(1) The prophet from Shiloh who superintended the division of Solomon’s united kingdom (928 BC). He predicted to Jeroboam that he would tear away ten tribes from the Davidic house (1 Kings 11:29–39). This prediction was fulfilled after Solomon’s death (1 Kings 12:15; 2 Chron. 10:15). Certain events in Solomon’s reign were written up in “the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite” (2 Chron. 9:29). Later, Jeroboam’s wife went in disguise to Ahijah to inquire about her sick son. Ahijah predicted the death of the child and the destruction of Jeroboam’s entire house as a punishment for idolatry (1 Kings 14:1–16). Both predictions came true (1 Kings 14:17–18; 15:29). (2) An Elide priest in the service of Saul (1 Sam. 14:3, 18). (3) A secretary to King Solomon (1 Kings 4:3). (4) The father of Baasha, who conspired against Nadab, son of Jeroboam, and succeeded him as king of Israel (1 Kings 15:27, 33; 21:22; 2 Kings 9:9). (5) Son of Jerahmeel, the brother of Caleb, from the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 2:25). (6) A Benjamite in the ancestry of Saul (1 Chron. 8:7). (7) One of David’s thirty mighty men (1 Chron. 11:36). (8) A Levite who was in charge of the treasuries in the time of David (1 Chron. 26:20 NRSV [NIV mg.]).

(1) A goddess attested in Syro-Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt. In the Bible, “Ashtaroth” (preceded by the Hebrew article) is generally regarded as the plural form of the deity’s name (NIV: “the Ashtoreths”; NRSV: “the Astartes”; NET: “the Ashtars”). It occurs all but once in conjunction with other deities, most often Baal or “the Baals” (Judg. 2:13; 1 Sam. 12:10), but also with the gods of neighboring peoples (Judg. 10:6) or “foreign gods” (1 Sam. 7:3). “Ashtaroth” broadly designates goddesses whom Israel pursued rather than the true God, Yahweh. In 1 Sam. 31:10 is mentioned a Philistine temple devoted to “the Ashtoreths.” In this instance, “Ashtaroth” perhaps should be rendered as “Ashtoreth” (but see the following discussion).

The singular form, rendered in the NIV as “Ashtoreth” (NRSV, NET: “Astarte”), occurs exclusively in connection with “the goddess of the Sidonians.” Solomon worshiped Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5); consequently, the true God, Yahweh, instigated the secession of the northern tribes (1 Kings 11:31, 33). Josiah later destroyed the shrine that Solomon built for Ashtoreth (2 Kings 23:13). “Ashtoreth” may reflect the imposition of the vowels for bosheth (“shame”) onto the deity’s name. Alternately, it is proposed that “Ashtaroth” is the Hebrew vocalization of the deity’s name (a singular term that doubles as a plural) while “Ashtoreth” is the Phoenician vocalization.

The Bible refers to this goddess as a foreign deity, and it is no surprise that ancient Near Eastern texts attest her name. In Ugarit, Ashtoreth was known as Astarte. She appears infrequently in the mythological texts and is usually mentioned in conjunction with the goddess Anat. Astarte (like Anat) was El’s daughter and is also assumed to have been Baal’s consort. Direct evidence for the latter is wanting; however, the designation “Astarte-name-of-Baal” suggests that Astarte embodied Baal’s honor or was his counterpart.

A noted attribute of Astarte is her beauty (alluded to in the Kirta Epic), indicating for some a sensual nature. Elsewhere she is portrayed as a hunter, suggesting a martial aspect. Astarte is identified with the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar in pantheon lists and also in the epithets “Astarte of Mari” and “Astarte of Hur” (though here “Astarte” may be a designation for “goddess”). This, along with the later association with Aphrodite, has furthered perception of Astarte as a fertility goddess. An association with (planetary) Venus is also proposed but is unattested at Ugarit.

In Egypt, adoption of Semitic deities such as Astarte became widespread during the New Kingdom period and following (after 1570 BC). Astarte and Anat were appropriated as daughters of Re and consorts of Seth (identified with Baal). In one text Anat and Astarte are described as pregnant without giving birth, likely a manifestation of their association with Seth, god of disorder. Foremost, though, Astarte was a war goddess, depicted naked on horseback with weapons in hand. Her cult centered on the delta city of Pi-Ramesse, where her temple was located. Astarte’s prevalence in Egypt was purportedly comparable to Asherah’s in Palestine.

Among the Phoenicians, veneration of Astarte was also widespread. She became the predominant female deity at Tyre and Sidon, overshadowing devotion to Asherah. Several of Sidon’s kings bore the title “priest of Astarte.”

During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Atargatis (a combination of Astarte and Anat) received worship throughout Syria. (See also Asherah.)

(2) A city associated with Og, king of Bashan (Deut. 1:4). “Ashtaroth” (without the Hebrew article) designates an Amorite city captured by the Israelites en route to the plains of Moab (Num. 21:33–35). The region was allotted to the half-tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 12:30–31), and the city to the Levites (1 Chron. 6:71).

Biblical Ashtaroth is identified with Tell Ashtaroth, situated along the King’s Highway, twenty miles east of the Sea of Galilee and twelve miles northwest of Dera (Edrei). The city is mentioned in the Egyptian Execration texts (nineteenth century BC), in records of cities conquered by Thutmose III (fifteenth century BC), and in the Amarna tablets (fourteenth century BC). In 732 BC, Tiglath-pileser III deported Ashtaroth’s population.

(1) A goddess attested in Syro-Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt. In the Bible, “Ashtaroth” (preceded by the Hebrew article) is generally regarded as the plural form of the deity’s name (NIV: “the Ashtoreths”; NRSV: “the Astartes”; NET: “the Ashtars”). It occurs all but once in conjunction with other deities, most often Baal or “the Baals” (Judg. 2:13; 1 Sam. 12:10), but also with the gods of neighboring peoples (Judg. 10:6) or “foreign gods” (1 Sam. 7:3). “Ashtaroth” broadly designates goddesses whom Israel pursued rather than the true God, Yahweh. In 1 Sam. 31:10 is mentioned a Philistine temple devoted to “the Ashtoreths.” In this instance, “Ashtaroth” perhaps should be rendered as “Ashtoreth” (but see the following discussion).

The singular form, rendered in the NIV as “Ashtoreth” (NRSV, NET: “Astarte”), occurs exclusively in connection with “the goddess of the Sidonians.” Solomon worshiped Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5); consequently, the true God, Yahweh, instigated the secession of the northern tribes (1 Kings 11:31, 33). Josiah later destroyed the shrine that Solomon built for Ashtoreth (2 Kings 23:13). “Ashtoreth” may reflect the imposition of the vowels for bosheth (“shame”) onto the deity’s name. Alternately, it is proposed that “Ashtaroth” is the Hebrew vocalization of the deity’s name (a singular term that doubles as a plural) while “Ashtoreth” is the Phoenician vocalization.

The Bible refers to this goddess as a foreign deity, and it is no surprise that ancient Near Eastern texts attest her name. In Ugarit, Ashtoreth was known as Astarte. She appears infrequently in the mythological texts and is usually mentioned in conjunction with the goddess Anat. Astarte (like Anat) was El’s daughter and is also assumed to have been Baal’s consort. Direct evidence for the latter is wanting; however, the designation “Astarte-name-of-Baal” suggests that Astarte embodied Baal’s honor or was his counterpart.

A noted attribute of Astarte is her beauty (alluded to in the Kirta Epic), indicating for some a sensual nature. Elsewhere she is portrayed as a hunter, suggesting a martial aspect. Astarte is identified with the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar in pantheon lists and also in the epithets “Astarte of Mari” and “Astarte of Hur” (though here “Astarte” may be a designation for “goddess”). This, along with the later association with Aphrodite, has furthered perception of Astarte as a fertility goddess. An association with (planetary) Venus is also proposed but is unattested at Ugarit.

In Egypt, adoption of Semitic deities such as Astarte became widespread during the New Kingdom period and following (after 1570 BC). Astarte and Anat were appropriated as daughters of Re and consorts of Seth (identified with Baal). In one text Anat and Astarte are described as pregnant without giving birth, likely a manifestation of their association with Seth, god of disorder. Foremost, though, Astarte was a war goddess, depicted naked on horseback with weapons in hand. Her cult centered on the delta city of Pi-Ramesse, where her temple was located. Astarte’s prevalence in Egypt was purportedly comparable to Asherah’s in Palestine.

Among the Phoenicians, veneration of Astarte was also widespread. She became the predominant female deity at Tyre and Sidon, overshadowing devotion to Asherah. Several of Sidon’s kings bore the title “priest of Astarte.”

During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Atargatis (a combination of Astarte and Anat) received worship throughout Syria. (See also Asherah.)

(2) A city associated with Og, king of Bashan (Deut. 1:4). “Ashtaroth” (without the Hebrew article) designates an Amorite city captured by the Israelites en route to the plains of Moab (Num. 21:33–35). The region was allotted to the half-tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 12:30–31), and the city to the Levites (1 Chron. 6:71).

Biblical Ashtaroth is identified with Tell Ashtaroth, situated along the King’s Highway, twenty miles east of the Sea of Galilee and twelve miles northwest of Dera (Edrei). The city is mentioned in the Egyptian Execration texts (nineteenth century BC), in records of cities conquered by Thutmose III (fifteenth century BC), and in the Amarna tablets (fourteenth century BC). In 732 BC, Tiglath-pileser III deported Ashtaroth’s population.

Culture and Geography

Egypt is one of the earliest ancient civilizations. The first development of writing took place simultaneously in both Egypt and ancient Sumer around 3000 BC. Using different languages, both developed pictographic writing systems (where pictures of objects stood for words, parts of words, etc.). Egypt kept the pictographic signs and highly stylized them (hieroglyphs), while Sumer changed them into wedge shapes (cuneiform). The Egyptian inscriptions found on pyramids, temples, stelae, tombs, and so forth are mostly in the hieroglyphic form.

Geography. Ancient Sumer and Egypt were river valley cultures. Sumer was located in Mesopotamia (southeast Iraq), Egypt in the Nile Valley (northeast Africa). The Nile Valley was well suited for long-term growth and cultural success for three reasons. First, the annual flooding of the Nile (July to October) brought sediment and nutrients from up river to the fields of the Nile Valley. The water also washed the salts out of the soil. These brought great fertility to the valley and allowed the same fields to be farmed year after year for millennia without exhausting the land. Second, the Nile provided a central highway for transporting people and goods across Egypt, thus facilitating internal trade and communication. Third, Egypt was surrounded by a buffer zone of desert regions to the east, west, and south, which hindered foreign invasion. Ancient Egyptians called the fertile land of the Nile Valley the “black land” and the desert regions the “red land.” They also divided the land into “upper” and “lower” Egypt. Upper Egypt (from the first cataract northward to Memphis) was in the higher southern elevations of the Nile River (the Nile flows from south to north). Lower Egypt was made up of the Nile Delta region. Only a pharaoh who controlled and unified both could take the epithet “king of upper and lower Egypt.” The ancient Egyptians called the entirety of their land “Kemet.”

Politics and religion. The Nile Valley was divided into regional administrative districts, nomes. There were forty-two nomes in all. Each nome had a town or city as its capital. Each of these cities had a ruler, a nomarch (“great overlord”), who governed the region. Kingship likely began when one city ruler began to subjugate other regions and cities. At times, there was more than one dynasty in power (one in Upper Egypt and one in Lower Egypt). Each ruling dynasty had a triad of idol-gods from its home city that it viewed as supreme in the Egyptian pantheon. The triad was made up of a father, a wife, and a firstborn son. In the Eighteenth Dynasty from Thebes, these were the sun god Amun-Re, his wife/consort Mut, and their son the moon god Khonsu.

Early Egyptian religion focused on veneration of animals, sacred burials, and cultic objects. The dead were buried with care in the predynastic period (before writing), which may indicate an understanding of the divine and the afterlife. We know little of this time without written texts. However, once writing was developed, the Egyptians began to create and record elaborate stories that explained their understanding of divine beings, creation, the daily cycle of sunrise/sunset, as well as the afterlife.

The Egyptian view of deities eventually became connected to physical forms. Each deity embodied divine attributes, affinities, powers, and one or more forms (human, animal, or a combination) that allowed the Egyptians to relate to them and that also shaped Egyptian culture and language through time. The god Thoth appeared in drawings, paintings, reliefs, or statues as one of three forms: as a human with an ibis-bird head, as an ibis, or as a baboon. The god Bes was patron of mothers in childbirth, Re (later Amun-Re) was the sun god, and so on. They even had a goddess of divine order, Ma’at, a female with a feather on her head. Ma’at was the embodiment of divine and human social order. At midnight on the day of death, a soul was placed in the balance of Ma’at’s scale and weighed against her feather. A soul heavier or lighter was devoured by the awaiting crocodile-headed destroyer deity; only those in balance could move on into the afterlife. For Egypt, the pharaoh was the great shepherd of the people, who both kept the divine order (Ma’at) and forced out chaos and disorder. With changing dynasties and preferences, deities changed rank, assimilated powers, merged with other deities, and rose or declined in popularity. Many deities were tied to a geographic place, but some were universal (such as Isis, Apis, Geb, Osiris, Bes, Anubis, and Imhotep). The deities were either found in or had power over all areas of the created order (Nile, insects, animals, humans, crops, fertility [of humans, animals, crops], sky, sun, moon, death, etc.). With the proliferation of idols, temples and sacrifices multiplied, and literally thousands of sacred mummified birds, cats, crocodiles, and other animals have been found in Egypt.

From the very beginning the king was viewed as divine. Later he was viewed as the personification of the sun god, with his wife/queen being the personification of the wife goddess in his dynasty triad and his firstborn son tied to the son in the triad. When the pharaoh died, he moved into the afterlife to become the sun god, and his heir took his earthly place. The whole aspect of a proper burial was very important to having a place and a successful experience in the afterlife. The shape of the pyramid tomb reflected the image of the rays of the sun streaming down to earth at angles from the sun. A proper burial on the west bank of the Nile (toward the setting sun) allowed the deceased to begin a proper journey into the afterlife. In order for the deceased to pass through all the gateways and to balance properly in Ma’at’s scales, a copy of the Book of the Dead would be placed in the person’s sarcophagus. This text contained all the correct things that the deceased needed to say to attain an easy passage and gloss over his or her sins. The great pyramid of Khufu has the pyramids of Khufu’s wives nearby, his nobles’ tombs farther out, then the tombs of minor officials, and finally those of foremen who worked on the pyramid with their work crew just beyond them. Each in the pecking order sought to attach himself or herself to the coattails of Pharaoh in his death so that they too might gain entry into the afterlife.

History

Prehistoric period. In the fifth millennium BC the hunter-gatherer culture in Egypt slowly shifted to a farming and shepherding lifestyle. As crop yields increased beyond the need for food, time was available to develop skills in crafts as well as trade. The pottery and material culture (tools, burials, house style, etc.) of Lower Egypt evidenced the Buto-Ma’adi culture, and that of Upper Egypt the Naqada culture. The Naqada expanded northward and unified Egypt in predynastic times. Several proto-kingships developed as nomes or their capital cities allied together or were subjugated by a stronger neighbor.

Early Dynastic period (3000–2575 BC). As indicated by the Narmer Palette, the earliest known king of a unified Egypt was Narmer (c. 3000 BC). The palette shows Narmer defeating the king of Lower Egypt and wearing the crown of Upper Egypt on one side and the crown of Lower Egypt on the other. Laws in Egypt were not codified as they are today. The king made the rules and kept them as he saw fit. The Egyptian story “The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant” from a later Egyptian period explains the way things worked. In this story, the peasant is on the way to market with his goods on his donkey. The rich man sees him coming and covers the pathway with a garment. The peasant has a dilemma: trample the garment or destroy some of the rich man’s field to get by. He is unsuccessful in traveling by without trespass, and the rich man seizes his goods and donkey and throws him in jail. The peasant awaits a chance to speak before Pharaoh, who is the judge. When he has a chance to make his appeal, the peasant is so well spoken that Pharaoh keeps him in prison just so he can keep hearing him argue his case day after day! Eventually the poor man’s goods are restored, and he is freed.

Old Kingdom (2575–2134 BC). The Old Kingdom capital was Memphis. This period was an age of pyramids and a time of political and economic stability. The agricultural economy grew and prospered. The two largest pyramids were constructed in this period: Khufu’s Great Pyramid at Giza and one next to it (along with the Sphinx), belonging to his successor, Chephren. The pyramid workers were not slaves but rather peasants who owed a corvée tax of labor. Workers were paid daily in bread and beer. Egypt was a feudal society. Private citizens could own property, but the pharaoh owned most of the land and parceled it out to his retainers or gave it permanently to temples. The pharaohs sent quarrying expeditions into the deserts for building stone and occasionally made military expeditions southward into Nubia and Punt.

First Intermediate Kingdom (2134–2040 BC) and Middle Kingdom (2040–1640 BC). After the death of Pepy II came economic collapse due to drought and falling tax revenues. These led to political collapse, and power was split among many competing factions. This time of instability is known as the First Intermediate period; it ended when the Eleventh Dynasty pharaoh Mentuhotep II reunified Egypt and reestablished a strong central government. This likely is the period when Abraham visited Egypt and later Joseph, Jacob, and his family entered Egypt. The famous Beni Hasan tomb painting of this period shows a caravan of Semitic peoples moving into Egypt, wearing multicolored clothing. In this period the position of vizier (prime minister) grew to prominence. One vizier, Amenemhet, succeeded to the throne of Egypt. Joseph filled the role of vizier in the biblical account (Gen. 41:39–40). Also dating from this period are turquoise mines in the Sinai region that have the earliest known Semitic inscription. Written on the mine walls in Proto-Sinaitic, this inscription may be the earliest alphabetic script in existence.

Second Intermediate period (1640–1550 BC). At the end of the Middle Kingdom, Egypt again fell into a fractured political situation with the decline of the pharaoh’s power. A Semitic people, the Hyksos (Egyptian for “foreign rulers” or “shepherd kings”), invaded the Nile Delta region and established their capital at Avaris. The Seventeenth Dynasty continued to rule Upper Egypt in the south while the Hyksos were in power. Although the Israelites were servants of Pharaoh from the beginning (keeping his flocks), they were not enslaved until later. It may have been a Hyksos pharaoh or a New Kingdom pharaoh who enslaved them to hard labor.

New Kingdom (1550–1069 BC). The last king of the Seventeenth (Theban) Dynasty, Kamose, attacked the Hyksos, but it was his successor, Ahmose, who drove them out and reunified Egypt. Ahmose is considered the first pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty. It may have been Ahmose or one of his successors who enslaved the Hebrews (for more on the Eighteenth Dynasty, see Thutmose). During the first half of the New Kingdom, Egypt was at the height of its power and wealth. During this period Egyptians began to call their king “Pharaoh,” meaning “great house.” The Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh Thutmose III and his son Amenhotep II are good candidates for an early-date exodus (c. 1446 BC). A later king of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Akhenaten, moved the capital to Amarna and shifted his allegiance from Amun-Re, the sun god, to sole worship of the god Aton (sun-disk). For this reason, many identify him as the first monotheist. Akhenaten may have made this move in order to defund the temples and priestly orders that had grown very wealthy and powerful over time. His reforms did not last, and the worship of Amun-Re was restored by his successor, Tutankhamen. The Nineteenth Dynasty warrior Ramesses II is the likely pharaoh of a late-date Exodus (c. 1250 BC).

Third Intermediate period (1069–664 BC). This period was a time of weak and divided government, with capitals in the north and the south. Pharaoh Siamun has been conjectured to be King Solomon’s father-in-law, who conquered Gezer and gave it to Solomon as a dowry (c. 960 BC; 1 Kings 9:16). Later, Sheshonq (biblical Shishak), a Libyan pharaoh of the Twenty-second Dynasty, came to the throne and campaigned against Solomon’s son Rehoboam, plundering Jerusalem in the process (1 Kings 14:25; 2 Chron. 12:2; cf. 1 Kings 11:40). The African Cushite pharaohs of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty (760–664 BC) ruled the north for a little more than a century but failed to defend against the waves of Assyrian conquest in the seventh century BC.

Late Kingdom period (664–525 BC). The Twenty-sixth (Saite) Dynasty (ruling from the Delta city of Sais) reunified Egypt under native Egyptian control. Pharaoh Necho II tried to support a declining Assyria as a buffer against the Babylonian onslaught but was unsuccessful (c. 609 BC). However, in the process Necho killed King Josiah of Judah in battle at Megiddo and placed one of Josiah’s sons, Jehoiakim, as a vassal upon the throne of Judah (2 Kings 23:29–35; cf. 2 Chron. 35:20–36:8; Jer. 46:2). After the Babylonian destruction of Judah/Jerusalem (587/586 BC) and the murder of their Jewish governor, Gedaliah, a group of Jewish exiles fled to Egypt. This group forced the prophet Jeremiah to go with them to Egypt (Jer. 40:1–43:7). A small group of Jewish exiles eventually found their way to a tiny island in the upper Nile, Elephantine, where they established a temple and community; there they worked as mercenaries.

Persian period (525–332 BC). Cambyses II, king of Persia and son of Cyrus the Great, conquered Egypt in 525 BC. His successor, Darius I, ruled Egypt benevolently and resumed the construction of temples and canals. However, Egypt revolted against Persian rule several times, ultimately winning independence in 404 BC with the help of Greek allies. The last native Egyptian pharaoh was Nectanebo II, who ruled in 359–343 BC. However, this period of Egyptian independence was short-lived, with Persia reestablishing control in 343 BC.

Hellenistic-Roman period (332–30 BC; 30 BC and beyond). Alexander the Great conquered Egypt in 332 BC. After Alexander’s death, his general Ptolemy took control of Egypt and ruled as pharaoh. From Alexander’s conquest to the death of Cleopatra, Egyptian rulers were of Greek descent. After Cleopatra’s death (30 BC), Rome annexed Egypt into its empire and governed the country until the fall of the Roman Empire. A large contingent of Jews lived and prospered in the Delta city of Alexandria in this period.

(1) The first ruler of the northern kingdom (r. 928–907 BC) (1 Kings 11:26–14:20). The son of Nebat, he was a hardworking royal servant, so Solomon gave him responsibility over the northern labor force. The prophet Ahijah declared to Jeroboam that to punish Solomon for apostasy, God would give him the ten northern tribes, leaving Solomon’s son Rehoboam with only Judah and Benjamin. When Solomon sought to kill him, Jeroboam fled to Egypt. After Solomon’s death, he returned and requested that Rehoboam reduce the workload for the Israelite laborers. Rehoboam, ignoring the advice of the elders and following the counsel of his peers, rudely refused the request of Jeroboam and the people. The ten northern tribes rebelled and made Jeroboam king, and he reigned for twenty-two years.

Jeroboam set up two golden calves, one in Bethel and one in Dan (for the wilderness parallel, see Exod. 32:4), to prevent the northerners from traveling to the temple in Jerusalem to worship. A man of God condemned the sanctuary at Bethel, prophesying that a future king named “Josiah” would destroy it. When he attempted to seize the prophet, Jeroboam’s hand was stricken, but after the king’s entreaty the prophet restored it. When Jeroboam’s son Abijah became ill, the prophet Ahijah delivered a judgment against his son, who soon died, and against his dynasty. After Jeroboam’s death, his son Nadab ruled for only two years before being killed by the usurper Baasha. Jeroboam’s sanctuaries are mentioned in the condemnation of fifteen other evil northern rulers; they survived the fall of Samaria in 722 BC, but eventually Josiah destroyed the Bethel sanctuary as prophesied (2 Kings 23:15).

(2) The thirteenth ruler of the northern kingdom (r. 784–748 BC; 2 Kings 14:23–29). He was the son of Jehoash and a great-grandson of Jehu. Despite doing “evil in the eyes of the Lord” (v. 24), he received a favorable prophecy from the prophet Jonah, restored the borders of the northern kingdom, and was one of the longest-reigning rulers of Israel or Judah (forty-one years). During his reign, Aramean and Assyrian domination over Israel subsided, which resulted in wealth and prosperity for the upper classes, but oppression and injustice of the marginalized. Amos condemned these practices and prophesied the end of Jeroboam’s house (Amos 7:8–11), which was fulfilled when his son Zechariah was killed by the usurper Shallum after reigning only six months.

Although the Bible never describes the lamps used by ancient Israel or the early church, archaeology informs us what they were like. Early lamps were small pottery bowls with a slight lip for a wick. Some had multiple wick holders to produce more light (Zech. 4:2). Over time, the lip became a spout to one side. By the Persian period, lamps with a covered oil reservoir were imported from Greece. Some lamps, like the seven-branched golden menorah of the tabernacle, were made of metal. During the Roman era, pottery and metal lanterns were developed for outside illumination, replacing torches, which had been used previously (Judg. 7:16). Those who sought Jesus in Gethsemane carried both torches and lanterns (John 18:3).

Lamps were commonly found in family dwellings (2 Kings 4:10; Matt. 5:15). They also played an important role in the tabernacle and temple (Exod. 25:31–39; 1 Kings 7:49), where they not only illuminated their interiors but also, having the shape of a tree, symbolically evoked memories of Eden. Lamps could be carried or placed on a shelf or stand. Since they could hold only enough olive oil to burn for several hours, a woman who ensured that “her lamp does not go out at night” would have been particularly diligent (Prov. 31:18).

The Bible frequently uses lamp or light metaphorically. It can symbolize life (Job 18:6; 21:17; Prov. 13:9; 20:20; 24:20) or the continuation of the Davidic line (2 Sam. 21:17; 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19). Jesus is the light of the world, who gives spiritual life (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; cf. 1:9; 3:19). John the Baptist was a lamp illuminating the way to the Messiah (John 5:35). Jesus’ followers should shine as lights so that the world can see their good works and praise God (Matt. 5:14–16). God’s word is a lamp to guide one’s way (Ps. 119:105; Prov. 6:23). God himself is a light who enables people to live in difficult times (2 Sam. 22:29; Job 29:3). In one of Jesus’ parables, the foolish virgins who did not prepare enough oil to keep their lamps burning serve as a warning for people to be ready for Christ’s return (Matt. 25:1–13).

Although the Bible never describes the lamps used by ancient Israel or the early church, archaeology informs us what they were like. Early lamps were small pottery bowls with a slight lip for a wick. Some had multiple wick holders to produce more light (Zech. 4:2). Over time, the lip became a spout to one side. By the Persian period, lamps with a covered oil reservoir were imported from Greece. Some lamps, like the seven-branched golden menorah of the tabernacle, were made of metal. During the Roman era, pottery and metal lanterns were developed for outside illumination, replacing torches, which had been used previously (Judg. 7:16). Those who sought Jesus in Gethsemane carried both torches and lanterns (John 18:3).

Lamps were commonly found in family dwellings (2 Kings 4:10; Matt. 5:15). They also played an important role in the tabernacle and temple (Exod. 25:31–39; 1 Kings 7:49), where they not only illuminated their interiors but also, having the shape of a tree, symbolically evoked memories of Eden. Lamps could be carried or placed on a shelf or stand. Since they could hold only enough olive oil to burn for several hours, a woman who ensured that “her lamp does not go out at night” would have been particularly diligent (Prov. 31:18).

The Bible frequently uses lamp or light metaphorically. It can symbolize life (Job 18:6; 21:17; Prov. 13:9; 20:20; 24:20) or the continuation of the Davidic line (2 Sam. 21:17; 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19). Jesus is the light of the world, who gives spiritual life (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; cf. 1:9; 3:19). John the Baptist was a lamp illuminating the way to the Messiah (John 5:35). Jesus’ followers should shine as lights so that the world can see their good works and praise God (Matt. 5:14–16). God’s word is a lamp to guide one’s way (Ps. 119:105; Prov. 6:23). God himself is a light who enables people to live in difficult times (2 Sam. 22:29; Job 29:3). In one of Jesus’ parables, the foolish virgins who did not prepare enough oil to keep their lamps burning serve as a warning for people to be ready for Christ’s return (Matt. 25:1–13).

The national god of the Ammonites, who appears both in the Bible and in Ammonite inscriptions, including the ninth-century BC Amman citadel inscription.

In the MT “Milkom” appears only three times (1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2 Kings 23:13), but the ancient Greek translations have it also in 2 Sam. 12:30; 1 Kings 11:7; 1 Chron. 20:2; Jer. 49:1, 3; Amos 1:15; Zeph. 1:5. This difference can be explained by the fact that the original Hebrew had no vowels, and the word mlkm could be vocalized either as milkom, the name of the Ammonite deity transliterated as “Milkom” (KJV, ESV, NRSV: “Milcom”), or malkam, meaning “their king.” Determining the correct reading in each of these cases is difficult, but the presence of priests in Jer. 49:3 argues strongly that “Milkom” should be read there and in 49:1. This reading is also probable in Amos 1:15; Zeph. 1:5, and it is at least possible in 2 Sam. 12:30 (see NIV mg.); 1 Chron. 20:2.

Although the NIV uses “Molek” to refer to both Molek and Milkom, evidence suggests these are two deities with different worship sites (see 2 Kings 23:10, 13) and different cults. Only Molek was associated with child sacrifice. The worship of Milkom was introduced into Israel by Solomon and persisted until Josiah’s reform.

This name, meaning “fill” in Hebrew, refers to several places or structures in the OT. (1) A part of the defensive fortifications of Jerusalem, the construction of which apparently was begun after David conquered the city (2 Sam. 5:9; 1 Chron. 11:8 [NIV: “terraces,” but see NIV mg.]). Its exact nature and location in Jerusalem are disputed. It has been proposed that it was a terraced structure upon which houses were built, or that it was a platform that connected the Temple Mount and David’s citadel by filling in the valley between them.

The completion or rebuilding of the Millo was one of Solomon’s building projects, although it is also possible that Solomon’s Millo was a separate structure altogether (1 Kings 9:15, 24; 11:27). Solomon put Jeroboam, who later became the first king of the northern kingdom, in charge of this project (1 Kings 11:27–28). In addition to repairing broken walls and building towers, Hezekiah included the strengthening of the Millo in his preparations for the siege of Sennacherib (2 Chron. 32:5).

(2) The house of Millo, where Joash of Judah was assassinated, may be a part of the structure in Jerusalem (2 Kings 12:20 [NIV: “Beth Millo”]), but this is not certain.

(3) Beth Millo (“house of Millo”) was a fortress or city near or a part of Shechem (Judg. 9:6, 20). Although the Hebrew name is almost identical to the one in 2 Kings 12:20, it is likely that they are distinct places.

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).

“New” basically carries three senses in the Bible: (1) the beginning of a cycle of time such as the new moon, the beginning of the month; (2) fresh, pristine, or unused; (3) formerly unknown or recently coming into existence. Often, the latter two senses overlap and become difficult to distinguish. In certain cases the second sense is emphasized, and the actual age is not of primary concern: new grain (Lev. 23:16), new wine (Josh. 9:13), new ropes (Judg. 15:13), new cart (1 Sam. 6:7), new cloak (1 Kings 11:29), new bowl (2 Kings 2:20), and new tomb (Matt. 27:60). The third sense often is associated with the time of final restoration: God will do a new thing (Isa. 43:19), make a new covenant (Jer. 31:31), and create a new heavens and a new earth (Isa. 65:17).

The Bible places a high priority on the new works that God accomplishes, for there is little hope that people are capable of doing anything new (cf. Eccles. 1:9–10). These new works are contrasted with the old. There is continuity between them as the former establishes a foundation for the latter, but there is also discontinuity as the latter surpasses the former. Therefore, God will make a new (better) covenant (Jer. 31:31; Heb. 8:13), a new (better) heart (Ezek. 36:26), a new (better) creation (2 Cor. 5:17), and a new (better) heavens and earth (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 21:1).

The act of election and appointment to positions of leadership and service within religious communities.

Old Testament. In the OT, parties receiving such appointment include kings and other leaders of the people (1 Sam. 9), the Aaronide priests (Exod. 29), and the Levites (Num. 8).

Divine initiative stands behind the choice of a king. God expresses favor for a candidate through prophets (1 Sam. 9:16; 1 Kings 11:30–38), who have a role in ceremonies expressive of such appointment. An essential component of the procedure is the anointment of the appointee with oil (1 Sam. 10:1; 1 Kings 19:16). A consequence of such election and installation is the reception of a spirit from God, leading, in one case, to acts of prophecy (1 Sam. 10:10–13).

Divine initiative also stands behind the appointment of individuals (Moses [Exod. 3:7–22], Joshua [Num. 27:15–23], the various judges [Judg. 3:15; 6:11–24]) for the leadership of Israel apart from the office of kingship. In such cases within the OT, God’s communication may come directly (in the case of Moses) or through the agency of another human (Moses communicates divine intent to Joshua) or an angelic being (Judg. 6:11–24). In the case of Joshua, Moses lays his hands upon him as an expression of divine election (Num. 27:22); the action recognizes that a spirit from God has come upon Joshua (27:18).

Moses officiates at the ordination of the first priests (Aaron and his sons [Lev. 8:6–9:24]) of the Israelite sacrificial cult. Anointment with oil, the application of blood from a sanctified animal, and the donning of priestly vestments are part of the ritual of ordination.

The election of the Levites as assistants to the Aaronide priests, substitutes for the required offering of all firstborn males of Israel, comes from God (Num. 8:5–22). The laying on of hands by elders accompanies the consecration of the Levites (Num. 8:10), allowing them to handle the sanctified accoutrements of the sacrificial cult.

New Testament. In the NT, Jesus’ initiative stands behind the appointment of the disciples (Matt. 10:1–8; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). The disciples and/or elders preside over the appointment of other parties to positions of leadership and service in the community of faith. Such narrated acts of ordination cover appointments to a variety of tasks within the NT. These tasks include that of choosing an apostle to replace Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:15–26), the distribution of food (6:1–6), and carrying the gospel to specific destinations (13:1–3).

The means for direction in election include prayer (Acts 13:1–3), along with the casting of lots (1:24–26). Furthermore, the combination of prayer and fasting within the context of worship may become the occasion for direction from the Holy Spirit (13:1–3). A summary statement concerning the selection of elders in Acts 14:23 concurs with 13:1–3, listing prayer and fasting as the means to discernment. Also witnessed is the judgment of the community in finding servants filled with the Holy Spirit and wisdom (6:1–6). Thus, the ability of the community to recognize specific qualifications is enlisted in the process of election.

The laying on of hands may mark the commissioning of individuals to specific tasks (Acts 13:3). Elsewhere, the same action, along with an act of prophecy, bestows “gifts” upon individuals (1 Tim. 4:14). The mention of “gifts” (healing, guidance, tongues, etc.), along with the specification of certain functions within the community of faith (prophets, apostles, teachers, etc.), occurs in Rom. 12:6–8; 1 Cor. 12:27–30; Eph. 4:11. These passages offer an expansion of the list of functions and tasks described in the narratives previously mentioned. All three passages exhort the community to recognize the diversity of talent within the community and to employ those gifts appropriately. These gifts include those of healing, miracles, guidance, and speech in strange tongues. The functions and offices mentioned include those of prophet, apostle, and teacher. The collocation of such gifts and functions in these passages suggests, of course, that the appropriate gift would accompany the ability to perform such functions in the appointment of an individual.

Summary. Although differences exist between the OT and the NT in the roles prescribed by appointment and their attendant abilities, continuity across both bodies of literature finds expression through the initiative of God, the bestowal of a spirit of empowerment, and the practice of the laying on of hands in acts of ordination.

Protected in the hill country of Ephraim, Shiloh was a secure location for the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant in the early centuries of Israel’s presence in the land. Judges 21:19 gives a remarkably precise location for Shiloh. It was “north of Bethel, east of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.” This means that it was centrally located in the hill country just off the internal north-south ridge route.

The Israelites established their worship center at Shiloh after the conquest of the land (Josh. 18:1), and it was there that the assembly gathered in order to apportion the rest of the tribal allotments after Judah’s apportionment (18:8–10). When the tribes west of the Jordan faced the possibility of war with the two and one-half tribes that had returned to Transjordan, Shiloh was the central meeting place (Josh. 22:9–12). The “house of God” continued to be at Shiloh during the period of the judges (Judg. 18:31), and annual festivities were celebrated there (21:19–21).

The apparatus of the cult was in place at Shiloh when Eli was the high priest. Elkanah brought his two wives, Hannah and Peninnah, to Shiloh to worship each year. When Samuel was born to Hannah, she dedicated him to God at Shiloh (1 Sam. 1). Because Eli’s sons abused their privileges as priests (1 Sam. 2:14), God told Samuel that he would remove the priesthood from Eli’s family. That word is affirmed in 1 Kings 2:27: “So Solomon removed Abiathar from the priesthood of the Lord, fulfilling the word the Lord had spoken at Shiloh about the house of Eli.” God “continued to appear at Shiloh, and there he revealed himself to Samuel through his word” (1 Sam. 3:21).

When the Philistines were encamped at Aphek on the coastal plain, the Israelites engaged them in battle and lost. Viewing the ark of God as a magic box, the Israelites took it from Shiloh out to the battle, abusing the sanctity of that symbol. The ark was captured, and a man of the tribe of Benjamin ran uphill from Aphek through the rugged Shiloh wadi system and arrived at Shiloh to announce the news (1 Sam. 4:12).

Although it is uncertain when the sanctuary at Shiloh was destroyed, it was likely by the Philistines as they later encroached well into Israelite territory (1 Sam. 13). Nevertheless, Shiloh remained a significant location. As the northern kingdom broke away from the south, Ahijah from Shiloh prophesied to Jeroboam son of Nebat (1 Kings 11:29–40) and later addressed Jeroboam’s wife (1 Kings 14:2–4). Jeremiah reminded the inhabitants of Jerusalem that God destroyed Shiloh, the first dwelling place for his name in the land, because of the wickedness of Israel and would do the same again to the temple in Jerusalem (Jer. 7:12–14; 26:6–9). Even the psalmist noted the tragedy: “He abandoned the tabernacle of Shiloh” (Ps. 78:60).

Shishak was king of Egypt (r. 935–914 BC) during the reigns of Solomon and his son Rehoboam. He gave sanctuary to Solomon’s rebellious servant Jeroboam, who, upon Solomon’s death, became king of the northern tribes (1 Kings 11:40). Not only was Shishak instrumental in stripping away the ten northern tribes from Solomon’s son, but also he stripped away from Rehoboam much of Solomon’s glorious gold and treasure (1 Kings 14:25–26). This was understood by the Chronicler as a direct judgment on Rehoboam because he had forsaken God’s law (2 Chron. 12:2–9). Shishak is there presented as being in command of a vast international force, including Libyans and Ethiopians.

As the son and successor to David, Solomon reigned forty years over the united kingdom of Israel (c. 971–931 BC). Extensive accounts of his reign are provided in 1 Kings 1–11; 2 Chron. 1–9. Solomon, the second son born to Bathsheba, was marked out at birth as “loved by the Lord” (2 Sam. 12:24–25 NIV mg.). He succeeded his father as king, even though he was not David’s oldest living son (1 Kings 2). The building of the temple is the centerpiece of the biblical accounts of Solomon’s reign.

It is common to divide Solomon’s reign into two unequal halves (1 Kings 1–10; 11), with Solomon only becoming apostate due to the influence of foreign wives (1 Kings 11). The earlier chapters, however, are not wholly commendatory. Solomon’s “wisdom” in dealing with Joab and Shimei is vengeful and ruthless (2:6, 9). In 1 Kings 3:1 his palace is mentioned before the temple (because it took precedence in Solomon’s mind?). He spent seven years on the temple but lavished thirteen years on his own house (6:38; 7:1). Behind the picture of his excessive wealth and lucrative trade in horses stand the (unheeded) prohibitions of Deut. 17:14–17. His Egyptian marriage and resort to the high places (1 Kings 3:1–4) foreshadow his overt apostasy (11:1–8). All in all, Solomon proved to be a sad disappointment.

In Chronicles the reigns of David and Solomon are viewed as complementary, such that Solomon completed what David had prepared for. Solomon needed David’s plans and provisions (1 Chron. 28–29), but David needed Solomon to actually build the temple. Just as David brought the ark to Jerusalem, Solomon transferred it to the temple (2 Chron. 5). David organized the cultic officials (1 Chron. 22–27), but Solomon installed them (2 Chron. 8:14–15). Chronicles gives a picture of Solomon’s reign that is very different from the one found in Kings. There is no competition to succeed (cf. 1 Kings 1–2), no apostasy, and no raising up of adversaries (cf. 1 Kings 11:14–40). Solomon enjoyed all Israel’s support throughout his reign. This need not, however, be viewed as whitewashing Solomon. The true explanation is that the focus in Chronicles is almost exclusively on Solomon as temple builder. The Chronicler was also aware of Solomon’s failings (as hinted at in 2 Chron. 9:29; 10:4–15).

The immediate dissolution of the united kingdom after Solomon’s death cannot be simply blamed on the inept handling of the crisis by his son Rehoboam (1 Kings 12). Solomon’s policies put an inordinate economic burden on the north (4:7–19). His conscription of forced labor (5:13–18) and sale of twenty cities in Galilee to Hiram of Tyre (9:10–14) were resented. The raising up of a series of adversaries, including Jeroboam, was a divine judgment (11:9–13). The prophet Ahijah favored Jeroboam (11:29–39). The prophet Shemaiah prevented Rehoboam’s military invasion of the north (12:21–24). The northern tribes wanted relief from Solomon’s harsh policies (“Your father put a heavy yoke on us” [12:4]). Rehoboam was unwilling (or unable?) to compromise. Solomon’s death is reported in 1 Kings 11:41–43, but frequent allusions to him follow (e.g., 12:2, 4, 6, 9), for it was his policies that precipitated the split.

Solomon was largely responsible for the book of Proverbs (Prov. 1:1; 10:1; 25:1). The superscription of the Song of Songs (Song 1:1) associates the book with Solomon, and he is referred to a number of times within it (1:5; 3:7–11; 8:11–12). He is not, however, the lover depicted. The book of Ecclesiastes sometimes is attributed to him, given that the author describes himself as “son of David, king in Jerusalem” (Eccles. 1:1). The author’s reputed wisdom, wealth, and building programs also suggest the figure of Solomon (1:12–2:11). Solomon’s marriages are used as an illustration in a sermon against foreign marriages in Neh. 13:26. In the NT, Solomon’s wealth and wisdom are alluded to in Jesus’ teaching (Matt. 6:29; 12:42). He is also mentioned in relation to the temple (John 10:23; Acts 3:11).

The hometown of Jeroboam, in the area of Ephraim (1 Kings 11:26). There is a possibility, according to the LXX, that it is a strong town in Ephraim, or it can be identified with Zarthan in the Jordan Valley of Ephraim.

The hometown of Jeroboam, in the area of Ephraim (1 Kings 11:26). There is a possibility, according to the LXX, that it is a strong town in Ephraim, or it can be identified with Zarthan in the Jordan Valley of Ephraim.

The mother of Jeroboam, the first king of Israel in the divided monarchy (1 Kings 11:26).

(1) A goddess attested in Syro-Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt. In the Bible, “Ashtaroth” (preceded by the Hebrew article) is generally regarded as the plural form of the deity’s name (NIV: “the Ashtoreths”; NRSV: “the Astartes”; NET: “the Ashtars”). It occurs all but once in conjunction with other deities, most often Baal or “the Baals” (Judg. 2:13; 1 Sam. 12:10), but also with the gods of neighboring peoples (Judg. 10:6) or “foreign gods” (1 Sam. 7:3). “Ashtaroth” broadly designates goddesses whom Israel pursued rather than the true God, Yahweh. In 1 Sam. 31:10 is mentioned a Philistine temple devoted to “the Ashtoreths.” In this instance, “Ashtaroth” perhaps should be rendered as “Ashtoreth” (but see the following discussion).

The singular form, rendered in the NIV as “Ashtoreth” (NRSV, NET: “Astarte”), occurs exclusively in connection with “the goddess of the Sidonians.” Solomon worshiped Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5); consequently, the true God, Yahweh, instigated the secession of the northern tribes (1 Kings 11:31, 33). Josiah later destroyed the shrine that Solomon built for Ashtoreth (2 Kings 23:13). “Ashtoreth” may reflect the imposition of the vowels for bosheth (“shame”) onto the deity’s name. Alternately, it is proposed that “Ashtaroth” is the Hebrew vocalization of the deity’s name (a singular term that doubles as a plural) while “Ashtoreth” is the Phoenician vocalization.

The Bible refers to this goddess as a foreign deity, and it is no surprise that ancient Near Eastern texts attest her name. In Ugarit, Ashtoreth was known as Astarte. She appears infrequently in the mythological texts and is usually mentioned in conjunction with the goddess Anat. Astarte (like Anat) was El’s daughter and is also assumed to have been Baal’s consort. Direct evidence for the latter is wanting; however, the designation “Astarte-name-of-Baal” suggests that Astarte embodied Baal’s honor or was his counterpart.

A noted attribute of Astarte is her beauty (alluded to in the Kirta Epic), indicating for some a sensual nature. Elsewhere she is portrayed as a hunter, suggesting a martial aspect. Astarte is identified with the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar in pantheon lists and also in the epithets “Astarte of Mari” and “Astarte of Hur” (though here “Astarte” may be a designation for “goddess”). This, along with the later association with Aphrodite, has furthered perception of Astarte as a fertility goddess. An association with (planetary) Venus is also proposed but is unattested at Ugarit.

In Egypt, adoption of Semitic deities such as Astarte became widespread during the New Kingdom period and following (after 1570 BC). Astarte and Anat were appropriated as daughters of Re and consorts of Seth (identified with Baal). In one text Anat and Astarte are described as pregnant without giving birth, likely a manifestation of their association with Seth, god of disorder. Foremost, though, Astarte was a war goddess, depicted naked on horseback with weapons in hand. Her cult centered on the delta city of Pi-Ramesse, where her temple was located. Astarte’s prevalence in Egypt was purportedly comparable to Asherah’s in Palestine.

Among the Phoenicians, veneration of Astarte was also widespread. She became the predominant female deity at Tyre and Sidon, overshadowing devotion to Asherah. Several of Sidon’s kings bore the title “priest of Astarte.”

During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Atargatis (a combination of Astarte and Anat) received worship throughout Syria. (See also Asherah.)

(2) A city associated with Og, king of Bashan (Deut. 1:4). “Ashtaroth” (without the Hebrew article) designates an Amorite city captured by the Israelites en route to the plains of Moab (Num. 21:33–35). The region was allotted to the half-tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 12:30–31), and the city to the Levites (1 Chron. 6:71).

Biblical Ashtaroth is identified with Tell Ashtaroth, situated along the King’s Highway, twenty miles east of the Sea of Galilee and twelve miles northwest of Dera (Edrei). The city is mentioned in the Egyptian Execration texts (nineteenth century BC), in records of cities conquered by Thutmose III (fifteenth century BC), and in the Amarna tablets (fourteenth century BC). In 732 BC, Tiglath-pileser III deported Ashtaroth’s population.

(1) A goddess attested in Syro-Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt. In the Bible, “Ashtaroth” (preceded by the Hebrew article) is generally regarded as the plural form of the deity’s name (NIV: “the Ashtoreths”; NRSV: “the Astartes”; NET: “the Ashtars”). It occurs all but once in conjunction with other deities, most often Baal or “the Baals” (Judg. 2:13; 1 Sam. 12:10), but also with the gods of neighboring peoples (Judg. 10:6) or “foreign gods” (1 Sam. 7:3). “Ashtaroth” broadly designates goddesses whom Israel pursued rather than the true God, Yahweh. In 1 Sam. 31:10 is mentioned a Philistine temple devoted to “the Ashtoreths.” In this instance, “Ashtaroth” perhaps should be rendered as “Ashtoreth” (but see the following discussion).

The singular form, rendered in the NIV as “Ashtoreth” (NRSV, NET: “Astarte”), occurs exclusively in connection with “the goddess of the Sidonians.” Solomon worshiped Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5); consequently, the true God, Yahweh, instigated the secession of the northern tribes (1 Kings 11:31, 33). Josiah later destroyed the shrine that Solomon built for Ashtoreth (2 Kings 23:13). “Ashtoreth” may reflect the imposition of the vowels for bosheth (“shame”) onto the deity’s name. Alternately, it is proposed that “Ashtaroth” is the Hebrew vocalization of the deity’s name (a singular term that doubles as a plural) while “Ashtoreth” is the Phoenician vocalization.

The Bible refers to this goddess as a foreign deity, and it is no surprise that ancient Near Eastern texts attest her name. In Ugarit, Ashtoreth was known as Astarte. She appears infrequently in the mythological texts and is usually mentioned in conjunction with the goddess Anat. Astarte (like Anat) was El’s daughter and is also assumed to have been Baal’s consort. Direct evidence for the latter is wanting; however, the designation “Astarte-name-of-Baal” suggests that Astarte embodied Baal’s honor or was his counterpart.

A noted attribute of Astarte is her beauty (alluded to in the Kirta Epic), indicating for some a sensual nature. Elsewhere she is portrayed as a hunter, suggesting a martial aspect. Astarte is identified with the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar in pantheon lists and also in the epithets “Astarte of Mari” and “Astarte of Hur” (though here “Astarte” may be a designation for “goddess”). This, along with the later association with Aphrodite, has furthered perception of Astarte as a fertility goddess. An association with (planetary) Venus is also proposed but is unattested at Ugarit.

In Egypt, adoption of Semitic deities such as Astarte became widespread during the New Kingdom period and following (after 1570 BC). Astarte and Anat were appropriated as daughters of Re and consorts of Seth (identified with Baal). In one text Anat and Astarte are described as pregnant without giving birth, likely a manifestation of their association with Seth, god of disorder. Foremost, though, Astarte was a war goddess, depicted naked on horseback with weapons in hand. Her cult centered on the delta city of Pi-Ramesse, where her temple was located. Astarte’s prevalence in Egypt was purportedly comparable to Asherah’s in Palestine.

Among the Phoenicians, veneration of Astarte was also widespread. She became the predominant female deity at Tyre and Sidon, overshadowing devotion to Asherah. Several of Sidon’s kings bore the title “priest of Astarte.”

During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Atargatis (a combination of Astarte and Anat) received worship throughout Syria. (See also Asherah.)

(2) A city associated with Og, king of Bashan (Deut. 1:4). “Ashtaroth” (without the Hebrew article) designates an Amorite city captured by the Israelites en route to the plains of Moab (Num. 21:33–35). The region was allotted to the half-tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 12:30–31), and the city to the Levites (1 Chron. 6:71).

Biblical Ashtaroth is identified with Tell Ashtaroth, situated along the King’s Highway, twenty miles east of the Sea of Galilee and twelve miles northwest of Dera (Edrei). The city is mentioned in the Egyptian Execration texts (nineteenth century BC), in records of cities conquered by Thutmose III (fifteenth century BC), and in the Amarna tablets (fourteenth century BC). In 732 BC, Tiglath-pileser III deported Ashtaroth’s population.

These books originally formed a single book and were first divided into separate books in the LXX. The book of Kings recounts the history of Israel from the time of Solomon (c. 970 BC) to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. Kings continues the narrative of 2 Samuel, with 1 Kings 1:1–2:11 concluding the story of David. The book has many references back to David (see the promises to David in 2 Sam. 7:1–17; 1 Kings 8:14–26), and prophecy spoken in earlier books reaches its fulfillment only in Kings (e.g., prophecy against Jericho [Josh. 6:26; 1 Kings 16:34] and against the house of Eli [1 Sam. 2:27–36; 3:11–14; 1 Kings 2:27]), showing that it is actually part of a larger historical work beginning in Joshua and ending in 2 Kings.

Authorship and Date

The book of Kings is anonymous. From the text itself, however, we can deduce a probable situation for its composition. The end of Kings tells the story of the destruction of Jerusalem (c. 586 BC) and the beginning of the Babylonian exile, with the last event narrated (the freeing of Jehoiachin to eat with the Babylonian king) dating to around 560 BC. Therefore, Kings as we know it could not have been composed prior to these events. It is unlikely that the book was written after the exile; otherwise, the author would have referred to the return to Jerusalem. This puts the date of the composition of Kings to the period when Judah was in Babylonian exile and probably between 560 and 539 BC.

However, parts of the book clearly were written before the exile. The author of Kings drew on a variety of sources, three of which are explicitly referred to in the text (though none survive today): “the book of the annals of Solomon” (1 Kings 11:41), “the book of the annals of the kings of Israel” (1 Kings 14:19), and “the book of the annals of the kings of Judah” (1 Kings 14:29). These explicit references to sources direct the reader to information not given in Kings, leaving open the possibility that even more sources were used. The book of Chronicles suggests that prophets who were active in the reigns of the various kings of Judah and Israel were sources for the author of Kings (e.g., 2 Chron. 9:29 lists the prophets Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo as sources for the history of Solomon). So the Bible itself tells us that multiple sources were used to compose Kings, and that some of these sources stem from God’s prophets. It is no wonder that in Jewish tradition the section of the Bible in which Kings is set has been called the “Former Prophets.”

Some scholars believe that a first edition of Kings was written before the exile and may have come out during King Josiah’s reign (c. 609 BC). Josiah is an important figure in the story: his birth is prophesied (1 Kings 13:2) three hundred years in advance, and he restores true worship, living up to the ideal set by David (2 Kings 22:2; 23:25). Josiah’s religious reforms may have originally been the climax to this first edition of Kings, which hoped that Josiah would fulfill the Davidic promises and was written to support Josiah’s reforms. After the exile, this preexilic book was updated in light of the apostasy of the later kings of Judah in order to explain that the destruction of Jerusalem resulted from the sins of these kings (e.g., 2 Kings 24:3). This second edition of Kings is what came to be the canonical book of Kings as we know it.

Genre

The genre of Kings is clearly that of historiography (history writing), as it presents an account of Israel’s past. Kings is an extraordinary literary achievement. Prior to its composition, there was nothing that can properly be called “history writing” in the ancient world. Since the writing of Samuel–Kings predates Greek historiography, many scholars view them as the first history ever written.

When treating Kings as history, we must remember that it is not history as we would write it today. The author had chiefly theological reasons for his selection of material, and at times he refers to divine causation to the exclusion of any human factors. For example, 2 Kings 15:37 says that God sent the kings of Aram and Israel against Judah, but it does not comment on the political reasons for the attack (such reasons surely would have existed). Conversely, modern historiography would focus solely on the human reasons for an event and exclude any possible divine causation. In this way, Kings does not live up to the standard of history writing as practiced today, though as ancient history writing it is an exemplar.

The history contained within Kings has been corroborated by extrabiblical material in many ways and fits well into an overall ancient Near Eastern historical context. For example, the names of many of the kings referred to in the book have also been found in ancient Assyrian sources. Kings, however, does not agree perfectly with what we otherwise know about the history of the ancient Near East, and some adjustment is necessary to make it fit with other evidence. However, if the partial nature of archaeological evidence and the acknowledgment of the selectivity of the author of Kings are taken into account, radical distrust of its history is not justified, as it proves itself quite trustworthy.

Style

Kings is brilliantly written and contains some of the most memorable stories in the Bible. Although it is a historical writing, Kings, like any good novel, contains both round (e.g., Ahab) and flat (e.g., Omri) characters. Its plot is compelling as it tells the history of the kingship in Israel from its apex under Solomon in all his glory down to the loss of the kingdom, already foreshadowed in 1 Kings 9:6–9. It begins as a story about one nation under God, but it becomes the tragic story of two nations that continually turn away from their God only to finally be judged by him.

The Plan of the Book

Kings gives an account of each of the kings of Israel and Judah, noting when he began to reign, his age at accession, the length of his reign, the name of his mother, and an evaluation of his reign. The evaluation of each king is concerned not with economics or military success; rather, the kings are judged either to have “done evil in the Lord’s sight” or to have “done what was right in the Lord’s sight,” depending on their faithfulness to God and the purity of the nation’s worship. The gauge for judging the kings is the law of Deuteronomy. According to Deuteronomy, God should be worshiped only in the “place the Lord will choose” (Deut. 12:26; see also vv. 5, 11, 14, 18), making worship at other sanctuaries illegitimate. Proper worship of God is without the use of aids such as images (e.g., “calves” [1 Kings 12:28–30] or “snakes” [2 Kings 18:4]) or poles, stone pillars, etc.). Deuteronomy heavily influenced Kings and is quoted several times (e.g., 1 Kings 11:2; 2 Kings 14:6). In fact, the law book found during Josiah’s reign (2 Kings 22:8) appears to be a form of the book of Deuteronomy (as evidenced by the character of the reforms). Due to this influence, the books of Deuteronomy through 2 Kings are widely referred to as the Deuteronomistic History.

Themes

Wholehearted reliance on God. Kings is primarily concerned with proper worship and faithfulness to God. David set the standard of having a heart “fully devoted to the Lord” (1 Kings 15:3) and is the measuring stick by which all the southern kings are judged. Thus, Solomon is contrasted with David when Solomon falls away from God (1 Kings 11:4), and when Hez-e-kiah trusts in God, he is compared with David (2 Kings 18:3). In northern Israel Jeroboam and Ahab are the models of the degenerate king. Jeroboam is known for setting up golden calves (1 Kings 12:28) in northern Israel to be used in the worship of Yahweh, and Ahab is infamous for his promotion of Baal worship in Israel (1 Kings 16:30–33). In Kings, when kings of Israel are assessed, they are often said to partake in Jeroboam’s sins (2 Kings 10:31) or judged for doing “as Ahab king of Israel had done” (2 Kings 21:3; see also 8:18, 27; 21:3). This apostasy culminates in the destruction of the northern kingdom by Assyria in 722 BC (2 Kings 17).

Exclusive commitment to Yahweh meant that the worship of other gods was the worst sin of the Israelite kings, and their fortunes were connected to their policies regarding the worship of Yahweh. Throughout its story, Kings contrasts the themes of apostasy and religious reform. Beginning with Jeroboam, most of the kings are apostates and fail to worship properly. Four Judean Kings (Asa, Jehoshaphat, Amaziah, and Azariah) undertake some religious reforms, but they fall short of the ideal. Near the end of the story, two Judean kings fulfill the ideal: Hezekiah and Josiah. Yet following their reforms the next king turns to even greater apostasy, bringing God’s judgment on the nation.

The fulfillment of the prophetic word. Prophets are prominent in the story of Kings, with both famous (Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha) and anonymous prophets (e.g., 1 Kings 13) playing important roles as bearers of the prophetic word of God. Many short-term prophecies are fulfilled in the story of Kings (e.g., 1 Kings 13:11–32), where the reader can perceive a pattern of prophecy and fulfillment that helps to structure the story of Kings. The way a prophecy is fulfilled is often surprising (see the prophecy of 1 Kings 20:42 and its fulfillment in 1 Kings 22:34–35). The prediction of Josiah’s birth and reform centuries in advance ties together the beginning of Kings with one of the most significant events near the end of the book. This shows how historical events are at the mercy of the Lord of history and his prophetic word.

New Testament Connections

Throughout Kings the southern kingdom of Judah has Davidic kings on the throne right up until the exile (compared to the northern kingdom of Israel, which changed dynasties ten times). However, the destruction of Jerusalem appears to end the Davidic dynasty. Will the promises to David ever come true? The concluding paragraph at the end of Kings, which describes Jehoiachin, the last king from David’s line, being freed from prison and allowed to eat with the Babylonian king, is messianic and holds out hope that the promises to David will be fulfilled. Jehoiachin represents the hope for the future deliverance of Israel and of the world. In 2 Kings 25:28 it is told how the new king of Babylon “spoke kindly to [Jehoiachin] and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon.” Here, the Hebrew word for “seat of honor” is literally the word for “throne.” Thus, Kings ends with a son of David on the throne! The promises to David are still intact. The line of Judah survives, and a tiny shoot has begun to sprout from the stump of David, which will culminate in the Messiah himself. The promise that a son of David would rule is never again fulfilled, except in Jesus Christ, who is now at the right hand of the throne of God and will return one day.

Outline

I. The United Monarchy: The Reign of Solomon (1 Kings 1:1–11:25)

II. The Division of the Kingdom (1 Kings 11:26–14:31)

III. The Divided Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (1 Kings 15:1–16:22)

IV. The Dynasty of Omri and the Baal Cult in Israel and Judah (1 Kings 16:23–2 Kings 12)

V. The Divided Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (2 Kings 13–16)

VI. The Fall of Israel (2 Kings 17)

VII. The Kingdom of Judah Alone (2 Kings 18–23)

VIII. The Fall of Judah (2 Kings 24–25)

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

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

History

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

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

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

Geography and Climate

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

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

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

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

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

Culture and Politics

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

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

Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the reigns of David and Solomon, who had held the Israelite tribes together in a fragile union, the kingdom split into north and south in 931 BC (1 Kings 11–12). The reasons for the division are given as Solomon’s unfaithfulness (11:1–13) and his son Rehoboam’s unreasonable expectations (12:1–15). Behind this lay a long history of rivalry among the tribes.

Retaining the name “Israel” (also known as “Ephraim”), the ten northern tribes had an unstable succession of kings for two hundred years until 722 BC, when the Assyrians brought the kingdom to an end with their deportation and resettlement program.

The southern kingdom of Judah (with the much weaker tribe of Benjamin) retained a Davidic line of kings until their removal and the destruction of the capital, Jerusalem, by the Babylonians in 586 BC.

The reduction of expenditure and consumption. Solomon is presented as the extremity of excess, which contributed to turning his attention away from God, a form of idolatry (1 Kings 11; cf. Exod. 20:3; Matt. 6:24; 1 Tim. 6:6–10). Jesus rebukes those who follow this example, because they lack awareness of others’ needs (Luke 12:16–21; 16:19–31). To those with more he says, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal” (Matt. 6:19). The commandment reminds the disciple that material possessions fall apart, particularly when unused, and that the means available for satisfying human wants are scarce in comparison to the extent of those wants. People covet (Exod. 20:17), and when they reach a threshold of desperation, many steal, which causes those enslaved to their wealth to live in constant fear of losing it. The solution is to be content with God meeting our basic needs and to share when we have an abundance.

The Bible contains two kinds of statements related to proper conduct. Some of them describe the nature of God, the sort of world he created, and what he has done for particular groups of people. It also contains statements telling us what we ought to do, both as creatures of this God and, in some instances, as the unique beneficiaries of his redemptive activity. Consequently, the Bible sets forth a moral viewpoint or ethical system, supported by reasons that justify its content and urgency. The writers of Scripture were not moral philosophers, outlining their position in technical detail; nevertheless, they intended to reveal what pleases our God and Savior, so that the saints are “thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). The Bible, therefore, is the foundational resource for moral discernment, the definitive statement of what Christians must do and who they must become.

The Sources of Moral Knowledge

Scripture identifies two sources of moral knowledge. First, all human beings have the law of God “written on their hearts” (Rom. 2:15). We have a conscience, a God-given awareness of right and wrong that acquits or convicts us, depending on how we respond to it. The fall of humankind has damaged this source of knowledge, and our consciences can become “seared” through chronic disobedience and doctrinal treason (1 Tim. 4:2). We do not, therefore, see infallibly what our duties are. Nevertheless, the apostle Paul argues that every human being knows enough of God’s law—and indeed, enough about his nature as God—to eliminate every defense on judgment day (Rom. 1:18–20). No one will be able to say to God in that hour, “I had no idea who you were and no hint of what you expected of me.”

Second, as noted above, we have the Bible as a source of knowledge, this one being fully adequate and sufficiently clear to guide our choices. Knowing Scripture is necessary for Christian ethics because it offers a high-definition view of what conscience can (even in its best moments) scarcely grasp. The Bible proclaims not only what the church must do, often in straightforward, concrete terms, but also (at least, in many cases) why God’s will has its particular content and why obedience is an emergency, not a safely deferred, improvement project. The Bible does not, and really could not, answer every ethical question put to it in unambiguous detail. New technologies and cultural shifts have created dilemmas unimagined in the first century or any previous age. But the church can be assured that a faithful reading of and response to Scripture will, by the grace of God, please him even today, whatever our particular circumstances.

The Logic of Biblical Morality

The moral teaching of Scripture has an identifiable structure consisting of duties and final objectives. When we obey God’s commandments, which is our duty, his ultimate goals or objectives in creating us are realized. In this sense, biblical morality is complete and informative compared to systems derived from other worldviews. It explains what life is all about, but also what we must do from day to day. This entire picture emerges from Scripture because its theological statements are always practically applied and never presented with merely theoretical interest.

The objectives of biblical morality. The objectives of an ethical system are its final ends or purposes: the results that obedience is supposed to yield. In the Bible, two objectives have this ultimate significance, one being the anticipated side effect of the other.

To glorify God. The biblical writers proclaim the spectacular goodness of God. He is maximally excellent in all ways as the Creator, including wisdom, power, justice, and love. He is the holy God who, almost in spite of that fact, loves us and gave his Son, Jesus, to suffer for our sins so that we might live eternally in his presence. In these respects, God stands alone, not simply in experience but necessarily so. No one ever has, and no one ever could, be like him. Thus, the final objective of all human striving must be to glorify this God—to know him, to praise him, and to value what he values. Our actions must testify to his excellence, honoring him and encouraging others to do likewise. Obedience treasures what God treasures, shuns what he abhors, and allows his power to work in our lives, causing us to live in unity with our fellow believers. These patterns of behavior define what it means to glorify God.

To be happy in God’s presence. The second goal or objective of biblical morality is to be happy in ways that are proper for God’s creatures. In this sense, the Christian system of ethics differs from moral theories that either reject happiness altogether, viewing it as an unworthy goal, or else reduce it to a merely practical necessity—that is, we sinners need our incentives. On the contrary, the God of Scripture plainly desires our happiness and often presents himself as the final source of it when calling his people to obedience. This tendency follows from the perfect goodness of God and his freedom in creating all things. He did not have to make anything else, but he did so; and because he has no needs, his purposes must have been selfless rather than selfish. He created in order to give rather than to get, and the very best he desires for any of us is the happiness that results from our glorifying him together, as one body in Christ. Likewise, then, biblical morality differs from ethical systems that make human happiness an intrinsic good, so that any means to it is acceptable. God wants us to be happy, but our happiness must come from bringing him glory. All other forms of happiness are deceptive and transitory. The heavenly scenes of the book of Revelation show the church what happiness God has in store for them if they overcome the trials of this life (so, e.g., Rev. 4–5; 7; 21–22; cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; Heb. 12:2).

The means of biblical morality. Not surprisingly, the Bible also shows us how to glorify God—how to reflect his majesty in our daily lives, how to praise him, and how to value what he values. Within the whole of this teaching, several major themes can be discerned, five leading examples of which appear below, allowing some overlap between them.

Trusting in God’s promises. Biblical faith is the confidence that God will do for us what he has promised. We believe that he can and will meet our needs and not allow us to endure pointless suffering. When we trust him, we proclaim his greatness and acknowledge our own dependence upon him. Both Rom. 4 and Heb. 11 make this point in ways that reflect upon OT history with an application to the present Christian life. The gospel is a promise concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; and faith assures us that God will reckon these events to our account. Conversely, we often violate God’s commandments because we doubt that he will give us what we need when we need it (so, e.g., Abraham’s capitulation to Sarah in Gen. 16, with its corresponding negative results).

Keeping holiness and impurity separated. God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect Creator of the universe. All things depend on him for their existence, and he is extreme both in his commitment to justice and his desire to love. Consequently, God’s creatures encounter him as “holy,” as the ominously transcendent or dangerously perfect deity. He stands alone, apart from everything else, and life in his presence cannot entail business as usual. The shorthand way of expressing this duty is to say that we ourselves must be holy, as he is holy, by shunning all forms of impurity. In this way, for example, the ancient Israelites prepared themselves to enter Yahweh’s presence and gave him public honor (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; Ps. 24:3–4; Isa. 6:1–5; cf. 1 Pet. 1:15–16).

In Scripture, the distinction between the pure and the impure, or the holy and the unholy, is sometimes intrinsic and sometimes pedagogical. Breaking any of the Ten Commandments makes one intrinsically impure. It is always evil, everywhere, for anyone to have other gods, make idols, and disrespect parents. It is evil to lie, steal, and murder. Even breaking the Sabbath is wrong if it expresses unbelief in God’s ability and willingness to provide. But some lines between purity and impurity—or, in other cases, just between the sacred and the common—seem to be drawn by God for instructional purposes only. They do not separate good from evil as such, but they compel the Israelites to “practice Yahweh’s presence” by honoring boundaries imposed on domestic life. It is not evil to eat pork, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and permitted in the NT (Lev. 11:7; Mark 7:19). It is not evil to wear blended cloth, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and passed over in the NT (Lev. 19:19). Therefore, as suggested, Levitical rules of this kind must have had some instrumental purpose, serving an objective beyond themselves. They impose the holiness of Yahweh on everyday choices, as the Holy Spirit now presses the claims of God upon his church. This separation of impurity and holiness is, in any case, a constant theme in the OT, and it carries over into the NT as well, where it informs the question “What must I do to be saved?” (cf. Acts 16:30).

Imitating God/Christ. The biblical writers also construe the moral life as an imitation of God and/or Christ, especially when the virtues of mercy, humility, and endurance are at stake. In the OT, Yahweh’s behavior toward people becomes the standard for Israel’s own conduct. So, for example, he says, “But let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight” (Jer. 9:24). In the NT, similar inferences appear, as when Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matt. 5:9), the son being one who follows in his father’s footsteps. We must love our enemies, so that we may be “children of (our) Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:44–45). We must “be perfect,” as he is perfect (Matt. 5:48). Jesus commands his disciples to wash one another’s feet, after his own example (John 13:14–15). They must love each other as he has loved them (John 15:12). The new commandment to love one another, following the Lord’s example, puts on display his character and their own relationship to him (13:34–35). Jesus prays that his disciples will be “one,” just as the Father and the Son are one (17:22). Paul’s hymn in Phil. 2:5–11 serves this purpose: we must imitate the humility that surrendered all, even to the point of crucifixion. Hebrews 12:1–2 holds up Christ as one who “for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame,” resulting in his glory.

Living out our unique identity. Scripture defines the moral ideal for all persons, whoever they are, because its perspective is not relativistic. Murder, idolatry, and lying are not wrong for some and right for others. Nevertheless, most of the Bible’s moral teaching has a target audience, so that it often contains inferences to this effect: “You shall do X (or doing X is urgent for you), either (a) because you belong to God in a special way or (b) because he has done this special thing for you.” In the OT, the target audience is Israel; in the NT, the corresponding group is the church. In both Testaments, however, the same ethical particularism operates, thereby giving the moral exhortations of Paul and Peter, to cite two clear examples, a recognizably “Jewish” structure or theme.

The linkage between gift and task, or supernatural identity and behavior, is the basic structure of the Sinai covenant itself. The text moves from prologue, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt,” to moral exhortation, beginning with, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:1–3; Deut. 5:6–7). Echoes of this prologue also occur frequently in the OT as motive clauses. God will say, in effect, “You shall do X, for I am the Lord your God,” or “You shall not do Y, for I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt.” In some cases, the motive clause identifies the people themselves, as in, “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Deut. 7:6). Or again, “You are the children of the Lord your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, for you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession” (Deut. 14:1–2). In some cases, God refers to the people’s unique condition to shame them, as in, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me” (Hos. 11:1–2). Loyalty was especially urgent, given Israel’s experience of God’s particular love.

In the NT, the mandate to live out one’s special identity appears often, especially (though not exclusively) in the writings of Paul and Peter. In Rom. 6 those who have been emancipated from sin must resist its waning influence. In Rom. 8 those who are under the Holy Spirit’s new management must walk in accordance with him and shun the mind-set of the flesh. The Corinthians have become an unleavened batch of dough; therefore, they must “Get rid of the old yeast,” which tolerates extraordinary sin (1 Cor. 5). The members of Christ’s one body are to function as one new humanity (1 Cor. 12:12–31). If the Galatians live by the Spirit, they must also walk by the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). Peter tells his readers to love one another because they have been “born again” of “imperishable seed” (1 Pet. 1:22–23). They are a “chosen race,” a “royal priesthood,” and a “holy nation”; therefore, they must proclaim his excellence and abstain from carnal passions (1 Pet. 2:9–11). Jesus himself says that because he is the vine and we are the branches, we must abide in him (John 15:1–11). In all these cases, the target audience has a special relationship to God that imposes on them corresponding duties or priorities, so that they reflect his holiness, value what he values, and attain the goals that he has set before them.

Living in unity with one another. The first sin separated God from humankind and damaged all other relationships (Gen. 3). From that point onward, Adam and Eve would live in tension (Gen. 3:16), and their son Cain kills his brother Abel (Gen. 4:8). Disunity results from sin; and in some cases, God scatters sinners as judgment on their wickedness (e.g., Gen. 11:1–9; 1 Kings 11). It is “good and pleasant” when “God’s people live together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), and obedience to OT teaching would make them do so. Nevertheless, sin stands between Yahweh and his people, and it stands between one Israelite and another. Disunity, in all these dimensions, is the unfinished business of the OT story.

The NT presents unity as both an effect and a duty (or a gift and a task) of the new life in Christ. We are one in Christ, and we must live in unity of fellowship with one another. Jews and Gentiles—indeed, people from all walks of life—become one body, a new kind of people, defined by relationships that are “thicker than blood,” so to speak, as blood is thicker than water. Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, enforces this theme throughout his letters, so that his exhortations concentrate on the church, in the first instance, rather than the individual. Christians must display the social virtues of love and humility, resisting selfish ambition and pride, both of which separate believer from believer and each from the head of the church, who is Christ. Romans and Ephesians make a positive case for Christian unity among Jews and Gentiles, while Philippians (perhaps, in a broader sense, also Galatians and Colossians) confronts a divisive tendency. The essential vice denounced in 1–2 Corinthians is arrogant grandstanding, which rejects Paul’s “message of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18) and subdivides the church into cults of personality. Worldly forces are centrifugal, leading us away from one another and into competition for influence, wealth, and public honor. In contrast, the Holy Spirit’s force is centripetal, creating unity where no one would expect it and leading each person to self-sacrifice so that others in the body of Christ might be built up in him.

Although the Bible never describes the lamps used by ancient Israel or the early church, archaeology informs us what they were like. Early lamps were small pottery bowls with a slight lip for a wick. Some had multiple wick holders to produce more light (Zech. 4:2). Over time, the lip became a spout to one side. By the Persian period, lamps with a covered oil reservoir were imported from Greece. Some lamps, like the seven-branched golden menorah of the tabernacle, were made of metal. During the Roman era, pottery and metal lanterns were developed for outside illumination, replacing torches, which had been used previously (Judg. 7:16). Those who sought Jesus in Gethsemane carried both torches and lanterns (John 18:3).

Lamps were commonly found in family dwellings (2 Kings 4:10; Matt. 5:15). They also played an important role in the tabernacle and temple (Exod. 25:31–39; 1 Kings 7:49), where they not only illuminated their interiors but also, having the shape of a tree, symbolically evoked memories of Eden. Lamps could be carried or placed on a shelf or stand. Since they could hold only enough olive oil to burn for several hours, a woman who ensured that “her lamp does not go out at night” would have been particularly diligent (Prov. 31:18).

The Bible frequently uses lamp or light metaphorically. It can symbolize life (Job 18:6; 21:17; Prov. 13:9; 20:20; 24:20) or the continuation of the Davidic line (2 Sam. 21:17; 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19). Jesus is the light of the world, who gives spiritual life (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; cf. 1:9; 3:19). John the Baptist was a lamp illuminating the way to the Messiah (John 5:35). Jesus’ followers should shine as lights so that the world can see their good works and praise God (Matt. 5:14–16). God’s word is a lamp to guide one’s way (Ps. 119:105; Prov. 6:23). God himself is a light who enables people to live in difficult times (2 Sam. 22:29; Job 29:3). In one of Jesus’ parables, the foolish virgins who did not prepare enough oil to keep their lamps burning serve as a warning for people to be ready for Christ’s return (Matt. 25:1–13).

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

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

History

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

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

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

Geography and Climate

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

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

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

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

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

Culture and Politics

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

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

Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Descended from Benjamin, he was the fourth of seven sons born to Shaharaim by his wife Hodesh after he divorced Hushim and Baara and was the head of a family (1 Chron. 8:9–10 [KJV: “Malcham”]). Malkam was born in the land of Moab (1 Chron. 8:8), either during the time when Moab was subservient to Israel (cf. 2 Sam. 8:2; 2 Kings 3:5) or during a time of peace (cf. Ruth 1; 1 Sam. 22:3–4). (2) The name appears elsewhere as an object of Judah’s idolatry (Zeph. 1:5 [NIV: “Molek”; KJV: “Malcham”]) and may simply be a variant spelling for “Milcom” (so the NRSV), god of the Ammonites (1 Kings 11:5, 33; Jer. 49:1, 3; cf. Amos 1:15, where the Hebrew term is translated as “[her] king” [NIV]).

(1) Descended from Benjamin, he was the fourth of seven sons born to Shaharaim by his wife Hodesh after he divorced Hushim and Baara and was the head of a family (1 Chron. 8:9–10 [KJV: “Malcham”]). Malkam was born in the land of Moab (1 Chron. 8:8), either during the time when Moab was subservient to Israel (cf. 2 Sam. 8:2; 2 Kings 3:5) or during a time of peace (cf. Ruth 1; 1 Sam. 22:3–4). (2) The name appears elsewhere as an object of Judah’s idolatry (Zeph. 1:5 [NIV: “Molek”; KJV: “Malcham”]) and may simply be a variant spelling for “Milcom” (so the NRSV), god of the Ammonites (1 Kings 11:5, 33; Jer. 49:1, 3; cf. Amos 1:15, where the Hebrew term is translated as “[her] king” [NIV]).

(1) Descended from Benjamin, he was the fourth of seven sons born to Shaharaim by his wife Hodesh after he divorced Hushim and Baara and was the head of a family (1 Chron. 8:9–10 [KJV: “Malcham”]). Malkam was born in the land of Moab (1 Chron. 8:8), either during the time when Moab was subservient to Israel (cf. 2 Sam. 8:2; 2 Kings 3:5) or during a time of peace (cf. Ruth 1; 1 Sam. 22:3–4). (2) The name appears elsewhere as an object of Judah’s idolatry (Zeph. 1:5 [NIV: “Molek”; KJV: “Malcham”]) and may simply be a variant spelling for “Milcom” (so the NRSV), god of the Ammonites (1 Kings 11:5, 33; Jer. 49:1, 3; cf. Amos 1:15, where the Hebrew term is translated as “[her] king” [NIV]).

The national god of the Ammonites, who appears both in the Bible and in Ammonite inscriptions, including the ninth-century BC Amman citadel inscription.

In the MT “Milkom” appears only three times (1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2 Kings 23:13), but the ancient Greek translations have it also in 2 Sam. 12:30; 1 Kings 11:7; 1 Chron. 20:2; Jer. 49:1, 3; Amos 1:15; Zeph. 1:5. This difference can be explained by the fact that the original Hebrew had no vowels, and the word mlkm could be vocalized either as milkom, the name of the Ammonite deity transliterated as “Milkom” (KJV, ESV, NRSV: “Milcom”), or malkam, meaning “their king.” Determining the correct reading in each of these cases is difficult, but the presence of priests in Jer. 49:3 argues strongly that “Milkom” should be read there and in 49:1. This reading is also probable in Amos 1:15; Zeph. 1:5, and it is at least possible in 2 Sam. 12:30 (see NIV mg.); 1 Chron. 20:2.

Although the NIV uses “Molek” to refer to both Molek and Milkom, evidence suggests these are two deities with different worship sites (see 2 Kings 23:10, 13) and different cults. Only Molek was associated with child sacrifice. The worship of Milkom was introduced into Israel by Solomon and persisted until Josiah’s reform.

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).

From an Egyp-tian term meaning “great house,” “Pharaoh” refers to Egypt’s supreme leader. The Pentateuch refers to the pharaohs by title only. (The omission of the personal name of the pharaoh may reflect the Egyptian practice of not naming their enemies.) Abraham lied to the pharaoh of his day about his marital status out of fear for his life (Gen. 12:10–20). Joseph helped the pharaoh survive and thrive during a famine; in return, the pharaoh exalted Joseph and provided for his family (Gen. 40–47). A pharaoh oppressed the Israelites in Egypt (Exod. 1); from the next pharaoh, Moses and Aaron requested and ultimately won permission to free the Israelites from their bondage (Exod. 1–15).

Beyond the Pentateuch, six other pharaohs are mentioned, some by name. (1) Solomon married the daughter of a pharaoh who led him to betray God (1 Kings 3:1). (2) Jeroboam rebelled against Solomon and received sanctuary from Pharaoh Shishak, who later raided Judah under Rehoboam (1 Kings 11:18, 40). (3) Hoshea, the last king of the northern kingdom, sought help from Pharaoh So (Osorkon), bringing on him the wrath of King Shalmaneser of Assyria (2 Kings 17:4). (4) The Assyrian king Sennacherib sent an envoy to Jerusalem who chided Hezekiah for depending on an unnamed and unreliable pharaoh (2 Kings 18:21; Isa. 36:6). (5) Pharaoh Necho meddled in the affairs of Judah when he killed Josiah and deposed his son Jehoahaz, replacing him with Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:29–35). (6) Pharaoh Hophra was the Egyptian leader upon whom Zedekiah vainly depended against the Babylonians (Jer. 44:30).

When God creates humans, he pronounces them “very good/beautiful” (Gen. 1:31). They are designed to be magnificent visual displays of God’s character (1:26–27). Human sexuality originally is set in a context of overwhelming beauty. God’s first command is to reproduce and extend this paradise throughout the earth (1:28). Human sexuality is not simply a mechanism for reproduction. From the outset it has been about completion, without which there is loneliness (2:18).

Although the Bible does not define the distinctives of masculinity and femininity in any detail, it does defend that there are distinctions between the genders. Behaviors that confuse the genders are explicitly condemned (Deut. 22:5; 1 Cor. 6:9; 11:4–16).

Homosexual intercourse (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10) and intercourse with an animal (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21) are violations of God’s created order.

Nakedness

“Nakedness” is confined to the genitals and buttocks (Exod. 20:26; Isa. 20:2–4; Ezek. 23:18, 29; Nah. 3:5) and, after the fall, is synonymous with shame (Gen. 3:7–10; 1 Sam. 20:30; Isa. 47:3; Jer. 13:26; Mic. 1:11; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18; cf. Rom. 1:23–24; 1 Cor. 12:23–24). A woman’s breasts are recognized as erotic (Prov. 5:19; Ezek. 23:3, 21) but not shameful. God slaughters an animal in order to cover nakedness (Gen. 3:21). Ultimately, when sin and death are removed and the body raised, the redeemed will have no shame and will be clothed only in their righteousness (Rev. 19:5–9).

Exposing nakedness is an action used to humiliate enemies (2 Sam. 10:4–5; 1 Chron. 10:9; Isa. 47:3). Jesus is stripped naked (Matt. 27:28, 35–36). Violating another’s nakedness includes touching or seeing (Deut. 25:11) and produces extreme personal disgrace (Lev. 18:6–19 NASB; Hab. 2:15–16). It is an act of grace to cover another’s nakedness (Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7, 16). To even talk or laugh about inappropriate exposure brings dishonor (Gen. 9:21–23). The overarching principle is purity (Lev. 18:24).

Marriage and Adultery

Although damaged by sin, marriage continues to be the ultimate human relationship involving intimacy, privacy, and liberty. Marriage is defined by a covenant—a contract witnessed and enforceable, not just a promise made in private. The couple separate from their parents to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

Once the marriage contract is agreed upon, the couple are married. They cannot consummate the marriage until the economic commitments of the contract have been delivered (Matt. 1:18; 25:1–13). This is celebrated with a feast. Jesus uses this custom as an analogy for his departure and return (John 14:1–3).

Paul commands husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25–33; cf. Gen. 24:67; 29:20; 1 Sam. 1:5; Eccles. 9:9; Song 8:6–7). Nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to love her husband, though older women should teach younger women to do so (Titus 2:3–4). Love is the husband’s responsibility. Love is a command that can be obeyed, not just a pleasurable feeling over which one has no control. The model of husbandly love is Jesus laying down his life for his people.

The ecstasy of making love is celebrated in the erotic Song of Songs, which holds out the hope of such marital delight even now. The axiom of marriage is a righteous jealousy (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num. 5:14, 30; Prov. 6:34).

The first year of marriage is especially important and is protected by exemption from military service (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).

When a man dies without a male heir, his widow’s possession of that part of the family estate can result in her marrying a man from another family and so alienating that land. This can be resolved either by the injustice of eviction or by the device of levirate marriage. The nearest male relative of the deceased husband marries the widow, and their son then inherits the deceased husband’s name and title to the land (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth).

Concubines are wives from poor families, slaves, or captives, and their marriages are protected (Exod. 21:7–9; Deut. 21:11–14).

Rape of a married woman constitutes adultery by the rapist, not the victim. Consensual sex with a married woman is adultery by both parties. Rape of a single woman is treated as fornication, with no blame attached to the woman. Her father has the option of letting her marry the man or receiving significant financial compensation (Exod. 22:16–17; Deut. 22:23–27). Her father has the right to take the money and refuse the marriage. To falsely accuse a woman of adultery is a crime (Deut. 22:13–21).

Prostitution is an extreme form of adultery or fornication and totally forbidden (Lev. 19:29; Deut. 23:17). Under the new covenant, this warning is heightened by the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit transforming each believer into the temple of the Lord (1 Cor. 6:15–20).

Originally, marriage between siblings is implied (Gen. 4:17, 26; 5:4). Abram married his half sister, Sarai (Gen. 20:12; cf. Gen. 11:29; Num. 26:59). The Mosaic covenant at Sinai bans marriage to blood relationships closer than first cousins and to in-laws (Lev. 18:6–30; cf. 2 Sam. 13; 1 Cor. 5:1).

Polygamy occurs soon after the fall (Gen. 4:19–24). It is never explicitly forbidden in the Bible, but it is managed by OT law so as to restrain further injustice and damage. It is always seen as less than satisfactory (cf. Gen. 29–30; 1 Sam. 1:6; 2 Sam. 13; 1 Kings 1–2; 11). In the NT, monogamy is mandatory for those who would lead the church (1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). (See also Premarital and Extramarital Sex.)

Self-Control and Purity

The violation of sexual purity is a decision of the heart (Ezek. 23:11; Matt. 5:28). The biblical concept of lust entails more than just physical arousal. It involves a strong desire for/coveting of (cf. James 1:14–15) something that one has no right to acquire. This establishes both the need for self-control (Titus 2:5–6) and the availability of appropriate options (1 Cor. 7:2, 5, 9). Masturbation is nowhere mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 38:9 is about failure to fulfill the levirate). The critical issue is lust.

Sexual misconduct is never the responsibility of the victim (Deut. 22:25). Nevertheless, for reasons of personal safety as well as out of concern for one another, the family of Christ must practice modesty in dress (1 Tim. 2:9) and consider how to build one another up rather than put stumbling blocks in each other’s way.

God always provides the believer with what is necessary to resist temptation and make the right choices (1 Cor. 10:13). Consequently, a significant aspect of every parent’s role is to teach godly sexual wisdom to children before they face such challenges (cf. Prov. 1–9).

The gospel requires us to view sexuality from a wider perspective. Reproduction also occurs through the preaching of the gospel, calling forth new birth and a new people (Matt. 28:18–20). This gospel call will divide families (Luke 12:53). Singleness is no barrier to one’s ability to fulfill the command to multiply and fill the earth (Isa. 56:3–8). In times of distress it may be better to remain single (1 Cor. 7, esp. v. 26). This is also a gift of God (1 Cor. 7:7), given to equip one for the fulfillment of the gospel commission.

When God creates humans, he pronounces them “very good/beautiful” (Gen. 1:31). They are designed to be magnificent visual displays of God’s character (1:26–27). Human sexuality originally is set in a context of overwhelming beauty. God’s first command is to reproduce and extend this paradise throughout the earth (1:28). Human sexuality is not simply a mechanism for reproduction. From the outset it has been about completion, without which there is loneliness (2:18).

Although the Bible does not define the distinctives of masculinity and femininity in any detail, it does defend that there are distinctions between the genders. Behaviors that confuse the genders are explicitly condemned (Deut. 22:5; 1 Cor. 6:9; 11:4–16).

Homosexual intercourse (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10) and intercourse with an animal (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21) are violations of God’s created order.

Nakedness

“Nakedness” is confined to the genitals and buttocks (Exod. 20:26; Isa. 20:2–4; Ezek. 23:18, 29; Nah. 3:5) and, after the fall, is synonymous with shame (Gen. 3:7–10; 1 Sam. 20:30; Isa. 47:3; Jer. 13:26; Mic. 1:11; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18; cf. Rom. 1:23–24; 1 Cor. 12:23–24). A woman’s breasts are recognized as erotic (Prov. 5:19; Ezek. 23:3, 21) but not shameful. God slaughters an animal in order to cover nakedness (Gen. 3:21). Ultimately, when sin and death are removed and the body raised, the redeemed will have no shame and will be clothed only in their righteousness (Rev. 19:5–9).

Exposing nakedness is an action used to humiliate enemies (2 Sam. 10:4–5; 1 Chron. 10:9; Isa. 47:3). Jesus is stripped naked (Matt. 27:28, 35–36). Violating another’s nakedness includes touching or seeing (Deut. 25:11) and produces extreme personal disgrace (Lev. 18:6–19 NASB; Hab. 2:15–16). It is an act of grace to cover another’s nakedness (Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7, 16). To even talk or laugh about inappropriate exposure brings dishonor (Gen. 9:21–23). The overarching principle is purity (Lev. 18:24).

Marriage and Adultery

Although damaged by sin, marriage continues to be the ultimate human relationship involving intimacy, privacy, and liberty. Marriage is defined by a covenant—a contract witnessed and enforceable, not just a promise made in private. The couple separate from their parents to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

Once the marriage contract is agreed upon, the couple are married. They cannot consummate the marriage until the economic commitments of the contract have been delivered (Matt. 1:18; 25:1–13). This is celebrated with a feast. Jesus uses this custom as an analogy for his departure and return (John 14:1–3).

Paul commands husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25–33; cf. Gen. 24:67; 29:20; 1 Sam. 1:5; Eccles. 9:9; Song 8:6–7). Nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to love her husband, though older women should teach younger women to do so (Titus 2:3–4). Love is the husband’s responsibility. Love is a command that can be obeyed, not just a pleasurable feeling over which one has no control. The model of husbandly love is Jesus laying down his life for his people.

The ecstasy of making love is celebrated in the erotic Song of Songs, which holds out the hope of such marital delight even now. The axiom of marriage is a righteous jealousy (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num. 5:14, 30; Prov. 6:34).

The first year of marriage is especially important and is protected by exemption from military service (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).

When a man dies without a male heir, his widow’s possession of that part of the family estate can result in her marrying a man from another family and so alienating that land. This can be resolved either by the injustice of eviction or by the device of levirate marriage. The nearest male relative of the deceased husband marries the widow, and their son then inherits the deceased husband’s name and title to the land (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth).

Concubines are wives from poor families, slaves, or captives, and their marriages are protected (Exod. 21:7–9; Deut. 21:11–14).

Rape of a married woman constitutes adultery by the rapist, not the victim. Consensual sex with a married woman is adultery by both parties. Rape of a single woman is treated as fornication, with no blame attached to the woman. Her father has the option of letting her marry the man or receiving significant financial compensation (Exod. 22:16–17; Deut. 22:23–27). Her father has the right to take the money and refuse the marriage. To falsely accuse a woman of adultery is a crime (Deut. 22:13–21).

Prostitution is an extreme form of adultery or fornication and totally forbidden (Lev. 19:29; Deut. 23:17). Under the new covenant, this warning is heightened by the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit transforming each believer into the temple of the Lord (1 Cor. 6:15–20).

Originally, marriage between siblings is implied (Gen. 4:17, 26; 5:4). Abram married his half sister, Sarai (Gen. 20:12; cf. Gen. 11:29; Num. 26:59). The Mosaic covenant at Sinai bans marriage to blood relationships closer than first cousins and to in-laws (Lev. 18:6–30; cf. 2 Sam. 13; 1 Cor. 5:1).

Polygamy occurs soon after the fall (Gen. 4:19–24). It is never explicitly forbidden in the Bible, but it is managed by OT law so as to restrain further injustice and damage. It is always seen as less than satisfactory (cf. Gen. 29–30; 1 Sam. 1:6; 2 Sam. 13; 1 Kings 1–2; 11). In the NT, monogamy is mandatory for those who would lead the church (1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). (See also Premarital and Extramarital Sex.)

Self-Control and Purity

The violation of sexual purity is a decision of the heart (Ezek. 23:11; Matt. 5:28). The biblical concept of lust entails more than just physical arousal. It involves a strong desire for/coveting of (cf. James 1:14–15) something that one has no right to acquire. This establishes both the need for self-control (Titus 2:5–6) and the availability of appropriate options (1 Cor. 7:2, 5, 9). Masturbation is nowhere mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 38:9 is about failure to fulfill the levirate). The critical issue is lust.

Sexual misconduct is never the responsibility of the victim (Deut. 22:25). Nevertheless, for reasons of personal safety as well as out of concern for one another, the family of Christ must practice modesty in dress (1 Tim. 2:9) and consider how to build one another up rather than put stumbling blocks in each other’s way.

God always provides the believer with what is necessary to resist temptation and make the right choices (1 Cor. 10:13). Consequently, a significant aspect of every parent’s role is to teach godly sexual wisdom to children before they face such challenges (cf. Prov. 1–9).

The gospel requires us to view sexuality from a wider perspective. Reproduction also occurs through the preaching of the gospel, calling forth new birth and a new people (Matt. 28:18–20). This gospel call will divide families (Luke 12:53). Singleness is no barrier to one’s ability to fulfill the command to multiply and fill the earth (Isa. 56:3–8). In times of distress it may be better to remain single (1 Cor. 7, esp. v. 26). This is also a gift of God (1 Cor. 7:7), given to equip one for the fulfillment of the gospel commission.

A mineral cluster or rock. Although the terms “rock” and “stone” are occasionally used synonymously, “rock” usually refers to a large geological formation such as a cliff, cave, outcropping, or bedrock, while “stone” is preferred when the rock is small enough to be fashioned or handled by human beings. “Stone” can also function as an adjective, referring to a material made of stone, or as a verb, referring to the casting of stones.

Rocks and stones were found naturally on the ground (Job 8:17; Ps. 91:12; Isa. 5:2; Mark 5:5; Luke 3:8). They could be heaped or piled up as a sign of disgrace (Josh. 7:26; 8:29; 2 Sam. 18:17), as a marker or memorial (Gen. 31:46–50), or as an altar (Exod. 20:25). A single rock or stone could also be used as a place marker (Gen. 28:22; 35:14, 20; 1 Sam. 7:12), especially standing stones (Deut. 27:2–8; Josh. 4:3–9). Large stones could also be used to cover a well (Gen. 29:2–3) or to seal a cave or tomb, such as at the tombs of Lazarus (John 11:38–39) and of Jesus (Matt. 27:60; Mark 16:3–4).

Stone was used as a construction material, particularly for the temple (1 Kings 5:15–18; 1 Chron. 2:22; Ezra 5:8; Hag. 2:15; Mark 13:1–2). Stone was used in a building’s foundation and for the cornerstone or capstone (1 Kings 5:17; Jer. 51:26; Isa. 28:16), as well as for the walls (Hab. 2:11). Psalm 118:22 refers metaphorically to the stone rejected by the builders becoming the cornerstone. In the NT, this is interpreted as referring to Jesus (Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7; cf. Eph. 2:20). Stone could also function as a writing material (Josh. 8:32), such as the tablets on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed (Exod. 24:12; Deut. 9:9–11; 1 Kings 8:9; cf. 2 Cor. 3:3, 7). Stone was also carved, although at Sinai the Israelites are instructed not to use cut or “dressed” stones when constructing an altar (Exod. 20:25; cf. Josh. 8:31). The phrase “carved stone” refers specifically to idols, since stone was one material used for crafting false gods (Lev. 26:1; cf. Deut. 4:28; 29:17; 2 Kings 19:18; Isa. 37:19; Rev. 9:20); the term “stone” itself can therefore be used to refer to an idol, especially in the phrase “wood and stone” (Jer. 3:9; Ezek. 20:32).

Stones were used as a weapon or instrument of destruction, whether thrown by hand (Num. 35:17, 23) or flung with a sling (Judg. 20:16; 1 Sam. 17:40, 49–50; Prov. 26:8). The verb “to stone” refers to the throwing of stones at an individual, which typically functioned as an official manner of execution (Exod. 19:13; 21:28–29; Deut. 21:20–21; 1 Kings 21:13–15; John 8:5; Acts 7:58–59), although it was at times the action of an angry crowd (Exod. 17:4; 1 Kings 12:18; cf. John 8:59).

The phrases “precious stones” and “costly stones” refer to gems (2 Sam. 12:30; Esther 1:6; Isa. 54:12; 1 Cor. 3:12). Gems were used as a display of wealth or honor (1 Kings 10:2, 10–11; 2 Chron. 32:27; Ezek. 27:22) and for decoration (1 Chron. 3:6; Rev. 17:4; 18:16). The two stones on the high priest’s ephod and the twelve precious stones on his breastpiece represented the twelve tribes (Exod. 25:7; 28:9–12, 17–21), a symbolism echoed in the twelve types of precious stones adorning the foundations of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:19–20).

Rocks and stones are used often in metaphors or similes (e.g., hard as a rock, still as a stone). They can represent something that is common (1 Kings 10:27; Job 5:23; Matt. 3:9; 4:3), strong (Job 6:12), hard (Job 38:30; 41:24), heavy (Exod. 15:5; Prov. 27:3), motionless (Exod. 15:16), or immovable (Zech. 12:3). A “heart of stone” describes coldheartedness (Ezek. 11:19; 36:26). A “stumbling stone,” which is literally a stone that causes one to stumble (Isa. 8:14), is used in the NT as a metaphor for an obstacle to faith in Jesus (Rom. 9:32–33; 1 Pet. 2:8).