seat (Luke 14:7-14)

Great banquet (Luke 14:16-24)

Cost of discipleship (Luke 14:28-33)

Lost coin (Luke 15:8-10)

Lost (prodigal) son (Luke 15:11-32)

Shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-8)

Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

Persistent widow (Luke 18:2-8)

Pharisee and tax collector (Luke 18:10-14)

Parables such as the good Samaritan and the prodigal son, on the other hand, are significantly longer, contain developed plots, and present several central characters. Stories of this sort may use the characters as examples of behavior to be either emulated or avoided, as in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Such parables may remain open-ended in an attempt to force the listeners into a decision about what should happen (the unfruitful fig tree), or they may include a clear, concluding explanation that leaves no doubt as to how the audience should change their belief or behavior as a result of the parable’s teaching (the moneylender). The degree to which each of these parables directly addresses the intended audience and the intended topic can vary greatly. For instance, although the parable of the rich fool directly addresses the subject matter of material wealth, the anonymity of the rich man in the story does not openly condemn any particular member of Jesus’ audience. Alternatively, a parable may treat a subject that differs from the intended one and expect the listener to transfer the lesson to another topic. This is the case with the parable of the weeds, which speaks explicitly about farming. Nonetheless, when the disciples seek an explanation of this parable, Jesus indicates that it is to be understood as speaking about that feature of the kingdom of heaven whereby the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one intermingle in the world until the end of the age, when the sons of the evil one will be separated to face a fiery judgment (Matt. 13:36–43).

Other parables, such as that of the lost sheep, revolve around a central question posed to the listeners. By asking “who among you” would behave in the way described, the parable anticipates a negative response that asserts that no one would act in the manner detailed in the parable. The NIV frequently inserts the phrase “suppose one of you” in places where the introductory question “who among you” appears in Greek.

Purpose of Jesus’ Teaching in Parables

It is quite clear that Jesus regularly employed parables in his teaching, but his reason for doing so is less evident. Jesus’ own somewhat perplexing statement in Mark 4:10–12 indicates that his parables have the dual purpose of both revealing and concealing the secret of the kingdom, but one may wonder how it is that parables perform both functions simultaneously. If the goal of comparative language is to make clearer a concept or idea that is difficult, then certainly Jesus’ parables function in this way. Through the simple, accessible, and concrete word pictures that are his parables, Jesus discloses many characteristics and features of the kingdom of God, which is at best something of an enigma to his audience. By speaking to the crowds, albeit at times in an exaggerated fashion, about the things that they know, such as farming, banquets, baking, and other elements of everyday life, Jesus expands their understanding of what they do not know. However, the indirect quality of parables simultaneously blocks spontaneous understanding and therefore requires the audience to engage in additional reflection to ensure that they have truly grasped what is being taught. Likewise, the ability to address an issue by slyly sneaking up on it from behind results in parables that initially conceal their true purpose of convincing the listeners of a new way of thinking or behaving such that the conviction they are meant to induce comes with a surprise kick at the end.

Interpretation of Parables

Interpretation over the centuries. Throughout church history until the nineteenth century, parables were widely interpreted by means of the allegorical method. That is, all the surface details of parables were identified as symbols of some deeper spiritual truth. A classic example of allegorizing is Augustine’s interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan, whereby he interpreted surface details of the text according to allegorical equations (see table 5). Allegorical interpretations of the same parable by other Christians, however, did not always result in the same interpretations of the symbols. For this reason, most scholars today reject the excessive allegorization of Augustine and others throughout church history. However, how many details in a parable, if any, are to be interpreted allegorically remains a central question in parable interpretation. For instance, in the parable of the mustard seed, are the mustard seed and the plant that it produces allegories for the unobtrusive beginnings yet manifest results of the kingdom? If so, what then of the man and the birds also mentioned in the parable? Are they symbols of a deeper spiritual truth such that the man is to be equated with God, or are they included only to augment the teaching of the parable such that the birds merely highlight the extreme size of the tree into which the seed has grown?

Table 5. Augustine’s Allegorical Interpretation of the Good Samaritan

Details in the Parable and its Allegorical Equivalent:

The man = Adam

Jerusalem = The heavenly city

Jericho = The moon (a symbol of mortality)

The robbers = The devil

Beating the man = Persuading him to sin

Priest and Levite = The Old Testament priesthood

Samaritan = Christ

Binding of wounds = Restraint of sin

Oil = Comfort of hope

Animal = Incarnation

Inn = Church

Innkeeper = Apostle Paul

The work of the German scholar Adolf Jülicher at the end of the nineteenth century has widely affected parable interpretation since that time. Jülicher asserted that parables are not allegories and therefore should not be interpreted allegorically at all. Instead, he argued that parables have only one main point, normally a general, religious statement. Interpreters since Jülicher continue to debate how much of a parable is significant and how many points of correspondence are intended. More-recent views have posited that Jülicher went too far in maintaining a strict distinction between parable and allegory, and many interpreters believe that allegorical elements are present in parables, with perhaps the main characters in a parable being the most likely candidates for allegorical interpretation. This renewed openness to allegorical features in parables is due in part to the recognition that the Gospels record Jesus’ own tendency to offer allegorical interpretations of his parables when his disciples inquire as to their meaning. This is most clearly seen in the parable of the sower and the soils, which includes details such as seed, birds, the sun, and thorns. Jesus reveals that the seed is to be interpreted as the message about the kingdom, the birds stand for the evil one, the sun is representative of persecution because of the gospel, and the thorns indicate worries and wealth (Matt. 13:18–23).

Guidelines for interpreting parables. It is generally best to recognize that not all parables are identical, and that one should consider several possible interpretive strategies before determining which approach best fits any given parable. Nonetheless, some broad guidelines for the interpretation of parables include the following:

1. The characters and plots within parables are literary creations and are not historical. The parable of the lost sheep is not a historical rec-ord of a certain shepherd whose sheep went missing. No actual invitation was issued for the great banquet in the parable. Rather, in a parable the listener is brought into a narrative world controlled by the storyteller and by implication has no need for details that the speaker fails to provide. Therefore, it does not matter whether the shepherd himself was at fault in the loss of the sheep, and the choice of food set before the banquet guests is inconsequential.

2. Parables often follow the principle of end stress. Interpreters should carefully consider how the parable ends when determining the meaning the parable is intended to convey. At times an explanatory conclusion to the parable is included and may be helpful in directing the reader toward the topic that is really being addressed. This is the case in the parable of the two sons, in which Jesus’ concluding explanation identifies tax collectors and prostitutes as those who are entering the kingdom ahead of those who have received John’s prophetic message but failed to accept it.

Recent studies on parables that reflect issues raised by two fields of study respectively known as form criticism and redaction criticism are likely to question the accuracy of such concluding statements as well as any introductory comments to parables that may also be presented in the Gospel text. Many scholars ask if and to what extent the Gospel writers made changes to the parables that they record. They wonder whether it is possible to discern the original context and circumstance in which Jesus relayed his parables, or whether the details of the original context had been forgotten by the time that the evangelists wrote. Could it be that any introductory and concluding comments included with some parables are not authentic to Jesus’ ministry but instead reflect issues that arose in the early church? In spite of the doubts of some, more-conservative scholars have presented arguments for the continued trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts about Jesus’ teaching including introductory or concluding statements associated with his parables.

3. Look for the use of OT symbols in Jesus’ parables. The parables of Jesus and the parables recorded in other rabbinical literature are replete with similar figures and images. Kings, banquets, weddings, farmers, debtors, and more appear with frequency; they perhaps developed into stock images to be used in stories in the ancient world. If such details appear in a parable, the interpreter should consider strongly whether some allegorical meaning is intended whereby a kingly figure represents God, a son represents the people of God, and a banquet indicates a time of coming judgment or reward.

4. Interpreters should exercise extreme caution regarding doctrinal teaching drawn from a parable, particularly if such doctrine cannot be confirmed by the theological teaching found in a nonparabolic portion of Scripture. For instance, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, is one to conclude that conversations can occur between the dead who reside in hell and those who reside in heaven? Likewise, should one learn that it is possible for the deceased human to be sent back to the living with a message from God? These doctrinal issues seem to be outside the range of teaching intended by the parable, and support for these ideas cannot be found in other biblical texts.

5. In recognition of the indirect nature of the communication in parables, some interpreters question whether a parable’s meaning can be reproduced in propositional language. In other words, can the meaning of a parable be expressed in nonparabolic language, or is some necessary component lost when one changes the form? Similarly, is it possible for people who have heard the story of the good Samaritan repeatedly to be struck by the confrontational force that was central to its initial reception? Not only are the images of Samaritans and Levites foreign to the modern listener, but also the familiarity with the story that has resulted from its retelling over time has domesticated the parable such that the details that were meant to shock and surprise are now anticipated and predictable. In this way, are parables like jokes that have been repeated too many times until one becomes inoculated against the punch line? Because of these concerns about the inability of today’s listeners to truly hear the parable as it was meant to be heard, some interpreters may wish to consider how it could be recast with images common to today’s audience and retold in such a way that the listeners experience the surprising twist that the initial audiences felt.

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

A device used to trap small birds and animals (Prov. 6:5; 7:23; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 12:13; 17:20; Amos 3:5). “To ensnare” means to catch or trap by secretive or deceitful means. Israel is frequently warned that foreign gods and idols will be snares to it, thus distracting it from undivided worship of Yahweh (Exod. 23:33; 34:12; Deut. 7:16; Judg. 2:3; 8:27; Ps. 106:36). A snare is a common image in Scripture implying anything of ill purpose or unwise practice (Exod. 10:7; 1 Sam. 18:21; Job 18:9; Pss. 25:15; 69:22; 91:3; 119:110; 124:7; 140:5; 142:3; Prov. 18:7; 21:6; 29:25; Eccles. 7:26; Isa. 8:14; 24:17–18; Jer. 5:26; 48:43–44; Hos. 5:1; Rom. 11:9).

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shrubs or small trees with reddish branches that grow by brooks and watercourses (Job 40:22; Isa. 15:7 [NIV: “poplars”]). Several species are common in Palestine, the most common being the Palestine willow. This is the willow in Ezek. 17:5, and not the “weeping willow,” which was introduced into Palestine after the exile. The ease with which the willow (poplar) takes root from a twig is used figuratively in Ezek. 17:5 (cf. Isa. 44:4). Branches from the willow and other trees were taken to make booths at the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23:40).

Agriculture is the practice of producing food through cultivation and harvesting. For the biblical Israelites and their ancestors, it was one of the primary expressions of subsistence in their economy and life. The priority of agricultural pursuits for Israel’s worldview is indicated in the fact that it was among the first mandates given by God to man in the garden (Gen. 1:28–29). This primacy of place in agricultural concerns meant that care and stewardship of the land was the prerogative of every member of society. In fact, individuals, the priesthood, and the monarchy could all possess and care for the land (Num. 27:1–8; 35:1–8; 1 Chron. 27:26–28).

The primary produce of the biblical farmer included cereals (wheat, barley, millet), legumes (beans, peas), olives, and grapes. Additional, less predominant crops included nuts (almonds, walnuts, pistachios), herbs (cumin, coriander, sesame), and vegetables (cucumbers, onions, greens). The production of the various crops was largely limited to certain geographic regions of Israel (such as the coastal plain or the plains of Moab) because much of the land was ill suited for agriculture, being rocky and arid.

The entire calendar in most ancient Near Eastern societies centered on the agricultural cycle, and many important biblical feasts included some connection with the seasonal calendar. For Israel, some of the first festivals were linked to the agricultural seasons (Exod. 23:14–16; Lev. 23). Cereals were sown at the Feast of Booths/Tabernacles (late October) and harvested in middle to late spring at the Feasts of Passover (March) and Weeks/Pentecost (May). Grapes and other fruit were harvested in late summer into the fall.

The actual craft of agriculture involved the three steps of sowing, reaping, and threshing/production. The fields typically were plowed following the first autumn rains, and sowing lasted about two months. Harvest season lasted seven months in all. Cereal products went through the process of threshing, whereas fruits were immediately produced into wine or dried. The practice of threshing the grains mostly took place on threshing floors located adjacent to the fields. The threshing floors were designed as a circle, generally 25 to 40 feet in diameter. Typically animals such as donkeys or oxen were driven around the floor as the grains were fed into their paths and subsequently crushed. The resulting broken husks were then thrown into the air, allowing the wind to carry away the chaff and producing a separated grain that could then be cleaned and processed for home use.

Besides playing a significant role in the practical matters of life, agricultural practices found numerous applications in the images and ideals of the biblical writers (Judg. 8:2; 9:8–15; Ezek. 17:6–10). The medium could be used to express both blessings and curses. Several texts point to the cursing of agricultural endeavors as a punishment from God. Ceremonial defilement was a possibility if proper methodology in sowing seeds was not followed (Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:9). Similarly, Yahweh’s assessment of Israel’s failure to uphold the covenant commitments could lead to disease, locust attacks, crop failure, and total loss of the land (Deut. 28:40; Joel 1:4; Amos 7:1). Conversely, agricultural bounty and blessings were also a part of covenant stipulations. Indeed, many of the offerings themselves were centered on agriculture (Lev. 2; Num. 18:8–32). Even the Sabbath rest itself was extended to matters of agriculture and care for the land (Lev. 25:1–7). Finally, the covenant saw some of the greatest benefits of life before Yahweh as being blessed through agricultural bounty (Deut. 28:22; Amos 9:13). In a few cases, agricultural imagery cut both ways. For instance, the vine was an image that could express judgment, care, and restoration in both Judaism and Christianity (Isa. 5:1–8; John 15:1–11). Despite the link between agricultural realities and the covenant, the Scriptures are very careful to distinguish Israel from the fertility cults of its Canaanite neighbors (1 Kings 18:17–40; Hos. 2:8–9). This distinction also seems to have found expression in certain NT texts (1 Cor. 6:15–20).

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

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

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

History

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

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

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

Geography and Climate

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

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

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

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

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

Culture and Politics

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

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

Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using a folklorist definition of fable as a story in which animals, plants, or inanimate objects take on human characteristics (i.e., are anthropomorphized), we can identify at least two fable stories in the OT. In Judg. 9:8–15 Jotham uses a fable to point out to the Shechemites their folly in asking Abimelek to be their king. In 2 Kings 14:9 King Jehoash of Israel uses a fable to point out to King Amaziah of Judah his folly in challenging Jehoash to a battle. Some have suggested that the allegory in Ezek. 17:1–10 could also be considered as a fable, but there is no anthropomorphizing in that passage.

Fable, more broadly defined as a fantastically incredible story, having no correspondence to reality, is used in some English translations to render the Greek word mythos (NIV: “myth”) in 1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:14; 2 Pet. 1:16. Peter, in particular, denies that the apostles’ accounts about Jesus are fables.

Agriculture is the practice of producing food through cultivation and harvesting. For the biblical Israelites and their ancestors, it was one of the primary expressions of subsistence in their economy and life. The priority of agricultural pursuits for Israel’s worldview is indicated in the fact that it was among the first mandates given by God to man in the garden (Gen. 1:28–29). This primacy of place in agricultural concerns meant that care and stewardship of the land was the prerogative of every member of society. In fact, individuals, the priesthood, and the monarchy could all possess and care for the land (Num. 27:1–8; 35:1–8; 1 Chron. 27:26–28).

The primary produce of the biblical farmer included cereals (wheat, barley, millet), legumes (beans, peas), olives, and grapes. Additional, less predominant crops included nuts (almonds, walnuts, pistachios), herbs (cumin, coriander, sesame), and vegetables (cucumbers, onions, greens). The production of the various crops was largely limited to certain geographic regions of Israel (such as the coastal plain or the plains of Moab) because much of the land was ill suited for agriculture, being rocky and arid.

The entire calendar in most ancient Near Eastern societies centered on the agricultural cycle, and many important biblical feasts included some connection with the seasonal calendar. For Israel, some of the first festivals were linked to the agricultural seasons (Exod. 23:14–16; Lev. 23). Cereals were sown at the Feast of Booths/Tabernacles (late October) and harvested in middle to late spring at the Feasts of Passover (March) and Weeks/Pentecost (May). Grapes and other fruit were harvested in late summer into the fall.

The actual craft of agriculture involved the three steps of sowing, reaping, and threshing/production. The fields typically were plowed following the first autumn rains, and sowing lasted about two months. Harvest season lasted seven months in all. Cereal products went through the process of threshing, whereas fruits were immediately produced into wine or dried. The practice of threshing the grains mostly took place on threshing floors located adjacent to the fields. The threshing floors were designed as a circle, generally 25 to 40 feet in diameter. Typically animals such as donkeys or oxen were driven around the floor as the grains were fed into their paths and subsequently crushed. The resulting broken husks were then thrown into the air, allowing the wind to carry away the chaff and producing a separated grain that could then be cleaned and processed for home use.

Besides playing a significant role in the practical matters of life, agricultural practices found numerous applications in the images and ideals of the biblical writers (Judg. 8:2; 9:8–15; Ezek. 17:6–10). The medium could be used to express both blessings and curses. Several texts point to the cursing of agricultural endeavors as a punishment from God. Ceremonial defilement was a possibility if proper methodology in sowing seeds was not followed (Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:9). Similarly, Yahweh’s assessment of Israel’s failure to uphold the covenant commitments could lead to disease, locust attacks, crop failure, and total loss of the land (Deut. 28:40; Joel 1:4; Amos 7:1). Conversely, agricultural bounty and blessings were also a part of covenant stipulations. Indeed, many of the offerings themselves were centered on agriculture (Lev. 2; Num. 18:8–32). Even the Sabbath rest itself was extended to matters of agriculture and care for the land (Lev. 25:1–7). Finally, the covenant saw some of the greatest benefits of life before Yahweh as being blessed through agricultural bounty (Deut. 28:22; Amos 9:13). In a few cases, agricultural imagery cut both ways. For instance, the vine was an image that could express judgment, care, and restoration in both Judaism and Christianity (Isa. 5:1–8; John 15:1–11). Despite the link between agricultural realities and the covenant, the Scriptures are very careful to distinguish Israel from the fertility cults of its Canaanite neighbors (1 Kings 18:17–40; Hos. 2:8–9). This distinction also seems to have found expression in certain NT texts (1 Cor. 6:15–20).

Agriculture is the practice of producing food through cultivation and harvesting. For the biblical Israelites and their ancestors, it was one of the primary expressions of subsistence in their economy and life. The priority of agricultural pursuits for Israel’s worldview is indicated in the fact that it was among the first mandates given by God to man in the garden (Gen. 1:28–29). This primacy of place in agricultural concerns meant that care and stewardship of the land was the prerogative of every member of society. In fact, individuals, the priesthood, and the monarchy could all possess and care for the land (Num. 27:1–8; 35:1–8; 1 Chron. 27:26–28).

The primary produce of the biblical farmer included cereals (wheat, barley, millet), legumes (beans, peas), olives, and grapes. Additional, less predominant crops included nuts (almonds, walnuts, pistachios), herbs (cumin, coriander, sesame), and vegetables (cucumbers, onions, greens). The production of the various crops was largely limited to certain geographic regions of Israel (such as the coastal plain or the plains of Moab) because much of the land was ill suited for agriculture, being rocky and arid.

The entire calendar in most ancient Near Eastern societies centered on the agricultural cycle, and many important biblical feasts included some connection with the seasonal calendar. For Israel, some of the first festivals were linked to the agricultural seasons (Exod. 23:14–16; Lev. 23). Cereals were sown at the Feast of Booths/Tabernacles (late October) and harvested in middle to late spring at the Feasts of Passover (March) and Weeks/Pentecost (May). Grapes and other fruit were harvested in late summer into the fall.

The actual craft of agriculture involved the three steps of sowing, reaping, and threshing/production. The fields typically were plowed following the first autumn rains, and sowing lasted about two months. Harvest season lasted seven months in all. Cereal products went through the process of threshing, whereas fruits were immediately produced into wine or dried. The practice of threshing the grains mostly took place on threshing floors located adjacent to the fields. The threshing floors were designed as a circle, generally 25 to 40 feet in diameter. Typically animals such as donkeys or oxen were driven around the floor as the grains were fed into their paths and subsequently crushed. The resulting broken husks were then thrown into the air, allowing the wind to carry away the chaff and producing a separated grain that could then be cleaned and processed for home use.

Besides playing a significant role in the practical matters of life, agricultural practices found numerous applications in the images and ideals of the biblical writers (Judg. 8:2; 9:8–15; Ezek. 17:6–10). The medium could be used to express both blessings and curses. Several texts point to the cursing of agricultural endeavors as a punishment from God. Ceremonial defilement was a possibility if proper methodology in sowing seeds was not followed (Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:9). Similarly, Yahweh’s assessment of Israel’s failure to uphold the covenant commitments could lead to disease, locust attacks, crop failure, and total loss of the land (Deut. 28:40; Joel 1:4; Amos 7:1). Conversely, agricultural bounty and blessings were also a part of covenant stipulations. Indeed, many of the offerings themselves were centered on agriculture (Lev. 2; Num. 18:8–32). Even the Sabbath rest itself was extended to matters of agriculture and care for the land (Lev. 25:1–7). Finally, the covenant saw some of the greatest benefits of life before Yahweh as being blessed through agricultural bounty (Deut. 28:22; Amos 9:13). In a few cases, agricultural imagery cut both ways. For instance, the vine was an image that could express judgment, care, and restoration in both Judaism and Christianity (Isa. 5:1–8; John 15:1–11). Despite the link between agricultural realities and the covenant, the Scriptures are very careful to distinguish Israel from the fertility cults of its Canaanite neighbors (1 Kings 18:17–40; Hos. 2:8–9). This distinction also seems to have found expression in certain NT texts (1 Cor. 6:15–20).

Agriculture is the practice of producing food through cultivation and harvesting. For the biblical Israelites and their ancestors, it was one of the primary expressions of subsistence in their economy and life. The priority of agricultural pursuits for Israel’s worldview is indicated in the fact that it was among the first mandates given by God to man in the garden (Gen. 1:28–29). This primacy of place in agricultural concerns meant that care and stewardship of the land was the prerogative of every member of society. In fact, individuals, the priesthood, and the monarchy could all possess and care for the land (Num. 27:1–8; 35:1–8; 1 Chron. 27:26–28).

The primary produce of the biblical farmer included cereals (wheat, barley, millet), legumes (beans, peas), olives, and grapes. Additional, less predominant crops included nuts (almonds, walnuts, pistachios), herbs (cumin, coriander, sesame), and vegetables (cucumbers, onions, greens). The production of the various crops was largely limited to certain geographic regions of Israel (such as the coastal plain or the plains of Moab) because much of the land was ill suited for agriculture, being rocky and arid.

The entire calendar in most ancient Near Eastern societies centered on the agricultural cycle, and many important biblical feasts included some connection with the seasonal calendar. For Israel, some of the first festivals were linked to the agricultural seasons (Exod. 23:14–16; Lev. 23). Cereals were sown at the Feast of Booths/Tabernacles (late October) and harvested in middle to late spring at the Feasts of Passover (March) and Weeks/Pentecost (May). Grapes and other fruit were harvested in late summer into the fall.

The actual craft of agriculture involved the three steps of sowing, reaping, and threshing/production. The fields typically were plowed following the first autumn rains, and sowing lasted about two months. Harvest season lasted seven months in all. Cereal products went through the process of threshing, whereas fruits were immediately produced into wine or dried. The practice of threshing the grains mostly took place on threshing floors located adjacent to the fields. The threshing floors were designed as a circle, generally 25 to 40 feet in diameter. Typically animals such as donkeys or oxen were driven around the floor as the grains were fed into their paths and subsequently crushed. The resulting broken husks were then thrown into the air, allowing the wind to carry away the chaff and producing a separated grain that could then be cleaned and processed for home use.

Besides playing a significant role in the practical matters of life, agricultural practices found numerous applications in the images and ideals of the biblical writers (Judg. 8:2; 9:8–15; Ezek. 17:6–10). The medium could be used to express both blessings and curses. Several texts point to the cursing of agricultural endeavors as a punishment from God. Ceremonial defilement was a possibility if proper methodology in sowing seeds was not followed (Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:9). Similarly, Yahweh’s assessment of Israel’s failure to uphold the covenant commitments could lead to disease, locust attacks, crop failure, and total loss of the land (Deut. 28:40; Joel 1:4; Amos 7:1). Conversely, agricultural bounty and blessings were also a part of covenant stipulations. Indeed, many of the offerings themselves were centered on agriculture (Lev. 2; Num. 18:8–32). Even the Sabbath rest itself was extended to matters of agriculture and care for the land (Lev. 25:1–7). Finally, the covenant saw some of the greatest benefits of life before Yahweh as being blessed through agricultural bounty (Deut. 28:22; Amos 9:13). In a few cases, agricultural imagery cut both ways. For instance, the vine was an image that could express judgment, care, and restoration in both Judaism and Christianity (Isa. 5:1–8; John 15:1–11). Despite the link between agricultural realities and the covenant, the Scriptures are very careful to distinguish Israel from the fertility cults of its Canaanite neighbors (1 Kings 18:17–40; Hos. 2:8–9). This distinction also seems to have found expression in certain NT texts (1 Cor. 6:15–20).

The Bible does not have a generic term for the idea of color, but it does use various colors for descriptive and symbolic purposes, and it also refers to different coloring processes. Items can be described as “dyed” (Exod. 25:5), “multicolored” (Ezek. 27:24), or “speckled” (Gen. 30:32) to indicate changes or variety of color.

Certain colors are commonly used in the Bible (listed below), while others occur rarely (e.g., brown and yellow) or not at all (e.g., orange), reflecting the range of colors and dyes available in the ancient Near East. Colors are most often used for two purposes: to describe luxury items indicating wealth and power, and to describe the earthly and heavenly dwelling places of God. Ordinary people and places are not usually described in terms of the colors of their appearance. Exceptions to this include Esau (Gen. 25:25), David (1 Sam. 17:42), and the male lover in Song of Songs (5:10–11).

The following colors have particular significance or symbolic meaning in the Bible:

White. Used to describe the symptoms of leprosy (Lev. 13:3–4), white much more commonly has a positive association, being the color of purity (Isa. 1:18; Rev. 3:4) and glory (Dan. 7:9; Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:14). Angels appear white (Matt. 28:3) or are dressed in white (Mark 16:2; Acts 1:10). The multitude of worshipers in heaven will wear white robes (Rev. 7:9), having been washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Black. The female lover in the Song of Songs admires the raven black hair of her beloved (Song 5:11). However, black things usually have less positive connotations: storm clouds (1 Kings 18:45), diseased skin (Job 30:30), and the effects of the plague of locusts (Exod. 10:15). Blackness can also be a sign of judgment (Rev. 6:5, 12).

Red. Red is the color of the earth, the color of wine, and the color of blood. Red dyes could be made from crushed insects, plants, and minerals, giving a wide range of different shades (red, scarlet, and crimson are common in the Bible). Scarlet yarn and red-dyed animal skins were included in the offerings made for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:3–5). Red was used to symbolize sin (Isa. 1:18) and was also associated with warfare (Nah. 2:3; Rev. 6:4).

Blue. Blue tassels adorned every Hebrew garment as a reminder of God’s commandments (Num. 15:38). In the Persian court the royal colors were blue, white, and purple (Esther 1:6; 8:15), and blue garments were worn by the young Assyrian governors (Ezek. 23:6).

Purple. Purple dye was very expensive, so purple cloth was used as a sign of wealth (Prov. 31:22; Acts 16:14) and a sign of authority: the kings of Midian wore purple garments (Judg. 8:26); the wedding carriage of King Solomon was upholstered in purple (Song 3:10); the Babylonian king Belshazzar offered purple robes as a reward for service (Dan. 5:7). Purple robes were put on Jesus before his crucifixion in a mockery of his kingship (John 19:2–5).

Blue, purple, and scarlet were each separately associated with wealth and power, but when used together these three colors were the epitome of opulence and, as such, were associated with the divine presence. The tabernacle curtains were woven from blue, purple, and scarlet yarn (Exod. 26:1), as were the high-priestly garments (28:4–15, 33). The same colors were later used in the temple curtains (2 Chron. 3:14). Blue, purple, and red cloths were used for covering the Ark of the Covenant and its furnishings (Num. 4:6–12). Jeremiah describes idols adorned in blue and purple, an attempt to conceal their worthlessness (10:9).

Gray. Gray hair indicated old age and thus wisdom (Ps. 71:18; Prov. 16:31).

Green. Green is the color of plants and thus was associated with life-giving food and therefore God’s blessing. Green plants were given by God for food (Gen. 1:30), so their removal or destruction was a devastating judgment (Exod. 10:15; Ezek. 17:24; Rev. 8:7). People could be symbolized as green plants when they were fruitful and blessed (Ps. 92:14; Jer. 17:8) or when they were easily destroyed (2 Kings 19:26; Ps. 37:2).

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

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

History

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

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

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

Geography and Climate

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

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

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

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

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

Culture and Politics

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

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

Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bible does not have a generic term for the idea of color, but it does use various colors for descriptive and symbolic purposes, and it also refers to different coloring processes. Items can be described as “dyed” (Exod. 25:5), “multicolored” (Ezek. 27:24), or “speckled” (Gen. 30:32) to indicate changes or variety of color.

Certain colors are commonly used in the Bible (listed below), while others occur rarely (e.g., brown and yellow) or not at all (e.g., orange), reflecting the range of colors and dyes available in the ancient Near East. Colors are most often used for two purposes: to describe luxury items indicating wealth and power, and to describe the earthly and heavenly dwelling places of God. Ordinary people and places are not usually described in terms of the colors of their appearance. Exceptions to this include Esau (Gen. 25:25), David (1 Sam. 17:42), and the male lover in Song of Songs (5:10–11).

The following colors have particular significance or symbolic meaning in the Bible:

White. Used to describe the symptoms of leprosy (Lev. 13:3–4), white much more commonly has a positive association, being the color of purity (Isa. 1:18; Rev. 3:4) and glory (Dan. 7:9; Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:14). Angels appear white (Matt. 28:3) or are dressed in white (Mark 16:2; Acts 1:10). The multitude of worshipers in heaven will wear white robes (Rev. 7:9), having been washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Black. The female lover in the Song of Songs admires the raven black hair of her beloved (Song 5:11). However, black things usually have less positive connotations: storm clouds (1 Kings 18:45), diseased skin (Job 30:30), and the effects of the plague of locusts (Exod. 10:15). Blackness can also be a sign of judgment (Rev. 6:5, 12).

Red. Red is the color of the earth, the color of wine, and the color of blood. Red dyes could be made from crushed insects, plants, and minerals, giving a wide range of different shades (red, scarlet, and crimson are common in the Bible). Scarlet yarn and red-dyed animal skins were included in the offerings made for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:3–5). Red was used to symbolize sin (Isa. 1:18) and was also associated with warfare (Nah. 2:3; Rev. 6:4).

Blue. Blue tassels adorned every Hebrew garment as a reminder of God’s commandments (Num. 15:38). In the Persian court the royal colors were blue, white, and purple (Esther 1:6; 8:15), and blue garments were worn by the young Assyrian governors (Ezek. 23:6).

Purple. Purple dye was very expensive, so purple cloth was used as a sign of wealth (Prov. 31:22; Acts 16:14) and a sign of authority: the kings of Midian wore purple garments (Judg. 8:26); the wedding carriage of King Solomon was upholstered in purple (Song 3:10); the Babylonian king Belshazzar offered purple robes as a reward for service (Dan. 5:7). Purple robes were put on Jesus before his crucifixion in a mockery of his kingship (John 19:2–5).

Blue, purple, and scarlet were each separately associated with wealth and power, but when used together these three colors were the epitome of opulence and, as such, were associated with the divine presence. The tabernacle curtains were woven from blue, purple, and scarlet yarn (Exod. 26:1), as were the high-priestly garments (28:4–15, 33). The same colors were later used in the temple curtains (2 Chron. 3:14). Blue, purple, and red cloths were used for covering the Ark of the Covenant and its furnishings (Num. 4:6–12). Jeremiah describes idols adorned in blue and purple, an attempt to conceal their worthlessness (10:9).

Gray. Gray hair indicated old age and thus wisdom (Ps. 71:18; Prov. 16:31).

Green. Green is the color of plants and thus was associated with life-giving food and therefore God’s blessing. Green plants were given by God for food (Gen. 1:30), so their removal or destruction was a devastating judgment (Exod. 10:15; Ezek. 17:24; Rev. 8:7). People could be symbolized as green plants when they were fruitful and blessed (Ps. 92:14; Jer. 17:8) or when they were easily destroyed (2 Kings 19:26; Ps. 37:2).

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestine has arid and wet Mediterranean climate zones and a steppe zone. Its two seasons are dry/summer and wet/winter (cf. Gen. 8:22). In summer the weather is remarkably stable, and the incoming air from the northwest typically is rather arid. With no cloud cover most days, there is, on average, zero rainfall from June through September—the background for the miracle of 1 Sam. 12:16–18 (cf. Prov. 26:1).

In winter the weather is variable, with rains and thunderstorms arriving from the Mediterranean Sea, generally from the southwest. The rains usually fall in concentrated amounts over a few hours. Rainfall diminishes overall from north to south and west to east, though varying elevations create deviations from the overall pattern. Annual rainfall varies significantly (from twelve to forty inches), falling almost entirely between November and April. Dew is a significant source of water in the region, especially in summer, sometimes constituting 25 percent of the annual moisture.

Table 11. Average Low–High Temperatures (°F)

1. Tel Aviv (sea level)

January – 34-74

Februrary – 36-80

March – 37-87

April – 42-95

May – 47-99

June – 55-97

July – 60-92

August – 62-91

September – 59-92

October – 50-92

November – 43-87

December – 36-79

II. Jerusalem (2,500 ft.)

January – 39-53

February – 40-56

March – 43-61

April – 49-70

May – 54-77

June – 59-82

July – 63-84

August – 63-84

September – 61-82

October – 57-77

November – 49-66

December – 42-57

III. Tiberias (-650 ft.)

January – 45-61

February – 48-66

March – 54-73

April – 55-77

May – 59-86

June – 68-93

July – 70-95

August – 72-97

September – 68-93

October – 61-88

November – 55-75

December – 50-68

IV. Jericho (-840 ft.)

January – 49-65

February – 49-64

March – 56-73

April – 62-82

May – 68-90

June – 74-98

July – 80-100

August – 80-100

September – 74-95

October – 70-89

November – 64-81

December – 54-69

Apart from thunderstorms early in the rainy season, such as occur on the Sea of Galilee (cf. Luke 8:23), a high-pressure zone can form over Iraq during the wet season, forcing hot, dusty, and sometimes prolonged east winds into Palestine; these are called qadim in the Bible (Exod. 10:13; Ps. 48:7; Jon. 4:8). In the transitional periods between the two seasons, the sirocco (Arab. hamsin), may occur, in which an east wind from the Arabian desert sweeps up from the south and across Palestine toward a low-pressure zone over Egypt or Libya, causing humidity to drop as low as 10 percent and the temperature to rise as much as 22°F. This can last days or weeks, with sweltering effects (cf. Ezek. 17:10; Hos. 13:15; Luke 12:55). Such storms are often used as a backdrop to highlight the weakness and transience of earthly existence (Isa. 27:8; Hos. 12:1; James 1:11).

While various weather conditions are described throughout the Bible (rain, snow, storms, lightning, thunder, wind, etc.), Jesus refers specifically to weather prediction in Matt. 16:2–3, where he accuses the Pharisees of being able to predict the weather but not able to discern the signs of the times.