A mountain range in northwest Moab, separating the Transjordan Plain from the Jordan Valley. In this range stood Mount Nebo, the spot where Moses ascended to view the Promised Land and later died (Num. 27:12; 33:47–48; Deut. 32:49; 34:1–8). The prophet Jeremiah pictures an announcement of destruction from the peaks of Abarim (Jer. 22:20). See also Nebo.

Babylon was the capital city of Babylonia, an ancient kingdom located in Mesopotamia, the region between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, an area now in the modern country of Iraq. The city of Babylon was located on the banks of the Euphrates River, about fifty-five miles from the modern city of Baghdad. Babylon plays a major role in the Bible, especially during the time of the OT prophets. Babylon or the Babylonians are mentioned in the books of 2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Micah, Habakkuk, and Zechariah. Babylon also appears at the very beginning of the biblical story (Gen. 10–11) as well as at the very end (Rev. 14; 16–18; cf. 1 Pet. 5:13).

History

The Sumerian and Akkadian period. Around 3000 BC one of the earliest civilizations of the ancient world developed in the southernmost region of Mesopotamia. The Sumerians developed several innovations that nurtured and contributed to the rise of large, complex, urban civilizations. These developments included irrigation, writing (especially in regard to government documentation), the city-state, the accumulation of capital, the wheel, the potter’s wheel, monumental architecture, the number system based on the number sixty (we still use this for time as well as for geometry—e.g., sixty minutes in an hour, 360 degrees in a circle), schools, and the cylinder seal.

The Akkadian king Sargon conquered most of Mesopotamia around 2350 BC. He built his capital at Akkad and established Akkadian as the main language of Mesopotamia, a feature that was to remain characteristic for many centuries. The city of Babylon first appears in nonbiblical literary documents during this time, but only as a minor provincial city.

The Old Babylonian period. At about the same time, a group of people called “Amorites” (lit., “those from the west”) started migrating in fairly large numbers eastward into southern Mesopotamia. Embracing much of the old Sumerian-related culture as well as the Akkadian language, these Amorites soon became a regional power, and they built the city of Babylon into one of the most important cities in Mesopotamia. One of the most famous kings to rise to power during this “Old Babylonian” era was Hammurabi (c. 1728–1686 BC [many scholars now refer to him as Hammurapi]). It was his extensive diplomatic and military skill that enabled Babylon to rise to power so quickly and in such a spectacular fashion. Hammurabi’s actual empire lasted only a brief time, but his legacy was long-lasting, and the entire central-southern region of Mesopotamia continued to be known as Babylonia for over a thousand years.

After Hammurabi died, Babylon declined in power. For the next few hundred years Mesopotamia was characterized by chaos and power struggles. Then around 800 BC the Assyrians (from the northern end of Mesopotamia) rose to power and dominated the entire region. The Assyrians also played a major role in the Bible, appearing frequently in the books of 2 Kings and Isaiah.

The Neo-Babylonian Empire. In the last quarter of the seventh century BC, however, the Babylonians steadily grew in power. A large migration of Arameans into Babylonia had taken place, and the people in Babylonia had replaced Akkadian with Aramaic as their spoken language. The Chaldeans, a large and powerful group living in the Babylonian region, intermarried with the descendants of these migrating Arameans to develop a civilization now known as Neo-Babylonia. Once again the city of Babylon rose to splendor and prominence. Eventually this new Babylonia wrested control of much of the ancient Near East from the Assyrians and their Egyptian allies, decisively defeating them in 612 BC to become the new superpower empire of the ancient Near East. A powerful dynasty was started by Nabopolassar (626–605 BC) and continued by Nebuchadnezzar (604–562 BC), the most powerful and prominent of Babylon’s kings.

Babylon controlled most of the ancient Near East at a critical time in biblical history. Nebuchadnezzar, the most famous Babylonian king of this era, besieged Jerusalem and destroyed it completely in 587/586 BC. Nebuchadnezzar appears in the Bible numerous times, especially in the books of 2 Kings, Jeremiah, and Daniel. He was the one responsible for taking the leadership of Judah into exile in Babylonia after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Surprisingly, this powerful empire did not last very long. As discussed below, several of the OT prophets prophesied the end of Babylon, and indeed Babylon crumbled quickly and eventually disappeared from history. How did this happen?

Persian and Greek rule. First of all, Nab­o­ni­dus, the last king of Babylon (555–539 BC), tried to revise the religion of the people away from the worship of their main god, Marduk, but he only alienated himself from the powerful nobles of Babylon as well as from the general population. Leaving his son Belshazzar in charge, Nabonidus moved to Arabia for ten years. When he finally returned, the Persians were threatening Babylon, and Nabonidus had little power to stop them. Sealing the Persian victory was the defection of Ugbaru, one of the most powerful Babylonian princes. Thus, Cyrus, king of Persia, conquered Babylon without meeting any substantial resistance from the city (539 BC). Apparently, the Babylonians greeted Cyrus more as a liberator than as a conqueror. Babylon thus became a city within the Persian Empire.

About fifty years later the city of Babylon revolted against the Persians, and the Persian king Xerxes recaptured it (482 BC), sacked it, demolished its spectacular fortifications, burned the great temple of the Babylonian god Marduk, and even carried away the statue of Marduk as a spoil of war. However, the Greek historian Herodotus, writing around 450 BC, indicates that Babylon had not been completely destroyed.

In the next century Alexander the Great conquered the entire region, defeating the Persians in 331 BC. Alexander was welcomed warmly by the remaining citizens of Babylon, and thus he treated the city favorably at first. However, in 324 BC a close friend of Alexander’s died, and Alexander tore down part of the city wall east of the royal palace to build a funeral pyre platform in his friend’s honor, thus destroying a significant part of the city.

The fall of Babylon. After Alexander died, Seleucus, one of his four generals, seized Babylon (312 BC) and plundered the city and the surrounding area. The next Seleucid king, Antiochus I (281–261 BC), dealt the death blow to the city of Babylon. He built a new capital for the region fifty-five miles to the north and then moved the entire civilian population of Babylon to the new city. The once great city of Babylon, now depopulated and seriously damaged physically by the Seleucid kings, fell into oblivion. Although Antiochus IV (173 BC) tried for a brief period to revive the city, Babylon, for all practical purposes, had ceased to exist.

The ruined site is mentioned a few other times in history. The Roman emperor Trajan spent the winter of AD 116 in Babylon, finding nothing there except ruins. The spectacular fall of Babylon and the city’s state of terrible desolation then became proverbial. In the second century AD Lucian wrote that Nineveh vanished without a trace, and that soon people will search in vain for Babylon. In fulfillment of biblical prophecy (e.g., Jer. 50–51), the city of Babylon went from being the most important and most spectacular city in the world to being a desolate, insignificant pile of rubble.

The Splendor of Babylon

During the time of Nebuchadnezzar the city of Babylon was developed into a spectacular city, certainly one of the most impressive cities in the ancient Near East. The city was built on the banks of the Euphrates River with a large, imposing bridge connecting the two banks. Huge public buildings, palaces, and temples lined the banks of the river. The city was enclosed by two walls. The gates of the outer walls have not yet been located, but archaeologists have identified nine large, impressive gates of the inner wall. The most famous of these is the Ishtar Gate, which has been dismantled and reconstructed in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. The walls of this gate are lined with bright blue glazed ceramic tile and decorated with numerous reliefs of lions and dragons. A major structure in the city was the great temple of Marduk, the central Babylonian deity, but the city also had temples dedicated to numerous other gods. Connected to the great temple was a spectacular processional street running through the heart of the city. The city also contained large residential homes as well as three immense royal palaces.

A fourth-century BC Greek historian mentions that Nebuchadnezzar built an amazing garden for one of his wives. This garden, commonly known as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, was designated by the ancient Greeks as one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Archaeologists, however, have been unable to locate such a garden in the excavations of Babylon, and some scholars doubt its existence.

Babylon in the Bible

The terms “Babylon” and “Babylonian,” in addition to the related terms “Chaldea” and “Chaldean,” appear over three hundred times in the Bible, indicating the important role that Babylon plays in Israel’s history.

Old Testament. Genesis 10:10 states that Babylon was one of the first centers of the kingdom of the mighty warrior Nimrod, but the puzzling nature of Nimrod and the difficulties encountered in interpreting Gen. 10 make it difficult to state much about this reference with certainty.

The better-known incident in Genesis regarding Babylon is the story about the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1–9). Note that in Gen. 9:1–7 God commands Noah and his family to scatter over the earth and replenish its population. The builders of the tower of Babel are doing just the opposite of the divine injunction, trying to stop the scattering.

Genesis 11:2 locates the tower of Babel on “a plain in Shinar” (cf. 10:10; 14:1), the broad, alluvial plain of the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers south of modern Baghdad. Most scholars suspect that the tower of Babel was a ziggurat, an elevated temple tower. Common in Mesopotamia, these were worship centers where priests climbed up extensive stairways to offer their sacrifices to the gods. A temple shrine usually capped the top of the ziggurat. This elevated shrine was understood to be the “gateway to the gods,” a place where human priests and their deities supposedly met. The tower of Babel story in Genesis, however, introduces a humorous wordplay regarding this tradition. “Babel” (as well as “Babylon”) means “gateway to the gods” or “gate of the gods” in the local Mesopotamian languages. Ironically, however, in Hebrew the word babel is related to balal, meaning “to confuse.” Thus, Gen. 11:9 presents a colorful wordplay or parody on the name of Babel. In a humorous criticism of the future great city, that verse suggests ironically that the name “Babel” does not really refer to the “gate of the gods” as the Mesopotamians intended, but rather to the judgmental confusion that God brought against them.

Thus, the city of Babel/Babylon carried negative connotations from the very beginning of the biblical story. Genesis 11 introduces Babel as a symbol of human arrogance and rebellion against God. Later in Israel’s history the city of Babylon will continue to have negative associations, and once again it becomes a powerful symbol of human arrogance and rebellion against God.

The books of 1–2 Kings tell the tragic story of how Israel and Judah turn away from God to worship idols, ignoring the warnings that God gives them through the prophets. As foretold, the northern kingdom, Israel, is thus destroyed by the Assyrians in 722 BC. However, the southern kingdom, Judah, also fails to take heed and continues to worship pagan gods in spite of repeated warnings and calls to repentance from the prophets. Prophets such as Jeremiah repeatedly proclaim that if Judah and Jerusalem do not repent and turn from their idolatry and acts of injustice, then God will send the Babylonians to destroy them (see esp. Jer. 20–39). Jeremiah refers to the Babylonians 198 times, and the prophet personally experiences the terrible Babylonian siege and destruction of Jerusalem. Jeremiah 39 and 52 describe the actual fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar and his Babylonian army. This same tragic story is recounted in 2 Kings 24–25. Thus, in 586 BC Nebuchadnezzar and his army completely destroy Jerusalem, burning the city and the temple to the ground and carrying off most of the population into exile in Babylonia.

Babylon appears in the OT prophetic literature in another context as well. Because of the apostasy of Israel and Judah, the prophets preach judgment on them. But the prophets also preach judgment on the enemies of Israel and Judah for exploiting or attacking and destroying God’s people. Jeremiah, for example, prophesies against numerous nations and cities (Jer. 46–49), but he focuses especially upon Babylon (Jer. 50:1–51:58). Likewise, judgment on Babylon is a central theme in Isa. 13; 14; 21; 47. In the OT, no other foe brought such terrible destruction on Jerusalem. In later literature this particular event thus becomes the prototypical picture of horrendous death and destruction, and Babylon becomes the literary symbol epitomizing all of Israel’s enemies.

New Testament. Babylon appears again at the end of the biblical story. In Rev. 17–18 John describes the enemy of God’s kingdom as a harlot dressed in scarlet and riding on a beast. One of the titles written on her head is “Babylon the Great” (17:5). Some commentators believe that John is describing a literal resurrected city of Babylon. That is, they propose that Babylon will be rebuilt on its original site and become the center of government for the antichrist. Many other scholars, however, maintain that the harlot of Rev. 17–18 symbolizes ancient Rome, not a modern rebuilt Babylon. They argue that the term “Babylon” is used symbolically in Revelation. Supporting this view is the apostle Peter’s apparent use of the term “Babylon” to refer to Rome in 1 Pet. 5:13 (“she who is in Babylon . . . sends you her greetings”). Most NT scholars conclude that in this verse “she” is a reference to the church and that “Babylon” is a coded or symbolic reference to Rome.

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

The nineteenth of the twenty monarchs of Judah (r. 597 BC), he was a grandson of Josiah and an ancestor of Jesus (Matt. 1:11–12: “Jeconiah”). His brief reign is recorded in 2 Kings 24:8–17; 2 Chron. 36:8–10. He became ruler at age eighteen, and, like many other ruling members of his family (uncles Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, and father Jehoiakim), he “did evil in the eyes of the Lord” (2 Kings 24:9). He reigned only three months before being exiled to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC. During this deportation Nebuchadnezzar exiled many Judeans and looted the temple, fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah to Hezekiah over a hundred years earlier (2 Kings 20:17–18). Jeremiah prophesied the end of Jehoiachin’s reign and dynasty (Jer. 22:24–30 [MT: “Coniah”]). He was finally released from imprisonment in 562 BC by Awel-Marduk of Babylon (2 Kings 25:27–30; Jer. 52:31–34). Babylonian tablets record prison rations for him and his sons during his exile.

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A child whose father (or father and mother) has died. Lacking the provision and protection of a father, the fatherless person is a needy member of society, often grouped together with the widow, the alien (a displaced person seeking refuge), the poor, and/or the innocent. The status of being an orphan appears as a premier example of suffering (Lam. 5:3; John 14:18). The OT promotes special efforts to care for the needs of the fatherless, while the NT lauds caring for them.

God’s concern for the fatherless is evident in descriptions of his character and commands for their protection and benefit. These are complemented by condemnations, punishments, and curses for those who fail to care for the fatherless and by praise and blessings for those who do.

God himself cares for the fatherless and gives them justice (Deut. 10:18; Pss. 10:14, 18; 68:5; 146:9; Jer. 49:11; Hos. 14:3). He instructs Israel to care for the fatherless, a value that carries over for the church. In the OT, provision came in two forms. Every third year a harvest tithe was deposited in town to provide for the Levites, aliens, orphans, and widows (Deut. 14:27–29; 26:12–13). Additionally, harvesters were instructed to leave the harvest remains for the alien, orphan, and widow (Deut. 24:17–22). The fatherless should be included in community celebrations (Deut. 16:11–14). Multiple commands require giving justice to or forbid oppressing the fatherless (Exod. 22:22; Deut. 24:17; Ps. 82:3; Prov. 23:10; Isa. 1:17; Jer. 22:3; Zech. 7:10). Mistreatment of the fatherless or failure to give them justice brings condemnation, curse, or punishment (Job 6:27; 22:9; 24:3; 24:9; 31:21; Ps. 94:6; Isa. 1:23; 9:17; 10:2; Jer. 5:28; Ezek. 22:7; Mal. 3:5). In contrast, care for the fatherless is one mark of righteousness (Job 29:12–16; 31:17; Jer. 7:5–7). James includes care for widows and orphans as an essential part of the summary of true religion (James 1:27).

The southern section of the Transjordan, with the Jordan River to the west, Bashan to the north, Ammon to the east, and Moab to the south. The Jabbok River ran across it from east to west, and “Gilead” could be used either more widely to describe the whole area or more narrowly to describe the land either south or north of the Jabbok. It was a high, fertile region, famed for its healing balm and spices (Gen. 37:25; Jer. 8:22; 46:11) as well as its pastures and livestock (Num. 32:1; 1 Chron. 5:9; Song 4:1; 6:5).

Jacob named Gilead after the heap of stones that witnessed his covenant with Laban (Gen. 31:21–55). “Gilead” also became a personal and clan name (Num. 26:29–30; 27:1) when, following the Israelites’ defeat of Sihon the Amorite on their way to Canaan (Deut. 2:36; Josh. 12:1–3), the region was allotted to Reuben, Gad, and part of Manasseh (Num. 36:1; Deut. 3:10–15).

Israel drew some of its national leaders from Gilead (Judg. 10:3; 11:1) and defended it keenly against Gentile enemies (1 Sam. 11). However, there was often tension between the tribes east and west of the Jordan (Josh. 22:10–34; Judg. 5:17; 12:1–7). When David fled from Absalom (2 Sam. 17:22), crossing into the Transjordan was viewed as having left the land (2 Sam. 17:22; 19:9). Returning across the river was like a reenactment of the conquest (2 Sam. 19:15). There is similar symbolism in the Jordan crossings made by Elijah, a prophet from Gilead, and his successor, Elisha (1 Kings 17:3; 2 Kings 2:8, 14).

After the division of the kingdom, Israel’s hold on the Transjordan became increasingly tenuous. Two alliances between Israel and Judah failed to win Ramoth Gilead back from the Arameans (1 Kings 22; 2 Kings 8:28–29), and Hazael later conquered the entire region (2 Kings 10:32–33). After a brief respite under Jehoash (2 Kings 13:25), Pekah lost Gilead to Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (15:29).

Nevertheless, Gilead remained a prized possession of Yahweh (Pss. 60:7; 108:8; Jer. 22:6). Hosea may have condemned Gilead’s sinfulness (Hos. 6:8; 12:11), but the prophets also looked forward to a day when Gilead’s conquerors would be punished (Amos 1:3, 13) and its richness would be restored to Israel (Jer. 50:19; Obad. 1:19; Mic. 7:14; Zech. 10:10).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The nineteenth of the twenty monarchs of Judah (r. 597 BC), he was a grandson of Josiah and an ancestor of Jesus (Matt. 1:11–12: “Jeconiah”). His brief reign is recorded in 2 Kings 24:8–17; 2 Chron. 36:8–10. He became ruler at age eighteen, and, like many other ruling members of his family (uncles Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, and father Jehoiakim), he “did evil in the eyes of the Lord” (2 Kings 24:9). He reigned only three months before being exiled to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC. During this deportation Nebuchadnezzar exiled many Judeans and looted the temple, fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah to Hezekiah over a hundred years earlier (2 Kings 20:17–18). Jeremiah prophesied the end of Jehoiachin’s reign and dynasty (Jer. 22:24–30 [MT: “Coniah”]). He was finally released from imprisonment in 562 BC by Awel-Marduk of Babylon (2 Kings 25:27–30; Jer. 52:31–34). Babylonian tablets record prison rations for him and his sons during his exile.

The second of King Josiah’s sons to rule over Judah (r. 609–598 BC), his mother was Zebidah. He “did evil in the eyes of the Lord” (2 Kings 23:37), and his eleven-year reign is recorded in 2 Kings 23:34–24:6; 2 Chron. 36:4–8. He was twenty-five when Pharaoh Necho of Egypt deposed his brother Jehoahaz and made him king, changing his birth name, “Eliakim,” to “Jehoiakim.” He initially gave tribute to Egypt, but he became a Babylonian vassal when Nebuchadnezzar defeated Necho in 605 BC. Jeremiah prophesied exile and death because of his greed and oppression of the poor (Jer. 22:13–19). Jehoiakim burned Jeremiah’s scroll and attempted to arrest the prophet, but God thwarted him (Jer. 36:20–26). He did, however, kill the prophet Uriah (Jer. 26:20–23). Jehoiakim ignored Jeremiah’s advice and rebelled against Babylon, so Nebuchadnezzar retaliated first by sending small military bands, then besieging Jerusalem and capturing Jehoiakim. He probably died in exile.

The king of Judah (r. 640–609 BC). Although his father (Amon) and grandfather (Manasseh) were evil and worshiped false gods, Josiah “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and followed completely the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left” (2 Kings 22:2). Indeed, according to 2 Kings 21:24–23:30; 2 Chron. 33:25–35:27, no one among the kings of Judah, not even Hez-e-kiah, surpassed Josiah in terms of his piety.

Josiah’s name first appears centuries before he was born. First Kings 13:2 records the words of an unnamed prophet who announced that Josiah would destroy the golden calf shrine that Jeroboam I dedicated. This altar was built in the second half of the tenth century BC. The fulfillment of this prophecy is recorded in 2 Kings 23:15–18.

The prophets Jeremiah (Jer. 1:1–4; 22:13–23; 25:3; 36:2) and Zephaniah (Zeph. 1:1) ministered during Josiah’s reign and likely supported his religious reforms. The high point of his religious reform took place in his eighteenth year, when he ordered the purification of the temple. Up to that time, the temple had housed idolatrous objects. During the repair, the priest Hilkiah discovered the Book of the Law. The reaction to this book suggests that it was Deuteronomy or a part thereof, which presumably had been suppressed by the previous wicked administrations.

Although he was a good king, Josiah had a sad conclusion to his life. He was killed in 609 BC when he attempted to block the march of Pharaoh Necho up the coast as the latter tried to bolster the Assyrian forces at Carchemish.

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

Taken together “poor,” “orphan,” and “widow” are mentioned in the NIV 280 times, evidence of God’s particular concern for those in need. “Poor” is an umbrella term for those who are physically impoverished or of diminished spirit. In biblical terms, “poor” would include most orphans and widows, though not every poor person was an orphan or widow. With over 170 references to the “poor” in the NIV, the biblical writers emphasize God’s concern for the poor. This is best summarized in Deuteronomy: “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land” (15:11).

The Poor

Old Testament. All sections of the OT (including the Torah, Major Prophets, Minor Prophets, and wisdom literature) contain both instructions and warnings regarding the treatment of the poor. Portions of the tithes and offerings were to be set aside for the needs of the poor (Deut. 14:28–29; 26:12–13). The law made specific provisions that allowed the poor in the land to glean from fields that they had not planted or tended (Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22). Boaz’s allowance of Ruth’s gleanings is an example (Ruth 2:7–8, 15, 23).

Favor was given to those who were kind to the poor (Job 29:12; 30:25; 31:16; Ps. 112:9; Prov. 19:17; 22:9; 28:8, 27; Isa. 58:5–7; Jer. 22:16). Inversely, those who did not care for the poor were strongly warned (Prov. 21:13; Ezek. 16:49; Amos 8:4–9). The OT often warns against oppression of the poor, with the added emphasis that God is their defender (2 Sam. 12:3–4; Job 20:19; Pss. 109:16; 140:12; Prov. 14:31; 23:11; Isa. 3:14). If a poor person made a vow, specific regulations were provided to prevent a pledge of unfair amount and to prevent the pledge from being kept overlong (Lev. 27:8; Deut. 24:12). Israelites who were hired as workers because they were impoverished were to be treated fairly and not as slaves (Lev. 25:39–42; Deut. 24:14–15). The poor were to be judged fairly, being shown neither favoritism nor oppression because of their situation (Exod. 23:3, 6; 30:15; Lev. 19:15; Job 34:19; Ps. 49:2; Isa. 10:2).

In addition, the poor were not to be disregarded in the Sabbath Year or Jubilee Year. During the Sabbath Year, the poor and the needy of the land were permitted to gather food from the land, including the fields, olive groves, and vineyards (Exod. 23:11). If a man became poor and was forced to sell his land, and if it was not redeemed by a family member, the land would be returned to the man during the Jubilee Year (Lev. 25:25–30). Also, if a man was forced to submit himself to being a hired worker, he would be redeemed in the Jubilee Year (Lev. 25:47–54).

New Testament. The NT advances the atmosphere of kindness and nonoppression toward the poor and those in need found in the OT. The NT church was marked by such a real and selfless generosity that its members sold their own possessions and gave to “anyone who had need” (Acts 2:45). The poor were to be treated with generosity, and needs were to be addressed whenever they were discovered (Matt. 19:21; Luke 3:11; 11:41; 12:33; 14:13; 19:8; Acts 6:1; 9:36; Rom. 15:26; Gal. 2:10).

Kindness to the poor was regarded as a natural manifestation of the love of God. Several NT writers considered a lack of concern and kindness toward the poor in a believer’s life cause to question the authenticity of that person’s faith (James 2:15–16; 1 John 3:17–18).

Furthermore, because of the incarnation of Christ, in which the almighty God chose to dwell with humanity, distinctions between believers on the basis of material wealth and, more specifically, favoritism toward the rich were expressly forbidden by the NT writers (1 Cor. 11:20–22; Phil. 2:1–8; James 2:1–4).

Orphans

Other specific biblical instructions regarding people in need concern those without parents and especially those without a father. Such individuals are referred to as “fatherless.” As with the provisions made for the poor, oppression of orphans or the fatherless was strictly forbidden (Exod. 22:22; Deut. 24:17; 27:19; Isa. 1:17; 10:1–2; Zech. 7:10). Furthermore, God is often referred to as the provider and helper of the orphan or fatherless (Deut. 10:18; Pss. 10:14, 18; 68:5; 146:9; Jer. 49:11). Jesus promised not to leave his followers as “orphans,” implying that he would not leave them unprotected (John 14:18). In one of the clearest statements of how Christian belief is to manifest itself, James states, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27). (See also Fatherless.)

Widows

Since widows are bereft of their husbands and thus similar to orphans in vulnerability and need, they are the beneficiaries of special provisions in both Testaments. Oppression was forbidden (Exod. 22:22), provisions were to be given in similar fashion to that of the poor and orphans (Deut. 24:19–21), and ample warnings were given to those who would deny justice to widows (Deut. 27:19). Jesus raised a widow’s son from death (Luke 7:14–15), a miracle especially needed because she lacked provision after her only son’s death. The apostle Paul gave specific rules to Timothy regarding who should be placed on the list of widows to receive daily food: they must be over sixty years old and must have been faithful to their husbands (1 Tim. 5:9). In the book of Revelation, a desolate city without inhabitants is aptly described as a “widow” (18:7). (See also Widow.)

A child whose father (or father and mother) has died. Lacking the provision and protection of a father, the fatherless person is a needy member of society, often grouped together with the widow, the alien (a displaced person seeking refuge), the poor, and/or the innocent. The status of being an orphan appears as a premier example of suffering (Lam. 5:3; John 14:18). The OT promotes special efforts to care for the needs of the fatherless, while the NT lauds caring for them.

God’s concern for the fatherless is evident in descriptions of his character and commands for their protection and benefit. These are complemented by condemnations, punishments, and curses for those who fail to care for the fatherless and by praise and blessings for those who do.

God himself cares for the fatherless and gives them justice (Deut. 10:18; Pss. 10:14, 18; 68:5; 146:9; Jer. 49:11; Hos. 14:3). He instructs Israel to care for the fatherless, a value that carries over for the church. In the OT, provision came in two forms. Every third year a harvest tithe was deposited in town to provide for the Levites, aliens, orphans, and widows (Deut. 14:27–29; 26:12–13). Additionally, harvesters were instructed to leave the harvest remains for the alien, orphan, and widow (Deut. 24:17–22). The fatherless should be included in community celebrations (Deut. 16:11–14). Multiple commands require giving justice to or forbid oppressing the fatherless (Exod. 22:22; Deut. 24:17; Ps. 82:3; Prov. 23:10; Isa. 1:17; Jer. 22:3; Zech. 7:10). Mistreatment of the fatherless or failure to give them justice brings condemnation, curse, or punishment (Job 6:27; 22:9; 24:3; 24:9; 31:21; Ps. 94:6; Isa. 1:23; 9:17; 10:2; Jer. 5:28; Ezek. 22:7; Mal. 3:5). In contrast, care for the fatherless is one mark of righteousness (Job 29:12–16; 31:17; Jer. 7:5–7). James includes care for widows and orphans as an essential part of the summary of true religion (James 1:27).

Taken together “poor,” “orphan,” and “widow” are mentioned in the NIV 280 times, evidence of God’s particular concern for those in need. “Poor” is an umbrella term for those who are physically impoverished or of diminished spirit. In biblical terms, “poor” would include most orphans and widows, though not every poor person was an orphan or widow. With over 170 references to the “poor” in the NIV, the biblical writers emphasize God’s concern for the poor. This is best summarized in Deuteronomy: “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land” (15:11).

The Poor

Old Testament. All sections of the OT (including the Torah, Major Prophets, Minor Prophets, and wisdom literature) contain both instructions and warnings regarding the treatment of the poor. Portions of the tithes and offerings were to be set aside for the needs of the poor (Deut. 14:28–29; 26:12–13). The law made specific provisions that allowed the poor in the land to glean from fields that they had not planted or tended (Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22). Boaz’s allowance of Ruth’s gleanings is an example (Ruth 2:7–8, 15, 23).

Favor was given to those who were kind to the poor (Job 29:12; 30:25; 31:16; Ps. 112:9; Prov. 19:17; 22:9; 28:8, 27; Isa. 58:5–7; Jer. 22:16). Inversely, those who did not care for the poor were strongly warned (Prov. 21:13; Ezek. 16:49; Amos 8:4–9). The OT often warns against oppression of the poor, with the added emphasis that God is their defender (2 Sam. 12:3–4; Job 20:19; Pss. 109:16; 140:12; Prov. 14:31; 23:11; Isa. 3:14). If a poor person made a vow, specific regulations were provided to prevent a pledge of unfair amount and to prevent the pledge from being kept overlong (Lev. 27:8; Deut. 24:12). Israelites who were hired as workers because they were impoverished were to be treated fairly and not as slaves (Lev. 25:39–42; Deut. 24:14–15). The poor were to be judged fairly, being shown neither favoritism nor oppression because of their situation (Exod. 23:3, 6; 30:15; Lev. 19:15; Job 34:19; Ps. 49:2; Isa. 10:2).

In addition, the poor were not to be disregarded in the Sabbath Year or Jubilee Year. During the Sabbath Year, the poor and the needy of the land were permitted to gather food from the land, including the fields, olive groves, and vineyards (Exod. 23:11). If a man became poor and was forced to sell his land, and if it was not redeemed by a family member, the land would be returned to the man during the Jubilee Year (Lev. 25:25–30). Also, if a man was forced to submit himself to being a hired worker, he would be redeemed in the Jubilee Year (Lev. 25:47–54).

New Testament. The NT advances the atmosphere of kindness and nonoppression toward the poor and those in need found in the OT. The NT church was marked by such a real and selfless generosity that its members sold their own possessions and gave to “anyone who had need” (Acts 2:45). The poor were to be treated with generosity, and needs were to be addressed whenever they were discovered (Matt. 19:21; Luke 3:11; 11:41; 12:33; 14:13; 19:8; Acts 6:1; 9:36; Rom. 15:26; Gal. 2:10).

Kindness to the poor was regarded as a natural manifestation of the love of God. Several NT writers considered a lack of concern and kindness toward the poor in a believer’s life cause to question the authenticity of that person’s faith (James 2:15–16; 1 John 3:17–18).

Furthermore, because of the incarnation of Christ, in which the almighty God chose to dwell with humanity, distinctions between believers on the basis of material wealth and, more specifically, favoritism toward the rich were expressly forbidden by the NT writers (1 Cor. 11:20–22; Phil. 2:1–8; James 2:1–4).

Orphans

Other specific biblical instructions regarding people in need concern those without parents and especially those without a father. Such individuals are referred to as “fatherless.” As with the provisions made for the poor, oppression of orphans or the fatherless was strictly forbidden (Exod. 22:22; Deut. 24:17; 27:19; Isa. 1:17; 10:1–2; Zech. 7:10). Furthermore, God is often referred to as the provider and helper of the orphan or fatherless (Deut. 10:18; Pss. 10:14, 18; 68:5; 146:9; Jer. 49:11). Jesus promised not to leave his followers as “orphans,” implying that he would not leave them unprotected (John 14:18). In one of the clearest statements of how Christian belief is to manifest itself, James states, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27). (See also Fatherless.)

Widows

Since widows are bereft of their husbands and thus similar to orphans in vulnerability and need, they are the beneficiaries of special provisions in both Testaments. Oppression was forbidden (Exod. 22:22), provisions were to be given in similar fashion to that of the poor and orphans (Deut. 24:19–21), and ample warnings were given to those who would deny justice to widows (Deut. 27:19). Jesus raised a widow’s son from death (Luke 7:14–15), a miracle especially needed because she lacked provision after her only son’s death. The apostle Paul gave specific rules to Timothy regarding who should be placed on the list of widows to receive daily food: they must be over sixty years old and must have been faithful to their husbands (1 Tim. 5:9). In the book of Revelation, a desolate city without inhabitants is aptly described as a “widow” (18:7). (See also Widow.)

Righteousness is an important theme in both Testaments of the Bible. The concept includes faithfulness, justice, uprightness, correctness, loyalty, blamelessness, purity, salvation, and innocence. Because the theme is related to justification, it has important implications for the doctrine of salvation (see also Justification).

Old Testament

Divine righteousness. Being careful to avoid imposing Western philosophical categories onto OT texts, we may say that the core idea of righteousness is conformity to God’s person and will in moral uprightness, justness, justice, integrity, and faithfulness. Behind the many and varied uses of righteousness language in the OT stands the presupposition that God himself is righteous in the ultimate sense (e.g., Ezra 9:15; Isa. 45:21; Zeph. 3:5). Righteousness is the expression of his holiness in relationship to others (Isa. 5:16), and all other nuances of righteousness in the biblical texts are derived from this. Either he reveals what is right or demonstrates rightness in his activity. God’s decrees and laws are righteous (Deut. 4:8; Ps. 119); his will is righteous (Deut. 33:21); his acts are righteous (Judg. 5:11; 1 Sam. 12:7; Ps. 71:24); his judgments are righteous (Ps. 7:11); and he always judges with righteousness (Ps. 96:13). In OT texts, divine righteousness is often linked to God’s saving activity, particularly in Psalms (e.g., Ps. 71) and in Isa. 40–66. Divine righteousness is much broader than deliberative justice (i.e., punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous), though it does include it.

Human righteousness. Related to humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite of wickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, where it relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of the world as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). God reigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humans should align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousness can be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “my righteousness” (2 Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “their righteousness” (1 Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found in poetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust are parallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).

It seems likely that the OT understanding of righteousness was more concrete and less absolute than the typical thinking of most contemporary Western Christians. A more absolute way of understanding righteousness might lead one to think that a truly righteous person is sinless. While we do have references to absolute righteousness in the OT (e.g., Ps. 143:2; cf. Job 4:17; 25:4; Isa. 64:6–7), there are many more references to a righteousness grounded in particular or generalized situations (e.g., Pss. 32:11; 64:10). Another way of unpacking this conceptual difference is the helpful distinction between “ordinary” and “absolute” righteousness. Ordinary righteousness reflects the kind of righteousness that we intend when making comments such as “my wife is a righteous woman.” This means, taken in broad perspective, that her life is characterized predominantly by righteousness. This statement is not making a claim of sinlessness, absolute righteousness. The OT offers examples of comparative righteousness between people (e.g., Gen. 38:26; 1 Sam. 24:17; Jer. 3:11). Absolute righteousness is different from this. It is the extraordinary righteousness that we see in the person and work of God; he is righteous and without sin, totally holy in his dealings.

Noncanonical Jewish documents from the intertestamental period, while varying greatly in individual perspective, generally affirm OT views of human and divine righteousness. In these documents righteousness often is associated with mercy, goodness, justness, and concern for the poor and is contrasted with wickedness.

In Greco-Roman society, righteousness was one of the cardinal virtues and thus had an important influence in society. Greco-Roman righteousness did have some measure of abstractness as a kind of external norm, but this abstractness should not obscure the fact that righteousness often had a relational component in Greco-Roman literature and life. Righteous and unrighteous behaviors often were embedded in interpersonal relationships. Unrighteous deeds not only violated “transcendent” standards of righteousness, but also impacted humans.

New Testament

Ordinary human righteousness. Righteousness language is more rare in the Gospels than one might expect in light of OT and Jewish intertestamental usage. These references fit with the Jewish setting: righteousness is required of God’s people, and unrighteousness is to be avoided. Righteousness is proper conduct with respect to God or Torah (Matt. 21:32) in contrast to wickedness (Matt. 13:49). Righteousness could be conceived as one’s own (e.g., Luke 18:9) and has its reward (Matt. 10:41). While the specific terms related to righteousness are infrequent in the Gospels, the broader concept of conformity to God’s will is widely apparent in calls for repentance, personal moral uprightness, mercy, and concern for the marginalized. The NT Epistles continue these general strands of the concept. Righteousness is related to personal conduct (1 Thess. 2:10; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Pet. 2:24) and is contrasted with wickedness (2 Cor. 6:14); it is a matter of doing, not knowing (Rom. 2:13). An example of righteousness in doing is the kindness shown by the prostitute Rahab, who hid the Israelite spies (James 2:25).

The NT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7), Jesus extends the requirements of righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, a shocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners rather than the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitly questions the righteousness of the “righteous.” In similar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness of one’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke 18:9).

Divine righteousness. The NT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to God himself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf. Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commands and laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge (2 Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does not compromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26). The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness and wickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation in righteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g., Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:1, 29). He fulfilled righteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating complete conformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:18). He also fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his saving activity toward humans (e.g., 2 Pet. 1:1).

“The righteousness of God” and extra-ordinary human righteousness. There is a significant OT connection between God’s righteousness and his faithfulness in saving activity (e.g., Psalms; Isa. 40–66). Although there are glimpses of righteousness related to God’s saving activity outside of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (e.g., Matt. 5:10; 6:33), a technical phrase, “the righteousness of God,” is used in three important texts in Romans (1:17; 3:21–22 [2×]; 10:3 [2×]). In the gospel, “the righteousness of God” is revealed, where “righteousness of God” could mean his divine righteousness in some sense, righteousness from God (NIV), God’s saving activity as related to his righteousness in fulfilling his covenant faithfulness (e.g., Psalms), or some combination of these.

The righteousness of God is further discussed in Rom. 3:21: “the righteousness of God” has now been revealed apart from the Mosaic law, though the OT testifies about it (cf. Rom. 4 and Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). This righteousness of God is clarified in that it is by trust in Jesus Christ for all, both Jews and Gentiles. The “righteousness of God” may be distinguished from righteousness as a character quality of God (Rom. 3:25–26). In fact, it must be, for God’s righteousness as a character quality was revealed in the OT, whereas “the righteousness of God” is “apart from the [Mosaic] law” (3:21).

In Rom. 10:3 Paul comments that the Israelites are ignorant of “the righteousness of God”; they are seeking to establish their own righteousness because they are not submitting to “the righteousness of God.” The Israelites certainly knew of God’s righteousness in terms of his character, judgments, and expectations of his people. The lack of submission to “the righteousness of God” occurs in the context of the Jewish rejection of Jesus (e.g., 9:32–33; 10:9–13). And Jesus is the key to understanding “the righteousness of God” in the other texts also.

In Rom. 1:17 the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, which is the power of God for salvation to all who trust in Jesus (1:3–5, 16). The righteousness of God in 3:21–22 is related to trust in Jesus (3:22, 25–26), who as a sacrifice of atonement (3:25) enables the justification and redemption of sinners (3:24, 26). In Jesus we become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). The righteousness of God, then, is God’s saving activity revealed and manifested in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, whereby sinners are justified as both innocent and righteous in Christ.

(1) A descendant of Judah through Sismai (1 Chron. 2:40–41). (2) A descendant of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:25). (3) A descendant of Levi through Zadok (1 Chron. 6:12–13). He is the ancestor of Ezra (Ezra 7:2). (4) A son of Naphtali (1 Chron. 7:13 [in some MT and LXX manuscripts “Shillem,” as rendered in the NIV]). (5) A Korahite, the chief gatekeeper under David (1 Chron. 9:17–19, 31). After the Babylonian exile, his descendants continued in the role of gatekeeper (Ezra 2:42; Neh. 7:45). (6) The son of Jabesh, he conspired against King Zechariah, last of the line of Jehu, and assassinated him, fulfilling prophecy. Shallum took the throne and ruled over Israel for one month (2 Kings 15:10–15).

(7) The husband of the prophetess Huldah, he was keeper of the temple vestments (2 Kings 22:14–20). (8) A son of King Josiah (1 Chron. 3:15), he ruled by the name “Jehoahaz” for three months until deposed by Pharaoh Necho (2 Kings 23:31–34). Jeremiah prophesied that Shallum would die in exile because he failed to uphold the cause of the needy and to continue his father’s reforms (Jer. 22:11–17). (9) An uncle of Jeremiah the prophet (Jer. 32:7). (10) A gatekeeper known by Jeremiah the prophet (Jer. 35:4). (11) A gatekeeper who married a foreign wife and pledged to put her away when confronted by Ezra (Ezra 10:24).

(12) A descendant of Binnui who married a foreign wife and pledged to put her away when confronted by Ezra (Ezra 10:42). (13) The father of Jehizkiah, a leader in Ephraim (2 Chron. 28:12). (14) The son of Hallohesh, he was the ruler of a half-district of Jerusalem who, with assistance from his daughters, helped to rebuild the Jerusalem wall after the return from exile (Neh. 3:12). (15) The son of Kol-Hozeh, he was the “ruler of the district of Mizpah” and helped to rebuild the Jerusalem wall after the return from exile (Neh. 3:15 [most manuscripts have “Shallun,” as rendered in the NIV]).

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

Hostile action carried out against someone or something. While used in Ezek. 22:26 to describe the manner in which Israel’s priests had utilized God’s law, violence most often involves the infliction of physical harm against a person or group. The subject of violence in the Bible, while extensive, is far from simple. Many OT passages refer to participation in violence as something to be avoided, belonging to the life of the wicked rather than to that of the righteous (Ps. 27:12; Prov. 4:17). In the NT, violence is discouraged as well (Rom. 12:19–21). Violence is addictive and ultimately destructive for those who live by it (Prov. 13:2; 21:7). Violence begets violence (Ps. 137; Matt. 26:52). A recurring biblical depiction of violence entails the spilling of blood, due to a close association of blood with life (Jer. 51:35; cf. Lev. 17:14).

Many passages assert or assume that God disapproves of violence (e.g., Job 16:17; Ps. 17:4; Mal. 2:16; 1 Tim. 1:13; Titus 1:7). God is a refuge against violence (2 Sam. 22:3). Widespread violence on the earth is the reason God gives for bringing about the flood (Gen. 6:13). Violence is the sin of Nineveh (Jon. 3:8) as well as that of Israel, a point emphasized by the prophets when declaring that Israel would go into exile (Isa. 53:9; Jer. 22:3; Ezek. 8:17; Hos. 12:1).

Yet there are also passages that tolerate and even advocate violence. Scripture contains numerous stories of God’s people acting violently. While in some cases these individuals may be acting on their own (see Judges), in some passages God explicitly commands violence (e.g., Deut. 7:1–2). In biblical military life, violence seems to be an accepted and even useful tool (e.g., 1 Sam. 17; 1 Chron. 12). God is often described as, among other things, a warrior (Exod. 15:3; Matt. 10:34; Rev. 19:11–16).

The question of the persistence of violence is voiced in Scripture but not answered (Hab. 1:2–3), suggesting that there is no simple answer. Perhaps God’s recognition of the wickedness of the human heart (Gen. 8:21) leads him to be involved even in the violence of this world, as instigator and also as recipient (Jesus). That the Bible acknowledges the prevalence of violence in the world certainly is significant. Yet the Bible also bears witness that this too shall pass as it describes God’s future plans, in which violence will be no more (see Isa. 60:18).

Lacking the provision and protection of a husband, widows are needy members of society, often grouped with the fatherless. Both Testaments promote special efforts to care for the needs of widows.

God’s concern for widows is evident in descriptions of his character and his commands for their protection and benefit. These are complemented by condemnations, punishments, and curses for those who fail to care for widows and by praise and blessings for those who do. Widows figure prominently in several biblical stories.

God himself cares for widows and gives them justice (Deut. 10:18; Ps. 68:5; Prov. 15:25). He instructs Israel and the church to care for widows. Negative commands warn of the consequences of mistreating widows (Exod. 22:22–24; Deut. 24:17–18). Positive commands require giving justice to widows (Isa. 1:17; Jer. 22:3), including them in community celebrations (Deut. 16:11–14), and providing for them. OT provision came in two forms. Every third year a harvest tithe was deposited in town to provide for the Levites, aliens, orphans, and widows (Deut. 14:27–29; 26:12–13). Additionally, harvesters were instructed to leave harvest remains for the alien (a displaced person seeking refuge), orphan, and widow (Deut. 24:17–22; cf. Ruth 2). Care for widows was central to the controversy that led to the appointment of deacons (Acts 6:1–6). Paul instructs Timothy to prioritize caring for widows who are over sixty years of age and without family to care for them (1 Tim. 5:1–16).

Failure to care for widows draws condemnation (Deut. 27:19; Job 24:2–3; Isa. 1:23; 10:2; Mal. 3:5; Mark 12:40). In contrast, care for widows is a mark of righteousness that brings blessing (Job 29:12–16; Jer. 7:5–7; Acts 9:39). James includes care for widows and orphans among the essential parts in his summary of true religion (James 1:27).

The OT included a special custom for the protection of, presumably, young widows. If a woman’s husband died and left her childless, her brother-in-law was to marry her and reckon the first child of the union as that of his deceased brother (Gen. 38:8; Deut. 25:5–6; Ruth 4:5, 10; Matt. 22:24). This custom lay behind the contention between Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38).

Widows figure prominently in several stories. A widow cared for Elijah in Zarephath (1 Kings 17; cf. Luke 4:25–26). At Elisha’s instruction, a widow was able to fill multiple containers with oil from a single jar (2 Kings 4:1–7). Jesus brought the son of a widow back to life (Luke 7:12–17). He remarked on a widow who made a small yet significant contribution to the temple treasury (21:1–4). Jesus illustrated persistence in prayer with a story about a widow seeking justice (18:1–8). See also Poor, Orphan, Widow.

In biblical times, windows usually were small and few, for the purpose of admitting light or air. Windows helped regulate temperatures inside a house. Some, however, were large enough to permit an intruder (Joel 2:9; cf. Jer. 9:21) or a fugitive (Josh. 2:15; 1 Sam. 19:12; 2 Cor. 11:33) to go through.

Windows of “recessed frames” in Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 6:4 NRSV), the numerous windows in Ezekiel’s eschatological temple (Ezek. 40:16, 22, 25, 29; 41:16), and the elaborately paneled windows in Jehoiakim’s house (Jer. 22:14) contrast the simplicity of general window design.

Symbolically, “windows of/in heaven” depict wide openings through which blessings or judgment flow to earth (Gen. 7:11; 8:2; 2 Kings 7:2, 19; Isa. 24:18 KJV [NIV: “floodgates of the heavens”]; cf. Mal. 3:10).

Babylon was the capital city of Babylonia, an ancient kingdom located in Mesopotamia, the region between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, an area now in the modern country of Iraq. The city of Babylon was located on the banks of the Euphrates River, about fifty-five miles from the modern city of Baghdad. Babylon plays a major role in the Bible, especially during the time of the OT prophets. Babylon or the Babylonians are mentioned in the books of 2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Micah, Habakkuk, and Zechariah. Babylon also appears at the very beginning of the biblical story (Gen. 10–11) as well as at the very end (Rev. 14; 16–18; cf. 1 Pet. 5:13).

History

The Sumerian and Akkadian period. Around 3000 BC one of the earliest civilizations of the ancient world developed in the southernmost region of Mesopotamia. The Sumerians developed several innovations that nurtured and contributed to the rise of large, complex, urban civilizations. These developments included irrigation, writing (especially in regard to government documentation), the city-state, the accumulation of capital, the wheel, the potter’s wheel, monumental architecture, the number system based on the number sixty (we still use this for time as well as for geometry—e.g., sixty minutes in an hour, 360 degrees in a circle), schools, and the cylinder seal.

The Akkadian king Sargon conquered most of Mesopotamia around 2350 BC. He built his capital at Akkad and established Akkadian as the main language of Mesopotamia, a feature that was to remain characteristic for many centuries. The city of Babylon first appears in nonbiblical literary documents during this time, but only as a minor provincial city.

The Old Babylonian period. At about the same time, a group of people called “Amorites” (lit., “those from the west”) started migrating in fairly large numbers eastward into southern Mesopotamia. Embracing much of the old Sumerian-related culture as well as the Akkadian language, these Amorites soon became a regional power, and they built the city of Babylon into one of the most important cities in Mesopotamia. One of the most famous kings to rise to power during this “Old Babylonian” era was Hammurabi (c. 1728–1686 BC [many scholars now refer to him as Hammurapi]). It was his extensive diplomatic and military skill that enabled Babylon to rise to power so quickly and in such a spectacular fashion. Hammurabi’s actual empire lasted only a brief time, but his legacy was long-lasting, and the entire central-southern region of Mesopotamia continued to be known as Babylonia for over a thousand years.

After Hammurabi died, Babylon declined in power. For the next few hundred years Mesopotamia was characterized by chaos and power struggles. Then around 800 BC the Assyrians (from the northern end of Mesopotamia) rose to power and dominated the entire region. The Assyrians also played a major role in the Bible, appearing frequently in the books of 2 Kings and Isaiah.

The Neo-Babylonian Empire. In the last quarter of the seventh century BC, however, the Babylonians steadily grew in power. A large migration of Arameans into Babylonia had taken place, and the people in Babylonia had replaced Akkadian with Aramaic as their spoken language. The Chaldeans, a large and powerful group living in the Babylonian region, intermarried with the descendants of these migrating Arameans to develop a civilization now known as Neo-Babylonia. Once again the city of Babylon rose to splendor and prominence. Eventually this new Babylonia wrested control of much of the ancient Near East from the Assyrians and their Egyptian allies, decisively defeating them in 612 BC to become the new superpower empire of the ancient Near East. A powerful dynasty was started by Nabopolassar (626–605 BC) and continued by Nebuchadnezzar (604–562 BC), the most powerful and prominent of Babylon’s kings.

Babylon controlled most of the ancient Near East at a critical time in biblical history. Nebuchadnezzar, the most famous Babylonian king of this era, besieged Jerusalem and destroyed it completely in 587/586 BC. Nebuchadnezzar appears in the Bible numerous times, especially in the books of 2 Kings, Jeremiah, and Daniel. He was the one responsible for taking the leadership of Judah into exile in Babylonia after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Surprisingly, this powerful empire did not last very long. As discussed below, several of the OT prophets prophesied the end of Babylon, and indeed Babylon crumbled quickly and eventually disappeared from history. How did this happen?

Persian and Greek rule. First of all, Nab­o­ni­dus, the last king of Babylon (555–539 BC), tried to revise the religion of the people away from the worship of their main god, Marduk, but he only alienated himself from the powerful nobles of Babylon as well as from the general population. Leaving his son Belshazzar in charge, Nabonidus moved to Arabia for ten years. When he finally returned, the Persians were threatening Babylon, and Nabonidus had little power to stop them. Sealing the Persian victory was the defection of Ugbaru, one of the most powerful Babylonian princes. Thus, Cyrus, king of Persia, conquered Babylon without meeting any substantial resistance from the city (539 BC). Apparently, the Babylonians greeted Cyrus more as a liberator than as a conqueror. Babylon thus became a city within the Persian Empire.

About fifty years later the city of Babylon revolted against the Persians, and the Persian king Xerxes recaptured it (482 BC), sacked it, demolished its spectacular fortifications, burned the great temple of the Babylonian god Marduk, and even carried away the statue of Marduk as a spoil of war. However, the Greek historian Herodotus, writing around 450 BC, indicates that Babylon had not been completely destroyed.

In the next century Alexander the Great conquered the entire region, defeating the Persians in 331 BC. Alexander was welcomed warmly by the remaining citizens of Babylon, and thus he treated the city favorably at first. However, in 324 BC a close friend of Alexander’s died, and Alexander tore down part of the city wall east of the royal palace to build a funeral pyre platform in his friend’s honor, thus destroying a significant part of the city.

The fall of Babylon. After Alexander died, Seleucus, one of his four generals, seized Babylon (312 BC) and plundered the city and the surrounding area. The next Seleucid king, Antiochus I (281–261 BC), dealt the death blow to the city of Babylon. He built a new capital for the region fifty-five miles to the north and then moved the entire civilian population of Babylon to the new city. The once great city of Babylon, now depopulated and seriously damaged physically by the Seleucid kings, fell into oblivion. Although Antiochus IV (173 BC) tried for a brief period to revive the city, Babylon, for all practical purposes, had ceased to exist.

The ruined site is mentioned a few other times in history. The Roman emperor Trajan spent the winter of AD 116 in Babylon, finding nothing there except ruins. The spectacular fall of Babylon and the city’s state of terrible desolation then became proverbial. In the second century AD Lucian wrote that Nineveh vanished without a trace, and that soon people will search in vain for Babylon. In fulfillment of biblical prophecy (e.g., Jer. 50–51), the city of Babylon went from being the most important and most spectacular city in the world to being a desolate, insignificant pile of rubble.

The Splendor of Babylon

During the time of Nebuchadnezzar the city of Babylon was developed into a spectacular city, certainly one of the most impressive cities in the ancient Near East. The city was built on the banks of the Euphrates River with a large, imposing bridge connecting the two banks. Huge public buildings, palaces, and temples lined the banks of the river. The city was enclosed by two walls. The gates of the outer walls have not yet been located, but archaeologists have identified nine large, impressive gates of the inner wall. The most famous of these is the Ishtar Gate, which has been dismantled and reconstructed in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. The walls of this gate are lined with bright blue glazed ceramic tile and decorated with numerous reliefs of lions and dragons. A major structure in the city was the great temple of Marduk, the central Babylonian deity, but the city also had temples dedicated to numerous other gods. Connected to the great temple was a spectacular processional street running through the heart of the city. The city also contained large residential homes as well as three immense royal palaces.

A fourth-century BC Greek historian mentions that Nebuchadnezzar built an amazing garden for one of his wives. This garden, commonly known as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, was designated by the ancient Greeks as one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Archaeologists, however, have been unable to locate such a garden in the excavations of Babylon, and some scholars doubt its existence.

Babylon in the Bible

The terms “Babylon” and “Babylonian,” in addition to the related terms “Chaldea” and “Chaldean,” appear over three hundred times in the Bible, indicating the important role that Babylon plays in Israel’s history.

Old Testament. Genesis 10:10 states that Babylon was one of the first centers of the kingdom of the mighty warrior Nimrod, but the puzzling nature of Nimrod and the difficulties encountered in interpreting Gen. 10 make it difficult to state much about this reference with certainty.

The better-known incident in Genesis regarding Babylon is the story about the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1–9). Note that in Gen. 9:1–7 God commands Noah and his family to scatter over the earth and replenish its population. The builders of the tower of Babel are doing just the opposite of the divine injunction, trying to stop the scattering.

Genesis 11:2 locates the tower of Babel on “a plain in Shinar” (cf. 10:10; 14:1), the broad, alluvial plain of the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers south of modern Baghdad. Most scholars suspect that the tower of Babel was a ziggurat, an elevated temple tower. Common in Mesopotamia, these were worship centers where priests climbed up extensive stairways to offer their sacrifices to the gods. A temple shrine usually capped the top of the ziggurat. This elevated shrine was understood to be the “gateway to the gods,” a place where human priests and their deities supposedly met. The tower of Babel story in Genesis, however, introduces a humorous wordplay regarding this tradition. “Babel” (as well as “Babylon”) means “gateway to the gods” or “gate of the gods” in the local Mesopotamian languages. Ironically, however, in Hebrew the word babel is related to balal, meaning “to confuse.” Thus, Gen. 11:9 presents a colorful wordplay or parody on the name of Babel. In a humorous criticism of the future great city, that verse suggests ironically that the name “Babel” does not really refer to the “gate of the gods” as the Mesopotamians intended, but rather to the judgmental confusion that God brought against them.

Thus, the city of Babel/Babylon carried negative connotations from the very beginning of the biblical story. Genesis 11 introduces Babel as a symbol of human arrogance and rebellion against God. Later in Israel’s history the city of Babylon will continue to have negative associations, and once again it becomes a powerful symbol of human arrogance and rebellion against God.

The books of 1–2 Kings tell the tragic story of how Israel and Judah turn away from God to worship idols, ignoring the warnings that God gives them through the prophets. As foretold, the northern kingdom, Israel, is thus destroyed by the Assyrians in 722 BC. However, the southern kingdom, Judah, also fails to take heed and continues to worship pagan gods in spite of repeated warnings and calls to repentance from the prophets. Prophets such as Jeremiah repeatedly proclaim that if Judah and Jerusalem do not repent and turn from their idolatry and acts of injustice, then God will send the Babylonians to destroy them (see esp. Jer. 20–39). Jeremiah refers to the Babylonians 198 times, and the prophet personally experiences the terrible Babylonian siege and destruction of Jerusalem. Jeremiah 39 and 52 describe the actual fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar and his Babylonian army. This same tragic story is recounted in 2 Kings 24–25. Thus, in 586 BC Nebuchadnezzar and his army completely destroy Jerusalem, burning the city and the temple to the ground and carrying off most of the population into exile in Babylonia.

Babylon appears in the OT prophetic literature in another context as well. Because of the apostasy of Israel and Judah, the prophets preach judgment on them. But the prophets also preach judgment on the enemies of Israel and Judah for exploiting or attacking and destroying God’s people. Jeremiah, for example, prophesies against numerous nations and cities (Jer. 46–49), but he focuses especially upon Babylon (Jer. 50:1–51:58). Likewise, judgment on Babylon is a central theme in Isa. 13; 14; 21; 47. In the OT, no other foe brought such terrible destruction on Jerusalem. In later literature this particular event thus becomes the prototypical picture of horrendous death and destruction, and Babylon becomes the literary symbol epitomizing all of Israel’s enemies.

New Testament. Babylon appears again at the end of the biblical story. In Rev. 17–18 John describes the enemy of God’s kingdom as a harlot dressed in scarlet and riding on a beast. One of the titles written on her head is “Babylon the Great” (17:5). Some commentators believe that John is describing a literal resurrected city of Babylon. That is, they propose that Babylon will be rebuilt on its original site and become the center of government for the antichrist. Many other scholars, however, maintain that the harlot of Rev. 17–18 symbolizes ancient Rome, not a modern rebuilt Babylon. They argue that the term “Babylon” is used symbolically in Revelation. Supporting this view is the apostle Peter’s apparent use of the term “Babylon” to refer to Rome in 1 Pet. 5:13 (“she who is in Babylon . . . sends you her greetings”). Most NT scholars conclude that in this verse “she” is a reference to the church and that “Babylon” is a coded or symbolic reference to Rome.

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

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

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

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

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

Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in the Bible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These precious stones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in the ancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.

Jewelry known in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everyday jewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among the people, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Fine jewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold or silver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn both by men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conserved wealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators of socioeconomic placing in society.

Most gold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal was shaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involved soldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form of decoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as a substitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry was inlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items. Engraving was likewise used for decoration.

Jewelry in Antiquity

Jewelry has been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC. Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in the city of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found in cemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Other specimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC. Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this period places such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athens produced beautiful gold work.

By the seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greek islands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to the goddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC, jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for the next 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold were cut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during the Classical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. Captured Persian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold and precious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks. Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenistic period. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry: carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls. Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelry came from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empire jewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. In general, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry was gold-plated and decorated with costly stones.

Certain writers in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry and precious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls as the “topmost rank among all things of price.” Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queen of Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of the Dead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shape of hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets were made of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.

Jewelry in the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamental circlet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs was known as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occur in the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts in archaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everyday life in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments of relatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver, gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets, and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circlets with two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, often artistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those of serpents.

Rings likewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in the ears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popular during the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were worn on neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment but also were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn on clothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.

Amulets were common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection from harm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets often incorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods. Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide. Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christian amulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.

Although not often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelry item in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings, circlets, and so forth.

Jewelry in the Bible

Many different items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings (Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11; Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12), rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30; Num. 31:50; 1 Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job 38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2), headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50; 2 Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18), and anklets (Isa. 3:20).

Various articles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mere aesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify the desire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servant discovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nose ring and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosen her (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over ten shekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servant indicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of the jewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.

Early in the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designated that the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain precious stones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majesty and holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod. 25:7; 35:9).

Lovers flattered one another by comparing physical features to articles of fine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’s people appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa. 49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels (61:10).

Biblical authors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry with admonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewels and jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15; 8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and a godly spouse far above jewels (31:10).

Similar to the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and other notable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like other kings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2 Sam. 1:10), which were intended to signify royalty and competence in military affairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denoted features of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior in Rev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatched power (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than seven diadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).

At times, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially when acquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as an object of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry that accompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lend credence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled with polytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideon made an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of the Midianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship for the Israelites and greatly offended God.

Kings had signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings. The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked the small semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, rings were used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11; 1 Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to seal prophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16; Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in order to signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is the usage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. The ring was placed on the returning son’s finger to show the radical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to his son’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into the household.

In certain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselves with external jewelry (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3), as this was a sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear in John’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majestic beauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets of gold (21:18–21).

Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in the Bible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These precious stones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in the ancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.

Jewelry known in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everyday jewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among the people, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Fine jewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold or silver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn both by men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conserved wealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators of socioeconomic placing in society.

Most gold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal was shaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involved soldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form of decoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as a substitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry was inlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items. Engraving was likewise used for decoration.

Jewelry in Antiquity

Jewelry has been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC. Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in the city of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found in cemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Other specimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC. Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this period places such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athens produced beautiful gold work.

By the seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greek islands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to the goddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC, jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for the next 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold were cut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during the Classical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. Captured Persian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold and precious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks. Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenistic period. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry: carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls. Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelry came from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empire jewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. In general, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry was gold-plated and decorated with costly stones.

Certain writers in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry and precious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls as the “topmost rank among all things of price.” Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queen of Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of the Dead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shape of hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets were made of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.

Jewelry in the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamental circlet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs was known as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occur in the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts in archaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everyday life in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments of relatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver, gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets, and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circlets with two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, often artistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those of serpents.

Rings likewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in the ears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popular during the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were worn on neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment but also were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn on clothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.

Amulets were common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection from harm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets often incorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods. Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide. Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christian amulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.

Although not often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelry item in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings, circlets, and so forth.

Jewelry in the Bible

Many different items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings (Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11; Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12), rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30; Num. 31:50; 1 Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job 38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2), headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50; 2 Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18), and anklets (Isa. 3:20).

Various articles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mere aesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify the desire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servant discovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nose ring and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosen her (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over ten shekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servant indicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of the jewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.

Early in the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designated that the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain precious stones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majesty and holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod. 25:7; 35:9).

Lovers flattered one another by comparing physical features to articles of fine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’s people appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa. 49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels (61:10).

Biblical authors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry with admonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewels and jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15; 8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and a godly spouse far above jewels (31:10).

Similar to the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and other notable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like other kings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2 Sam. 1:10), which were intended to signify royalty and competence in military affairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denoted features of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior in Rev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatched power (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than seven diadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).

At times, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially when acquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as an object of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry that accompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lend credence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled with polytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideon made an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of the Midianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship for the Israelites and greatly offended God.

Kings had signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings. The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked the small semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, rings were used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11; 1 Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to seal prophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16; Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in order to signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is the usage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. The ring was placed on the returning son’s finger to show the radical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to his son’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into the household.

In certain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselves with external jewelry (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3), as this was a sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear in John’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majestic beauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets of gold (21:18–21).

The southern section of the Transjordan, with the Jordan River to the west, Bashan to the north, Ammon to the east, and Moab to the south. The Jabbok River ran across it from east to west, and “Gilead” could be used either more widely to describe the whole area or more narrowly to describe the land either south or north of the Jabbok. It was a high, fertile region, famed for its healing balm and spices (Gen. 37:25; Jer. 8:22; 46:11) as well as its pastures and livestock (Num. 32:1; 1 Chron. 5:9; Song 4:1; 6:5).

Jacob named Gilead after the heap of stones that witnessed his covenant with Laban (Gen. 31:21–55). “Gilead” also became a personal and clan name (Num. 26:29–30; 27:1) when, following the Israelites’ defeat of Sihon the Amorite on their way to Canaan (Deut. 2:36; Josh. 12:1–3), the region was allotted to Reuben, Gad, and part of Manasseh (Num. 36:1; Deut. 3:10–15).

Israel drew some of its national leaders from Gilead (Judg. 10:3; 11:1) and defended it keenly against Gentile enemies (1 Sam. 11). However, there was often tension between the tribes east and west of the Jordan (Josh. 22:10–34; Judg. 5:17; 12:1–7). When David fled from Absalom (2 Sam. 17:22), crossing into the Transjordan was viewed as having left the land (2 Sam. 17:22; 19:9). Returning across the river was like a reenactment of the conquest (2 Sam. 19:15). There is similar symbolism in the Jordan crossings made by Elijah, a prophet from Gilead, and his successor, Elisha (1 Kings 17:3; 2 Kings 2:8, 14).

After the division of the kingdom, Israel’s hold on the Transjordan became increasingly tenuous. Two alliances between Israel and Judah failed to win Ramoth Gilead back from the Arameans (1 Kings 22; 2 Kings 8:28–29), and Hazael later conquered the entire region (2 Kings 10:32–33). After a brief respite under Jehoash (2 Kings 13:25), Pekah lost Gilead to Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (15:29).

Nevertheless, Gilead remained a prized possession of Yahweh (Pss. 60:7; 108:8; Jer. 22:6). Hosea may have condemned Gilead’s sinfulness (Hos. 6:8; 12:11), but the prophets also looked forward to a day when Gilead’s conquerors would be punished (Amos 1:3, 13) and its richness would be restored to Israel (Jer. 50:19; Obad. 1:19; Mic. 7:14; Zech. 10:10).

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in the Bible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These precious stones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in the ancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.

Jewelry known in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everyday jewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among the people, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Fine jewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold or silver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn both by men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conserved wealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators of socioeconomic placing in society.

Most gold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal was shaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involved soldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form of decoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as a substitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry was inlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items. Engraving was likewise used for decoration.

Jewelry in Antiquity

Jewelry has been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC. Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in the city of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found in cemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Other specimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC. Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this period places such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athens produced beautiful gold work.

By the seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greek islands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to the goddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC, jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for the next 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold were cut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during the Classical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. Captured Persian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold and precious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks. Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenistic period. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry: carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls. Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelry came from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empire jewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. In general, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry was gold-plated and decorated with costly stones.

Certain writers in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry and precious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls as the “topmost rank among all things of price.” Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queen of Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of the Dead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shape of hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets were made of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.

Jewelry in the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamental circlet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs was known as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occur in the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts in archaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everyday life in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments of relatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver, gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets, and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circlets with two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, often artistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those of serpents.

Rings likewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in the ears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popular during the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were worn on neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment but also were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn on clothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.

Amulets were common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection from harm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets often incorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods. Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide. Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christian amulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.

Although not often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelry item in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings, circlets, and so forth.

Jewelry in the Bible

Many different items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings (Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11; Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12), rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30; Num. 31:50; 1 Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job 38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2), headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50; 2 Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18), and anklets (Isa. 3:20).

Various articles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mere aesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify the desire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servant discovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nose ring and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosen her (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over ten shekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servant indicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of the jewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.

Early in the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designated that the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain precious stones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majesty and holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod. 25:7; 35:9).

Lovers flattered one another by comparing physical features to articles of fine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’s people appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa. 49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels (61:10).

Biblical authors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry with admonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewels and jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15; 8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and a godly spouse far above jewels (31:10).

Similar to the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and other notable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like other kings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2 Sam. 1:10), which were intended to signify royalty and competence in military affairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denoted features of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior in Rev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatched power (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than seven diadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).

At times, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially when acquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as an object of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry that accompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lend credence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled with polytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideon made an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of the Midianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship for the Israelites and greatly offended God.

Kings had signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings. The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked the small semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, rings were used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11; 1 Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to seal prophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16; Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in order to signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is the usage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. The ring was placed on the returning son’s finger to show the radical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to his son’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into the household.

In certain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselves with external jewelry (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3), as this was a sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear in John’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majestic beauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets of gold (21:18–21).

Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in the Bible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These precious stones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in the ancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.

Jewelry known in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everyday jewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among the people, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Fine jewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold or silver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn both by men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conserved wealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators of socioeconomic placing in society.

Most gold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal was shaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involved soldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form of decoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as a substitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry was inlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items. Engraving was likewise used for decoration.

Jewelry in Antiquity

Jewelry has been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC. Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in the city of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found in cemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Other specimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC. Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this period places such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athens produced beautiful gold work.

By the seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greek islands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to the goddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC, jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for the next 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold were cut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during the Classical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. Captured Persian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold and precious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks. Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenistic period. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry: carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls. Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelry came from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empire jewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. In general, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry was gold-plated and decorated with costly stones.

Certain writers in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry and precious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls as the “topmost rank among all things of price.” Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queen of Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of the Dead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shape of hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets were made of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.

Jewelry in the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamental circlet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs was known as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occur in the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts in archaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everyday life in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments of relatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver, gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets, and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circlets with two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, often artistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those of serpents.

Rings likewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in the ears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popular during the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were worn on neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment but also were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn on clothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.

Amulets were common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection from harm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets often incorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods. Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide. Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christian amulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.

Although not often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelry item in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings, circlets, and so forth.

Jewelry in the Bible

Many different items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings (Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11; Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12), rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30; Num. 31:50; 1 Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job 38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2), headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50; 2 Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18), and anklets (Isa. 3:20).

Various articles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mere aesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify the desire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servant discovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nose ring and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosen her (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over ten shekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servant indicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of the jewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.

Early in the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designated that the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain precious stones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majesty and holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod. 25:7; 35:9).

Lovers flattered one another by comparing physical features to articles of fine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’s people appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa. 49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels (61:10).

Biblical authors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry with admonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewels and jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15; 8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and a godly spouse far above jewels (31:10).

Similar to the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and other notable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like other kings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2 Sam. 1:10), which were intended to signify royalty and competence in military affairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denoted features of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior in Rev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatched power (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than seven diadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).

At times, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially when acquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as an object of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry that accompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lend credence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled with polytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideon made an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of the Midianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship for the Israelites and greatly offended God.

Kings had signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings. The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked the small semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, rings were used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11; 1 Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to seal prophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16; Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in order to signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is the usage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. The ring was placed on the returning son’s finger to show the radical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to his son’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into the household.

In certain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselves with external jewelry (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3), as this was a sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear in John’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majestic beauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets of gold (21:18–21).

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

Theology of Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage in the Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage in the New Testament

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

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

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

Symbolic Use of Marriage

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

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

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reception and Delivery of Oracles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Oracles

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

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

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

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

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

Means of Oracles

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

Oracles against the Foreign Nations

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

New Testament Usage

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

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

Theology of Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage in the Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage in the New Testament

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

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

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

Symbolic Use of Marriage

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

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

Taken together “poor,” “orphan,” and “widow” are mentioned in the NIV 280 times, evidence of God’s particular concern for those in need. “Poor” is an umbrella term for those who are physically impoverished or of diminished spirit. In biblical terms, “poor” would include most orphans and widows, though not every poor person was an orphan or widow. With over 170 references to the “poor” in the NIV, the biblical writers emphasize God’s concern for the poor. This is best summarized in Deuteronomy: “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land” (15:11).

The Poor

Old Testament. All sections of the OT (including the Torah, Major Prophets, Minor Prophets, and wisdom literature) contain both instructions and warnings regarding the treatment of the poor. Portions of the tithes and offerings were to be set aside for the needs of the poor (Deut. 14:28–29; 26:12–13). The law made specific provisions that allowed the poor in the land to glean from fields that they had not planted or tended (Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22). Boaz’s allowance of Ruth’s gleanings is an example (Ruth 2:7–8, 15, 23).

Favor was given to those who were kind to the poor (Job 29:12; 30:25; 31:16; Ps. 112:9; Prov. 19:17; 22:9; 28:8, 27; Isa. 58:5–7; Jer. 22:16). Inversely, those who did not care for the poor were strongly warned (Prov. 21:13; Ezek. 16:49; Amos 8:4–9). The OT often warns against oppression of the poor, with the added emphasis that God is their defender (2 Sam. 12:3–4; Job 20:19; Pss. 109:16; 140:12; Prov. 14:31; 23:11; Isa. 3:14). If a poor person made a vow, specific regulations were provided to prevent a pledge of unfair amount and to prevent the pledge from being kept overlong (Lev. 27:8; Deut. 24:12). Israelites who were hired as workers because they were impoverished were to be treated fairly and not as slaves (Lev. 25:39–42; Deut. 24:14–15). The poor were to be judged fairly, being shown neither favoritism nor oppression because of their situation (Exod. 23:3, 6; 30:15; Lev. 19:15; Job 34:19; Ps. 49:2; Isa. 10:2).

In addition, the poor were not to be disregarded in the Sabbath Year or Jubilee Year. During the Sabbath Year, the poor and the needy of the land were permitted to gather food from the land, including the fields, olive groves, and vineyards (Exod. 23:11). If a man became poor and was forced to sell his land, and if it was not redeemed by a family member, the land would be returned to the man during the Jubilee Year (Lev. 25:25–30). Also, if a man was forced to submit himself to being a hired worker, he would be redeemed in the Jubilee Year (Lev. 25:47–54).

New Testament. The NT advances the atmosphere of kindness and nonoppression toward the poor and those in need found in the OT. The NT church was marked by such a real and selfless generosity that its members sold their own possessions and gave to “anyone who had need” (Acts 2:45). The poor were to be treated with generosity, and needs were to be addressed whenever they were discovered (Matt. 19:21; Luke 3:11; 11:41; 12:33; 14:13; 19:8; Acts 6:1; 9:36; Rom. 15:26; Gal. 2:10).

Kindness to the poor was regarded as a natural manifestation of the love of God. Several NT writers considered a lack of concern and kindness toward the poor in a believer’s life cause to question the authenticity of that person’s faith (James 2:15–16; 1 John 3:17–18).

Furthermore, because of the incarnation of Christ, in which the almighty God chose to dwell with humanity, distinctions between believers on the basis of material wealth and, more specifically, favoritism toward the rich were expressly forbidden by the NT writers (1 Cor. 11:20–22; Phil. 2:1–8; James 2:1–4).

Orphans

Other specific biblical instructions regarding people in need concern those without parents and especially those without a father. Such individuals are referred to as “fatherless.” As with the provisions made for the poor, oppression of orphans or the fatherless was strictly forbidden (Exod. 22:22; Deut. 24:17; 27:19; Isa. 1:17; 10:1–2; Zech. 7:10). Furthermore, God is often referred to as the provider and helper of the orphan or fatherless (Deut. 10:18; Pss. 10:14, 18; 68:5; 146:9; Jer. 49:11). Jesus promised not to leave his followers as “orphans,” implying that he would not leave them unprotected (John 14:18). In one of the clearest statements of how Christian belief is to manifest itself, James states, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27). (See also Fatherless.)

Widows

Since widows are bereft of their husbands and thus similar to orphans in vulnerability and need, they are the beneficiaries of special provisions in both Testaments. Oppression was forbidden (Exod. 22:22), provisions were to be given in similar fashion to that of the poor and orphans (Deut. 24:19–21), and ample warnings were given to those who would deny justice to widows (Deut. 27:19). Jesus raised a widow’s son from death (Luke 7:14–15), a miracle especially needed because she lacked provision after her only son’s death. The apostle Paul gave specific rules to Timothy regarding who should be placed on the list of widows to receive daily food: they must be over sixty years old and must have been faithful to their husbands (1 Tim. 5:9). In the book of Revelation, a desolate city without inhabitants is aptly described as a “widow” (18:7). (See also Widow.)

Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in the Bible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These precious stones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in the ancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.

Jewelry known in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everyday jewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among the people, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Fine jewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold or silver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn both by men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conserved wealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators of socioeconomic placing in society.

Most gold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal was shaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involved soldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form of decoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as a substitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry was inlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items. Engraving was likewise used for decoration.

Jewelry in Antiquity

Jewelry has been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC. Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in the city of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found in cemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Other specimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC. Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this period places such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athens produced beautiful gold work.

By the seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greek islands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to the goddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC, jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for the next 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold were cut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during the Classical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. Captured Persian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold and precious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks. Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenistic period. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry: carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls. Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelry came from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empire jewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. In general, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry was gold-plated and decorated with costly stones.

Certain writers in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry and precious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls as the “topmost rank among all things of price.” Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queen of Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of the Dead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shape of hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets were made of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.

Jewelry in the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamental circlet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs was known as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occur in the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts in archaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everyday life in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments of relatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver, gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets, and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circlets with two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, often artistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those of serpents.

Rings likewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in the ears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popular during the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were worn on neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment but also were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn on clothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.

Amulets were common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection from harm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets often incorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods. Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide. Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christian amulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.

Although not often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelry item in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings, circlets, and so forth.

Jewelry in the Bible

Many different items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings (Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11; Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12), rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30; Num. 31:50; 1 Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job 38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2), headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50; 2 Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18), and anklets (Isa. 3:20).

Various articles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mere aesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify the desire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servant discovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nose ring and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosen her (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over ten shekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servant indicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of the jewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.

Early in the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designated that the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain precious stones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majesty and holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod. 25:7; 35:9).

Lovers flattered one another by comparing physical features to articles of fine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’s people appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa. 49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels (61:10).

Biblical authors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry with admonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewels and jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15; 8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and a godly spouse far above jewels (31:10).

Similar to the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and other notable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like other kings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2 Sam. 1:10), which were intended to signify royalty and competence in military affairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denoted features of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior in Rev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatched power (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than seven diadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).

At times, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially when acquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as an object of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry that accompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lend credence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled with polytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideon made an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of the Midianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship for the Israelites and greatly offended God.

Kings had signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings. The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked the small semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, rings were used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11; 1 Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to seal prophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16; Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in order to signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is the usage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. The ring was placed on the returning son’s finger to show the radical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to his son’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into the household.

In certain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselves with external jewelry (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3), as this was a sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear in John’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majestic beauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets of gold (21:18–21).

The acquisition of another’s property by force or threat. This crime was perpetrated by bandits (Hos. 7:1), often through ambush (Judg. 9:25). In Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan, the robbers’ attack leaves the victim half dead (Luke 10:30). The eighth commandment’s prohibition against stealing (Exod. 20:15; Deut. 5:19) certainly includes robbery, which is explicitly condemned in Lev. 19:13. OT law does not distinguish robbery from theft, which is done by stealth or deception, likely because the unlawful seizure of another’s goods was seen as a civil crime and the legal emphasis was on the restitution of property along with some compensation for distress, which varied according to the item stolen and served as a deterrent to thieves (Exod. 22:1, 4; Lev. 6:1–7). If unable to make restitution, the criminal could be sold into slavery to pay the debt (Exod. 22:3). Should the violence of robbery result in injury, laws concerning personal injury applied (Exod. 21:23–25; Lev. 24:19–20). In fact, under certain conditions, the law addresses an injured thief as the victim and not the perpetrator of violence (Exod. 22:2–3). The two men crucified with Jesus are traditionally described as “robbers” (Matt. 27:38; Mark 15:27), though in this case the Greek word (lēstēs) likely refers to rebels or insurrectionists (NLT: “revolutionaries”). This was the Roman authorities’ way of casting them as common criminals rather than as freedom fighters.

God declares his hatred for robbery, contrasting it with justice (Isa. 61:8). Robbery is often an example of injustice, especially when perpetrated upon the poor (Isa. 10:2; Ezek. 22:29). Rescuing a victim from a robber is enjoined as a just action (Jer. 21:12; 22:3), one for which God himself deserves praise (Ps. 35:10). God describes himself as the victim of robbery as he accuses Israel of stealing from him by withholding its tithes (Mal. 3:8–9).

Greek has two different words to distinguish a robber (lēstēs) from a thief (kleptēs). In the NT, robbery appears primarily as a metaphor. Jesus uses it to represent false prophets (John 10:1, 8), his own plunder of Satan’s house (Matt. 12:29; Mark 3:27), and, in a reference from Jer. 7:11, those seeking economic gain in the temple (Matt. 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46).

The acquisition of another’s property by force or threat. This crime was perpetrated by bandits (Hos. 7:1), often through ambush (Judg. 9:25). In Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan, the robbers’ attack leaves the victim half dead (Luke 10:30). The eighth commandment’s prohibition against stealing (Exod. 20:15; Deut. 5:19) certainly includes robbery, which is explicitly condemned in Lev. 19:13. OT law does not distinguish robbery from theft, which is done by stealth or deception, likely because the unlawful seizure of another’s goods was seen as a civil crime and the legal emphasis was on the restitution of property along with some compensation for distress, which varied according to the item stolen and served as a deterrent to thieves (Exod. 22:1, 4; Lev. 6:1–7). If unable to make restitution, the criminal could be sold into slavery to pay the debt (Exod. 22:3). Should the violence of robbery result in injury, laws concerning personal injury applied (Exod. 21:23–25; Lev. 24:19–20). In fact, under certain conditions, the law addresses an injured thief as the victim and not the perpetrator of violence (Exod. 22:2–3). The two men crucified with Jesus are traditionally described as “robbers” (Matt. 27:38; Mark 15:27), though in this case the Greek word (lēstēs) likely refers to rebels or insurrectionists (NLT: “revolutionaries”). This was the Roman authorities’ way of casting them as common criminals rather than as freedom fighters.

God declares his hatred for robbery, contrasting it with justice (Isa. 61:8). Robbery is often an example of injustice, especially when perpetrated upon the poor (Isa. 10:2; Ezek. 22:29). Rescuing a victim from a robber is enjoined as a just action (Jer. 21:12; 22:3), one for which God himself deserves praise (Ps. 35:10). God describes himself as the victim of robbery as he accuses Israel of stealing from him by withholding its tithes (Mal. 3:8–9).

Greek has two different words to distinguish a robber (lēstēs) from a thief (kleptēs). In the NT, robbery appears primarily as a metaphor. Jesus uses it to represent false prophets (John 10:1, 8), his own plunder of Satan’s house (Matt. 12:29; Mark 3:27), and, in a reference from Jer. 7:11, those seeking economic gain in the temple (Matt. 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46).

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

Governmental agencies established to distribute money, vouchers, medical coverage, and other necessities to those who are in need and who qualify for such distributions according to government-established rubrics. Welfare programs as we know them in our own modern societies are modern creations of secular states and are not aspects of the biblical or ancient Near Eastern world. The Bible, however, significantly addresses the complex subject of poverty and Israel’s responsibility to the poor.

The OT emphasizes Israel’s responsibility for the poor, especially fellow Israelites, but also foreigners sojourning in Israel (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:25, 35; Ruth 2:10). Because of the blessings bestowed on them by God, Israelites were commanded to be personally generous to those in need (Lev. 25:36–38; Deut. 15:7–13). They were to underharvest their fields, vineyards, and groves so that the poor might glean from them (Lev. 19:9–10; Deut. 24:19–22; Ruth 2:2–3, 7–11). Those who aided the poor were promised blessing (Prov. 19:17; 22:9; 28:27).

The powerful were not to oppress the poor by lending to them usuriously (Lev. 25:36–38) or enslaving them indefinitely (Lev. 25:39–42; Deut. 15:12; 24:14–15). Oppression was a grave offense because God had led Israel out from oppression in Egypt (Exod. 22:21; 22:9; Ps. 72:4, 12–14; Prov. 22:16; Jer. 22:17–19; Ezek. 18:5–9; 22:29–31; Amos 4:1–3).

Particularly in Proverbs, Israel is also cautioned against behaviors that lead to poverty, including sloth (6:6), slacking (10:4), neglecting discipline (13:18; 20:13), loving sleep (20:13), loving pleasure (21:17), heavy drinking and gluttony (23:21), and empty pursuits (28:19).

The NT builds and expands on the OT’s admonitions about treatment of the poor. Giving to the poor remains an imperative (Acts 2:45; Rom. 12:13; James 2:15; 1 John 3:17), but it is to be done without fanfare (Matt. 6:2–3; Mark 12:38–40). Generosity ought to be from the heart and regardless of means (Luke 21:2–4; 2 Cor. 8:1–5), yet not under compulsion (2 Cor. 8:8–9; 9:7). Christians are called to assume responsibility for themselves (2 Cor. 11:9; Eph. 4:28; 2 Thess. 3:7–11) and their families (1 Tim. 5:8, 16).