Basic manufacturing material of fine-grained soil mixed with impurities. It is pliable when moist and hardens when baked. It was used for pottery (Lev. 6:28; 11:33; 15:12; Num. 5:17; Jer. 19:1; 32:14; 2 Cor. 4:7), building material (Lev. 14:42; Nah. 3:19), molds (1 Kings 7:46), sculpture (Dan. 2:33), and writing tablets (Ezek. 4:1). Clay is used metaphorically to illustrate weakness (Job 4:19; 13:12; 27:16) or lowliness of purpose (Lam. 4:2; 2 Cor. 4:7; 2 Tim. 2:20). The potter and his clay are likened to God and human creation (Job 10:9; 33:6; Isa. 29:16; 45:9; 64:8; Jer. 18:4; Rom. 9:21).

An organ for hearing, and a symbol of understanding and obedience. Common life in ancient society relied on the spoken word as much as, if not more than, the written word. For this reason, the ear represents more than just a body part. The ear symbolizes understanding (Isa. 64:4). Twice the book of Job compares the ear’s discernment of words to the tongue’s tasting of food (Job 12:11; 34:3). The ear also symbolizes the will to obey (Deut. 29:4) or disobey (Prov. 28:9). Because of the ear’s association with obedience, the application of blood or oil to the right ear was an act of consecration in Israel’s worship (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 14:14, 17). Ears are also ascribed to God in a figurative way (Pss. 18:6; 94:9). To the obedient, God listens compassionately (2 Chron. 7:15); and to the disobedient, God acts as if deaf (Deut. 1:45). At times, the news of calamity is meant to make the ears of Israel tingle (1 Sam. 3:11; 2 Kings 21:12; Jer. 19:3). Elsewhere, the irony of idol worship is illustrated by idols that have ears but cannot hear (Pss. 115:6; 135:17). Jesus repeatedly calls out to those who have ears to hear (Matt. 11:15; Mark 4:9; Luke 8:8). This appeal is also repeated at the end of each message to the seven churches of Asia (Rev. 1:18–3:22). The apostle Paul warns Timothy about those who have “itching” ears, those who find teachers to support their own false notions (2 Tim. 4:3–4).

Scripture describes wind as a powerful force that is under God’s command. The Hebrew word ruakh sometimes is translated as “wind” but other times can mean “breath,” as well as “spirit” (Gen. 1:2). The Greek word for “spirit,” pneuma, hints of a similar range of meaning, although another word is most often used in the NT to denote wind.

Old Testament. Throughout the OT wind is used by God to fulfill his purposes. Psalm 148:8 declares that winds do God’s bidding. Yahweh keeps the wind in storehouses until they are needed (Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13). God uses wind to protect and provide for his people. For instance, God sends a wind over the earth to cause the floodwaters surrounding the ark to recede (Gen. 8:1), a strong east wind to drive back the sea during the exodus from Egypt (Exod. 14:21), and a wind that drives quail in from the sea to serve as food for the Israelites in the wilderness (Num. 11:31).

Wind can also be an agent of God’s destruction. God sends a plague upon Egypt by making an east wind blow locusts all across the land; afterward, God uses a west wind to blow the locusts into the sea (Exod. 10:13–19). In the book of Job a mighty wind from the desert causes the house of Job’s eldest son to collapse, killing Job’s seven sons and three daughters (Job 1:19). In the book of Jonah a great wind sent by God threatens to destroy Jonah’s ship, and a scorching east wind later causes Jonah to grow faint and desire death (Jon. 1:4; 4:8). The prophetic books use the subject of wind in communicating God’s judgment (e.g., Isa. 28:2; 64:6; Ezek. 5:2; 13:11).

While a single wind is able to blow in several directions (Eccles. 1:6), many passages specify four winds from the four quarters of the heavens. The north wind brings rain (Prov. 25:23), while the south wind brings heat (Job 37:17), both of which are useful for growing a garden (Song 4:16). Only one verse refers to the west wind specifically (Exod. 10:19), but numerous verses refer to the east wind as an agent of destruction, often appearing along with military terms. When let loose by God (Ps. 78:26), the east wind may shatter ships (Ps. 48:7), and those in its path will scatter (Jer. 18:17) or shrivel (Ezek. 19:12). In Hos. 12:1 God accuses Israel of pursuing the east wind along with multiplying lies and violence. Together, the four winds can be sent to bring destruction (Jer. 49:36) or to bring life (Ezek. 37:9). They also appear in the visions of Daniel (Dan. 7:2; 8:8; 11:4; cf. Rev. 7:1).

God rides on the wings of the wind on cherubim (Ps. 18:10; 2 Sam. 22:11), with the clouds as his chariot (Ps. 104:3). In Ps. 104:4 the winds are called God’s “messengers.” This imagery is strikingly similar to ancient descriptions of the Canaanite god Baal, although Scripture adds that it is Yahweh who created the wind (Job 28:25; Amos 4:13). Yahweh’s power is not contingent upon wind, as Elijah learns when he experiences the presence of Yahweh in the whisper and not the wind (or the earthquake) after his successful contest against the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 19:11–12).

The wisdom literature focuses upon other characteristics of wind besides its power. The transient nature of wind is significant, as wind is the inheritance of those who bring trouble upon their family (Prov. 11:29). Ecclesiastes continually refers to all things done under the sun as “a chasing after the wind” (e.g., 1:14, 17). Empty talk is spoken of as wind (Job 8:2). The function of wind to blow away chaff is also used to declare the fate of the wicked (e.g., Ps. 1:4; cf. Job 21:18). The unpredictability of wind serves as a metaphor for the mystery of God’s actions (Eccles. 11:5).

New Testament. In the NT, the Gospels reveal the divine nature of Jesus by emphasizing his ability to command the wind (Matt. 8:26–27). Jesus declares that the Son of Man will gather his elect from the four winds (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:27). Wind is a metaphor in John 3:8 for the mystery and unpredictability of those born of the Spirit. Jesus uses the image of empty talk as wind when he refers to John the Baptist as a prophet rather than a reed swayed by the wind (Matt. 11:7; Luke 7:24). In Eph. 4:14 false teaching is referred to as wind. It is wind that easily sways the one who doubts (James 1:6). Finally, a correlation between wind and the Holy Spirit occurs when a sound like a violent wind occurs at the time when the Holy Spirit fills all those in the house at Pentecost (Acts 2:2).

Definition of Terms

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

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

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

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

Canaanite Pantheon

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

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

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

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

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

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

Babylonian Pantheon

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

Other Ancient Near Eastern Pantheons

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

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

New Testament Religion

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

Summary

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

A container used to hold various liquids. The term “flask” (Heb. pak) occurs three times in the NIV (1 Sam. 10:1; 2 Kings 9:1, 3 [ASV: “vial”]), referring to a small container of liquid, often perfume. In these cases, the flask contained oil used to anoint a king. Other English versions (RSV, ESV) also use “flask” to render the Hebrew baqbuq (Jer. 19:1, 10 [NIV, “jar”]), which was a container larger than the pak and the Greek alabastros (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3; Luke 7:37), an alabaster jar that normally held precious contents. Both the baqbuq and the alabastros were broken in the biblical narratives: the former as a sign of the impending destruction of Jerusalem, and the latter in order to anoint Jesus.

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

Terminology

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

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

God’s Forgiveness

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

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

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

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

Human Forgiveness

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

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

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

For Christians, God is the creator of the cosmos and the redeemer of humanity. He has revealed himself in historical acts—namely, in creation, in the history of Israel, and especially in the person and work of Jesus Christ. There is only one God (Deut. 6:4); “there is no other” (Isa. 45:5). Because “God is spirit” (John 4:24), he must reveal himself through various images and metaphors.

Imagery of God

God’s character and attributes are revealed primarily through the use of imagery, the best and most understandable way to describe the mysterious nature of God. Scripture employs many images to describe God’s being and character. Some examples follow here.

God is compared to the father who shows compassion and love to his children (Ps. 103:13; Rom. 8:15). The father image is also used by the prophets to reveal God’s creatorship (Isa. 64:8). Jesus predominantly uses the language of “Father” in reference to God (Mark 8:38; 13:32; 14:36), revealing his close relationship with the Father. God is also identified as the king of Israel even before the Israelites have a human king (1 Sam. 10:19).

The Psalter exalts Yahweh as the king, acknowledging God’s sovereignty and preeminence (Pss. 5:2; 44:4; 47:6–7; 68:24; 74:12; 84:3; 95:3; 145:1). God is metaphorically identified as the shepherd who takes care of his sheep, his people, to depict his nature of provision and protection (Ps. 23:1–4). The image of the potter is also employed to describe the nature of God, who creates his creatures according to his will (Jer. 18:6; Rom. 9:20–23). In Hos. 2:4–3:5 God is identified as the long-suffering husband of the adulterous wife Israel. In the setting of war, God is depicted as the divine warrior who fights against his enemy (Exod. 15:3).

God is also referred to as advocate (Isa. 1:18), judge (Gen. 18:25), and lawgiver (Deut. 5:1–22). The image of the farmer is also frequently adopted to describe God’s nature of compassionate care, creation, providence, justice, redemption, sanctification, and more (e.g., Isa. 5:1–7; John 15:1–12). God is often referred to as the teacher (Exod. 4:15) who teaches what to do, as does the Holy Spirit in the NT (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit is identified as the counselor, the helper, the witness, and the guide (John 14:16, 26; 15:26). God is often metaphorically compared to various things in nature, such as rock (Ps. 18:2, 31, 46), light (Ps. 27:1), fire (Deut. 4:24; 9:3), lion (Hos. 11:10), and eagle (Deut. 32:11–12). In particular, the Davidic psalms employ many images in nature—rock, fortress, shield, horn, and stronghold (e.g., Ps. 18:2)—to describe God’s perfect protection.

Last, anthropomorphism often is employed to describe God’s activities. Numerous parts of the human body are used to speak of God: face (Num. 6:25–26), eyes (2 Chron. 16:9), mouth (Deut. 8:3), ears (Neh. 1:6), nostrils (Exod. 15:8), hands (Ezra 7:9), arms (Deut. 33:27), fingers (Ps. 8:3), voice (Exod. 15:26), shoulders (Deut. 33:12), feet (Ps. 18:9), and back (Exod. 33:21–22).

Names and Attributes of God

The OT refers to God by many names. One of the general terms used for God, ’el (which probably means “ultimate supremacy”), often appears in a compound form with a qualifying word, as in ’el ’elyon (“God Most High”), ’el shadday (“God Almighty”), and ’el ro’i (“the God who sees me” or “God of my seeing”). These descriptive names reveal important attributes of God and usually were derived from the personal experiences of the people of God in real-life settings; thus, they do not describe an abstract concept of God.

The most prominent personal name of God is yahweh (YHWH), which is translated as “the Lord” in most English Bibles. At the burning bush in the wilderness of Horeb, God first revealed to Moses his personal name in sentence form: “I am who I am” (Exod. 3:13–15). Though debated, the divine name “YHWH” seems to originate from an abbreviated form of this sentence. Yahweh, who was with Moses and his people at the time of exodus, is the God who was with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to Jesus’ testimony, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” is identified as the God “of the living” (Matt. 22:32). Hence, the name “Yahweh” is closely tied to God’s self-revelation as the God of presence and life. (See also Names of God.)

Many of God’s attributes are summarized in Exod. 34:6–7: “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” Below are further explanations of some of the representative attributes of God.

Holiness. The moral excellence of God is the attribute that underlies all other attributes. Thus, all God’s attributes can be modified by the adjective holy: holy love, holy justice, holy mercy, holy righteousness, holy compassion, holy wisdom, and so forth. God is the only supremely holy one (1 Sam. 2:2; Rev. 15:4). God’s name is also holy; those who profane God’s name are condemned as guilty (Exod. 20:7; Lev. 22:32). God is depicted as the one who has concern for his holy name, which the Israelites profaned among the nations; God actively seeks to restore the holiness of his defiled name (Ezek. 36:21–23). God’s holiness is revealed by his righteous action (Isa. 5:16). Not only is God holy, but also he expects his people to be holy (Lev. 11:45; 19:2). All the sacrificial codes of Leviticus represent the moral requirements of holiness for the worshipers. Because of God’s character of holiness, he cannot tolerate sin in the lives of people, and he brings judgment to those who do not repent (Hab. 1:13).

Love and justice. Because “God is love,” no one reaches the true knowledge of God without having love (1 John 4:8). Images of the father and the faithful husband are frequently employed to portray God’s love (Deut. 1:31; Jer. 31:32; Hos. 2:14–20; 11:1–4). God’s love was supremely demonstrated by the giving of his only Son Jesus Christ for his people (John 3:16; Rom. 5:7–8; 1 John 4:9–10). God expects his people to follow the model of Christ’s sacrificial love (1 John 3:16).

God’s justice is the foundation of his moral law and his ways (Deut. 32:4; Job 34:12; Ps. 9:16; Rev. 15:3). It is also seen in his will (Ps. 99:4). God loves justice and acts with justice (Ps. 33:5). God’s justice is demonstrated in judging people according to their deeds—punishing wickedness and rewarding righteousness (Ezek. 18:20; Ps. 58:11; Rev. 20:12–13). God establishes justice by upholding the cause of the oppressed (Ps. 103:6) and by vindicating those afflicted (1 Sam. 25:39). God is completely impartial in implementing justice (Job 34:18–19). As with holiness, God requires his people to reflect his justice (Prov. 21:3).

God keeps a perfect balance between the attributes of love and justice. God’s love never infringes upon his justice, and vice versa. The cross of Jesus Christ perfectly shows these two attributes in one act. Because of his love, God gave his only Son for his people; because of his justice, God punished his Son for the sake of their sins. The good news is that God’s justice was satisfied by the work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:25–26).

Righteousness and mercy. God’s righteousness shows his unique moral perfection. God’s nature, actions, and laws display his character of righteousness (Pss. 19:8–9; 119:137; Dan. 9:14). “Righteousness and justice” are the foundation of God’s throne (Ps. 89:14). God’s righteousness was especially demonstrated in the work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21–22). God’s righteousness will ultimately be revealed in his final judgment (Rev. 19:2; 20–22; cf. Ps. 7:11).

The English word “mercy” renders various words in the original languages: in Hebrew, khesed, khanan, rakham; in Greek, charis, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchnon. English Bibles translate these variously as “mercy,” “compassion,” “grace,” “kindness,” or “love.” The word “mercy” is chosen here as a representative concept (cf. Ps. 86:15). God’s mercy is most clearly seen in his act of forgiving sinners. In the Psalter, “Have mercy on me” is the most common form of expression when the psalmist entreats God’s forgiveness (Pss. 41:4, 10; 51:1). God’s mercy is shown abundantly to his chosen people (Eph. 2:4–8). Because of his mercy, their sins are forgiven (Mic. 7:18), their punishments are withheld (Ezra 9:13), and even sinners’ prayers are heard (Ps. 51:1; Luke 18:13–14). God is “the Father of mercies” (2 Cor. 1:3 NRSV).

God keeps a perfect balance between righteousness and mercy. His righteousness and mercy never infringe upon each other, nor does one operate at the expense of the other. God’s abundant mercy is shown to sinners through Jesus Christ, but if they do not repent of their sins, his righteous judgment will be brought upon them.

Faithfulness. God’s faithfulness is revealed in keeping the covenant that he made with his people. God “is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). God is faithful to his character, his name, and his word (Neh. 9:8; Ps. 106:8; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:13–18). God’s faithfulness is clearly seen in fulfilling his promise (Josh. 23:14). God showed his faithfulness by fulfilling all the promises that he made to Abraham (Gen. 12:2–3; Rom. 9:9; Gal. 4:28; Heb. 6:13–15), by having Solomon build the temple that he promised to David (2 Sam. 7:12–13; 1 Kings 8:17–21), and by sending his people into exile in Babylon and returning them to their homeland (Jer. 25:8–11; Dan. 9:2–3). God’s faithfulness was ultimately demonstrated by sending Jesus Christ, as was promised in the OT (Luke 24:44; Acts 13:32–33; 1 Cor. 15:3–8).

Goodness. Jesus said, “No one is good—except God alone” (Mark 10:18). God demonstrates his goodness in his actions (Ps. 119:68), in his work of creation (1 Tim. 4:4), in his love (Ps. 86:5), and in his promises (Josh. 23:14–15).

Patience. God is “slow to anger” (Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18), which is a favorite expression for his patience (Neh. 9:17; Pss. 86:15; 103:8; Joel 2:13). God is patient with sinful people for a long time (Acts 13:18). Because of his patient character, he delays punishment (Isa. 42:14). For instance, God was patient with his disobedient prophet Jonah and also with the sinful people of Nineveh (Jon. 3:1–10). The purpose of God’s patience is to lead people toward repentance (Rom. 2:4).

God of the Trinity

The Christian God of the Bible is the triune God. God is one but exists in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). The Son is one with the Father (John 10:30); the Holy Spirit is one with God (2 Sam. 23:2–3). All three share the same divine nature; they are all-knowing, holy, glorious, and called “Lord” and “God” (Matt. 11:25; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 3:22; 5:3–4; 10:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 3:17–18; 2 Pet. 1:1). All three share in the same work of creation (Gen. 1:1–3), salvation (1 Pet. 1:2), indwelling (John 14:23), and directing the church’s mission (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 16:6–10; 14:27; 13:2–4).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hebrew verb sharaq, sometimes translated as “to hiss,” can also be translated as “to whistle” and has two distinct uses in Scripture. It can refer to summoning, as in when a shepherd summons sheep (Judg. 5:16), God summons his people (Isa. 5:26; Zech. 10:8), or God summons an enemy as a means of judgment against his people (Isa. 7:18). The word also and more commonly refers to an expression of astonishment or derision, most often upon God’s judgment (Jer. 49:17; 50:13; Lam. 2:15; Ezek. 27:36; Mic. 6:16; Zeph. 2:15). In 1 Kings 9:8 God declares that the temple will be destroyed if his people disobey, and this word is used to anticipate the shock that people will feel. Jeremiah similarly predicted the shock of people who will witness the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer. 19:8).

A KJV phrase used to describe the heavenly bodies or heavenly beings. The NIV prefers “starry host(s),” “multitudes of heaven,” or “stars in the heavens/sky,” but “host of the heavens” does occur in Dan. 8:10. The Hebrew phrase, tseba’ hashamayim, means literally “army of the heavens.” The connection between the celestial elements and an army comes in conjunction with God’s role as the commander of the Israelite forces (Josh. 5:13–15; Judg. 5:23). There are times when the Bible portrays the celestial elements as part of God’s military retinue, fighting on his behalf. The stars fight from heaven against Sisera (Judg. 5:20), and in the Israelites’ battle against the Amorites, the sun and the moon are commanded to stand still (Josh. 10:12–13; cf. Hab. 3:11). Based on these passages, the phrase may have had some military background, but it is also understood in other ways.

Perhaps one of the more enigmatic uses of the phrase occurs in 1 Kings 22:19 (cf. 2 Chron. 18:18; NIV: “multitudes of heaven”), where it describes God’s council. There are other biblical phrases used with more frequency to describe the heavenly council surrounding God. Other names for these beings include the “seraphim” of Isa. 6:2 and the “sons of God” in Job 1:6; 2:1; Pss. 29:1; 89:6. The connection between God’s council and the celestial elements likely comes, as noted above, through the heavenly bodies’ association with God in battle. Further solidifying this connection is Job 38:7, where the “sons of God” parallel the “morning stars.” Exactly what these heavenly beings are is debated, and many interpreters suggest the answer lies in the polytheistic context of Israel’s neighbors. Another possible explanation is to view these beings as the messengers or angels of God. The Bible portrays them as inferior beings (Deut. 3:24; 10:17; Jer. 10:6), and they function to serve and worship Yahweh (Pss. 29:1; 103:21; 148:2–3; Isa. 6:2). The angels who appear to the shepherds at Jesus’ birth are described as the “heavenly host” (Luke 2:13).

The last and most frequent use of the phrase “host of heaven” is to describe a condemned object of Israelite worship. It is likely that from their association with God’s council, these celestial elements gained an independent status and were worshiped apart from God. At times the “host of heaven” appears to refer to the stars alone; the NIV therefore translates it as “stars in the sky” (Deut. 17:3; Jer. 33:22; cf. Jer. 8:2) or “starry hosts” (2 Kings 23:5). At other times the phrase refers to the totality of the heavenly bodies (Deut. 4:19 [NIV: “heavenly array”]; cf. 2 Kings 21:3, 5). Based on the distribution of the phrase, and its occurrence primarily in documents narrating the Assyrian period (2 Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4–5; Jer. 19:13; Zeph. 1:5), there is likely a direct correlation between the worship of the host of heaven and Israel’s Assyrian vassalage in the seventh century BC. The extent of Assyrian impact on Israelite religion is debated, but it is likely that astral worship—that is, worship of the starry hosts—flourished in this period due to the influence of the Assyrians, a culture entrenched in worship of the astral powers.

In ancient Israel, as an agricultural community, the house was the center of family life. Apart from daily family activities, the basic functions of an Israelite house were for storage and stabling.

A typical house in Iron Age Palestine was basically rectangular in shape, constructed of sun-dried mud-bricks, and completely roofed. It consisted of either three or four rooms, although in some rare occasions it was a two-room house. The size of the house varied, depending on the wealth of the owner. Structurally, the most important and noticeable features were the pillars, generally made of stone. These monolithic pillars separated the rooms from the courtyard and supported the flat roof or ceiling. A three-room house usually consisted of a row of pillars in the center of the structure, while a four-room house consisted of two rows, dividing the two side rooms, with the courtyard in the middle.

Walls provided enclosure for a family unit but could also serve as partitions between adjacent houses. They were constructed of mud-brick (cf. Exod. 5:7) and erected on a stone foundation. The exterior of the walls needed regular whitewashing to prevent erosion caused by winter rain (cf. Ezek. 13:10–18), and the interior walls were decorated with painted line ornaments (Jer. 22:14). Unlike modern windows, Israelite windows were essentially slits in the walls, without glass filling (Josh. 2:15; 2 Cor. 11:33). For security and climate control, they were small, but they were good enough for natural lighting and ventilation (cf. Hos. 13:3). Oil lamps were placed in the wall niches (2 Kings 4:10; Matt. 5:15).

The entrance to the house usually was in the center of the front wall. The door, which opened inward, was mounted with three wooden doorframes on two sides and on top of the wooden door (cf. Exod. 12:7, 22–23). The door was locked from the inside with a tumbler lock and a wooden bolt (Judg. 3:25; Neh. 3:3). From outside, it was accessed through a fist-sized keyhole (Song 5:4) with a large key (Isa. 22:22). A stone threshold (1 Kings 14:17; cf. 1 Sam. 5:4–5) was laid at the base of the door.

The ceiling of the ground floor was less than six feet high. The central room was used for work such as food processing, although cooking was also done outdoors. A hearth was a hole in the ground used to set fire for cooking or for warmth (Jer. 36:22). The side rooms were used for stables (1 Sam. 28:24). At the rear of the house was a broad room (cf. Ps. 128:3; Amos 6:10) used mainly for storage purposes. The floor of the courtyard was laid with beaten earth, while the rooms had dirt floors. The upper level, which served as a place for sleeping, dining, and leisure activities (1 Kings 17:19; 2 Kings 4:10; Mark 14:15; Acts 9:37), was accessed through a wooden ladder from inside the house or through a stone staircase from the outside.

A unique feature of Israelite houses was the roof. The flat, plastered roof served as the place for domestic activities (e.g., Josh. 2:6–8; 1 Sam. 9:25–26; 2 Sam. 11:2) and religious activities (Jer. 19:13; 32:29; Zeph. 1:5; Acts 10:9), especially during hot weather. It was not uncommon for grass to grow on it (Isa. 37:27). Since it was flat, waterproofing was a pressing problem. As such, constant compacting and resurfacing of the roof with a limestone roller was needed (cf. Eccles. 10:18). For safety, parapets were built around the roof (Deut. 22:8). Since the roof was elevated and public, activities there were noticeable by people outside; thus public announcement could be made from the roof (Matt. 10:27; Luke 12:3). Absalom had sexual intercourse with David’s concubines on a rooftop, which might have been an act of public declaration of his kingship (2 Sam. 16:22).

Pottery in the Bible

The Bible contains numerous references to pottery, pottery making, and potters. Clay pottery was the most common and easiest way to cook food and to carry liquids throughout biblical times. Only pots used for very special occasions and locations (such as the temple) were made out of a material (usually some metal) other than clay (Exod. 38:3). Clay was the preferable material because it was freely obtained, easy to manipulate, and required little technology to make. The downside of pottery is that it is easily broken and thus rendered useless. Evidence of the abundance and affordability of pottery is seen in the instructions to break ceremonially unclean pottery rather than wash it (Lev. 15:12). Although cooking was the primary purpose for pottery, it could be used for a variety of applications, including storing items, carrying water, making lamps, and forming idols.

Pottery and the manufacture of pottery occasionally took on symbolic connotations in the Bible. For example, in the psalms broken pottery symbolizes the life of the psalmist as he cries to God for help (Ps. 31:12). In another psalm the psalmist envisions God destroying the nations that plot against God like someone who shatters pottery (2:9). Isaiah likens Egypt’s strength, in which Judah trusts more than in God, to pottery ready to be shattered (Isa. 30:14). Similarly, Jeremiah says that the leaders of Judah will be punished and will “fall and be shattered like fine pottery” (Jer. 25:34 NIV mg.). Isaiah also uses several other metaphors related to pottery. He says that God treads on rulers like a potter treads on clay, getting it soft and prepared for making pottery (Isa. 41:25). Isaiah also likens those who complain to God to pieces of broken pottery trying to tell the potter how to make pots (45:9).

Both Isaiah and Jeremiah liken people to clay in God’s hand. Isaiah says, “We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand” (Isa. 64:8). Jeremiah says essentially the same thing, but instead of using Isaiah’s positive tone, he sees the human molding process to be a difficult and dangerous one that can result in the potter rejecting the creation (Jer. 18:1–10). Jeremiah buys a pot, takes it to a gate in the city, the Potsherd Gate (a potsherd is a broken and useless piece of pottery), and smashes the pot symbolically to demonstrate how God feels about Judah (Jer. 19). Jeremiah’s choice of the Potsherd Gate was also part of the symbolism, as it is likely that most of the pottery in Jerusalem was made near or at the Potsherd Gate. The apostle Paul creates a similar metaphor, describing how a potter is able to take the same lump of clay and make different kinds of pots, some of which have special uses, and others common uses. Paul implies that God has the right to determine how and for what purpose he creates humans because he is like the potter with the clay (Rom. 9:21). Paul also refers to humans as clay jars with treasure in them (2 Cor. 4:7).

In another example, after the destruction of Jerusalem the people in captivity lament that they are simply like earthen pots before God (Lam. 4:2), suggesting that they are ready to receive the punishment that God has chosen for them to endure. Job also wonders if God has molded him like clay only then to turn him back into dust (Job 10:9).

Manufacture of Pottery

Preparing the clay. Before any pottery can be made, the clay must be gathered and prepared for use. Clay collected from different geographical areas will have different levels of pure clay and other earthen materials. Pure clay is very difficult to work with, but it produces some of the smoothest and strongest pots. Most of the clay used in Palestine was not of superior quality, and so most often imperfections developed in the pots as they were being made. We also know that during the time of the late monarchy, potters in Israel tended to mix clay with different kinds of sand to produce better results. With today’s advanced forensic technology, it often can be determined where the clay used to make a pot was harvested. Because it was generally impractical to transport clay any long distance, this sort of analysis can also be helpful in determining the origin of the pot. Once the clay was harvested, depending on its quality and use, it was often necessary to prepare the clay by kneading or treading it. This process was vital for removing any impurities in the clay as well as making it malleable.

Shaping. Historically, the first pottery molded was made by hand and dried in the sun. Nothing is known about the role of these early potters and whether they were highly regarded in society. Many scholars believe that early pottery was made by women, to be used for very practical purposes such as cooking and carrying water. It is fairly easy to determine the gender of the potter by measuring the natural hand and finger marks left in the clay and comparing their size in relationship to the average size of both men’s and women’s hands. These rudimentary pots usually were made by laying coils of clay one upon another.

Although it is not certain, the profession of being a potter likely did not develop until the invention of the potter’s wheel. The potter’s wheel allowed the potter to create more-sophisticated pottery and also gave the potter the ability to mass-produce pots. Several examples of potter’s wheels have been excavated dating to around 3500–3000 BC in Sumer and Ur. Most potter’s wheels during biblical times consisted of two wheels. A larger and heavier wheel was placed close to the ground, with a pole in the center of this wheel going up to a second, smaller, and lighter wheel supported by a table. The potter used his or her foot to move the larger wheel, which turned the smaller wheel. It is also possible that an apprentice turned the larger wheel. As the technology developed, sometimes two potter’s wheels were connected to one larger wheel so that two pots could be created at the same time.

Another method for making clay items was the use of press molds. Press molds were used to fashion clay by pushing the clay into the mold and then allowing it to dry. As the clay dried, it shrank and pulled away from the mold and could easily be removed from the mold. This method was used for molding figurines (most often used as household idols) and small oil lamps, which often were made of two molded pieces fused together.

Decorating and firing. Once a pot was finished being shaped, either on a wheel or in a mold, it often was decorated. The pot often was painted with pigment made from earth. Different painting styles can help in identifying a pot’s place of origin. Another common decoration method was to imprint the pot with different seals, symbols, or patterns. This was done by using a wooden or metal tool and pressing it into the wet clay. Examples of this method include several pots found at Gibeon stamped with what appear to be royal seals, which likely indicate that the pots and their contents belonged to the king. Much of the pottery from in and around Jerusalem has a red burnish applied to seal the pot and to add a smooth finish to the outside. By the time of the monarchy, potters were very sophisticated in their choice of materials and often had some of the materials, such as special sands, imported from a considerable distance. These sands added to the smoothness of the fired pot by creating a glaze on it.

Once the decoration of the pot was finished, the pot was dried in order to reveal any imperfections. If any imperfections were observed during drying, the pot was discarded. If no imperfections were seen, the pot was then fired. Depending on the potter’s resources and the technology the potter knew, the firing process could be as simple as placing the pot in a hot fire or could include the use of sophisticated kilns capable of producing extremely high and even heat. Firing a pot was extremely difficult, because ideally the heat is kept at a constant temperature throughout the process, which was not an easy task when using an open flame for the heating source. Because the process of firing pots was a well-guarded trade secret, we know few details of how pots were fired during biblical times.

Types of Pottery

There are several general categories of pottery, which are based on their characteristics and intended uses. Of course, for some extant examples of pottery from archaeological digs, their usage cannot be determined. Tableware included cups, plates, bowls, and jugs. These items tended to be more decorated than other pottery, much like tableware today tends to be more decorative than cooking pots. Cooking pots included pots with small, narrow rims and flat, open pans for frying and uncovered cooking. Storage vessels came in all sizes: pithoi, jars (two-handled), jugs (one-handled), smaller jugs (with no handles), and very small vessels for perfumes and other valuable liquids. Also, it is not unusual to find various sizes of lamps.

Importance of Pottery for Archaeology

Pottery has become an important dating tool for archaeologists. While written texts do provide more archaeological data than pottery and religious or cultural artifacts can be more visually interesting, it is pottery that helps the archaeologist piece all the information together.

History of dating pottery. While doing archaeological work in Egypt, Flinders Petrie noticed that for different time periods of Egyptian history there were different kinds of pottery, with very distinct and identifiable characteristics. These identifiable pottery characteristics included things such as the thickness of the wall of the pot, the type of rim or lip on the pot, the pot’s handles, and any special decorative elements. These characteristics, Petrie discovered, could be used to date sites that had no other dating information. Petrie carefully logged each piece of pottery found at each site and over time developed an extensive catalog of pottery types and their respective dating. Later, while digging at Tell el-Hesi in Palestine, Petrie noticed that each layer, or stratum, of the tell (archaeological mound) had a different type of pottery, much like the different kinds of pottery he had noticed in Egypt. Because of his careful and painstaking work in Egypt, Petrie also noticed that the different types of pottery in Palestine were similar to those that he had uncovered in Egypt. As a result, Petrie was able to develop a chronology of pottery that could be used to date different archaeological digs and strata in the entire ancient Near East. Later, W. F. Albright expanded on Petrie’s work by adding several sublayers and further refining the dating of each time period of pottery.

To help explain this significant discovery, L. E. Stager uses the example of how bottles for soft drinks have changed over the years. For example, he notes that when soda bottles were first mass-marketed, the writing on the bottle was part of the glass with raised letters. Over time the bottle changed and evolved; different types of writing were used on glass bottles until ultimately the bottles were smooth and the words were painted on them. In more recent years soda bottles have been made of plastic. This evolution of the soda bottle can roughly illustrate the changes in pottery over time. Because this method of dating depends on a catalog of documented pottery, it requires that all pottery found, no matter how insignificant, be cataloged and recorded so that others can compare the pottery finds from one place with those in other places.

Time periods. In the dating of ancient Near Eastern pottery, history is divided into broad time periods that are then further subdivided. The Middle Bronze Age (c. 2200–1550 BC) encompasses the time of the earliest biblical stories, including perhaps the stories of the patriarchs. During this period and the Early Bronze Age (c. 3300–2200 BC), the artisanship evident in the pottery was limited, and pots had little or no decoration; however, the skill applied to the vessels had improved dramatically from the prior period, the Chalcolithic (4500–3300 BC). These vessels show thin walls and evidence of mass production.

The Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC), which likely includes the time of Moses and perhaps Joshua, shows an unusual and dramatic decrease in the quality of local Canaanite pottery. There is no known explanation for this deterioration, but it is evident. At the same time, pottery from other coastal regions, especially Mycenaean Greece and Crete, is very common, and pots from these locations are quite sophisticated and highly decorated. This indicates that during this time there was a strong cultural influence from these areas. Some have suggested that this is due to the colonization of parts of Palestine by the Sea Peoples, who perhaps are the Philistines of biblical history.

The Iron Age (c. 1200–586 BC), which encompasses the time period from the Israelite conquest and settlement through the monarchy, demonstrates more low-quality pottery, especially early in this period. In contrast with the examples of pottery manufactured locally at Israelite sites, Philistine pottery is quite sophisticated, highly decorated with red and black duotones in geometric patterns. The later pottery of the monarchy shows much more skill and sophistication.

The Persian (539–332 BC), Hellenistic (332–63 BC), and Roman periods (after 63 BC) conclude the biblical periods. Each of these periods is dominated by the aesthetics and quality of the invading countries’ pottery. By this time, trade routes were strongly established, and so the invaders, it appears, flooded the markets with their pottery, often to the detriment of the local potters.

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).

Pottery in the Bible

The Bible contains numerous references to pottery, pottery making, and potters. Clay pottery was the most common and easiest way to cook food and to carry liquids throughout biblical times. Only pots used for very special occasions and locations (such as the temple) were made out of a material (usually some metal) other than clay (Exod. 38:3). Clay was the preferable material because it was freely obtained, easy to manipulate, and required little technology to make. The downside of pottery is that it is easily broken and thus rendered useless. Evidence of the abundance and affordability of pottery is seen in the instructions to break ceremonially unclean pottery rather than wash it (Lev. 15:12). Although cooking was the primary purpose for pottery, it could be used for a variety of applications, including storing items, carrying water, making lamps, and forming idols.

Pottery and the manufacture of pottery occasionally took on symbolic connotations in the Bible. For example, in the psalms broken pottery symbolizes the life of the psalmist as he cries to God for help (Ps. 31:12). In another psalm the psalmist envisions God destroying the nations that plot against God like someone who shatters pottery (2:9). Isaiah likens Egypt’s strength, in which Judah trusts more than in God, to pottery ready to be shattered (Isa. 30:14). Similarly, Jeremiah says that the leaders of Judah will be punished and will “fall and be shattered like fine pottery” (Jer. 25:34 NIV mg.). Isaiah also uses several other metaphors related to pottery. He says that God treads on rulers like a potter treads on clay, getting it soft and prepared for making pottery (Isa. 41:25). Isaiah also likens those who complain to God to pieces of broken pottery trying to tell the potter how to make pots (45:9).

Both Isaiah and Jeremiah liken people to clay in God’s hand. Isaiah says, “We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand” (Isa. 64:8). Jeremiah says essentially the same thing, but instead of using Isaiah’s positive tone, he sees the human molding process to be a difficult and dangerous one that can result in the potter rejecting the creation (Jer. 18:1–10). Jeremiah buys a pot, takes it to a gate in the city, the Potsherd Gate (a potsherd is a broken and useless piece of pottery), and smashes the pot symbolically to demonstrate how God feels about Judah (Jer. 19). Jeremiah’s choice of the Potsherd Gate was also part of the symbolism, as it is likely that most of the pottery in Jerusalem was made near or at the Potsherd Gate. The apostle Paul creates a similar metaphor, describing how a potter is able to take the same lump of clay and make different kinds of pots, some of which have special uses, and others common uses. Paul implies that God has the right to determine how and for what purpose he creates humans because he is like the potter with the clay (Rom. 9:21). Paul also refers to humans as clay jars with treasure in them (2 Cor. 4:7).

In another example, after the destruction of Jerusalem the people in captivity lament that they are simply like earthen pots before God (Lam. 4:2), suggesting that they are ready to receive the punishment that God has chosen for them to endure. Job also wonders if God has molded him like clay only then to turn him back into dust (Job 10:9).

Manufacture of Pottery

Preparing the clay. Before any pottery can be made, the clay must be gathered and prepared for use. Clay collected from different geographical areas will have different levels of pure clay and other earthen materials. Pure clay is very difficult to work with, but it produces some of the smoothest and strongest pots. Most of the clay used in Palestine was not of superior quality, and so most often imperfections developed in the pots as they were being made. We also know that during the time of the late monarchy, potters in Israel tended to mix clay with different kinds of sand to produce better results. With today’s advanced forensic technology, it often can be determined where the clay used to make a pot was harvested. Because it was generally impractical to transport clay any long distance, this sort of analysis can also be helpful in determining the origin of the pot. Once the clay was harvested, depending on its quality and use, it was often necessary to prepare the clay by kneading or treading it. This process was vital for removing any impurities in the clay as well as making it malleable.

Shaping. Historically, the first pottery molded was made by hand and dried in the sun. Nothing is known about the role of these early potters and whether they were highly regarded in society. Many scholars believe that early pottery was made by women, to be used for very practical purposes such as cooking and carrying water. It is fairly easy to determine the gender of the potter by measuring the natural hand and finger marks left in the clay and comparing their size in relationship to the average size of both men’s and women’s hands. These rudimentary pots usually were made by laying coils of clay one upon another.

Although it is not certain, the profession of being a potter likely did not develop until the invention of the potter’s wheel. The potter’s wheel allowed the potter to create more-sophisticated pottery and also gave the potter the ability to mass-produce pots. Several examples of potter’s wheels have been excavated dating to around 3500–3000 BC in Sumer and Ur. Most potter’s wheels during biblical times consisted of two wheels. A larger and heavier wheel was placed close to the ground, with a pole in the center of this wheel going up to a second, smaller, and lighter wheel supported by a table. The potter used his or her foot to move the larger wheel, which turned the smaller wheel. It is also possible that an apprentice turned the larger wheel. As the technology developed, sometimes two potter’s wheels were connected to one larger wheel so that two pots could be created at the same time.

Another method for making clay items was the use of press molds. Press molds were used to fashion clay by pushing the clay into the mold and then allowing it to dry. As the clay dried, it shrank and pulled away from the mold and could easily be removed from the mold. This method was used for molding figurines (most often used as household idols) and small oil lamps, which often were made of two molded pieces fused together.

Decorating and firing. Once a pot was finished being shaped, either on a wheel or in a mold, it often was decorated. The pot often was painted with pigment made from earth. Different painting styles can help in identifying a pot’s place of origin. Another common decoration method was to imprint the pot with different seals, symbols, or patterns. This was done by using a wooden or metal tool and pressing it into the wet clay. Examples of this method include several pots found at Gibeon stamped with what appear to be royal seals, which likely indicate that the pots and their contents belonged to the king. Much of the pottery from in and around Jerusalem has a red burnish applied to seal the pot and to add a smooth finish to the outside. By the time of the monarchy, potters were very sophisticated in their choice of materials and often had some of the materials, such as special sands, imported from a considerable distance. These sands added to the smoothness of the fired pot by creating a glaze on it.

Once the decoration of the pot was finished, the pot was dried in order to reveal any imperfections. If any imperfections were observed during drying, the pot was discarded. If no imperfections were seen, the pot was then fired. Depending on the potter’s resources and the technology the potter knew, the firing process could be as simple as placing the pot in a hot fire or could include the use of sophisticated kilns capable of producing extremely high and even heat. Firing a pot was extremely difficult, because ideally the heat is kept at a constant temperature throughout the process, which was not an easy task when using an open flame for the heating source. Because the process of firing pots was a well-guarded trade secret, we know few details of how pots were fired during biblical times.

Types of Pottery

There are several general categories of pottery, which are based on their characteristics and intended uses. Of course, for some extant examples of pottery from archaeological digs, their usage cannot be determined. Tableware included cups, plates, bowls, and jugs. These items tended to be more decorated than other pottery, much like tableware today tends to be more decorative than cooking pots. Cooking pots included pots with small, narrow rims and flat, open pans for frying and uncovered cooking. Storage vessels came in all sizes: pithoi, jars (two-handled), jugs (one-handled), smaller jugs (with no handles), and very small vessels for perfumes and other valuable liquids. Also, it is not unusual to find various sizes of lamps.

Importance of Pottery for Archaeology

Pottery has become an important dating tool for archaeologists. While written texts do provide more archaeological data than pottery and religious or cultural artifacts can be more visually interesting, it is pottery that helps the archaeologist piece all the information together.

History of dating pottery. While doing archaeological work in Egypt, Flinders Petrie noticed that for different time periods of Egyptian history there were different kinds of pottery, with very distinct and identifiable characteristics. These identifiable pottery characteristics included things such as the thickness of the wall of the pot, the type of rim or lip on the pot, the pot’s handles, and any special decorative elements. These characteristics, Petrie discovered, could be used to date sites that had no other dating information. Petrie carefully logged each piece of pottery found at each site and over time developed an extensive catalog of pottery types and their respective dating. Later, while digging at Tell el-Hesi in Palestine, Petrie noticed that each layer, or stratum, of the tell (archaeological mound) had a different type of pottery, much like the different kinds of pottery he had noticed in Egypt. Because of his careful and painstaking work in Egypt, Petrie also noticed that the different types of pottery in Palestine were similar to those that he had uncovered in Egypt. As a result, Petrie was able to develop a chronology of pottery that could be used to date different archaeological digs and strata in the entire ancient Near East. Later, W. F. Albright expanded on Petrie’s work by adding several sublayers and further refining the dating of each time period of pottery.

To help explain this significant discovery, L. E. Stager uses the example of how bottles for soft drinks have changed over the years. For example, he notes that when soda bottles were first mass-marketed, the writing on the bottle was part of the glass with raised letters. Over time the bottle changed and evolved; different types of writing were used on glass bottles until ultimately the bottles were smooth and the words were painted on them. In more recent years soda bottles have been made of plastic. This evolution of the soda bottle can roughly illustrate the changes in pottery over time. Because this method of dating depends on a catalog of documented pottery, it requires that all pottery found, no matter how insignificant, be cataloged and recorded so that others can compare the pottery finds from one place with those in other places.

Time periods. In the dating of ancient Near Eastern pottery, history is divided into broad time periods that are then further subdivided. The Middle Bronze Age (c. 2200–1550 BC) encompasses the time of the earliest biblical stories, including perhaps the stories of the patriarchs. During this period and the Early Bronze Age (c. 3300–2200 BC), the artisanship evident in the pottery was limited, and pots had little or no decoration; however, the skill applied to the vessels had improved dramatically from the prior period, the Chalcolithic (4500–3300 BC). These vessels show thin walls and evidence of mass production.

The Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC), which likely includes the time of Moses and perhaps Joshua, shows an unusual and dramatic decrease in the quality of local Canaanite pottery. There is no known explanation for this deterioration, but it is evident. At the same time, pottery from other coastal regions, especially Mycenaean Greece and Crete, is very common, and pots from these locations are quite sophisticated and highly decorated. This indicates that during this time there was a strong cultural influence from these areas. Some have suggested that this is due to the colonization of parts of Palestine by the Sea Peoples, who perhaps are the Philistines of biblical history.

The Iron Age (c. 1200–586 BC), which encompasses the time period from the Israelite conquest and settlement through the monarchy, demonstrates more low-quality pottery, especially early in this period. In contrast with the examples of pottery manufactured locally at Israelite sites, Philistine pottery is quite sophisticated, highly decorated with red and black duotones in geometric patterns. The later pottery of the monarchy shows much more skill and sophistication.

The Persian (539–332 BC), Hellenistic (332–63 BC), and Roman periods (after 63 BC) conclude the biblical periods. Each of these periods is dominated by the aesthetics and quality of the invading countries’ pottery. By this time, trade routes were strongly established, and so the invaders, it appears, flooded the markets with their pottery, often to the detriment of the local potters.

A broken piece of pottery that is essentially useless. Because of the easy availability and cheap cost of pottery in the ancient Near East and pottery’s relative fragility, broken pottery was common. Potsherds are mentioned a few times in the Bible. Job used a potsherd to scrape his skin when he was infected with skin sores (Job 2:8). The gate near the Valley of Ben Hinnom was called the “Potsherd Gate” (Jer. 19:2). It is at this place that Jeremiah smashed a clay pot into potsherds to warn the people of God’s wrath.

Although potsherds were rubbish in the ancient Near East, today their archaeological significance is immense. Because of the profusion of pottery in the ancient Near East, potsherds are extant at every level of an archaeological dig. Pottery now provides the best and easiest way to date a particular level of an archaeological site, and because it is rare to find intact vessels, most dating in archaeology is based on potsherds. With today’s sophisticated system of dating pottery, potsherds can help date any ancient Near Eastern site usually to within fifty to a hundred years.

Potsherds also often functioned as an easy surface on which to write. This writing was accomplished by scratching the surface of the broken pottery. This practice contributes to the wealth of archaeological information gained from potsherds. Potsherds that have writing on them are called “ostraca,” and these are the most common form of writing found at archaeological digs. Because they often only contain a couple of words or at most a couple of sentences, they often are difficult to translate due to the lack of context. Some of the most interesting and famous ostraca are the “Lachish letters,” written by a military officer named Hoshaiah to his superior, Joash, who was stationed at Lachish shortly before its conquest by the Babylonians in 587/586 BC. See also Pottery.

Pottery in the Bible

The Bible contains numerous references to pottery, pottery making, and potters. Clay pottery was the most common and easiest way to cook food and to carry liquids throughout biblical times. Only pots used for very special occasions and locations (such as the temple) were made out of a material (usually some metal) other than clay (Exod. 38:3). Clay was the preferable material because it was freely obtained, easy to manipulate, and required little technology to make. The downside of pottery is that it is easily broken and thus rendered useless. Evidence of the abundance and affordability of pottery is seen in the instructions to break ceremonially unclean pottery rather than wash it (Lev. 15:12). Although cooking was the primary purpose for pottery, it could be used for a variety of applications, including storing items, carrying water, making lamps, and forming idols.

Pottery and the manufacture of pottery occasionally took on symbolic connotations in the Bible. For example, in the psalms broken pottery symbolizes the life of the psalmist as he cries to God for help (Ps. 31:12). In another psalm the psalmist envisions God destroying the nations that plot against God like someone who shatters pottery (2:9). Isaiah likens Egypt’s strength, in which Judah trusts more than in God, to pottery ready to be shattered (Isa. 30:14). Similarly, Jeremiah says that the leaders of Judah will be punished and will “fall and be shattered like fine pottery” (Jer. 25:34 NIV mg.). Isaiah also uses several other metaphors related to pottery. He says that God treads on rulers like a potter treads on clay, getting it soft and prepared for making pottery (Isa. 41:25). Isaiah also likens those who complain to God to pieces of broken pottery trying to tell the potter how to make pots (45:9).

Both Isaiah and Jeremiah liken people to clay in God’s hand. Isaiah says, “We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand” (Isa. 64:8). Jeremiah says essentially the same thing, but instead of using Isaiah’s positive tone, he sees the human molding process to be a difficult and dangerous one that can result in the potter rejecting the creation (Jer. 18:1–10). Jeremiah buys a pot, takes it to a gate in the city, the Potsherd Gate (a potsherd is a broken and useless piece of pottery), and smashes the pot symbolically to demonstrate how God feels about Judah (Jer. 19). Jeremiah’s choice of the Potsherd Gate was also part of the symbolism, as it is likely that most of the pottery in Jerusalem was made near or at the Potsherd Gate. The apostle Paul creates a similar metaphor, describing how a potter is able to take the same lump of clay and make different kinds of pots, some of which have special uses, and others common uses. Paul implies that God has the right to determine how and for what purpose he creates humans because he is like the potter with the clay (Rom. 9:21). Paul also refers to humans as clay jars with treasure in them (2 Cor. 4:7).

In another example, after the destruction of Jerusalem the people in captivity lament that they are simply like earthen pots before God (Lam. 4:2), suggesting that they are ready to receive the punishment that God has chosen for them to endure. Job also wonders if God has molded him like clay only then to turn him back into dust (Job 10:9).

Manufacture of Pottery

Preparing the clay. Before any pottery can be made, the clay must be gathered and prepared for use. Clay collected from different geographical areas will have different levels of pure clay and other earthen materials. Pure clay is very difficult to work with, but it produces some of the smoothest and strongest pots. Most of the clay used in Palestine was not of superior quality, and so most often imperfections developed in the pots as they were being made. We also know that during the time of the late monarchy, potters in Israel tended to mix clay with different kinds of sand to produce better results. With today’s advanced forensic technology, it often can be determined where the clay used to make a pot was harvested. Because it was generally impractical to transport clay any long distance, this sort of analysis can also be helpful in determining the origin of the pot. Once the clay was harvested, depending on its quality and use, it was often necessary to prepare the clay by kneading or treading it. This process was vital for removing any impurities in the clay as well as making it malleable.

Shaping. Historically, the first pottery molded was made by hand and dried in the sun. Nothing is known about the role of these early potters and whether they were highly regarded in society. Many scholars believe that early pottery was made by women, to be used for very practical purposes such as cooking and carrying water. It is fairly easy to determine the gender of the potter by measuring the natural hand and finger marks left in the clay and comparing their size in relationship to the average size of both men’s and women’s hands. These rudimentary pots usually were made by laying coils of clay one upon another.

Although it is not certain, the profession of being a potter likely did not develop until the invention of the potter’s wheel. The potter’s wheel allowed the potter to create more-sophisticated pottery and also gave the potter the ability to mass-produce pots. Several examples of potter’s wheels have been excavated dating to around 3500–3000 BC in Sumer and Ur. Most potter’s wheels during biblical times consisted of two wheels. A larger and heavier wheel was placed close to the ground, with a pole in the center of this wheel going up to a second, smaller, and lighter wheel supported by a table. The potter used his or her foot to move the larger wheel, which turned the smaller wheel. It is also possible that an apprentice turned the larger wheel. As the technology developed, sometimes two potter’s wheels were connected to one larger wheel so that two pots could be created at the same time.

Another method for making clay items was the use of press molds. Press molds were used to fashion clay by pushing the clay into the mold and then allowing it to dry. As the clay dried, it shrank and pulled away from the mold and could easily be removed from the mold. This method was used for molding figurines (most often used as household idols) and small oil lamps, which often were made of two molded pieces fused together.

Decorating and firing. Once a pot was finished being shaped, either on a wheel or in a mold, it often was decorated. The pot often was painted with pigment made from earth. Different painting styles can help in identifying a pot’s place of origin. Another common decoration method was to imprint the pot with different seals, symbols, or patterns. This was done by using a wooden or metal tool and pressing it into the wet clay. Examples of this method include several pots found at Gibeon stamped with what appear to be royal seals, which likely indicate that the pots and their contents belonged to the king. Much of the pottery from in and around Jerusalem has a red burnish applied to seal the pot and to add a smooth finish to the outside. By the time of the monarchy, potters were very sophisticated in their choice of materials and often had some of the materials, such as special sands, imported from a considerable distance. These sands added to the smoothness of the fired pot by creating a glaze on it.

Once the decoration of the pot was finished, the pot was dried in order to reveal any imperfections. If any imperfections were observed during drying, the pot was discarded. If no imperfections were seen, the pot was then fired. Depending on the potter’s resources and the technology the potter knew, the firing process could be as simple as placing the pot in a hot fire or could include the use of sophisticated kilns capable of producing extremely high and even heat. Firing a pot was extremely difficult, because ideally the heat is kept at a constant temperature throughout the process, which was not an easy task when using an open flame for the heating source. Because the process of firing pots was a well-guarded trade secret, we know few details of how pots were fired during biblical times.

Types of Pottery

There are several general categories of pottery, which are based on their characteristics and intended uses. Of course, for some extant examples of pottery from archaeological digs, their usage cannot be determined. Tableware included cups, plates, bowls, and jugs. These items tended to be more decorated than other pottery, much like tableware today tends to be more decorative than cooking pots. Cooking pots included pots with small, narrow rims and flat, open pans for frying and uncovered cooking. Storage vessels came in all sizes: pithoi, jars (two-handled), jugs (one-handled), smaller jugs (with no handles), and very small vessels for perfumes and other valuable liquids. Also, it is not unusual to find various sizes of lamps.

Importance of Pottery for Archaeology

Pottery has become an important dating tool for archaeologists. While written texts do provide more archaeological data than pottery and religious or cultural artifacts can be more visually interesting, it is pottery that helps the archaeologist piece all the information together.

History of dating pottery. While doing archaeological work in Egypt, Flinders Petrie noticed that for different time periods of Egyptian history there were different kinds of pottery, with very distinct and identifiable characteristics. These identifiable pottery characteristics included things such as the thickness of the wall of the pot, the type of rim or lip on the pot, the pot’s handles, and any special decorative elements. These characteristics, Petrie discovered, could be used to date sites that had no other dating information. Petrie carefully logged each piece of pottery found at each site and over time developed an extensive catalog of pottery types and their respective dating. Later, while digging at Tell el-Hesi in Palestine, Petrie noticed that each layer, or stratum, of the tell (archaeological mound) had a different type of pottery, much like the different kinds of pottery he had noticed in Egypt. Because of his careful and painstaking work in Egypt, Petrie also noticed that the different types of pottery in Palestine were similar to those that he had uncovered in Egypt. As a result, Petrie was able to develop a chronology of pottery that could be used to date different archaeological digs and strata in the entire ancient Near East. Later, W. F. Albright expanded on Petrie’s work by adding several sublayers and further refining the dating of each time period of pottery.

To help explain this significant discovery, L. E. Stager uses the example of how bottles for soft drinks have changed over the years. For example, he notes that when soda bottles were first mass-marketed, the writing on the bottle was part of the glass with raised letters. Over time the bottle changed and evolved; different types of writing were used on glass bottles until ultimately the bottles were smooth and the words were painted on them. In more recent years soda bottles have been made of plastic. This evolution of the soda bottle can roughly illustrate the changes in pottery over time. Because this method of dating depends on a catalog of documented pottery, it requires that all pottery found, no matter how insignificant, be cataloged and recorded so that others can compare the pottery finds from one place with those in other places.

Time periods. In the dating of ancient Near Eastern pottery, history is divided into broad time periods that are then further subdivided. The Middle Bronze Age (c. 2200–1550 BC) encompasses the time of the earliest biblical stories, including perhaps the stories of the patriarchs. During this period and the Early Bronze Age (c. 3300–2200 BC), the artisanship evident in the pottery was limited, and pots had little or no decoration; however, the skill applied to the vessels had improved dramatically from the prior period, the Chalcolithic (4500–3300 BC). These vessels show thin walls and evidence of mass production.

The Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC), which likely includes the time of Moses and perhaps Joshua, shows an unusual and dramatic decrease in the quality of local Canaanite pottery. There is no known explanation for this deterioration, but it is evident. At the same time, pottery from other coastal regions, especially Mycenaean Greece and Crete, is very common, and pots from these locations are quite sophisticated and highly decorated. This indicates that during this time there was a strong cultural influence from these areas. Some have suggested that this is due to the colonization of parts of Palestine by the Sea Peoples, who perhaps are the Philistines of biblical history.

The Iron Age (c. 1200–586 BC), which encompasses the time period from the Israelite conquest and settlement through the monarchy, demonstrates more low-quality pottery, especially early in this period. In contrast with the examples of pottery manufactured locally at Israelite sites, Philistine pottery is quite sophisticated, highly decorated with red and black duotones in geometric patterns. The later pottery of the monarchy shows much more skill and sophistication.

The Persian (539–332 BC), Hellenistic (332–63 BC), and Roman periods (after 63 BC) conclude the biblical periods. Each of these periods is dominated by the aesthetics and quality of the invading countries’ pottery. By this time, trade routes were strongly established, and so the invaders, it appears, flooded the markets with their pottery, often to the detriment of the local potters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To treat with contempt, ridicule, despise. The people of God, through their thoughtlessness and rebellion, scorn God and his worship (1 Sam. 2:29). More often the godly are scorned by the wicked (Ps. 69:7, 10, 20; Prov. 23:9). God will also subject his people to scorn when they reject and ignore him (Deut. 28:37; Jer. 18:16; Ezek. 22:4).

A KJV phrase used to describe the heavenly bodies or heavenly beings. The NIV prefers “starry host(s),” “multitudes of heaven,” or “stars in the heavens/sky,” but “host of the heavens” does occur in Dan. 8:10. The Hebrew phrase, tseba’ hashamayim, means literally “army of the heavens.” The connection between the celestial elements and an army comes in conjunction with God’s role as the commander of the Israelite forces (Josh. 5:13–15; Judg. 5:23). There are times when the Bible portrays the celestial elements as part of God’s military retinue, fighting on his behalf. The stars fight from heaven against Sisera (Judg. 5:20), and in the Israelites’ battle against the Amorites, the sun and the moon are commanded to stand still (Josh. 10:12–13; cf. Hab. 3:11). Based on these passages, the phrase may have had some military background, but it is also understood in other ways.

Perhaps one of the more enigmatic uses of the phrase occurs in 1 Kings 22:19 (cf. 2 Chron. 18:18; NIV: “multitudes of heaven”), where it describes God’s council. There are other biblical phrases used with more frequency to describe the heavenly council surrounding God. Other names for these beings include the “seraphim” of Isa. 6:2 and the “sons of God” in Job 1:6; 2:1; Pss. 29:1; 89:6. The connection between God’s council and the celestial elements likely comes, as noted above, through the heavenly bodies’ association with God in battle. Further solidifying this connection is Job 38:7, where the “sons of God” parallel the “morning stars.” Exactly what these heavenly beings are is debated, and many interpreters suggest the answer lies in the polytheistic context of Israel’s neighbors. Another possible explanation is to view these beings as the messengers or angels of God. The Bible portrays them as inferior beings (Deut. 3:24; 10:17; Jer. 10:6), and they function to serve and worship Yahweh (Pss. 29:1; 103:21; 148:2–3; Isa. 6:2). The angels who appear to the shepherds at Jesus’ birth are described as the “heavenly host” (Luke 2:13).

The last and most frequent use of the phrase “host of heaven” is to describe a condemned object of Israelite worship. It is likely that from their association with God’s council, these celestial elements gained an independent status and were worshiped apart from God. At times the “host of heaven” appears to refer to the stars alone; the NIV therefore translates it as “stars in the sky” (Deut. 17:3; Jer. 33:22; cf. Jer. 8:2) or “starry hosts” (2 Kings 23:5). At other times the phrase refers to the totality of the heavenly bodies (Deut. 4:19 [NIV: “heavenly array”]; cf. 2 Kings 21:3, 5). Based on the distribution of the phrase, and its occurrence primarily in documents narrating the Assyrian period (2 Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4–5; Jer. 19:13; Zeph. 1:5), there is likely a direct correlation between the worship of the host of heaven and Israel’s Assyrian vassalage in the seventh century BC. The extent of Assyrian impact on Israelite religion is debated, but it is likely that astral worship—that is, worship of the starry hosts—flourished in this period due to the influence of the Assyrians, a culture entrenched in worship of the astral powers.

Topheth, whose name is associated with the Hebrew word for “spit,” was located in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to the immediate southwest of Jerusalem. At times, it served as the city dump, where trash was burned. In the NT period, the valley was known as Gehenna, which was associated with hell. Josiah had destroyed this place because it was the location of the false worship of the foreign god Molek (2 Kings 23:10–11), but the idolatrous worship site must have been rebuilt. In the time of Jeremiah, some Israelites performed child sacrifice in this location, so the prophet announced judgment against them (Jer. 7:30–34; 19:6–15).

The Hinnom (or Ben Hinnom) Valley circles Jerusalem on the south and west, a natural defense for the city. It was a boundary between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (Josh. 15:8; 18:16). God designated it the “Valley of Slaughter” because the kings of Judah and the people of Jerusalem built the high places of Topheth and burned their sons in the fire as sacrifices to Baal (Jer. 7:31–32; 19:2–6; see also 2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6). During his reformation, Josiah desecrated Topheth in the Hinnom Valley (2 Kings 23:10). The “Valley of Hinnom” (Heb. ge-hinnom) became “Gehenna” (Gk. geenna, from Aramaic), a place notorious for burning refuse, a vivid illustration for Jesus’ references to everlasting torment (e.g., Matt. 10:28). See also Gehenna; Hell.

There is no mention of wheels in the NT, while four different types of wheels are described in the OT. They include a potter’s wheel, a chariot wheel, a wheel used for processing grain, and the wheel referred to in Ezekiel’s theophany. The potter’s wheel was a simple device for creating pottery that was symmetrical and strong. Jeremiah observed a potter working with a pottery wheel (Jer. 18:3). Chariot wheels may have been invented by the Sumerians and were a common part of warfare during most of the OT. These wheels were either a solid wheel made of two or three planks of wood held together with wooden pegs or the more common wheel-and-spoke assembly. The spoke assembly was favored as iron and other metal technology was developed (Exod. 14:25). This sort of wheel also functioned in the temple to hold the lavers (1 Kings 7:30–33). Wheels also were used to crush grain in order to separate the husk from the harvested grain, to grind grain into flour, and to extract oil from olives (Isa. 28:28). There is much speculation about the specifications of the phantasmagorical wheels in Ezekiel’s visions, which include the enigmatic description of a wheel intersecting a wheel (Ezek. 1:15–16). It is clear from this description that the wheels are intended to guide a vehicle that can go in any direction instantly, but nothing else is known about them.

Scripture describes wind as a powerful force that is under God’s command. The Hebrew word ruakh sometimes is translated as “wind” but other times can mean “breath,” as well as “spirit” (Gen. 1:2). The Greek word for “spirit,” pneuma, hints of a similar range of meaning, although another word is most often used in the NT to denote wind.

Old Testament. Throughout the OT wind is used by God to fulfill his purposes. Psalm 148:8 declares that winds do God’s bidding. Yahweh keeps the wind in storehouses until they are needed (Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13). God uses wind to protect and provide for his people. For instance, God sends a wind over the earth to cause the floodwaters surrounding the ark to recede (Gen. 8:1), a strong east wind to drive back the sea during the exodus from Egypt (Exod. 14:21), and a wind that drives quail in from the sea to serve as food for the Israelites in the wilderness (Num. 11:31).

Wind can also be an agent of God’s destruction. God sends a plague upon Egypt by making an east wind blow locusts all across the land; afterward, God uses a west wind to blow the locusts into the sea (Exod. 10:13–19). In the book of Job a mighty wind from the desert causes the house of Job’s eldest son to collapse, killing Job’s seven sons and three daughters (Job 1:19). In the book of Jonah a great wind sent by God threatens to destroy Jonah’s ship, and a scorching east wind later causes Jonah to grow faint and desire death (Jon. 1:4; 4:8). The prophetic books use the subject of wind in communicating God’s judgment (e.g., Isa. 28:2; 64:6; Ezek. 5:2; 13:11).

While a single wind is able to blow in several directions (Eccles. 1:6), many passages specify four winds from the four quarters of the heavens. The north wind brings rain (Prov. 25:23), while the south wind brings heat (Job 37:17), both of which are useful for growing a garden (Song 4:16). Only one verse refers to the west wind specifically (Exod. 10:19), but numerous verses refer to the east wind as an agent of destruction, often appearing along with military terms. When let loose by God (Ps. 78:26), the east wind may shatter ships (Ps. 48:7), and those in its path will scatter (Jer. 18:17) or shrivel (Ezek. 19:12). In Hos. 12:1 God accuses Israel of pursuing the east wind along with multiplying lies and violence. Together, the four winds can be sent to bring destruction (Jer. 49:36) or to bring life (Ezek. 37:9). They also appear in the visions of Daniel (Dan. 7:2; 8:8; 11:4; cf. Rev. 7:1).

God rides on the wings of the wind on cherubim (Ps. 18:10; 2 Sam. 22:11), with the clouds as his chariot (Ps. 104:3). In Ps. 104:4 the winds are called God’s “messengers.” This imagery is strikingly similar to ancient descriptions of the Canaanite god Baal, although Scripture adds that it is Yahweh who created the wind (Job 28:25; Amos 4:13). Yahweh’s power is not contingent upon wind, as Elijah learns when he experiences the presence of Yahweh in the whisper and not the wind (or the earthquake) after his successful contest against the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 19:11–12).

The wisdom literature focuses upon other characteristics of wind besides its power. The transient nature of wind is significant, as wind is the inheritance of those who bring trouble upon their family (Prov. 11:29). Ecclesiastes continually refers to all things done under the sun as “a chasing after the wind” (e.g., 1:14, 17). Empty talk is spoken of as wind (Job 8:2). The function of wind to blow away chaff is also used to declare the fate of the wicked (e.g., Ps. 1:4; cf. Job 21:18). The unpredictability of wind serves as a metaphor for the mystery of God’s actions (Eccles. 11:5).

New Testament. In the NT, the Gospels reveal the divine nature of Jesus by emphasizing his ability to command the wind (Matt. 8:26–27). Jesus declares that the Son of Man will gather his elect from the four winds (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:27). Wind is a metaphor in John 3:8 for the mystery and unpredictability of those born of the Spirit. Jesus uses the image of empty talk as wind when he refers to John the Baptist as a prophet rather than a reed swayed by the wind (Matt. 11:7; Luke 7:24). In Eph. 4:14 false teaching is referred to as wind. It is wind that easily sways the one who doubts (James 1:6). Finally, a correlation between wind and the Holy Spirit occurs when a sound like a violent wind occurs at the time when the Holy Spirit fills all those in the house at Pentecost (Acts 2:2).

Traditionally, twin rocks upon which midwives would seat women for childbirth. The term appears once in the NRSV (NIV: “delivery stool”), translating a Hebrew word (’abenayim) that literally means “two stones” (Exod. 1:16). However, the same Hebrew word means “potter’s wheel” in Jer. 18:3, suggesting that the obstetric understanding could be metaphoric.

The guilt that results from the shedding of innocent blood, the taking of an innocent life. The person who incurred bloodguilt was considered not only morally but also ritually impure; this impurity attached not just to the person, for the land was made ritually impure as well. The only way this impurity could be removed was by the execution of the guilty individual (Num. 35:29–34). The person responsible for carrying out the sentence was referred to as the “avenger of blood” (Num. 35:19–27; Deut. 19:6–13 [see also Avenger]). This responsibility fell to the slain person’s nearest kin. For those whose taking of innocent life was accidental (manslaughter), there were cities of refuge established to which the accused could flee from the avenger, and a judicial process was set up to determine innocence or guilt (see also Cities of Refuge).

In addition to the legal sections of the OT, bloodguilt comes under repeated condemnation in narrative, poetry, and prophecy. Already in Gen. 4 the murder of Abel is narrated, with God declaring that Abel’s blood “cries out to me from the ground” (4:10). Numerous accounts in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles narrate both the shedding of innocent blood and the ensuing vengeance that was carried out (e.g., 2 Sam. 16:8).

Proverbs warns the young not to join with those who lie in wait to shed innocent blood (1:11–18). The psalms, as well as condemning those who shed innocent blood, also pay special attention to the fact that God himself plays the role of the avenger of blood (Pss. 5:6; 9:12; 79:10). Lamentations attributes the exile directly to the incurrence of bloodguilt (Lam. 4:13–14).

The prophets were especially concerned with bloodguilt. God would not accept sacrifices from those whose hands were “full of blood” (Isa. 1:15; cf. 59:1–7). Their sacrifices were unacceptable for two reasons: (1) since they had incurred bloodguilt, they were ritually impure and therefore not in a position to be able to offer sacrifices; (2) the sacrifices that they were offering had come into their possession as a result of their oppression and murder of the poor; that is, they were not the legitimate owners of that which they were sacrificing (see also Jer. 7:6; 19:4; 22:3, 17; 26:15; Ezek. 22–24).

In the Gospels, the chilling words “His blood is on us and on our children” (Matt. 27:25) are pronounced with regard to perhaps the most heinous instance of bloodguilt in the Bible (see also Matt. 23:30, 35; 27:4–8; Luke 11:50–51; Acts 5:28).

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).

A gate of Jerusalem located in the southwest corner, leading into the Hinnom Valley. The gate was restored by Nehemiah (Neh. 3:13). In NT times it was known as the Gate of the Essenes (Josephus, J.W. 5.145). The gate was called “Dung Gate” probably because it led to the city dump. God instructed Jeremiah to prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem from the Potsherd Gate (Jer. 19:2), possibly the same gate as the Dung Gate.

This name is a Latin and Greek derivation of the Hebrew place name “Valley of Hinnom” (Neh. 11:30), the deep ravine on the southern end of the ancient city of Jerusalem. It was also called the “Valley of Ben Hinnom” (Jer. 19:2) and was the northern boundary of Judah from the time of the conquest (Josh. 15:8; 18:16). It marked the northern boundary of Judahite settlement in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. This placed the city of Jerusalem just inside Benjamite territory. It became a name of infamy because pagan cultic places were located there during the time of the later monarchy (2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6; Jer. 7:31; 32:35), cults that involved the sacrifice of children to Molek and Baal. Jeremiah renamed it the “Valley of Slaughter” (Jer. 7:32; 19:5–6).

It is easy to see, therefore, how in later Jewish writings Gehenna could become a metaphor for the fiery punishment that was the lot of the wicked on the day of judgment. This is reflected in NT usage. Jesus spoke about those who cursed others as being “in danger of the fire of Gehenna [NIV: ‘hell’]” (Matt. 5:22). He said that the fate of the wicked was to have their bodies “thrown into Gehenna [NIV: ‘hell’]” (5:29–30). It is a place of destruction (10:28), and fire is its tormenting and destructive element (18:9). Jesus described every hypocritical Pharisee as “a son of Gehenna [NIV: ‘hell’]” (23:15), for such hypocrisy would lead to their being sent there for punishment (23:33). The fact that this word is repeatedly found on the lips of Jesus (cf. Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5) means that this teaching cannot be dismissed as exaggeration or condemned as inconsistent with loving concern for the sinner facing punishment. Outside the Synoptic Gospels, “Gehenna” appears in the NT only in James 3:6 as part of his teaching on controlling the tongue. See also Hell; Hinnom, Valley of.

The act of killing a human being as an offering to a deity in a religious ritual.

In the OT, human sacrifice is most closely associated with the worship of Molek, a Canaanite deity of Phoenician origin. Molek’s name in Scripture is derived from the Hebrew word for “king,” melek, but using the vowel pattern of bosheth, which means “shame.” Human sacrifice was not limited to Molek; it was also part of Chemosh (Moabite) and Baal (Canaanite) worship (2 Kings 3:27; Jer. 19:5), as well as rituals practiced before other regional gods. There is enough fluidity in names and details to suggest that these traditions were somewhat intertwined.

The practice of sacrifice to Molek is literally described as causing one’s son or daughter “to pass through the fire.” Such a thing was forbidden to Israel (Lev. 18:21; 20:2–5) and was called both a “detestable practice” and “detestable to the Lord” (Deut. 18:9–12). The shedding of innocent blood, a broader category of sin, was also prohibited (Deut. 19:10). Despite its gross offense, human sacrifice became a snare for Israel because it was so routine in Canaan, even though it was among the reasons given to them for driving the Canaanites out of the land (Ps. 106:34–39).

Indeed, like the Canaanites, the Israelites did sacrifice their children to idols. Solomon built high places for Chemosh and Molek (1 Kings 11:7). Ahaz sacrificed his son to Molek in Judah (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chron. 28:1–4) according to the practices of the kings of Israel (2 Kings 17:17–18). So too did Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chron. 33:6), whose sins also more broadly included shedding innocent blood (2 Kings 21:6, 16; 24:4; 2 Chron. 33:6).

The Valley of Ben Hinnom in Jerusalem, located below the south wall of the city, extending from the base of Mount Zion eastward to the Kidron Valley, was a site for human sacrifices (Isa. 57:5). The specific place was called “Topheth,” either from a Hebrew word meaning “drum,” a reference to the priests of Molek banging instruments to drown out the screams of the child victims, or from an Aramaic loanword for “hearth,” communicating burning. In NT times, the same valley was known in Greek as Gehenna (geenna) and was used as a dump for burning refuse and a metaphor for hell.

After the fall of the northern kingdom, Josiah’s reforms included desecrating Topheth to stop the heinous idolatry (2 Kings 23:10). It did not last, however, as Jeremiah later prophesied on location that the Valley of Ben Hinnom would be renamed the “Valley of Slaughter” as a result of the despicable burning of children, and that the nation would be smashed for its great sins (Jer. 7:31–32; 19:1–14; 32:35). His prophecies were echoed by Ezekiel, whose passionate anger at Judah spilled over into shocking, attention-grabbing rhetoric as Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians (Ezek. 16:20–21; 20:26, 31; 23:37–39).

Elsewhere, the Bible alludes to human sacrifice before God. God commanded the offering of Isaac by Abraham as a test of Abraham’s devotion and obedience; and once Abraham passed the test, God stopped the sacrifice. A ram served as the substitute (Gen. 22:1–18). One possible reason for the matter-of-fact tone of the story is that Abraham lived in a context where such demands were not unexpected. What made Abraham’s God different was that he stopped the sacrifice.

A more difficult event is Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter in keeping with a rash vow that he made to God before battling the Ammonites (Judg. 11:30–40). There is no easy explanation for his gruesome vow fulfillment, which, this time, God did not miraculously stop. However, Jephthah’s actions are consistent with the book of Judges’ presentation of the Israelites as progressively descending into Canaan-like depravity because they had forgotten both God and his covenant.

Other instances that have been cited as examples of human sacrifice are more consistent with divine justice and retribution than with expiation (1 Sam. 15:17–21, 32–33; 2 Sam. 21:1–14).

The biblical writers assure us that God does not change. The psalmist contrasts the perishable cosmos with the Creator himself: “But you remain the same, and your years will never end” (Ps. 102:27). In Mal. 3:6, God says that Jacob’s sons will not be consumed, because “I the Lord do not change.” James has the same objective: to reassure his people that God will remain the source of good things, since God “does not change like shifting shadows” (James 1:17). This doctrine of God’s unchangeableness, or immutability, should comfort his people because it implies that he is ever willing and able to keep his promises. A changeable God might decide not to honor his commitments or become powerless to do so. In the first case, he loses his moral perfection; in the second, he ceases to be omnipotent.

God’s status as a perfect being makes this doctrine difficult to formulate, based on the worry that perfect things cannot change without becoming imperfect. Thus, Aristotle’s God, the “Unmoved Mover,” could do nothing but contemplate his own excellence, since all other topics would be lesser. Similarly, such a “god” could not even monitor the goings-on of human existence, since this activity would change the content of his own mind. Aristotle’s God is “self-actualized” in every imaginable sense. But while the Bible says that God does not change, it also tells us that he relates to human beings and their lives in all sorts of ways. He enjoys fellowship with Adam before the fall and gets angry when his people sin. God loves us, and he has worked in history to show us who he is and to redeem us. The incarnation of Christ, the Son, is the prime example of God’s apparent mutability or changeableness on some level, however one describes it. At the very least, he changes with respect to his temporal relationships every time a sinner repents: the latter was lost, and now is found.

The doctrine of the immutability of God must come to grips with passages like Gen. 6:5–7; Exod. 32:14; Jer. 18:7–10; 26:19; Amos 7:3; and Jon. 3:10, which suggest that God sometimes regrets past decisions, changes his mind, and reverses himself in response to human actions, whether positive or negative. Some Christians respond to these passages by asserting that God is semidependent on creation (“process theology”) or mutable in his knowledge and purposes (“open theism”). A better solution is to distinguish between (1) God’s essential nature and eternal purposes, which cannot change, and (2) his contingent relationships. God never retreats and never improvises, nor can he become “ungodlike.” Nevertheless, he is a real person, fully able to experience anger, joy, love, and longing—not less because he is God, but rather far more so.

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

Theology of Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage in the Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage in the New Testament

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

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

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

Symbolic Use of Marriage

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

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

There are considerable questions about the identification of Molek. Generally, it has been believed that Molek was a god of the Ammonites (1 Kings 11:5). Molek has long been associated with the practice of child sacrifice, based on several references to the god within the Bible. For example, Leviticus associates child sacrifice with the worship of Molek and prescribes capital punishment for any practitioner of such (18:21; 20:2–5). Josiah is credited with destroying the altar (Topheth) to Molek in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so that no one could sacrifice a child to Molek there (2 Kings 23:10–13).

The biblical text makes reference to the desecration of Topheth. It is not known exactly what Topheth was, but the Hebrew word likely means “to burn,” which suggests that it was an incinerator or specially formed altar. Whether this incinerator was for religious purposes only or had other uses, such as a kiln for firing pottery, is unknown. Jeremiah 19 records that Jeremiah pronounced an oracle at the Potsherd Gate against Topheth and the Valley of Ben Hinnom. In this oracle the god being worshiped is Baal rather than Molek; however, the location is still associated with child sacrifice. The fact that the gate at which Jeremiah offers the oracle is called the “Potsherd Gate” suggests that this may have been the place where potters worked, in which case there would have been a need for a kiln close by to fire the pottery. Could this be Topheth? Jeremiah 7:31 offers more evidence that Topheth and the Valley of Ben Hinnom were used for child sacrifice.

There is some debate about the terminology of “pass through the fire” (KJV, NRSV, NET), which is a more literal translation of the Hebrew text than the NIV’s “sacrifice” (see 2 Kings 16:3; 23:10). Some scholars attribute this phrase to Canaanite sources and question whether it refers to actually killing the sacrifice with fire or having the sacrifice symbolically burned by passing the child through the fire. It should be noted, however, that the terminology “pass through the fire” is not used exclusively in the Bible to refer to child sacrifice (see 2 Chron. 28:3).

Archaeology has proved that the Canaanites often performed child sacrifices, evidenced by large burial plots with many children near religious centers. Within the Canaanite pantheon the god Malik is fairly well attested. Malik was the god of fire and one that demanded human sacrifice. The names “Malik” and “Molek” have the same Semitic root, and it is possible that the OT has changed “Malik” to “Molek” to reflect its disgust by mixing the correct name with the Hebrew vocalization for “shame.”

Several kings of Israel are accused not only of worshiping Molek, but also of participating in child sacrifice and being a patron of the god. Solomon is accused of worshiping Molek and building a high place for Molek (1 Kings 11:5–7, 33). This high place is perhaps the Topheth that Josiah desecrates (2 Kings 23:10). Ahaz is recorded as sacrificing one of his sons in the fire (2 Kings 16:3), as did Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6).

There are considerable questions about the identification of Molek. Generally, it has been believed that Molek was a god of the Ammonites (1 Kings 11:5). Molek has long been associated with the practice of child sacrifice, based on several references to the god within the Bible. For example, Leviticus associates child sacrifice with the worship of Molek and prescribes capital punishment for any practitioner of such (18:21; 20:2–5). Josiah is credited with destroying the altar (Topheth) to Molek in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so that no one could sacrifice a child to Molek there (2 Kings 23:10–13).

The biblical text makes reference to the desecration of Topheth. It is not known exactly what Topheth was, but the Hebrew word likely means “to burn,” which suggests that it was an incinerator or specially formed altar. Whether this incinerator was for religious purposes only or had other uses, such as a kiln for firing pottery, is unknown. Jeremiah 19 records that Jeremiah pronounced an oracle at the Potsherd Gate against Topheth and the Valley of Ben Hinnom. In this oracle the god being worshiped is Baal rather than Molek; however, the location is still associated with child sacrifice. The fact that the gate at which Jeremiah offers the oracle is called the “Potsherd Gate” suggests that this may have been the place where potters worked, in which case there would have been a need for a kiln close by to fire the pottery. Could this be Topheth? Jeremiah 7:31 offers more evidence that Topheth and the Valley of Ben Hinnom were used for child sacrifice.

There is some debate about the terminology of “pass through the fire” (KJV, NRSV, NET), which is a more literal translation of the Hebrew text than the NIV’s “sacrifice” (see 2 Kings 16:3; 23:10). Some scholars attribute this phrase to Canaanite sources and question whether it refers to actually killing the sacrifice with fire or having the sacrifice symbolically burned by passing the child through the fire. It should be noted, however, that the terminology “pass through the fire” is not used exclusively in the Bible to refer to child sacrifice (see 2 Chron. 28:3).

Archaeology has proved that the Canaanites often performed child sacrifices, evidenced by large burial plots with many children near religious centers. Within the Canaanite pantheon the god Malik is fairly well attested. Malik was the god of fire and one that demanded human sacrifice. The names “Malik” and “Molek” have the same Semitic root, and it is possible that the OT has changed “Malik” to “Molek” to reflect its disgust by mixing the correct name with the Hebrew vocalization for “shame.”

Several kings of Israel are accused not only of worshiping Molek, but also of participating in child sacrifice and being a patron of the god. Solomon is accused of worshiping Molek and building a high place for Molek (1 Kings 11:5–7, 33). This high place is perhaps the Topheth that Josiah desecrates (2 Kings 23:10). Ahaz is recorded as sacrificing one of his sons in the fire (2 Kings 16:3), as did Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6).

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).

The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT, often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblical exegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects the exegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal to the OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NT revelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuse of earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process was refined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writers from the postexilic period well into the first century AD. This approach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character of Scripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address the issues facing changing audiences.

The biblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writers were concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus of material identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently, the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as the basis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, to reinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and to appropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporary circumstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarity of the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of a specific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his later message necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literary and logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT author reinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges the identification of the NT audience with the experiences and promises made to their Israelite ancestors.

The most frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these early Israelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation of NT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these books indicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of the NT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith and doctrine.

Identifying Quotations and Allusions

One critical and often difficult task facing the reader centers on locating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not all scriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice does not conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiarity with the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OT themes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writers understandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT, rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves were writing in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based on the type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexity to the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled the exegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, though typical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to some scholars.

Richard Hays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence of biblical allusions: (1) availability (did the original author and readers have access to the source?); (2) volume (how extensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?); (3) recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer to the same passage?); (4) thematic coherence (does the quotation support the surrounding context?); (5) historical plausibility (could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6) history of interpretation; and (7) satisfaction (does the citation illuminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principles provide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determining authentic instances of biblical intertextuality.

Quotations, Allusions, and Typology

The NT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: direct quotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.

Direct quotations. Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, such as “it is written” or “you have heard it said,” which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NT writer identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as it was spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author (“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”). Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation or teaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorce in Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. In some instances the NT author combines parts of two different citations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entire quotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. For example, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and the thirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 and Jer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns the entire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does not negate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literary connection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have to be established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminology or expressions, thematic similarities, and associative concepts connecting the OT and the NT contexts.

Allusions and echoes. In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaic introduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While all direct quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not all biblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both direct citation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing and recontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specific text, which has been incorporated into the later text in order to accommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience. The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influences and informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT author intentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience a specific textual referent along with its contextual associations, reformulating them in an innovative manner.

In a biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer in order to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts or with general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts (e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparability statements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26 generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking a specific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblical echoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of an individual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers of meaning that arise from differing historical settings and circumstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to the echo.

Typology and analogy. The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology, reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequent development and transformation of that “type” in the NT. A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, or institution that has significance in its original literary and historical context but also points toward someone or something in later biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes that which is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, and to some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelation as superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring the continuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role as theologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examples include the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1 Pet. 1:19; cf. Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrasted as a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9), and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle (Heb. 9).

The NT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points of comparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. For instance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’s justification by faith and the new relationship experienced by believers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy and typology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4. Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent use of allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature of allegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’ really means ‘that’ ” interpretational framework.

The Roles of Context and Authorial Intent

Scholars continue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences and affects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations or allusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purely incidental and should be divorced from their original contextual moorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while others understand the original context of an OT passage to contribute information that leads to correct NT interpretation. The question revolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In other words, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removed by time and culture, recover the original intention behind the biblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT text as an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debate the role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.

The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT, often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblical exegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects the exegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal to the OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NT revelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuse of earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process was refined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writers from the postexilic period well into the first century AD. This approach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character of Scripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address the issues facing changing audiences.

The biblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writers were concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus of material identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently, the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as the basis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, to reinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and to appropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporary circumstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarity of the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of a specific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his later message necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literary and logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT author reinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges the identification of the NT audience with the experiences and promises made to their Israelite ancestors.

The most frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these early Israelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation of NT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these books indicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of the NT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith and doctrine.

Identifying Quotations and Allusions

One critical and often difficult task facing the reader centers on locating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not all scriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice does not conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiarity with the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OT themes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writers understandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT, rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves were writing in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based on the type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexity to the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled the exegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, though typical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to some scholars.

Richard Hays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence of biblical allusions: (1) availability (did the original author and readers have access to the source?); (2) volume (how extensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?); (3) recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer to the same passage?); (4) thematic coherence (does the quotation support the surrounding context?); (5) historical plausibility (could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6) history of interpretation; and (7) satisfaction (does the citation illuminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principles provide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determining authentic instances of biblical intertextuality.

Quotations, Allusions, and Typology

The NT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: direct quotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.

Direct quotations. Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, such as “it is written” or “you have heard it said,” which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NT writer identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as it was spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author (“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”). Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation or teaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorce in Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. In some instances the NT author combines parts of two different citations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entire quotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. For example, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and the thirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 and Jer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns the entire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does not negate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literary connection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have to be established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminology or expressions, thematic similarities, and associative concepts connecting the OT and the NT contexts.

Allusions and echoes. In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaic introduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While all direct quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not all biblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both direct citation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing and recontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specific text, which has been incorporated into the later text in order to accommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience. The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influences and informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT author intentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience a specific textual referent along with its contextual associations, reformulating them in an innovative manner.

In a biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer in order to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts or with general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts (e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparability statements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26 generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking a specific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblical echoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of an individual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers of meaning that arise from differing historical settings and circumstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to the echo.

Typology and analogy. The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology, reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequent development and transformation of that “type” in the NT. A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, or institution that has significance in its original literary and historical context but also points toward someone or something in later biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes that which is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, and to some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelation as superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring the continuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role as theologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examples include the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1 Pet. 1:19; cf. Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrasted as a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9), and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle (Heb. 9).

The NT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points of comparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. For instance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’s justification by faith and the new relationship experienced by believers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy and typology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4. Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent use of allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature of allegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’ really means ‘that’ ” interpretational framework.

The Roles of Context and Authorial Intent

Scholars continue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences and affects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations or allusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purely incidental and should be divorced from their original contextual moorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while others understand the original context of an OT passage to contribute information that leads to correct NT interpretation. The question revolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In other words, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removed by time and culture, recover the original intention behind the biblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT text as an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debate the role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.

Definition of Terms

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

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

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

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

Canaanite Pantheon

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

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

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

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

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

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

Babylonian Pantheon

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

Other Ancient Near Eastern Pantheons

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

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

New Testament Religion

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

Summary

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

A pit dug in the ground to trap animals. In several places in the Bible, the pitfall is used figuratively to describe the attempts of enemies to harm the biblical speaker by setting a metaphorical trap (Pss. 57:6; 119:85; Jer. 18:22).

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

Theology of Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage in the Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage in the New Testament

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

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

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

Symbolic Use of Marriage

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

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

Pottery in the Bible

The Bible contains numerous references to pottery, pottery making, and potters. Clay pottery was the most common and easiest way to cook food and to carry liquids throughout biblical times. Only pots used for very special occasions and locations (such as the temple) were made out of a material (usually some metal) other than clay (Exod. 38:3). Clay was the preferable material because it was freely obtained, easy to manipulate, and required little technology to make. The downside of pottery is that it is easily broken and thus rendered useless. Evidence of the abundance and affordability of pottery is seen in the instructions to break ceremonially unclean pottery rather than wash it (Lev. 15:12). Although cooking was the primary purpose for pottery, it could be used for a variety of applications, including storing items, carrying water, making lamps, and forming idols.

Pottery and the manufacture of pottery occasionally took on symbolic connotations in the Bible. For example, in the psalms broken pottery symbolizes the life of the psalmist as he cries to God for help (Ps. 31:12). In another psalm the psalmist envisions God destroying the nations that plot against God like someone who shatters pottery (2:9). Isaiah likens Egypt’s strength, in which Judah trusts more than in God, to pottery ready to be shattered (Isa. 30:14). Similarly, Jeremiah says that the leaders of Judah will be punished and will “fall and be shattered like fine pottery” (Jer. 25:34 NIV mg.). Isaiah also uses several other metaphors related to pottery. He says that God treads on rulers like a potter treads on clay, getting it soft and prepared for making pottery (Isa. 41:25). Isaiah also likens those who complain to God to pieces of broken pottery trying to tell the potter how to make pots (45:9).

Both Isaiah and Jeremiah liken people to clay in God’s hand. Isaiah says, “We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand” (Isa. 64:8). Jeremiah says essentially the same thing, but instead of using Isaiah’s positive tone, he sees the human molding process to be a difficult and dangerous one that can result in the potter rejecting the creation (Jer. 18:1–10). Jeremiah buys a pot, takes it to a gate in the city, the Potsherd Gate (a potsherd is a broken and useless piece of pottery), and smashes the pot symbolically to demonstrate how God feels about Judah (Jer. 19). Jeremiah’s choice of the Potsherd Gate was also part of the symbolism, as it is likely that most of the pottery in Jerusalem was made near or at the Potsherd Gate. The apostle Paul creates a similar metaphor, describing how a potter is able to take the same lump of clay and make different kinds of pots, some of which have special uses, and others common uses. Paul implies that God has the right to determine how and for what purpose he creates humans because he is like the potter with the clay (Rom. 9:21). Paul also refers to humans as clay jars with treasure in them (2 Cor. 4:7).

In another example, after the destruction of Jerusalem the people in captivity lament that they are simply like earthen pots before God (Lam. 4:2), suggesting that they are ready to receive the punishment that God has chosen for them to endure. Job also wonders if God has molded him like clay only then to turn him back into dust (Job 10:9).

Manufacture of Pottery

Preparing the clay. Before any pottery can be made, the clay must be gathered and prepared for use. Clay collected from different geographical areas will have different levels of pure clay and other earthen materials. Pure clay is very difficult to work with, but it produces some of the smoothest and strongest pots. Most of the clay used in Palestine was not of superior quality, and so most often imperfections developed in the pots as they were being made. We also know that during the time of the late monarchy, potters in Israel tended to mix clay with different kinds of sand to produce better results. With today’s advanced forensic technology, it often can be determined where the clay used to make a pot was harvested. Because it was generally impractical to transport clay any long distance, this sort of analysis can also be helpful in determining the origin of the pot. Once the clay was harvested, depending on its quality and use, it was often necessary to prepare the clay by kneading or treading it. This process was vital for removing any impurities in the clay as well as making it malleable.

Shaping. Historically, the first pottery molded was made by hand and dried in the sun. Nothing is known about the role of these early potters and whether they were highly regarded in society. Many scholars believe that early pottery was made by women, to be used for very practical purposes such as cooking and carrying water. It is fairly easy to determine the gender of the potter by measuring the natural hand and finger marks left in the clay and comparing their size in relationship to the average size of both men’s and women’s hands. These rudimentary pots usually were made by laying coils of clay one upon another.

Although it is not certain, the profession of being a potter likely did not develop until the invention of the potter’s wheel. The potter’s wheel allowed the potter to create more-sophisticated pottery and also gave the potter the ability to mass-produce pots. Several examples of potter’s wheels have been excavated dating to around 3500–3000 BC in Sumer and Ur. Most potter’s wheels during biblical times consisted of two wheels. A larger and heavier wheel was placed close to the ground, with a pole in the center of this wheel going up to a second, smaller, and lighter wheel supported by a table. The potter used his or her foot to move the larger wheel, which turned the smaller wheel. It is also possible that an apprentice turned the larger wheel. As the technology developed, sometimes two potter’s wheels were connected to one larger wheel so that two pots could be created at the same time.

Another method for making clay items was the use of press molds. Press molds were used to fashion clay by pushing the clay into the mold and then allowing it to dry. As the clay dried, it shrank and pulled away from the mold and could easily be removed from the mold. This method was used for molding figurines (most often used as household idols) and small oil lamps, which often were made of two molded pieces fused together.

Decorating and firing. Once a pot was finished being shaped, either on a wheel or in a mold, it often was decorated. The pot often was painted with pigment made from earth. Different painting styles can help in identifying a pot’s place of origin. Another common decoration method was to imprint the pot with different seals, symbols, or patterns. This was done by using a wooden or metal tool and pressing it into the wet clay. Examples of this method include several pots found at Gibeon stamped with what appear to be royal seals, which likely indicate that the pots and their contents belonged to the king. Much of the pottery from in and around Jerusalem has a red burnish applied to seal the pot and to add a smooth finish to the outside. By the time of the monarchy, potters were very sophisticated in their choice of materials and often had some of the materials, such as special sands, imported from a considerable distance. These sands added to the smoothness of the fired pot by creating a glaze on it.

Once the decoration of the pot was finished, the pot was dried in order to reveal any imperfections. If any imperfections were observed during drying, the pot was discarded. If no imperfections were seen, the pot was then fired. Depending on the potter’s resources and the technology the potter knew, the firing process could be as simple as placing the pot in a hot fire or could include the use of sophisticated kilns capable of producing extremely high and even heat. Firing a pot was extremely difficult, because ideally the heat is kept at a constant temperature throughout the process, which was not an easy task when using an open flame for the heating source. Because the process of firing pots was a well-guarded trade secret, we know few details of how pots were fired during biblical times.

Types of Pottery

There are several general categories of pottery, which are based on their characteristics and intended uses. Of course, for some extant examples of pottery from archaeological digs, their usage cannot be determined. Tableware included cups, plates, bowls, and jugs. These items tended to be more decorated than other pottery, much like tableware today tends to be more decorative than cooking pots. Cooking pots included pots with small, narrow rims and flat, open pans for frying and uncovered cooking. Storage vessels came in all sizes: pithoi, jars (two-handled), jugs (one-handled), smaller jugs (with no handles), and very small vessels for perfumes and other valuable liquids. Also, it is not unusual to find various sizes of lamps.

Importance of Pottery for Archaeology

Pottery has become an important dating tool for archaeologists. While written texts do provide more archaeological data than pottery and religious or cultural artifacts can be more visually interesting, it is pottery that helps the archaeologist piece all the information together.

History of dating pottery. While doing archaeological work in Egypt, Flinders Petrie noticed that for different time periods of Egyptian history there were different kinds of pottery, with very distinct and identifiable characteristics. These identifiable pottery characteristics included things such as the thickness of the wall of the pot, the type of rim or lip on the pot, the pot’s handles, and any special decorative elements. These characteristics, Petrie discovered, could be used to date sites that had no other dating information. Petrie carefully logged each piece of pottery found at each site and over time developed an extensive catalog of pottery types and their respective dating. Later, while digging at Tell el-Hesi in Palestine, Petrie noticed that each layer, or stratum, of the tell (archaeological mound) had a different type of pottery, much like the different kinds of pottery he had noticed in Egypt. Because of his careful and painstaking work in Egypt, Petrie also noticed that the different types of pottery in Palestine were similar to those that he had uncovered in Egypt. As a result, Petrie was able to develop a chronology of pottery that could be used to date different archaeological digs and strata in the entire ancient Near East. Later, W. F. Albright expanded on Petrie’s work by adding several sublayers and further refining the dating of each time period of pottery.

To help explain this significant discovery, L. E. Stager uses the example of how bottles for soft drinks have changed over the years. For example, he notes that when soda bottles were first mass-marketed, the writing on the bottle was part of the glass with raised letters. Over time the bottle changed and evolved; different types of writing were used on glass bottles until ultimately the bottles were smooth and the words were painted on them. In more recent years soda bottles have been made of plastic. This evolution of the soda bottle can roughly illustrate the changes in pottery over time. Because this method of dating depends on a catalog of documented pottery, it requires that all pottery found, no matter how insignificant, be cataloged and recorded so that others can compare the pottery finds from one place with those in other places.

Time periods. In the dating of ancient Near Eastern pottery, history is divided into broad time periods that are then further subdivided. The Middle Bronze Age (c. 2200–1550 BC) encompasses the time of the earliest biblical stories, including perhaps the stories of the patriarchs. During this period and the Early Bronze Age (c. 3300–2200 BC), the artisanship evident in the pottery was limited, and pots had little or no decoration; however, the skill applied to the vessels had improved dramatically from the prior period, the Chalcolithic (4500–3300 BC). These vessels show thin walls and evidence of mass production.

The Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC), which likely includes the time of Moses and perhaps Joshua, shows an unusual and dramatic decrease in the quality of local Canaanite pottery. There is no known explanation for this deterioration, but it is evident. At the same time, pottery from other coastal regions, especially Mycenaean Greece and Crete, is very common, and pots from these locations are quite sophisticated and highly decorated. This indicates that during this time there was a strong cultural influence from these areas. Some have suggested that this is due to the colonization of parts of Palestine by the Sea Peoples, who perhaps are the Philistines of biblical history.

The Iron Age (c. 1200–586 BC), which encompasses the time period from the Israelite conquest and settlement through the monarchy, demonstrates more low-quality pottery, especially early in this period. In contrast with the examples of pottery manufactured locally at Israelite sites, Philistine pottery is quite sophisticated, highly decorated with red and black duotones in geometric patterns. The later pottery of the monarchy shows much more skill and sophistication.

The Persian (539–332 BC), Hellenistic (332–63 BC), and Roman periods (after 63 BC) conclude the biblical periods. Each of these periods is dominated by the aesthetics and quality of the invading countries’ pottery. By this time, trade routes were strongly established, and so the invaders, it appears, flooded the markets with their pottery, often to the detriment of the local potters.

Exodus 1:16 refers to a “delivery stool” (NIV), a translation of the Hebrew ’obnayim. This may refer to an object or an arrangement of stones or blocks set side by side on which a woman sat to give birth. The same Hebrew word in Jer. 18:3 refers to a potter’s wheel. The “footstool” is associated with thrones of ancient rulers and symbolized power or authority (Isa. 66:1; Heb. 10:13). In 2 Kings 4:10 the stool is a simple chair.

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).

Implements utilized for the purpose of craftsmanship in some manner, whether in agriculture, commerce, or artistry.

Materials

It can be assumed that early Israelites used tools made of wood, bones, and ivory for the handles, and stone for the working part of the tool. Stone tools were utilized for pounding, grinding, and cutting. Many examples of stone tools have been discovered throughout the ancient Near East. Early farmers and workers used some of the more basic tools, such as hammers, pestles, knives, and chisels.

Some tools were used almost exclusively for the construction of other tools. Spherical instruments made out of diorite or some other very hard substance were used to fashion an instrument into a usable shape. Thanks to their hardness and round shape, they rarely splintered and could be used with reasonable force.

Only certain types of stone could be turned into a cutting utensil. The stone had to have both a requisite hardness and a crystalline nature to be transformed into a blade. Only chert and flint meet such criteria, but only flint was readily available to the nomad, being found in the form of nodules and small cobbles in deposits of limestone. Because of flint’s brittleness, the artisan had to take great care in the amount of pressure applied in making a knife. The fact that so many examples of flint knives are no larger than a few centimeters suggests that this was easier said than done. Flint knives were used by the Israelites in sacred rituals, including circumcision (Josh. 5:2).

Metals began to be used for utensils at roughly the same time Israel entered the promised land. Bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, was used for weaponry and for everyday utensils. The molten alloy was poured into molds made from stone and then shaped and formed by a smith. A similar process was used for iron in the periods following the institution of the monarchy. Early Israel apparently had few if any blacksmiths capable of such work, since the Scriptures record that the Israelites went to the Philistines for production of their iron tools (1 Sam. 13:19). Even after the advent of alloys, however, there seems to have been a preference for the more primitive flint knives, especially in sacred ceremonies, possibly because flint maintained a sharper edge longer, or perhaps because there was a certain taboo associated with the mixing of metals. The application of the profane to the sacred would have rendered the ceremony unfit for God.

Types of Tools

Knives. Knives were made in various sizes. The smallest version is referred to in Jehoiakim’s destruction of Jeremiah’s manuscript in Jer. 36:23 (some English versions distinguish it as a “scribe’s knife” [NIV] or “penknife” [NRSV]). This same knife (Heb. ta’ar) also was used for shaving (Num. 6:5) and appears in imagery related to sharpness or exactness (Ps. 52:2; Isa. 7:20). Between six inches and a foot long would have been the more normal length of knives used for everyday tasks such as butchering (Gen. 22:6).

Agricultural tools. The plow came in various sizes and forms. In the more fertile areas, plowshares were unnecessary, and a smaller utensil similar to a hoe was used simply to break up the topsoil (1 Sam. 13:21). The instrument also was used on more uneven terrain, where a typical animal-drawn plowshare would not work. It was actually this instrument that would have been turned into a weapon of war or, in the case of everlasting peace, transformed back into a farming utensil (Isa. 2:4; Mic. 4:3). In more arid regions, where the soil was more hardened and difficult to break up, the larger plowshare was used. In a fashion well known in the Western world, the larger plowshare was harnessed to a beast of burden and guided through the farmer’s field to prepare the land for sowing.

Harvesting involved the utilization of various tools. Grain was first cut with a sickle (Jer. 50:16). In the ancient Near East, the sickle handle typically was short and could be held in one hand. The blade usually was composed of a jawbone or curved shaft fitted with pieces of flint or other sharp objects. As an instrument of harvest, the sickle also became a picture of judgment and ingathering (Joel 3:13; Mark 4:29). For harvesting grapes, a pruning hook, which was very similar in appearance to a sickle but smaller, was used (Isa. 2:4).

Hand tools. Several small hand tools were similar to their modern expressions but were used for different purposes. An awl is used to bore holes. In the ancient Near East, this tool was made of stone, bone, or metal. One of the more distinctive uses for this tool in ancient times was to pierce ears (Exod. 21:6; Deut. 15:17). Saws were made with a wooden handle on either one end or both ends. An ancient tradition says that Isaiah was sawn in two (cf. Heb. 11:37). Axes were used for felling trees (Deut. 19:5; Matt. 3:10) but also for cutting stones and removing them from quarries (1 Kings 6:7). Early models were crafted from stone, but by the time of Israel’s nationhood the implement was almost always made of iron. This is demonstrated at places where an ax head is referred to with barzel, the Hebrew word for “iron” (Deut. 19:5; 2 Kings 6:5).

Construction and craftsmanship tools. When it came to building and craftsmanship, the Israelites again used instruments quite similar to those employed by modern counterparts. The Israelites used hammers (Isa. 44:12) made of stone, with wooden handles, for large construction jobs. They also had several types of chisels and other carving utensils (Exod. 32:4; Deut. 15:17). For hammering these chisels and carving utensils, a large wooden mallet, similar to those used by craftspeople today, probably was used. A plumb line was used for ensuring that walls were straight. This simple device consisted of a length of string with a weight tied to the end. The plumb line was held up against a wall as it was being built in order to determine if the wall was consistently vertical. As such, it served as an appropriate image for whether Israel was straight in relation to its covenant with God (Amos 7:7–9). Potters used a pottery wheel (Jer. 18:3), and weavers used a loom with a web in order to create intricate patterns of cloth (Judg. 16:13–14). Blacksmiths used bellows, tongs, and hammers designed especially for their work (Isa. 44:12).

By the time of the NT, artisans were far more dependent on iron for most of their tools. Advances in smelting and in the manipulation of the alloys allowed the crude iron of previous eras to begin approaching the tempered steel of the Middle Ages. This permitted more flexibility in how utensils such as hammers could be used and allowed for more effective chisels to be created. As a result, craftsmanship in stone, marble, and other hard surfaces became more prevalent, and ossuaries, statues, and building facades became more ornate and intricate in design. Multiple examples of such craftwork have been unearthed in archaeological digs.

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).