The word for “blood” in the Bible (Heb. dam; Gk. haima) is used both literally and metaphorically. “Blood” is a significant biblical term for understanding purity boundaries and theological concepts. Blood is a dominant ritual symbol in biblical literature. In ancient Jewish, Greco-Roman, and early Christian usage blood had both positive and negative connotations. Blood was used in sacrifices and purification rites, and it was inherently connected to menstruation, animal slaughter, and legal culpability. Among the physical properties of blood are the ability to coagulate, the liquid state of the substance (Rev. 16:3–4), and the ability to stain (Rev. 19:13). Blood can symbolize moral order in terms of cult, law, and power.

Jewish Background

Blood played a major role in the Jewish sacrificial system. The blood of the sacrifice was handled with care and was applied to the sacrificer. This ritual treatment provided indirect contact between the person to be purified and the altar. An example of such indirect treatment is seen in a purification rite involving a pair of birds. One bird is slaughtered in the presence of the impure person. The surviving bird is dipped into the blood of the slaughtered bird, and the person is sprinkled with the same blood. Indirect contact is thus established between the impure person and the living bird. When the bird next was released, the impurities of the person flew away with the bird (Lev. 14:6–7, 49–53).

Sin offerings followed a similar concept of indirect contact. On Yom Kippur, the annual Day of Atonement, the high priest made a series of sin offerings (Exod. 30:10; Lev. 16:3–19). Sin offerings likewise were used to consecrate altars (Exod. 29:35–37; Lev. 6:23; Ezek. 43:18–27). The use of an animal sacrifice for the cleansing of altars meant indirect contact between the altar and the sacrificial animal when the blood of the animal was dotted on the horns and poured out into the trough at the base of the altar. The animal thus received the impurity. The blood effected indirect contact between the impure person and the receiving sacrifice or altar.

Greco-Roman Background

Blood played a crucial role in ritualistic sacrifice in ancient Greek culture and was incorporated into the later (Greco-) Roman cults as well. It was used in oath rituals and as an agent of purification in Greek religious practice. Both persons and shrines underwent blood purifications. The use of special utensils for the handling of blood implied the significance of the substance in Greek tradition and the rituals of which it was part.

The mystery cults in the Greco-Roman world attached a broad range of soteriological understanding to blood. In this understanding, the purification function of blood was the most salient concept attached to blood in mystery cult usage. Generally speaking, blood was considered a literal agent of purification. However, within Mithraism, for example, blood had a symbolic function and benefited the cult initiate.

Old Testament Usage

The usage of blood in the OT is predominantly negative. The first direct mention of blood in the biblical text involves a homicide (Gen. 4:10). Henceforward, the shedding of human blood is a main concern (Gen. 9:6). Other concerns pertaining to blood include dietary prohibitions of blood (Lev. 17:10–12), purity issues such as the flow of blood as in menstrual blood (Lev. 15:19–24), and blood as a part of religious rites such as circumcision (Gen. 17:10–11; Exod. 4:24–26).

Leviticus 17:11 contains a central statement in the OT concerning the significant role of blood in the sacrificial system: “The life of a creature is in the blood.” Blood was collected from all animal sacrifices, and blood was poured onto the altar (Lev. 1:5).

The covenant with Abraham was sealed with a covenantal ritual (Gen. 15:10–21). Moses sealed the covenant between the Israelites and God with a blood ritual during which young Israelite men offered young bulls among other sacrifices as fellowship offerings (Exod. 24:5). Moses read the words of the Book of the Covenant and sprinkled the blood of the bulls on the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod. 24:7–8).

During the Passover observance at the time of the exodus, blood was placed on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the Hebrews (Exod. 12:7). Not only altars were sprinkled and thus consecrated with blood, but priests were as well. Aaron and his sons were consecrated by the application of blood to their right earlobe, thumb, and big toe, and the sprinkling of blood and oil on their garments (Exod. 29:20). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the holy of holies and sprinkled blood on the mercy seat to seek atonement for the sins of the people (Lev. 16:15).

Whenever blood is involved in a religious occurrence, one can speak of a ritual, ceremony, or rite. The rite of circumcision likewise was a blood ceremony (Gen. 17:10–11; Exod. 4:24–26). Rabbinic tradition reveals that during circumcision ceremonies Scripture was read with an emphasis on blood. An example of such a reading is found in Ezek. 16:6: “Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, ‘Live!’ ”

New Testament Usage

Many events in the passion of Christ include references to blood. During the Last Supper, Jesus redefined the last Passover cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Judas betrayed “innocent blood” (Matt. 27:4), and the money he received for his betrayal was referred to as “blood money” (Matt. 27:6). At Jesus’ trial, Pilate washed his hands and declared, “I am innocent of this man’s blood” (Matt. 27:24).

The apostle Paul wrote that believers are justified by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9). This justification or righteous standing with God was effected through Christ’s blood sacrifice (Rom. 3:25–26; 5:8). The writer of Hebrews stressed the instrumental role of blood in bringing about forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). In the picture of the ideal community of Christ, the martyrs in the book of Revelation are situated closest to the throne of God because “they triumphed over him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (12:11). The blood of the Lamb, Christ, is the effective agent here and throughout the NT, bringing about the indirect contact between sinner and God.

Theological Observations

When the phrase “blood of Christ” is used, scholars debate whether it refers to the death of Christ or the life of Christ as released from his body. When, under the old covenant, an animal was killed as part of the sacrificial system, the animal’s blood was shed. Scholars wonder if the shedding of the animal’s blood was an indication that life had ended or that the life of the animal was now released from its body and presented as an offering to God. In the same vein, when Christ died on the cross and his blood flowed, was it an indication that his life had ended or that his life had been released from his body and was presented as an offering to the Father? Scholars who hold the second view contend that OT references to blood as the source of life (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:1; Deut. 12:23) are taken up in the NT. Although the death of Christ was unfortunate, the emphasis lies on his life having been set free for the purpose of bringing salvation. Scholars who hold the first view, which is the traditional view, point out that the overwhelming majority of the time when the word “dam” is used in the OT, it has a negative connotation, pertaining to death or violence. Hence, when the Hebrews heard the phrase “blood of Christ,” a correlation with death rather than life likely came to mind. Indeed, Heb. 9:14–15 relates the “blood of Christ” to his death as a ransom.

Clouds and theophany. The storm god Baal occupied a central place in Canaanite religion, and so a cloud, especially a rain cloud, was considered a prominent manifestation of the divine presence. In Ugaritic texts Baal is described as the “rider on the cloud.”

The OT depicts the God of Israel in similar terms, as riding on a cloud (Judg. 5:4; Isa. 19:1; Pss. 18:11–12; 68:4; 104:3), and as the creator and sender of clouds: “Ask rain from the Lord in the season of the spring rain; from the Lord who makes the storm clouds, and he will give them showers of rain, to everyone the vegetation in the field” (Zech. 10:1 ESV [see also 1 Kings 18:44; Pss. 135:7; 147:8; Prov. 8:28; Isa. 5:6; Jer. 10:13]). Divine judgment is pictured as a dark storm (Isa. 30:30; Lam. 2:1; Nah. 1:3; Zech. 1:15). In his taunt against the king of Babylon, Isaiah attributes to the king the arrogant intention of ascending “above the tops of the clouds,” that is, to the dwelling place of God (Isa. 14:14).

At several crucial points God manifested his presence among the Israelites in the form of a cloud: in the wilderness (the “pillar of cloud” of Exod. 13:21 and elsewhere), on Mount Sinai (Exod. 19:9; 24:15), in the tabernacle (Exod. 40:34), in the temple at Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:10), and frequently in the visions of Ezekiel (e.g., Ezek. 1:4; 10:3).

The NT continues the imagery of the cloud as a manifestation of divine presence in the story of the transfiguration (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:36), and also in depictions of Jesus as a cloud-rider in Matt. 26:64; Rev. 14:14 (see Dan. 7:13). Jesus was hidden by a cloud when he ascended (Acts 1:9), and believers will be caught up by clouds at his return (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 11:12).

Clouds in nature. A handful of biblical texts describe clouds appearing in the land of Israel from the west, from the Mediterranean Sea (1 Kings 18:14; Luke 12:54).

Clouds stand for the highest point in the sky (Job 35:5; Jer. 51:9). They were understood to release their rain when full (Eccles. 11:3). Clouds are associated with rainbows (Gen. 9:13; Rev. 10:1).

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hebrew word ’erets occurs 2,505 times in the OT and is most frequently translated “country” or “land.” “Earth” renders the Greek word gē in the NT. Not surprisingly, ’erets appears 311 times in Genesis alone, the book that initiates Israel’s landed covenant (Gen. 15:18). The primary uses of ’erets are cosmological (e.g., the earth) and geographical (e.g., the land of Israel). Other uses of ’erets include physical (e.g., the ground on which one stands) and political (e.g., governed countries) designations. Less frequently, “earth” translates the Hebrew word ’adamah (“country, ground, land, soil”).

Heaven and Earth

Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12–13). Similarly, the Akkadian text Hymn to the Sun-God states, “You [Shamash] are holding the ends of the earth suspended from the midst of heaven” (I:22). The earth’s boundaries were set against chaos (Ps. 104:7–9; Isa. 40:12). In this way, the Creator and the Savior cannot be separated because, taken together, God works against chaos in the mission of redemption (Ps. 74:12–17; Isa. 51:9–11). The phrase “heavens and earth” is a merism (two extremes representing the whole) for the entire universe (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 102:25). Over the earth arched a firm “vault” (Gen. 1:6). Heaven’s vault rested on the earth’s “pillars,” the mountains (Deut. 32:22; 1 Sam. 2:8). Below the heavens is the sea, part of the earth’s flat surface.

There was no term for “world” in the OT. The perception of world was basically bipartite (heaven and earth), though some tripartite expressions also occur (e.g., heaven, earth, sea [Exod. 20:11; Rev. 5:3, 13]). Though rare, some uses of ’erets may refer to the “underworld” or Sheol (Exod. 15:12; Jer. 17:13; Jon. 2:6). The earth can be regarded as the realm of the dead (Matt. 12:40; Eph. 4:9). However, the OT is less concerned with the organic structure of the earth than with what fills the earth: inhabitants (Ps. 33:14; Isa. 24:1), people groups (Gen. 18:18; Deut. 28:10), and kingdoms (Deut. 28:25; 2 Kings 19:15). The term ’erets can be used symbolically to indicate its inhabitants (Gen. 6:11). However, unlike its neighbors, Israel acknowledged no divine “Mother Earth,” given the cultural associations with female consorts.

The Theology of Land

In biblical faith, the concept of land combines geography with theology. The modern person values land more as a place to build than for its productive capacities. But from the outset, human beings and the “earth” (’erets) functioned in a symbiotic relationship with the Creator (Gen. 1:28). God even gave the land agency to “bring forth living creatures” (Gen. 1:24). The “ground” (’adamah) also provided the raw substance to make the human being (’adam [Gen. 2:7]). In turn, the human being was charged with developing and protecting the land (Gen. 2:5, 15). Showing divine care, the Noahic covenant was “between [God] and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). Thus, land was no mere onlooker; human rebellion had cosmic effects (Gen. 6:7, 17). The land could be cursed and suffer (Gen. 3:17; cf. 4:11).

Israel’s promised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen. 13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing, fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orienting points for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise, “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27). Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity and judgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationship with God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; this could ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits” people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).

For Israel, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen. 15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithful obedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1 Kings 2:1–4). Conditionality and unconditionality coexisted in Israel’s relationship of “sonship” with Yahweh (Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen. 18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was the supreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance” to give (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). The Levites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did the other tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20; Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter and to occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3). Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when they accused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however, no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance” (Josh. 13:1).

Land possession had serious ethical and religious ramifications (Deut. 26:1–11). Israel was not chosen to receive a special land; rather, land was the medium of Israel’s relationship with God. Land functioned as a spiritual barometer (Ps. 78:56–64; Lam. 1:3–5). The heavens and earth stood as covenant witnesses (Deut. 4:26). Blood, in particular, could physically pollute the land (Num. 35:30–34). National sin could culminate in expulsion (Lev. 26:32–39), and eventually the land was lost (Jer. 25:1–11). For this reason, Israel’s exiles prompted a profound theological crisis.

Inheritance

The notion of inheritance connected Israel’s religious worship with practical stewardship. Land was not owned; it was passed down through patrimonial succession. God entrusted each family with an inheritance that was to be safeguarded (Lev. 25:23–28; Mic. 2:1–2). This highlights the serious crime when Naboth’s vineyard was forcibly stolen (1 Kings 21). It was Israel’s filial sonship with Yahweh and Israel’s land tenure that formed Yahweh’s solidarity with the nation. The law helped limit Israel’s attachment to mere real estate: Yahweh was to be Israel’s preoccupation (see Jer. 3:6–25). When the nation was finally exiled, the message of the new covenant transcended geographical boundaries (Jer. 32:36–44; Ezek. 36–37; cf. Lev. 26:40–45; Deut. 30:1–10). In postexilic Israel, sanctuary was prioritized (Hag. 1:9–14).

It was Israel’s redefinition of land through the exile that prepared the way for the incorporation of the Gentiles (Ezek. 47:22–23), an integration already anticipated (Isa. 56:3–7). The prophets saw a time when the nations would share in the inheritance of God previously guarded by Israel (Isa. 60; Zech. 2:11; cf. Gen. 12:3). Viewed as a political territory, land receives no substantial theological treatment in the NT; rather, inheritance surpasses covenant metaphor. Using the language of sonship and inheritance, Paul develops this new Gentile mission in Galatians (cf. Col. 1:13–14). The OT land motif fully flowers in the NT teaching of adoption (cf. 1 Pet. 1:3–5). Both curse and covenant are resolved eschatologically (Rom. 8:19–22). Inheritance is now found in Christ (Eph. 2:11–22; 1 Pet. 1:4). In the economy of the new covenant, land tenure has matured in fellowship (koinōnia). Koinōnia recalibrates the ethical significance of OT land themes, reapplying them practically through inclusion, lifestyle, economic responsibility, and social equity.

Beyond cosmological realms, heaven and earth are also theological horizons still under God’s ownership. What began as the creation mandate to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28) culminates in the new creation with Christ (Rom. 8:4–25). Under the power of Satan, the earth “lags behind” heaven. Christ’s mission brings what is qualitatively of heaven onto the earthly stage, often using signs of the budding rule of God (Matt. 6:10; Mark 2:10–11; John 3:31–36; Eph. 4:9–13; Heb. 12:25). As Israel was to stand out in a hostile world (Deut. 4:5–8), now those of Abrahamic faith stand out through Christian love (John 13:34–35; Rom. 4:9–16). According to Heb. 4:1–11, Israel’s initial rest in the land (see Exod. 33:14; Deut. 12:9) culminates in the believers’ rest in Christ (Heb. 4:3, 5). The former inheritance of space gives way to the inheritance of Christ’s presence. The OT theme of land is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus’ exhortation to “abide in me” (John 15).

Earthquake–In Palestine there have been about seventeen recorded major earthquakes in the past two millennia. One of the major sources of these earthquakes is believed to originate from the Jordan Rift Valley. In antiquity earthquakes were viewed as fearful events because the mountains, which represented everlasting durability, were disturbed. The confession of faith is pronounced in association with such phenomena (“We will not fear, though the earth give way” [Ps. 46:2]). An earthquake must have made a great impact in Amos’s day (“two years before the earthquake” [Amos 1:1; cf. Zech. 14:5]).

An earthquake has many symbolic meanings. First, the power of God and his divine presence are manifested through it (Job 9:6; Ps. 68:8; Hag. 2:6). It accompanied theophanic revelation (Exod. 19:18; Isa. 6:4; 1 Kings 19:11–12) when the glory of the Lord appeared (Ezek. 3:12). His divine presence was especially felt when earthquakes occurred during the time of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:54; 28:2). It led the centurion to confess of Christ, “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54). God’s salvation power is represented when an earthquake comes at the appropriate moment, such as when it freed Paul and Silas from prison (Acts 16:26).

Second, it is used in the context of God’s judgment (Isa. 13:13; Amos 9:1; Nah. 1:5). It becomes the symbol of God’s anger and wrath (Ps. 18:7). God brought earthquakes upon the people to destroy evil in the world and to punish those who had sinned against him (Num. 16:31–33; Isa. 29:6; Ezek. 38:19). Earthquake activity possibly explains the background to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24).

Third, earthquakes are said to precede the end of time (Matt. 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11). In the apocalyptic book of Revelation, earthquakes are regular occurrences (Rev. 6:12; 11:13, 19; 16:18).

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

Recounted in Gen. 6:5–9:19, the flood is the event whereby God destroys all creatures except for Noah, his family, and a gathering of animals. The account is highly literary and God-centered. It opens and closes with Noah’s three sons (6:10; 9:18–19). Noah’s obedience is highlighted (7:5, 9, 16). God is the protagonist, and Noah remains silent.

Terminology. The Hebrew word for “flood” is mabbul, and the Greek word is kataklysmos. Outside of the Gen. 6–9 narrative and references to the flood in Gen. 10:1, 32; 11:10, mabbul occurs only in Ps. 29:10, probably a reference to the primordial water stored above the firmament in jars (cf. Gen. 1:7; 7:11). The LXX translates mabbul with kataklysmos in Sir. 40:10; 44:17–18; 4 Macc. 15:31. Hebrew Sirach and the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon also use mabbul for the flood (Sir. 44:17; 1QapGen ar 12:9–10). All four uses of kataklysmos in the NT refer to the flood (Matt. 24:38–39; Luke 17:27; 2 Pet. 2:5).

The flood narrative. In Gen. 6:5–22, God observes the grand scale of human wickedness, determines to destroy all life, and selects righteous Noah to build an ark. God’s “seeing” is judicial investigation (6:5, 13) that counters the sons of God who “saw” (6:2), just as his pained heart counters humankind’s wicked heart (6:5–6). God’s second statement, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race” (6:7), is his judicial sentence (cf. 3:15–19), affecting all life in the domain of human care (1:28; cf. Job 38:41; Ps. 36:6; Hos. 4:3; Joel 1:20).

The earth’s corruption and violence (Gen. 6:12–13) reflect a spectrum of evil that has despoiled a creation that was once “very good” (1:31; cf. 6:17; 7:21; 8:17; 9:11). God’s destruction responds to the moral corruption of the earth. The ark is a rectangular vessel designed for floating rather than sailing (6:14–15). Noah builds a microcosm of the earth to save its life. The boat’s windowlike openings and three decks reflect the cosmology of Gen. 1 (heavens, water, earth [cf. 6:16]). God makes a promise that Noah will survive and receive a covenant from God (6:18), fulfilled in the Noahic covenant following the flood (9:9, 11, 14–17).

Genesis 7:1–24 recounts the boarding of the ark and then the rising waters. Two numbering systems are used by the narrator in the flood narrative: one for dates of Noah’s age (day, month, year) and one for periods between flood stages. Both systems number between 365 and 370 days. The flood is portrayed as a reversal of the second and third days of creation. Watery boundaries that God once separated collapse (cf. 1:6–10). The rising flood is described in three phases: rising and lifting the ark (7:17), increasing greatly and floating the ark on the surface (7:18), and covering all the high mountains (7:19). Total destruction is amplified by reversing the order of creation—people, animals, birds (7:23)—with “all/every” occurring repeatedly in 7:21–23.

Genesis 8:1–22 recounts the disembarking and Noah’s sacrifice. Genesis 8:1 is the structural and theological center, with God fulfilling (= “remember”) his covenant promise for Noah’s safety. The ark rests on one mountain within the range in eastern Turkey (Kurdistan). The earth’s drying occurs as a process (8:3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14), and echoes of creation reappear (e.g., “wind” [8:1; cf. 1:2]). Although the old curse is not lifted (cf. 5:29), God promises not to add to it (8:21). The flood has not reformed the human heart; it has only stopped the violence. God’s oath of restoration reaffirms the seamless rhythm of seasons that comprise a full year (8:22).

Genesis 9:1–19 recounts the restoration of world order. Since murder was part of the antediluvian violence (6:11, 13), God’s law recalibrates earthly morality (9:5). God’s second postdiluvian speech encodes his plan for the broader preservation of creation (9:8–17). “My rainbow” is God’s confirming sign (9:13). The meteorological phenomenon of the storm is now harnessed as an image of peace. The cosmic warrior “hangs up” his bow in divine disarmament. Humankind now shares the responsibility of justice with God, illustrated in Noah’s first speech of cursing and blessing (9:20–27).

Ancient Near Eastern parallels. Without literary dependence on the biblical story, parallels to the biblical account exist in the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic, Gilgamesh Tablet XI, and the Sumerian King List. The exact relationship between the biblical account and these Near Eastern accounts is a debated subject. Perhaps they are variants of a similar story based on the same historical event.

Generation has three primary meanings in the Bible: (1) a length of time, (2) a group of people of the same period of time, and (3) a stage in the line of a person’s lineage. It also has three metaphorical or secondary uses.

First, “generation” as a length of time generally involves the duration of time between a person’s birth and the birth of that person’s children. The number “forty” is often associated with the length of a generation because God made the Israelites wander in the wilderness for forty years so that one generation would pass away and another arise (cf. Num. 32:13). However, two points should be noted. First, the actual number of years was determined to be forty because the people had spied out the land for forty days (Num. 14:34), not because a generation lasted forty years. Second, the forty years applied to those who were age twenty or older. Since the purpose of the forty years in the wilderness was to allow one generation of adults to pass on (14:30–35), the forty years may represent the upper limit of the expected length of an adult’s life in the wilderness conditions, which would be sixty years. In fact, when Moses speaks to Israel on the plains of Moab, he mentions that Israel crossed the Zered Valley thirty-eight years after the wilderness wanderings had begun, and that the entire previous generation had died (Deut. 2:14). This comment shows that forty years has less to do with a generation than with the expected life span of an adult in the wilderness. Other passages provide no hints for the length of a generation, such that the specific length of a generation is not recorded in the Bible. Furthermore, since a generation represents the duration of time between a person’s birth and the birth of that person’s children, it is also not a fixed number but rather represents an imprecise period of time. In one passage “generations” are even set alongside “ages,” which represent longer durations of an indefinite period of time (Col. 1:26).

Second, “generation” often is used to represent a group of people of the same period of time. It may refer to a group of people who live during the same time (Gen. 7:1) or those who were born at approximately the same time (Exod. 1:6; Num. 32:13; Deut. 1:35).

Third, “generation” is also commonly used to represent a stage in the line of a person’s lineage. This use often is preceded by an ordinal number (first, second, third, etc.). On several occasions it occurs in a context highlighting the severity of sin. It occurs in the formulaic statement of God’s self-revelation found in Exod. 20:5; 34:7 and repeated in Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9. God is described as loving, merciful, and forgiving, but also as jealous, not leaving the guilty unpunished to the third and fourth generation. It also occurs in legal contexts concerning the inclusion of Gentiles into the assembly of the Lord (Deut. 23:1–8). Its use in this way highlights the continuity of God’s work even through the transitions of a family from one generation to another.

Finally, the word “generation” often is used in a secondary way or in a formulaic statement. First, several times the word describes one aspect of God’s relationship to a particular person and his descendants or a nation. Sometimes it describes the long-lasting nature of God’s promise (Gen. 9:12; 17:7); at other times, it describes the long-lasting responsibility of the person and his descendants or a nation, especially as it relates to Israel and the law given at Sinai (Gen. 17:9–21; Exod. 12:14; 16:32–33; 27:21; 29:42). Second, the word may emphasize the continuous nature of a condition or obligation (Exod. 3:15; 17:16; Esther 9:28; Pss. 33:11; 45:17; 49:11; 72:5; 79:13). Third, the word refers to a particular class or type of people, such as the righteous (Pss. 14:5 [in some translations]; 112:2) or the wicked (Deut. 32:5; Prov. 30:11 [in some translations]; Matt. 11:16; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:41; Acts 2:40).

The color primarily associated with vegetation (Gen. 1:30; 9:3; Exod. 10:15), particularly the new growth after rain (2 Kings 19:26; Isa. 37:27; Mark 6:39). See also Colors.

In addition to its most obvious anatomical meaning, “hand” may also refer to the finger (Gen. 41:42), the wrist (Gen. 24:22), or the entire arm (2 Kings 5:18).

Symbolic uses. The Bible attests to many symbolic references. To put a hand to the mouth is indicative of silence (Job 21:5). Putting it upon one’s head is a gesture of sadness and mourning (2 Sam. 13:19). Hand clapping expresses either joy (Ps. 47:1) or derision (Job 27:23). Lifting up one or both hands is a gesture accompanying an oath (Deut. 32:40), blessing (Lev. 9:22), prayer or worship (Pss. 28:2; 63:4). To shake one’s hand indicates defiance (Isa. 10:32) or derision (Zeph. 2:15). The Jews in Jesus’ time washed their hands before a meal for ritual cleansing (Matt. 15:2), while Pilate washed his hands to indicate his innocence (Matt. 27:24).

The laying on of hands is associated with many meanings in different contexts in the Bible. Its symbolic meaning in the context of sacrifice, however, is still debated. The idea of transfer of the offerer’s guilt, which is explicit in case of the scapegoat in Lev. 16:21–22, does not easily apply to the laying on of hands in the context of sacrifice. The laying on of hands, for example, is part of a fellowship offering, a sacrifice that has little concern with expiating sin. This has led some scholars to posit the idea that by laying hands on the animal the offerer either acquires the merits of the sacrifice or ensures that the sacrifice intended for specific offering will be used solely for that purpose. The laying on of hands is also associated with a nonsacrificial context: commission for a special task. Moses laid hands on Joshua when appointing him leader of the people of Israel (Num. 27:18–23). In the same way, the Israelites were instructed to lay hands on the Levites (Num. 8:10). It is also through the laying on of hands that Saul and Barnabas were appointed as missionaries for the Gentiles (Acts 13:2–3). It is also associated with miraculous healing (Matt. 9:18) and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17–19). (See also Laying on of Hands.)

Idiomatic and figurative uses. The term “hand” forms numerous idiomatic expressions in the Bible, some of which passed into European languages through translations of the Bible. The following are only selective examples: “To put one’s hand to” means “to undertake” (Deut. 12:7; Luke 9:62); “to slack one’s hand” is synonymous with negligence and neglect (Josh. 10:6); “to hide or bury the hand in the dish” is descriptive of the slothful (Prov. 19:24); “to put one’s life into one’s hand” means to risk one’s life (1 Sam. 19:5); “to fill the hands” means to consecrate (Exod. 32:29; NIV: “set apart”). The phrase “hand of God” or “hand of Yahweh” may denote a pestilence (1 Sam. 5:6; 6:3, 5). A similar usage of “hand of [a god]” as illness is found in both Ugaritic and Akkadian sources.

Several figurative uses of the hand occur in the Bible. The hand often connotes power or strength. When the men of Ai realized their dilemma, they had no “hand” to flee (Josh. 8:20). Also, the Israelites were commanded to bring a gift according to their “hand” at the Feast of Tabernacles (Deut. 16:17). The psalmist rebuked the Israelites for forgetting God’s “hand,” which redeemed them from their oppressor (Ps. 78:42). The hand is sometimes synonymous with “side.” The “hand” of the road refers to the side of the road, and the “hand” of a river to its bank. Used alone, “hand” can indicate a place, as in Deut. 23:12–13, where the Israelites are ordered to designate “a hand” outside the camp for a latrine. The hand may be used metonymically for the person. In this sense, the penalty is exacted “from the hand” or “at the hand” of the transgressor (Gen. 9:5; Ezek. 33:8). Finally, “the right hand” connotes a position of prestige or prominence. Jacob’s preference for Ephraim, the second son of Joseph, was expressed by the laying on of his right hand (Gen. 48:13). Yahweh ordered the messianic king to sit at his right hand (Ps. 110:1). Jesus said, referring to himself, “You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62).

That humankind has been created in the image of God indicates its unique status above the animals because of a special similarity with God. This status authorizes humankind to rule the earth and requires respect toward people. The particulars of what the phrase “image of God” means have been understood in many ways.

The phrase is rather rare. It first appears in Gen. 1:26–27, and the same or similar phrases occur in five more verses (Gen. 5:1, 3; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9) that refer back to it. The NT also refers to Christ as the image of God and to believers becoming like the image of Christ.

Understanding Genesis 1:26–27

This makes Gen. 1:26–27 the starting point for understanding the phrase. Several factors come into play: the contrast with the creation of animals on the same day; the connection with humankind ruling the other creatures; other elements of the broader context; the meaning of the words “image” (tselem) and “likeness” (demut); the meaning of the preposition “in”; and the meaning and use of images in the ancient Near East.

In the immediately preceding context, animals are made “according to their kinds,” whereas humans are made “in the image of God.” The context directly following also makes a distinction between the two, granting humans rule, or dominion, over the animals. Being in the image of God certainly involves what makes humans unique in contrast to the rest of the animal kingdom.

The history of interpretation of the phrase “image of God” is long and voluminous. Just about anything from the broader context that seems important to the interpreter might be selected as the key meaning; or whatever philosophical system is dominant at the time when the interpreter writes might be tapped as the “obvious” explanation of what being in the image of God means; or perhaps the insights of a particular academic discipline or systematic theological system might be given preference. Thus, the meaning of being created in the image of God has been associated with many things, such as language, eternal soul, rationality, relationality, being male and female (often compared to the Trinity), physical appearance, dominion, and personhood. The wide variety is possible because the text of Scripture does not spell it out, and the options seem reasonable to their various proponents as explaining the uniqueness of humanity, something that clearly serves the context.

Although many of these insights may be reasonable and relevant, it can be problematic to select one as the key element. For example, to support the suggestion that being in the image of God means walking erect on two feet, one could point out that (1) humankind’s “walking” is in the broader context, (2) human beings “walking” with God uniquely contrasts to the circumstances of other animals, and (3) standing erect on two feet is a dominance move in the animal kingdom. But this is unlikely to be convincing to anyone, for good reason. And the many options offered by interpreters often look equally out of place from another’s perspective. For example, the text emphasizes that God created them “male and female,” a unity with a difference. God is a trinity, a unity with a difference. Is this, then, the image of God? Someone might point out that the animals are also male and female, and that the text does not necessarily have the Trinity in view (there are other explanations for the plural “us” in Gen. 1:26, which many consider better explanations).

Studying the words “image” and “likeness” does not quickly clarify the issue. “Image” normally refers to a statue, typically of a god. And “likeness” normally refers to similar physical appearance. The true God is a spirit, lacking a particular physical form, and he forbids making a statue of himself. If the three-dimensional human physique is not the point, what remains of the terms “image” and “likeness” is simply some notion of similarity. It is this vagueness that has promoted diverse understandings.

The preposition “in” is also much discussed, for it might mean “in” or “as.” Thus humanity is perhaps made in a like appearance to God, or in an unspecified similarity to God. Or humanity has been created as God’s image on the earth. The first emphasizes what humanity is (being), the second what humanity is to do (function). Yet the two, being and function, certainly are related, so the difference between them may be overstated.

The surrounding cultures of the ancient Near East made images of their gods. They believed not that the statue actually was the god but rather that it invoked the presence of the god and represented the god to the people as a central location for interaction. The Babylonian word for “image” is similar to the Hebrew and also usually refers to a statue or artistic representation. It is sometimes used figuratively about a king being the image of a god. And in Egypt we find the idea that humanity is the image of gods. This conceptual backdrop aligns with an understanding that being in the image of God relates to the function of ruling.

Additionally, the phrase “and let them rule over” occurs in a sequence that can indicate purpose or result. Thus, the passage may be rendered, “Let us make man as our image, as our likeness, so that they may rule.” That is, God set up human beings with a distinct nature for a distinct task, which he expressly includes when blessing them (Gen. 1:28). We might still infer from general revelation some of the details that are relevant to that uniqueness, but we should avoid elevating them in importance.

Other Biblical Passages

The passages that refer back to Gen. 1:26–27 emphasize honor and respect for human individuals. Humans are to dominate the earth, not one another. They should not kill one another; otherwise they become subject to the death penalty (Gen. 9:6), and they should not curse others but instead treat them with honor (James 3:9). But the motif has no real prominence other than being in the beginning of the Bible. After Gen. 9:6, the OT does not use the phrase “image of God.” The concept of human rule appears (e.g., Ps. 8), but the expression “image of God” is more a subpoint under a larger topic than it is a heading for biblical teaching.

In the NT, Jesus is twice identified by the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew phrase “image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). Especially in the context of Col. 1:15, the emphasis is on Christ’s deity and so part of a different topic, despite the similar wording. The two verses about believers that refer to the likeness of God and the image of the Creator (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24) deal with moral behavior and the sanctification of the believer (cf. Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18). Although they do not directly refer to Gen. 1, they do address the common metaphor that humankind, by sinning, marred its imaging of God. To be conformed to the image of Christ restores how humanity images God in the world.

The Hebrew word ’erets occurs 2,505 times in the OT and is most frequently translated “country” or “land.” “Earth” renders the Greek word gē in the NT. Not surprisingly, ’erets appears 311 times in Genesis alone, the book that initiates Israel’s landed covenant (Gen. 15:18). The primary uses of ’erets are cosmological (e.g., the earth) and geographical (e.g., the land of Israel). Other uses of ’erets include physical (e.g., the ground on which one stands) and political (e.g., governed countries) designations. Less frequently, “earth” translates the Hebrew word ’adamah (“country, ground, land, soil”).

Heaven and Earth

Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12–13). Similarly, the Akkadian text Hymn to the Sun-God states, “You [Shamash] are holding the ends of the earth suspended from the midst of heaven” (I:22). The earth’s boundaries were set against chaos (Ps. 104:7–9; Isa. 40:12). In this way, the Creator and the Savior cannot be separated because, taken together, God works against chaos in the mission of redemption (Ps. 74:12–17; Isa. 51:9–11). The phrase “heavens and earth” is a merism (two extremes representing the whole) for the entire universe (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 102:25). Over the earth arched a firm “vault” (Gen. 1:6). Heaven’s vault rested on the earth’s “pillars,” the mountains (Deut. 32:22; 1 Sam. 2:8). Below the heavens is the sea, part of the earth’s flat surface.

There was no term for “world” in the OT. The perception of world was basically bipartite (heaven and earth), though some tripartite expressions also occur (e.g., heaven, earth, sea [Exod. 20:11; Rev. 5:3, 13]). Though rare, some uses of ’erets may refer to the “underworld” or Sheol (Exod. 15:12; Jer. 17:13; Jon. 2:6). The earth can be regarded as the realm of the dead (Matt. 12:40; Eph. 4:9). However, the OT is less concerned with the organic structure of the earth than with what fills the earth: inhabitants (Ps. 33:14; Isa. 24:1), people groups (Gen. 18:18; Deut. 28:10), and kingdoms (Deut. 28:25; 2 Kings 19:15). The term ’erets can be used symbolically to indicate its inhabitants (Gen. 6:11). However, unlike its neighbors, Israel acknowledged no divine “Mother Earth,” given the cultural associations with female consorts.

The Theology of Land

In biblical faith, the concept of land combines geography with theology. The modern person values land more as a place to build than for its productive capacities. But from the outset, human beings and the “earth” (’erets) functioned in a symbiotic relationship with the Creator (Gen. 1:28). God even gave the land agency to “bring forth living creatures” (Gen. 1:24). The “ground” (’adamah) also provided the raw substance to make the human being (’adam [Gen. 2:7]). In turn, the human being was charged with developing and protecting the land (Gen. 2:5, 15). Showing divine care, the Noahic covenant was “between [God] and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). Thus, land was no mere onlooker; human rebellion had cosmic effects (Gen. 6:7, 17). The land could be cursed and suffer (Gen. 3:17; cf. 4:11).

Israel’s promised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen. 13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing, fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orienting points for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise, “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27). Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity and judgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationship with God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; this could ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits” people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).

For Israel, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen. 15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithful obedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1 Kings 2:1–4). Conditionality and unconditionality coexisted in Israel’s relationship of “sonship” with Yahweh (Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen. 18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was the supreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance” to give (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). The Levites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did the other tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20; Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter and to occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3). Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when they accused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however, no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance” (Josh. 13:1).

Land possession had serious ethical and religious ramifications (Deut. 26:1–11). Israel was not chosen to receive a special land; rather, land was the medium of Israel’s relationship with God. Land functioned as a spiritual barometer (Ps. 78:56–64; Lam. 1:3–5). The heavens and earth stood as covenant witnesses (Deut. 4:26). Blood, in particular, could physically pollute the land (Num. 35:30–34). National sin could culminate in expulsion (Lev. 26:32–39), and eventually the land was lost (Jer. 25:1–11). For this reason, Israel’s exiles prompted a profound theological crisis.

Inheritance

The notion of inheritance connected Israel’s religious worship with practical stewardship. Land was not owned; it was passed down through patrimonial succession. God entrusted each family with an inheritance that was to be safeguarded (Lev. 25:23–28; Mic. 2:1–2). This highlights the serious crime when Naboth’s vineyard was forcibly stolen (1 Kings 21). It was Israel’s filial sonship with Yahweh and Israel’s land tenure that formed Yahweh’s solidarity with the nation. The law helped limit Israel’s attachment to mere real estate: Yahweh was to be Israel’s preoccupation (see Jer. 3:6–25). When the nation was finally exiled, the message of the new covenant transcended geographical boundaries (Jer. 32:36–44; Ezek. 36–37; cf. Lev. 26:40–45; Deut. 30:1–10). In postexilic Israel, sanctuary was prioritized (Hag. 1:9–14).

It was Israel’s redefinition of land through the exile that prepared the way for the incorporation of the Gentiles (Ezek. 47:22–23), an integration already anticipated (Isa. 56:3–7). The prophets saw a time when the nations would share in the inheritance of God previously guarded by Israel (Isa. 60; Zech. 2:11; cf. Gen. 12:3). Viewed as a political territory, land receives no substantial theological treatment in the NT; rather, inheritance surpasses covenant metaphor. Using the language of sonship and inheritance, Paul develops this new Gentile mission in Galatians (cf. Col. 1:13–14). The OT land motif fully flowers in the NT teaching of adoption (cf. 1 Pet. 1:3–5). Both curse and covenant are resolved eschatologically (Rom. 8:19–22). Inheritance is now found in Christ (Eph. 2:11–22; 1 Pet. 1:4). In the economy of the new covenant, land tenure has matured in fellowship (koinōnia). Koinōnia recalibrates the ethical significance of OT land themes, reapplying them practically through inclusion, lifestyle, economic responsibility, and social equity.

Beyond cosmological realms, heaven and earth are also theological horizons still under God’s ownership. What began as the creation mandate to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28) culminates in the new creation with Christ (Rom. 8:4–25). Under the power of Satan, the earth “lags behind” heaven. Christ’s mission brings what is qualitatively of heaven onto the earthly stage, often using signs of the budding rule of God (Matt. 6:10; Mark 2:10–11; John 3:31–36; Eph. 4:9–13; Heb. 12:25). As Israel was to stand out in a hostile world (Deut. 4:5–8), now those of Abrahamic faith stand out through Christian love (John 13:34–35; Rom. 4:9–16). According to Heb. 4:1–11, Israel’s initial rest in the land (see Exod. 33:14; Deut. 12:9) culminates in the believers’ rest in Christ (Heb. 4:3, 5). The former inheritance of space gives way to the inheritance of Christ’s presence. The OT theme of land is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus’ exhortation to “abide in me” (John 15).

Earthquake–In Palestine there have been about seventeen recorded major earthquakes in the past two millennia. One of the major sources of these earthquakes is believed to originate from the Jordan Rift Valley. In antiquity earthquakes were viewed as fearful events because the mountains, which represented everlasting durability, were disturbed. The confession of faith is pronounced in association with such phenomena (“We will not fear, though the earth give way” [Ps. 46:2]). An earthquake must have made a great impact in Amos’s day (“two years before the earthquake” [Amos 1:1; cf. Zech. 14:5]).

An earthquake has many symbolic meanings. First, the power of God and his divine presence are manifested through it (Job 9:6; Ps. 68:8; Hag. 2:6). It accompanied theophanic revelation (Exod. 19:18; Isa. 6:4; 1 Kings 19:11–12) when the glory of the Lord appeared (Ezek. 3:12). His divine presence was especially felt when earthquakes occurred during the time of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:54; 28:2). It led the centurion to confess of Christ, “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54). God’s salvation power is represented when an earthquake comes at the appropriate moment, such as when it freed Paul and Silas from prison (Acts 16:26).

Second, it is used in the context of God’s judgment (Isa. 13:13; Amos 9:1; Nah. 1:5). It becomes the symbol of God’s anger and wrath (Ps. 18:7). God brought earthquakes upon the people to destroy evil in the world and to punish those who had sinned against him (Num. 16:31–33; Isa. 29:6; Ezek. 38:19). Earthquake activity possibly explains the background to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24).

Third, earthquakes are said to precede the end of time (Matt. 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11). In the apocalyptic book of Revelation, earthquakes are regular occurrences (Rev. 6:12; 11:13, 19; 16:18).

Life is a complex, multifaceted concept in the Bible. Various Hebrew and Greek terms convey the idea of life. Life is described in both a natural and a theological sense.

Life in the Natural Sense

In its natural sense, “life” may convey the following: (1) the vital principle of animals and humans, (2) the length of time that one has life, (3) the complete plot and cast of characters of an individual’s lifetime, or (4) the means for maintaining life.

First, life is the vital principle of animals and humans. This use of the term is its popular sense. It refers to the quality of having an animate existence or the state of being animate. Therefore, it is expressed in terms of ability or power; one who has life has the power to act. On the other hand, “death” is its antonym; one who is dead no longer acts. In the Bible, life in this sense applies to both animals and humans; however, the quality of life differs because humans are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26; 5:1; 9:6). Life is manifested in the breath of life, so that one who no longer has the breath of life no longer has life (Gen. 2:7; 6:17; Job 12:10; 27:3; Rev. 11:11). At the same time, life is seated in the blood. For this reason, blood should not be consumed but should instead be poured out and buried (Gen. 9:3–5; Lev. 17:10–16; Deut. 12:23–25). Although life may cease because of physical causes (whether disease, murder, accident, etc.), God is ultimately the Lord of life. He gives life through his breath of life (Gen. 2:7; Ezek. 37:4–14); he sustains life through his spirit (Ps. 104:29–30; cf. Gen. 6:3; 1 Cor. 15:45); he delivers from death (Gen. 5:24; Ps. 30:3; 1 Cor. 15); he gives life and puts to death (Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6). Life, therefore, is first and foremost a gift from God.

In a discussion of life as the vital principle, it is important to address the question of the afterlife. The Bible affirms the significance of both the material and the immaterial components of a human being. The body is not merely a shell in which the true person is housed. Death is not the soul’s escape from the body’s prison, as evidenced by the resurrection of the dead (Ezek. 37:1–14; Dan. 12:2; Luke 14:14; 1 Cor. 15). Human beings are not created to live a disembodied existence ultimately. The fate for those who experience eternal life is the resurrection of the body made from an incorruptible source (1 Cor. 15, esp. vv. 42–50). For others, their fate lies in eternal death (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:6–15; 21:8).

Second, in both Testaments, “life” may also refer to the duration of animate existence—one’s lifetime. The duration of one’s life in this sense begins at birth and ends at death (Gen. 23:1; 25:7; 47:9, 28; Luke 16:25; Heb. 2:15). This period of time is brief (Ps. 90:10; James 4:14). The Bible describes two ways that one’s lifetime may be extended: first, God gives additional time to a person’s life (2 Kings 20:6; Ps. 61:6; Isa. 38:5); second, one gains longer life by living wisely and honoring God (Prov. 3:2; 4:10; 9:11; 10:27).

Third, sometimes “life” refers to the complete plot and cast of characters of an individual’s lifetime. In other words, “life” may refer to all a person’s activities and relationships (1 Sam. 18:18 KJV; Job 10:1; Luke 12:15; James 4:14).

Fourth, “life” rarely may refer to the means of livelihood (Deut. 24:6; Prov. 27:27; Matt. 6:25; Luke 12:22–23). These passages highlight two aspects of life in this sense: (1) people are responsible to guard life; (2) God gives this life because of his great concern, which exceeds his care for the birds and flowers.

Life as a Theological Concept

Beyond its natural sense, life is developed as a theological concept throughout the Bible.

Old Testament. The first chapters of Genesis set the stage for a rich theological understanding of life. First, God creates all things and prepares them for his purposes. He is the creator of life, and life is a gift from his hand. The pinnacle of his creative activity is the creation of humankind. God blesses the man (Adam) and the woman (Eve) whom he creates. God prepares a special place, a garden, for them, so that they may be able to live in perfect communion with him, under his blessing. At the center of the garden lies the tree of life. The tree of life demonstrates that the garden is both the sphere of God’s provision and the symbol of life itself. At the same time, God commands the man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Gen. 2:17).

At this point, life and death take center stage. What follows in the narrative (Gen. 3) is a presentation of the meaning of life and death as theological concepts. Adam and Eve disobey the divine commandment. As a result, they die. However, their death is not death in the natural sense. Instead, when they disobey God’s commandment, there are three results: (1) a curse is pronounced, (2) they are exiled from the garden away from God, and (3) they are prevented from eating from the tree of life (3:14–24). Death in this case is not ceasing to breathe and move but is curse and exile; in other words, to die is to be removed from the place of God’s presence and blessing and be placed under a curse. Life, then, is the opposite: to live is to be settled in the place of God’s presence and blessing.

It is also important to recognize in this narrative that obedience to God’s commandment leads to life, but disobedience to his commandment leads to death. This principle is picked up throughout the Bible. Its clearest expression is found in Lev. 18:5: “Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them.”

This narrative also draws an important connection taken up in other parts of the Bible, especially Proverbs: the connection between life and wisdom. In the garden there are two trees at the center: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Although there is some question concerning what is precisely meant by the knowledge of good and evil, it is likely that wisdom is in view. Two pieces of evidence support this conclusion: (1) knowledge and wisdom as well as good and evil are central concerns for the book of Proverbs; (2) the narrative associates the tree with wisdom. When Eve considers eating from the tree, she notices that it is like the other trees in that it has a pleasant appearance and is good for food (Gen. 2:9), but it is also distinct from the other trees because it is desirable for making one wise (3:6). By eating the fruit, she and Adam attempt to gain wisdom contrary to God’s command. As a result, this type of wisdom leads to death. However, true wisdom has the opposite effect. It leads to life, being a tree of life itself (esp. Prov. 3:18; also 3:1–2; 4:10–23; 6:23).

Although these themes—life, blessing, obedience, and wisdom—are found in various places throughout the Bible, they come together most explicitly in Deuteronomy. There devotion and obedience to God are viewed as the means of attaining wisdom and understanding (Deut. 4:5–9). Following God leads to living in the land that God had promised and enjoying his blessings there (28:1–14); however, forsaking God leads to all kinds of curses and ultimately to utter defeat and exile from the land (28:15–68). The choice to follow God and obey him or to forsake God and disobey him results in either life or death, good or bad, blessing or curse (30:15–20).

Life as a theological concept therefore has the following characteristics: being in the presence of God rather than exile, and experiencing his blessings rather than his curses. Such life may be attained through devotion and obedience to God and through the wisdom that comes from God.

New Testament. This concept of life forms the background for that of the NT as well. The NT often speaks of eternal life, especially in the writings of John. Eternal life is being in fellowship with God the Father and Jesus Christ (John 17:3). One may experience eternal life before natural death and beyond it into the eternal future (John 3:36; 5:24; 6:54; 10:28). At the same time, eternal life may refer more narrowly only to the time of perfect fellowship with God that lies beyond natural life (Matt. 25:46; Mark 10:30; Rom. 2:7). Because life consists of being in fellowship with God and living in his blessings, John can state that the one who believes in Jesus “has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24). In other words, the person who believes in Jesus has been transferred from God’s curse to his blessing, from death to life. Furthermore, Jesus declares that he is life, and that those who believe in him will live and not die; that is, they will never be removed from his presence and blessing (John 11:25–26).

Although for millennia meat has been a major element in many people’s diets, the earliest humans did not eat it. In the garden of Eden, God gave Adam and Eve a diet of plants, particularly fruit (Gen. 2:15–16). God first sanctioned human consumption of animals only after the flood, though with the stipulation that meat not be eaten with blood remaining in it (Gen. 9:3–4; see also Lev. 7:26; 19:26).

In the Mosaic law the Israelites received further restrictions from God concerning the meat they could consume. Among land animals, only those that have a split hoof and chew the cud were “clean” for the Israelites to eat (Lev. 11:1–8). When the Israelites twice complained that they had no meat in the wilderness, God responded both times by sending quail. In the second instance, God became angry and sent a plague among those who had eaten the meat (Exod. 16:2–13; Num. 11:1–35).

In the NT, Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19), and God confirmed in a vision to Peter that he had rescinded all dietary restrictions (Acts 10:9–16). However, the Jerusalem council instructed Gentile Christians to abstain from certain dietary practices that would be offensive to their Jewish brothers and sisters, including eating blood and eating meat sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:28–29). In 1 Corinthians, Paul continued the discussion of eating meat sacrificed to idols (8:4–13; 10:18–33) and thereby provided guidance on various matters of Christian liberty.

(1) The eighth descendant listed in the line of Seth and the grandson of Methuselah, Noah was used by God to preserve the human race through the flood. His name means “rest,” chosen because his father, Lamech, believed that God would use his son to bring rest from the toil of life resulting from the fall (Gen. 5:29). Enoch was his great-grandfather, and like him, Noah is described as one who “walked faithfully with God” (Gen. 6:9; cf. 5:22, 24). He was the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

His story is told mainly in Gen. 6–9. Because of its great wickedness, God resolved to destroy the human race. But Noah found grace in God’s sight, so God instructed him to build a large boat as directed and to take aboard provisions for his family as well as selected representatives of animal life. Noah dutifully obeyed, and his family thus was preserved through the ensuing catastrophe. From them the earth was repopulated (Gen. 10), and Noah was the recipient of various directives for the governance of the postdiluvian world, often referred to as the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:1–17). Noah’s personal story ends with the curious episode of him getting drunk and subsequently cursing a son of Ham for some offense that Ham committed, the nature of which is described only as seeing “the nakedness of his father” (Gen. 9:22 ESV, NRSV, NASB). His age at the time of his death is given as 950.

Noah is mentioned two other times in the OT. God cites his promise that the “waters of Noah” never again would destroy the earth to affirm his covenant faithfulness to Israel (Isa. 54:9), and in another text groups Noah together with Job and Daniel as those who could deliver themselves by their righteousness, but not disobedient Israel (Ezek. 14:14, 20). In the NT, Jesus cites the conditions in Noah’s day as being representative of conditions at the time of his coming (Matt. 24:37–38; Luke 17:26–27). Peter mentions Noah twice, once to refer to the spirits of those who perished in the flood (1 Pet. 3:20) and once to use Noah as an example of God’s ability to deliver his people (2 Pet. 2:5). Hebrews 11:7 lists Noah as a hero of faith.

(2) One of the five daughters of Zelophehad. Their petition for a portion of their deceased father’s property helped set a precedent for inheritance law in ancient Israel (Num. 27:1–11; cf. Josh. 17:1–6). When it came time for the daughters of Zelophehad to marry, a further decree was issued that inherited land must not pass from tribe to tribe (Num. 36).

The study of human beings, their nature and origins. The Christian understanding of anthropology stems from a biblical view of humankind’s relationship to God.

The Origin of Humankind

According to Genesis, the creation of humankind took place on the sixth day of the creation week. The amount of narrative space allotted to this day (Gen. 1:24–31) testifies to the special importance of what happened. Human beings were made on the same day as the animals. Human beings were not given a day of their own, showing that they have a certain kinship with the animals, although they are far more than highly successful and adaptive mammals. This has implications for the care of animals and of the environment generally. The value of human beings and their special place in the created order is clear in passages such as Pss. 8:5–6; 104:14–15.

Created in the image of God. When it came to the making of human beings, God deliberated over this crucial step (Gen. 1:26). The plural of exhortation in “Let us make man in our image” signals that the decision to make humankind was the most important one that God had made so far. Genesis 1 says that human beings are like God in some way.

Various opinions have been canvassed as to what the “image” is. We cannot totally exclude the physical form of humans, given God’s humanoid form in OT appearances (theophanies; e.g., Isa. 6:1; Ezek. 1:26; Amos 9:1). The image has sometimes been interpreted as a task, the exercising of dominion (Gen. 1:28), with humanity appointed as creation’s king, ruling under God. But the image is better understood as the precondition for rule rather than rule itself. The image shows human worth (Gen. 9:6) and differentiates humans from all other creatures. It is proper for the Bible to use anthropomorphic language for God, for humans are remarkably like God. Both male and female are in the image of God (“in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” [1:27]), so that the divine image is not maleness, nor is sexual differentiation the image. Commonly, the image of God is thought to be some peculiar quality of human beings—for example, rationality, speech, moral sense, personality, humans as relational beings.

Every century has its own view of what is the essence of humanity. However, nothing in the passage allows a choice among such alternatives. The point of the passage is simply the fact of the likeness, with no exact definition being provided. The fact of the image is the basis of the divine prohibition of murder and of the strict penalty applied to the transgressor (9:4–6). The fall into sin affected every aspect of the human constitution, and the Bible does not minimize the fact of human sinfulness (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10–18); nevertheless, humans are still in the image of God (Gen. 5:1–3; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7). God’s plan of salvation is aimed at ridding creation (and especially humanity) of the baneful effects of sin, and this will be achieved through the work of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15–20; Heb. 1:1–3; 2:5–18). The outcome will be the conformity of believers in Christ to his glorious image (Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 3.18).

Place in the created order. God’s purpose in giving human beings the divine image is “so they may rule” (NET [Gen. 1:26b translated as a purpose clause]). The syntax suggests that the image is a presupposition of dominion. It is plain that such a delegated authority makes humans stewards. The vegetarian diet of Gen.1:29 (there was no eating of meat at first) represents a limitation to the human right of dominion. Adam’s naming of the animals was (in part) expressive of his sovereignty over them (2:19). Later, Noah was charged to bring pairs of animals into the ark to preserve them alive (6:19–20), showing care for other creatures. The patriarchs tended flocks (13:2–9; 26:12–14), and Joseph’s relief measures saved the lives of people and animals (47:15–18). The wanton destruction of the Promised Land was expressly forbidden (Deut. 20:19–20). Humanity is accountable to God for the stewardship of the earth. The divine command “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28 NRSV) shows that God’s purpose is that the human race populate the whole earth.

At Gen. 2:7 the biblical narrative becomes thoroughly anthropocentric, picturing the little world that God establishes around the first man, so this account is quite different from the cosmic presentation of Gen. 1. In Gen. 1 humankind is the apex of a pyramid, the last and highest of a series of creatures; in Gen. 2 the man is the center of a circle, everything else made to fit around him, and his connection to the physical earth is emphasized. In either view, a very special place is given to human beings in the created order. The two pictures are complementary, not contradictory.

The “man” (’adam) is formed from the “ground” (’adamah), with the related Hebrew words making a pun. Man’s name reminds him of his earthy origins. He is made from the “dust,” which hints at his coming death. He will return to the dust (Gen. 3:19; cf. Job 10:8–9; Ps. 103:14; Isa. 29:16). The reference to “the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7) is due to the fact that this leaves a person at death (Job 34:14–15; Ps. 104:29–30), so man’s (potential) mortality is implied. Ironically, the making of man is described using the language of death. What is described in Gen. 2 is the making of the first man, from whom the rest of the human race has descended, not the making of humankind, though the word ’adam can mean that in other contexts.

The Nature of Humankind

Body, soul, and spirit. Arguments over whether human nature is bipartite (body and soul) or tripartite (body, soul, spirit) are not to be decided by arbitrary appeal to isolated verses. Verses can be found in apparent support for both the first view (e.g., Matt. 10:28) and the second (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:23), but certainly the first scheme is much more prevalent in the Bible. “Soul” and “spirit” can be used interchangeably (Eccles. 3:21; 12:7; Ezek. 18:31). Death is marked by the parting of soul/spirit and body, but it would be a mistake to think that human beings are made up of separate component parts, or that the physical body is only a dispensable shell and not essential to true humanity. The physicality of human existence in the “body” is owned and celebrated in Scripture, part of that being the positive attitude to sexuality when properly expressed (Song of Songs; 1 Cor. 7) and the nonascetic nature of biblical ethics (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 2:23). The doctrine of the resurrection of the body is the fullest expression of this (1 Cor. 15), in contrast to ancient Greek thought that viewed the body as inherently evil and understood salvation as the immortality of the liberated, disembodied soul.

The different words used in relation to persons are only intended to refer to and at times focus on different aspects of unified human nature. References to the “soul” may stress individual responsibility (e.g., Ezek. 18:4 NASB: “The soul who sins will die”). In Ps. 103:1–2, “O my soul” expresses emphatic self-encouragement to praise God and is in parallel with “all my inmost being”—that is, “my whole being” (an example of synecdoche: a part standing for the whole [cf. Ps. 35:10]). These are ways of referring to oneself as a person who expresses will and intention (cf. Ps. 42:5–6, 11). The “flesh” is used to stress the weakness of mortal humanity (e.g., Isa. 40:6 RSV: “All flesh is grass”). The “heart” is the volitional center of a human being (Prov. 4:23; cf. Mark 7:17–23). The emotional and empathetic reactions of humans are described by reference to the organs: “liver,” “kidneys,” “bowels.”

Morals and responsibility. In Gen. 2 the complexities of the man’s moral relation to God and his relations with the soil, with the animals, and with the woman are explored. God deposited the man in the garden “to work it and take care of it” (2:15). The words chosen to designate the man’s work prior to the fall have an aura of worship about them, for they are later used in the OT for the cultic actions of serving and guarding within the sanctuary. The priests served by offering sacrifices, and the Levites guarded the gates of the sacred precinct. A theology of work as a religious vocation is presented. The man was a kind of king-priest in the garden of God.

The moral responsibility of humanity is signaled from the beginning. God’s command gives permission for the man to eat from “any tree” except one (Gen. 2:16–17) and as such indicates man’s freedom, so that this command is no great restriction. The wording “you are free to eat” reinforces the point about God’s generous provision. The prohibition is embedded in the description of God’s fatherly care for the man and gracious act in placing him in the garden. The divine restriction is slight and not at all overbearing, though the serpent will seek to make it appear mean-spirited (3:1). The command and prohibition are the very first words of God to the man, marking them out as of fundamental importance for the relationship between them. The prohibition (“you must not eat . . .”) is an absolute one in the style of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). What is placed before the man is a test that gives him the opportunity to express his loyalty to God. A relationship of obedience and trust requires the possibility of choice and the opportunity to disobey (if that is what he wants to do). The moral nature and responsibility of individuals is not a late discovery by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 18); rather, it is the presupposition behind the Mosaic law, for the commands of the Decalogue (“you shall not . . .”) are phrased as commands to individuals (as the Hebrew makes clear). On the other hand, the concept of corporate responsibility is also present (e.g., Achan’s punishment in Josh. 7).

Relationships. Human beings are relational by nature, as the creation of the woman as a helper and partner for the first man makes plain (Gen. 2:18–25). Later in Scripture this is put in more general terms, so that friendship and mutual cooperation are shown to be essential to life (Eccles. 4:7–12). The body life of the church reflects the same fact and need (1 Cor. 12). In Psalms, human needs and vulnerability find their answer and fulfillment in God, with the psalmist acknowledging his frailty and his creaturely dependence on God (e.g., Ps. 90). This also shows the folly of sinful human pride, against which the prophets so often inveighed (e.g., Isa. 2:9, 11–17, 22).

An optical phenomenon caused by the refraction of sunlight through raindrops or other water vapor. The great beauty of rainbows results from their containing the full spectrum of visible light. In Scripture rainbows have a special significance and symbolism. A rainbow is a sign of God’s covenant with the earth to never again destroy all life with a flood as he did in the time of Noah (Gen. 9:13–14, 16). The power of this particular image comes from the transformation of a bow—typically a symbol of warfare, destruction, and death—into a colorful symbol of heavenly mercy, grace, and peace. The rainbow thus became a sign of God’s kindness and mercy and is found in descriptions of God in the heavenly visions of both Ezekiel and John (Ezek. 1:28; Rev. 4:3; 10:1).

The word “sign” usually is a translation of the Hebrew word ’ot or the Greek word sēmeion. Signs are visible, typically being an object, a mark, an event, or a custom. In addition, signs are symbolic, pointing to things not seen. Signs often reveal or share some quality with the unseen reality to which they point, and so they are a token of that reality. In the Bible, signs typically are caused or instituted by God, and in many cases they are miraculous. However, in a few cases signs are set forth as the work of other gods (as in Deut. 13:1–2) or as being instituted by merely human design (as in Num. 2:2). In summary, a sign may be defined as something seen that points to something unseen, and that is instituted or created to do so by someone’s intention.

Several examples support this definition. Keeping the Sabbath is a sign of God’s rest after creating the world (Exod. 31:15); the Sabbath rest itself imitates God’s rest. Circumcision is a sign of God’s promise to both Abraham and his descendants; circumcision is also a physical mark that is related to human fertility (Gen. 17:11). The rainbow is a sign of God’s promise not to destroy the world by water and rain; rainbows appear only with rain (Gen. 9:13). (In the original Hebrew text, both the custom of circumcision and the rainbow that appears after the great flood are called “signs.”) The early Passover plagues both bring and warn of judgment, while the healing miracles of Jesus both bring and promise blessing. While signs point to unseen realities, these realities do not diminish the value or importance of the visible world. Instead, the unseen realities themselves are ultimately expressed in the visible world.

Divine Intervention

The word “sign” usually refers to an event that cannot be plausibly explained by natural or human causes but is consistent with intervention by God or by some other divine power. An important example of this occurs in the book of Exodus. In Exodus, Moses predicts each kind of plague that will occur and the time of its occurrence. Many of those plagues, such as the plague of locusts (Exod. 10:14–15), are events that could occur naturally. However, the merely natural occurrence of so many plagues in such a short time is quite improbable. It is likewise improbable that Moses could simply guess beforehand the type and timing of all these plagues.

Ultimately, a merely natural explanation for these plagues does not prove credible to the Egyptians. However, the plagues are consistent with acts of divine intervention, provided one does not rule out that possibility beforehand. They are consistent because Moses gives a plausible explanation of why God would intervene at this time, even though God had not intervened within living memory. All these evidences together are considered sufficient to infer that some god has caused the signs. The signs are portrayed as objectively known events. When Pharaoh refuses to admit that Moses can bring plagues, Pharaoh’s own officials say that he should know better (Exod. 10:7). The officials believe in the reality of the signs even though they do not follow the faith or God of Moses.

Throughout the Bible, signs give evidence of God’s direct action and identity, but they are not given as evidence for God’s existence. God’s existence is to be known by other means; for example, Paul writes that the existence of the Creator is “clearly seen” from the created world (Rom. 1:20).

Miracles and Faith

Miraculous signs often are given to validate a prophet and his message. Signs are especially frequent when that prophetic message is a covenant from God that has life-or-death consequences. Both the Mosaic covenant (Deut. 30:15–20) and the new covenant of Jesus (Luke 22:15–20; John 5:24–29) warn of life and death. In the OT, signs occur most prolifically at the hands of Moses. The signs manifested on behalf of Moses are explicitly given so that people will believe in Moses and follow God’s covenant (Exod. 4:1–9; 19:9).

Signs occur even more frequently and prominently in the NT. Jesus makes the lame walk, heals the blind, and even raises the dead (John 5:1–9; 9:1–7; 11:1–44). Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is characterized as performing many signs, and the signs are cited as one reason to believe in Jesus (John 20:30–31). The signs are characteristic of Jesus’ ministry and later of his apostles’ ministries. The tradition that Jesus performed signs is interwoven throughout the four Gospels as we have them, even in portions often thought to reflect earlier sources. The most important sign in the NT is the resurrection of Jesus, since this is the ultimate validation of Jesus by God, and the Christian faith hangs upon the truth of Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1–20).

Although signs are given to elicit faith, human nature and desires are such that reasonable belief does not always take root. As with Pharaoh, many others throughout the OT do not believe despite seeing signs (e.g., Num. 14:11; Ps. 78:11). In the Gospels, many will not believe any reports about miraculous signs. They instead demand to see signs personally (Mark 8:11–12; John 4:48; 6:30; 9:27–41; 20:29) or attribute them to Satan. The Passover signs were to be remembered and credited by later generations (Exod. 12:26–27). Similarly, the signs performed by Jesus were intended by the evangelists to be credited by readers who had not seen them (John 20:29–31). Belief is not expected without inquiry (John 4:39–42; Acts 17:11); however, unbelief in the face of evidence is seen as a human failing (John 11:37–40).

(1) A village in the territory of the descendants of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:32 [KJV: “Tochen”]). The location is unknown. (2) In the KJV, “token” is used to indicate what is, in most modern translations, a “sign” (e.g., Gen. 9:12–17; Ps. 86:17; Mark 14:44).

Death is commonly defined as the end of physical life, wherein the normal biological processes associated with life (such as respiration) cease. This definition, however, does not adequately encompass the varied nuances associated with death in the Bible.

The Beginning of Death

Death is introduced in the Bible as the penalty for transgressing the prohibition against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil—a contrast to Mesopotamia, where death was part of the divine design of human beings. In Gen. 2:16–17 God tells the first man, “When you eat from [the fruit of the tree] you will certainly die.” The consequences of eating provide a useful basis for discussing the nature of death from a biblical perspective.

First, as is apparent from the subsequent narrative, neither the man nor the woman experiences physical, biological death immediately after eating the fruit. In this way, Gen. 2–3 reflects the common biblical notion that death refers to more than just biological death, pointing to the more significant aspect of death that embodies alienation and separation from the source of life, God. The point is presupposed by Jesus when he offers life to those who are dead (John 5:24), and by Paul when he proclaims that before Christ all were dead in their sins and transgressions (Eph. 2:1, 5). It is also reflected in the common punishment prescribed in the Pentateuch whereby offenders were cut off from the people (Gen. 17:14; Exod. 12:15, 19; 30:38; cf. Gen. 9:11; Exod. 9:15). Within Gen. 2–3, death arrives with loss of access to the tree of life in the garden. Biologically, the first man and woman may continue to live for a while outside the garden, but their fate is sealed when they are cut off from the garden and the intimate fellowship with the Creator that had been enjoyed therein.

Second, the strong implication of Gen. 2:16–17 is that human beings, as originally created, were not subject to death (see also Rom. 5:12; 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:21). This does not mean that they were immortal in the same manner as God (cf. 1 Tim. 6:16), but rather that they were contingently immortal: they were not subject to death but sustained by their relationship to the life-giving God through the provision of the tree of life (cf. Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14). Once they were cut off from the source of life, death ensued.

The account of the arrival of death in Gen. 3, however, tells us little about how death affected animals, since the Bible consistently presents a predominantly human focus. While Eccles. 3:21 affirms human ignorance over the relative postmortem fate of humans and animals, little else is said on the matter. Similarly, it is not entirely clear whether death is introduced as a punishment for sin for humans only (and so whether animals could have died prior to the fall) or whether animals were perceived as sharing in immortality prior to the fall.

Death in the Old Testament

Death is frequently depicted negatively throughout the OT. Aside from its initial presentation as a divine punishment for sin, it is presented as that which seeks out and devours life and is terrifying (Pss. 18:4–5; 55:4; Prov. 30:15–16; Hab. 2:5). For the author of Ecclesiastes, death is that which ultimately undermines any possible value that life may otherwise have (e.g., Eccles. 9:3). The tragedy of death, in the OT, is that it results in separation, from God (as noted above in the context of Gen. 2–3) and from people. The psalms, for example, frequently cite the finality and profundity of death’s effects (e.g., Pss. 6:5; 88:5; 115:17; cf. Isa. 38:18). Even those few passages that appear to present death more positively (e.g., Job 3:13, 17) ultimately serve to highlight the appalling circumstances of the speaker’s life rather than any blessed state of the dead (for a similar idea in the NT, see Rev. 9:6).

The OT does, however, depict death as the natural end of life, and a good death as one that arrives only after a long and prosperous life. So Abraham (Gen. 25:8), Isaac (Gen. 35:29), and Job (Job 42:16–17) are said to live long lives before they die. Furthermore, some passages refer to the person being “gathered to his people,” suggesting some form of reunion with previous generations in death, presumably in Sheol, although the location and state of the dead are never explicated. Isaiah can even include the idea of death within language used to describe the ideal future world (Isa. 65:20).

Although there are no laws relating to the manner in which the bodies of the dead were to be handled, all the descriptive indicators show that burial was normative, often in a family tomb or plot (e.g., Gen. 23; cf. 1 Kings 13:22). Indeed, the importance of an appropriate burial is apparent in Ecclesiastes’ comment that a stillborn child is better off than someone who lives a long life but receives no burial (Eccles. 6:3) and in the prophets’ presentation of those not buried as being accursed (Jer. 8:2; 14:16; 16:4).

Life after Death in the Old Testament

Belief in some form of postmortem existence was common in many parts of the ancient world. In Egypt, an elaborate set of beliefs relating to the state of those who had died included the possibility of an ongoing existence that could even surpass what one may have experienced before death (although such an opportunity was a reasonable expectation only for the upper classes, while the general population probably had more modest expectations of the nature of their existence in the afterlife). By way of contrast, Mesopotamian beliefs depicted a far darker and more troubling afterlife for all but the very few whose lives and deaths were sufficiently blessed to ensure them some degree of postmortem comfort. For the remainder, there was little hope for any positive experience following death.

The OT, however, has little to say about the state of those who have died. The widespread belief in some form of continued existence beyond biological death in the ancient world suggests that, in the absence of contrary data in the Bible, the people of Israel probably assumed that some aspect of a person persisted beyond death. Furthermore, there are hints that this may have been the case, such as the raising of Samuel’s shade by the medium at Endor (1 Sam. 28), the escape from death of Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), the revivification of the body dropped on Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:21), and expressions used to refer to death such as “gathered to his people” (Gen. 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29; Num. 27:13; Deut. 32:50; cf. Gen. 47:30; Deut. 31:16). The dead (sometimes referred to by the term repa’im, “shades/spirits of the dead”) were thought to dwell in Sheol, generally described as under the earth (e.g., Ezek. 31:14). Beyond this, there are prophetic expectations that God will ultimately destroy death (e.g., Isa. 25:8), and that God does not take pleasure in anyone’s death (Ezek. 18:23, 32).

Death in the New Testament

The NT continues, and in some places expands upon, the negative view of death presented in the OT. The notion that death is a consequence of and punishment for the sinful state that imprisons all humanity is stated emphatically (e.g., Rom. 3:23; 6:23) and reinforced by the notion that, although biologically alive, sinful humans are dead in their sin and so incapable of reviving themselves (Eph. 2:1). Death, according to Paul, is the last enemy (1 Cor. 15:26), and yet to die is gain (Phil. 1:21–24) because it heralds being with Christ, which, explains Paul, “is better by far” than being alive in this body in this world.

Central to both the message of the Bible and to the significance of death in the Bible is the death of the Messiah, God’s Son. Jesus’ death provides the basis for countering the consequences of the original rebellion against God by the first couple (2 Cor. 5:21). Consequently, Paul could write that Jesus’ death itself destroyed death (2 Tim. 1:10). Furthermore, the life that Jesus offers—eternal life—is available to the believer in the present (John 3:36; 5:24), prior to the time when death is ultimately abolished, such that Jesus could assert that all those who believe in him will live even though they die (John 11:25–26).

The NT expands somewhat on the details relating to the state of the dead from the OT. For one thing, the existence of an afterlife is clearly presented. Furthermore, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31) reflects a more comprehensive understanding of the existence of distinctions among those who have died, such that the rich man is said to be suffering in Hades (Gk. hadēs, used in the LXX to translate Heb. she’ol in the OT), while Lazarus is far off with Abraham and being comforted. Although there is a danger in reading too much into a parable, the detail appears to reflect something of the expanded understanding of the afterlife among some in Jesus’ day.

The NT makes several references to a “second death” (Rev. 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8; cf. Jude 12). The expression refers to the state of eternal judgment under God’s wrath, a death from which there will be no escape. But those who remain faithful to Christ will not experience this second death (Rev. 20:6), and in their dwelling place with God, the new Jerusalem, death will be no more (21:4).

The study of human beings, their nature and origins. The Christian understanding of anthropology stems from a biblical view of humankind’s relationship to God.

The Origin of Humankind

According to Genesis, the creation of humankind took place on the sixth day of the creation week. The amount of narrative space allotted to this day (Gen. 1:24–31) testifies to the special importance of what happened. Human beings were made on the same day as the animals. Human beings were not given a day of their own, showing that they have a certain kinship with the animals, although they are far more than highly successful and adaptive mammals. This has implications for the care of animals and of the environment generally. The value of human beings and their special place in the created order is clear in passages such as Pss. 8:5–6; 104:14–15.

Created in the image of God. When it came to the making of human beings, God deliberated over this crucial step (Gen. 1:26). The plural of exhortation in “Let us make man in our image” signals that the decision to make humankind was the most important one that God had made so far. Genesis 1 says that human beings are like God in some way.

Various opinions have been canvassed as to what the “image” is. We cannot totally exclude the physical form of humans, given God’s humanoid form in OT appearances (theophanies; e.g., Isa. 6:1; Ezek. 1:26; Amos 9:1). The image has sometimes been interpreted as a task, the exercising of dominion (Gen. 1:28), with humanity appointed as creation’s king, ruling under God. But the image is better understood as the precondition for rule rather than rule itself. The image shows human worth (Gen. 9:6) and differentiates humans from all other creatures. It is proper for the Bible to use anthropomorphic language for God, for humans are remarkably like God. Both male and female are in the image of God (“in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” [1:27]), so that the divine image is not maleness, nor is sexual differentiation the image. Commonly, the image of God is thought to be some peculiar quality of human beings—for example, rationality, speech, moral sense, personality, humans as relational beings.

Every century has its own view of what is the essence of humanity. However, nothing in the passage allows a choice among such alternatives. The point of the passage is simply the fact of the likeness, with no exact definition being provided. The fact of the image is the basis of the divine prohibition of murder and of the strict penalty applied to the transgressor (9:4–6). The fall into sin affected every aspect of the human constitution, and the Bible does not minimize the fact of human sinfulness (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10–18); nevertheless, humans are still in the image of God (Gen. 5:1–3; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7). God’s plan of salvation is aimed at ridding creation (and especially humanity) of the baneful effects of sin, and this will be achieved through the work of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15–20; Heb. 1:1–3; 2:5–18). The outcome will be the conformity of believers in Christ to his glorious image (Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 3.18).

Place in the created order. God’s purpose in giving human beings the divine image is “so they may rule” (NET [Gen. 1:26b translated as a purpose clause]). The syntax suggests that the image is a presupposition of dominion. It is plain that such a delegated authority makes humans stewards. The vegetarian diet of Gen.1:29 (there was no eating of meat at first) represents a limitation to the human right of dominion. Adam’s naming of the animals was (in part) expressive of his sovereignty over them (2:19). Later, Noah was charged to bring pairs of animals into the ark to preserve them alive (6:19–20), showing care for other creatures. The patriarchs tended flocks (13:2–9; 26:12–14), and Joseph’s relief measures saved the lives of people and animals (47:15–18). The wanton destruction of the Promised Land was expressly forbidden (Deut. 20:19–20). Humanity is accountable to God for the stewardship of the earth. The divine command “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28 NRSV) shows that God’s purpose is that the human race populate the whole earth.

At Gen. 2:7 the biblical narrative becomes thoroughly anthropocentric, picturing the little world that God establishes around the first man, so this account is quite different from the cosmic presentation of Gen. 1. In Gen. 1 humankind is the apex of a pyramid, the last and highest of a series of creatures; in Gen. 2 the man is the center of a circle, everything else made to fit around him, and his connection to the physical earth is emphasized. In either view, a very special place is given to human beings in the created order. The two pictures are complementary, not contradictory.

The “man” (’adam) is formed from the “ground” (’adamah), with the related Hebrew words making a pun. Man’s name reminds him of his earthy origins. He is made from the “dust,” which hints at his coming death. He will return to the dust (Gen. 3:19; cf. Job 10:8–9; Ps. 103:14; Isa. 29:16). The reference to “the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7) is due to the fact that this leaves a person at death (Job 34:14–15; Ps. 104:29–30), so man’s (potential) mortality is implied. Ironically, the making of man is described using the language of death. What is described in Gen. 2 is the making of the first man, from whom the rest of the human race has descended, not the making of humankind, though the word ’adam can mean that in other contexts.

The Nature of Humankind

Body, soul, and spirit. Arguments over whether human nature is bipartite (body and soul) or tripartite (body, soul, spirit) are not to be decided by arbitrary appeal to isolated verses. Verses can be found in apparent support for both the first view (e.g., Matt. 10:28) and the second (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:23), but certainly the first scheme is much more prevalent in the Bible. “Soul” and “spirit” can be used interchangeably (Eccles. 3:21; 12:7; Ezek. 18:31). Death is marked by the parting of soul/spirit and body, but it would be a mistake to think that human beings are made up of separate component parts, or that the physical body is only a dispensable shell and not essential to true humanity. The physicality of human existence in the “body” is owned and celebrated in Scripture, part of that being the positive attitude to sexuality when properly expressed (Song of Songs; 1 Cor. 7) and the nonascetic nature of biblical ethics (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 2:23). The doctrine of the resurrection of the body is the fullest expression of this (1 Cor. 15), in contrast to ancient Greek thought that viewed the body as inherently evil and understood salvation as the immortality of the liberated, disembodied soul.

The different words used in relation to persons are only intended to refer to and at times focus on different aspects of unified human nature. References to the “soul” may stress individual responsibility (e.g., Ezek. 18:4 NASB: “The soul who sins will die”). In Ps. 103:1–2, “O my soul” expresses emphatic self-encouragement to praise God and is in parallel with “all my inmost being”—that is, “my whole being” (an example of synecdoche: a part standing for the whole [cf. Ps. 35:10]). These are ways of referring to oneself as a person who expresses will and intention (cf. Ps. 42:5–6, 11). The “flesh” is used to stress the weakness of mortal humanity (e.g., Isa. 40:6 RSV: “All flesh is grass”). The “heart” is the volitional center of a human being (Prov. 4:23; cf. Mark 7:17–23). The emotional and empathetic reactions of humans are described by reference to the organs: “liver,” “kidneys,” “bowels.”

Morals and responsibility. In Gen. 2 the complexities of the man’s moral relation to God and his relations with the soil, with the animals, and with the woman are explored. God deposited the man in the garden “to work it and take care of it” (2:15). The words chosen to designate the man’s work prior to the fall have an aura of worship about them, for they are later used in the OT for the cultic actions of serving and guarding within the sanctuary. The priests served by offering sacrifices, and the Levites guarded the gates of the sacred precinct. A theology of work as a religious vocation is presented. The man was a kind of king-priest in the garden of God.

The moral responsibility of humanity is signaled from the beginning. God’s command gives permission for the man to eat from “any tree” except one (Gen. 2:16–17) and as such indicates man’s freedom, so that this command is no great restriction. The wording “you are free to eat” reinforces the point about God’s generous provision. The prohibition is embedded in the description of God’s fatherly care for the man and gracious act in placing him in the garden. The divine restriction is slight and not at all overbearing, though the serpent will seek to make it appear mean-spirited (3:1). The command and prohibition are the very first words of God to the man, marking them out as of fundamental importance for the relationship between them. The prohibition (“you must not eat . . .”) is an absolute one in the style of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). What is placed before the man is a test that gives him the opportunity to express his loyalty to God. A relationship of obedience and trust requires the possibility of choice and the opportunity to disobey (if that is what he wants to do). The moral nature and responsibility of individuals is not a late discovery by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 18); rather, it is the presupposition behind the Mosaic law, for the commands of the Decalogue (“you shall not . . .”) are phrased as commands to individuals (as the Hebrew makes clear). On the other hand, the concept of corporate responsibility is also present (e.g., Achan’s punishment in Josh. 7).

Relationships. Human beings are relational by nature, as the creation of the woman as a helper and partner for the first man makes plain (Gen. 2:18–25). Later in Scripture this is put in more general terms, so that friendship and mutual cooperation are shown to be essential to life (Eccles. 4:7–12). The body life of the church reflects the same fact and need (1 Cor. 12). In Psalms, human needs and vulnerability find their answer and fulfillment in God, with the psalmist acknowledging his frailty and his creaturely dependence on God (e.g., Ps. 90). This also shows the folly of sinful human pride, against which the prophets so often inveighed (e.g., Isa. 2:9, 11–17, 22).

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.

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.

Bible formation and canon development are best understood in light of historical events and theological principles. In the historical-theological process we learn what God did and how he engaged a variety of people to produce Scripture as the word of God. The Bible is the written revelation of the triune God, who made himself known to his creation. The divine actions of God to reveal himself resulted in a written text recognized to be authoritative and thus copied and preserved for future generations. The process of recognizing and collecting authoritative books of the Scriptures occurred over time and involved consensus.

Bible Formation

Revelation. The process of Bible formation begins with God revealing. The act of revelation involved God communicating truth to the human writers in a progressive and unified manner. Inspiration is the act of God the Holy Spirit, who superintended the biblical authors so that they composed the books of Scripture exactly as he intended. God used the biblical writers, their personalities and their writing styles, in a manner that kept them from error in composing the original written product, the Scriptures. The resulting books of the Bible constitute God’s permanent special revelation to humankind.

Both Testaments affirm the work of revelation along with the formation of a body of divine writings. The OT is dominated by the phrase “thus says the Lord” and similar expressions (cf. Gen. 9:8; Josh. 24:27; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:7 and contrast Ps. 135:15–19). Every part of the OT is viewed as the word of God (Rom. 3:2). This is confirmed by Jesus’ attitude toward the Scriptures (Matt. 19:4–5; 21:42; 22:29; cf. Luke 11:50–51; 24:44).

Four NT passages help us understand the work of inspiration. A factual statement regarding the extent and nature of inspiration is made in 2 Tim. 3:16. According to 2 Pet. 1:19–20, the Holy Spirit purposefully carried persons along to produce the prophetic word, and 1 Cor. 2:10–13 supports the choice of the words in the work of composing the inspired product. Finally, Peter comments that Paul was given wisdom to produce inspired literary documents in the canon of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:14–18).

Authority. Books formed and authored by God in this manner are authoritative. Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliably composed in the originals, it is binding upon people in their relationship with God and other people. Biblical authority derives from God’s eternal character and the content of his word preserved in Scripture. The inscripturated word of God is authoritative and requires obedience.

The authority of God’s word is affirmed and illustrated in the creation and fall narratives. In the fall, Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s command (Gen. 3:3–4) and were expelled from the garden. In subsequent periods of biblical history, God’s spoken and written word continued to be the basis for belief and conduct. God summarized his will in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17; Deut. 5:6–21) and held his people accountable to it (Deut. 6:2; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 17:5–23). The authoritative word embraced by faith protects the believer from sin (Ps. 119:11). The fool is the person who rejects God’s authority (Pss. 14:1; 53:1). The apostle Paul acknowledged the authority of the gospel for his own life and ministry (Gal. 1:6–9). God the Holy Spirit impresses upon the believer the authority of the Bible as the reliable rule for faith and practice (John 6:63).

God made provision for a reliable and trustworthy preservation of his authoritative word in the multiplicity of extant manuscripts. God commanded that his revealed word be copied (Deut. 17:8–18; 24:8; 31:9, 25–26; 33:8–10) for administrative and personal purposes (Deut. 6:6; Josh. 1:8; 23:6; Prov. 3:3; 7:3). Through this process of multiplication the word of God was preserved (Ps. 119:152, 160; Isa. 40:8; cf. Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35; 1 Pet. 1:22–25).

Canonization

Canonization is the next critical step in the development of the Bible. The word “canon” (Gk. kanōn) refers to a standard, norm, or rule (Gal. 6:16; cf. Ezek. 42:16), and when applied to the Bible, it designates the collection of books revealed by God, divinely inspired, and recognized by the people of God as the authoritative norm for faith and practice. The presupposition of canonicity is that God spoke to his human creatures and his word was accurately recorded. Since inspiration determines canonicity, the books composed by human beings under the direction of the Holy Spirit functioned authoritatively at the time of writing. The people of God then recognized and collected the books that they discerned to be inspired and authoritative (1 Thess. 2:10–16; 2 Pet. 3:15).

The canonical process. The challenge associated with canon and Bible formation is that the Scriptures do not reveal a detailed historical process for recognizing and collecting inspired works. An understanding of this process is derived from the testimony of Jesus, biblical principles, and historical precedents.

Canonical identification is associated with the witness of the Holy Spirit, who worked in connection with the believers to recognize the written documents given by inspiration (1 Thess. 2:13). The Holy Spirit enabled believers to discern a book’s authority and its compatibility with existing canonical revelation (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). Although the question of authorship cannot be positively settled for every OT or NT book, believers recognized the prophets as the OT authors (Deut. 18:14–22) and the apostles as the NT authors. Canonical books were recognized to bear the power of God and to contain an effective message (2 Tim. 3:15–16; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Over time, the authoritative books of Scripture were collected into a body of literature that today forms one book, the Bible. During this process, some believers struggled with the message, content, and ambiguous authorship of books such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Esther in the OT and Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter in the NT. The pattern of composition and canonical process for the OT provided the foundation for the composition and development of the NT canon. Therefore, the NT books that came to be recognized as canonical were those that were composed in connection with an apostle, doctrinally sound, and widely circulated and used by the churches.

In the collection task some texts were recognized (homologoumena), some were disputed (antilegomena), and others were rejected as unorthodox (pseudepigrapha). Historically, there is no evidence for widespread acceptance of the present-day canon of sixty-six books until the third century AD.

Structure and content. Over the centuries, several canonical lists began to emerge, often influenced by particular theological conclusions. For example, the Samaritan canon, which includes only the first five books of our OT, was compiled by the Samaritans, who were hostile to anything in Israel or Judea outside Samaria. Today, Christian traditions vary in their inclusion or omission of the Apocrypha from their Bibles and in their list of which books are contained in the Apocrypha.

The Babylonian canon, accepted as standard by Jews, contains all the books now recognized as the OT and is divided into three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. This canon is also known as the Tanak, an acronym derived from the Hebrew words for “law” (torah), “prophets” (nebi’im), “writings” (ketubim). This canonical list traditionally includes twenty-four books (the twelve Minor Prophets are considered to be one book, as are 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah). The twenty-four books of this canonical list are the same as the thirty-nine OT books in current English Bible editions. The law or instruction section includes the first five books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets section is divided into the Former and Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets are the historical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The Latter Prophets include both the Major and the Minor Prophets. The Writings section contains both poetic and wisdom material, along with some historical material.

Historical references to this canonical format are found in extrabiblical sources as early as the second century BC. The grandson of Jesus Ben Sira referenced a threefold canon in the prologue of the apocryphal book Sirach (c. 190 BC); Josephus referenced it in Against Apion (AD 37–95). Jesus acknowledged the threefold division in Luke 24:44 (cf. Matt. 23:34). Among Christian sources, this division is preserved in the oldest extant list of OT books, associated with Bishop Melito of Sardis (AD 170). Tertullian, an early Latin church father (AD 160–250), Origen (AD 254), Hilary of Poitiers (AD 305–366), and Jerome (AD 340–420) affirmed an OT canon of twenty-two or twenty-four books. Most current English versions follow a fourfold structure of law, history, poetry, and prophets.

The twenty-seven books of the NT are attested in lists associated with churches in the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean world. Two such witnesses are the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius (AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). The canonical list associated with Marcion and the Muratorian list represent fragmentary lists from the early part of the second century AD. In terms of usage, a majority of church fathers recognized and used the twenty-seven NT books in our canon. See also Apocrypha, New Testament; Apocrypha, Old Testament.

The blessings and curses of Scripture are grounded in a worldview that understands the sovereign God to be the ultimate dispenser of each. Blessings and curses are not the outcomes of magicians who attempt to manipulate the gods for personal gain or retribution. Rather, God is the giver of blessing and ultimately the final judge who determines withdrawal or ban. He is the source of every good gift (James 1:17) and the one who gives power and strength to prosper (Deut. 8:17).

Some view the nature of blessing and curse as simply a gift from God, while others see it as an act in which one party transmits power for life to another party. Perhaps the common thread between views is the idea of relationship.

Terminology. In the OT, the key Hebrew terms for blessing are the verb barak and the noun berakah. When the context of their use identifies a person or a living creature as the object of blessing, the basic idea is to provide someone with special power that will ultimately enhance his or her life. The blessing theme is also illuminated by means of words such as “grace,” “favor,” “loyalty,” and “happiness.”

In the NT, the Greek term eulogeō and its cognates are best understood in terms of the impartation of favor, power, and benefits. The makarios word group describes a state or status of being fortunate, happy, or privileged.

The OT curse vocabulary includes the ideas of disgracing, making contemptible, and imprecation. The NT curse terminology comprises the ideas of curse, slander, or consecrated to destruction.

Old Testament. The sovereign God sometimes employs agents of blessing in his creation. The blessing extends to the nations through Abraham (Gen. 12:3), to Jacob through Isaac (Gen. 26–27), and to the people through the priests (Num. 6:24–26).

The theme of blessing/curse is used to structure Deut. 27–28 and Lev. 26 (cf. Josh. 8:34) in the overall covenant format of these books. Scholars have observed that the object of this format is not symmetry or logical unity but fullness. From this perspective, the blessing/curse structure functions to enforce obedience for the purpose of ensuring a relationship. The blessing of Deuteronomy also includes the benefits of prosperity, power, and fertility. The curse, on the other hand, is the lack or withdrawal of benefits associated with the relationship.

The creation narratives are marked with the theme and terminology of blessing (Gen. 1:22, 28; 2:3; cf. 5:2; 9:1). The objects of blessing in Gen. 1:22, 28 (cf. 5:2; 9:1) are the living creatures and human beings created in the image of God. As the revelation progresses, the blessing of God is particularized in the lives of Noah (Gen. 6–8), Abraham (Gen. 12–25) and his descendants, and the nation of Israel and its leadership (Gen. 26–50). In these contexts, the blessing is intended to engender offspring and to prosper recipients in material and physical ways (compare a similar NT emphasis in Acts 17:25; cf. Matt. 5:45; 6:25–33; Acts 14:17).

The blessing of God is also extended to inanimate objects that enhance and prosper one’s quality of life. The seventh day of creation is the object of blessing (Gen. 2:7; Exod. 20:11), perhaps giving it a sense of well-being and health. Objects and activities of life such as baskets and kneading troughs (Deut. 28:5), barns (Deut. 28:8), and work (Job 1:10; Ps. 90:17) are blessed.

God promises to bless those who fear him (Ps. 128:1). Blessing is designed for those who, out of a deep sense of awe of God’s character, love and trust him. The God-fearer confidently embraces God’s promises, obediently serves, and takes seriously God’s warnings. The blessings itemized in Ps. 128 are comparable to those detailed in Deut. 28 relating to productivity and fruitfulness (cf. Ps. 128:2 with Deut. 28:12; Ps. 128:3 with Deut. 28:4, 11). The Deuteronomic concept of blessing and curse is questioned when God-fearers undergo a period of suffering or experience God’s apparent absence (e.g., Joseph, Job; cf. Jesus).

New Testament. In the NT, blessings are not exclusively spiritual. God gives both food and joy (Acts 14:17) and provides the necessities of life (Matt. 6:25–33). The NT does connect blessing with Christ, and it focuses attention on the spiritual quality of the gift that originates from Christ himself and its intended benefit for spiritual individuals.

Regarding curse, the NT explains that Christ bore the curse of the law to free us from its deadening effect (Gal. 3:10–13). Revelation 22:3 anticipates a time when the curse associated with sin will be completely removed and the blessing associated with creation will prevail.

The book of Exodus (the second book of the OT and of the Pentateuch) continues the story begun in Gen. 12 of the election of Abraham as God’s choice for the beginning of a new people. Abraham’s great-grandson Joseph was taken to Egypt as a slave but rose to power there. Eventually, his father, Jacob, along with his brothers and their families, made the trek to Egypt and settled there. Both Jacob and Joseph died in Egypt, and it is here that the book of Exodus picks up. In Egypt the Israelites at first found a safe haven, only to be enslaved later by a “new king” (Exod. 1:8). The book of Exodus tells the story of the Israelites’ struggles in Egypt, their deliverance through Moses (perhaps the central human figure in the OT), their trek to Mount Sinai, and their continued movement to Canaan, the promised land.

Authorship, Date, and Historical Issues

Authorship and date. The authorship of Exodus must be considered together with the larger issue of the authorship of the Pentateuch (see Pentateuch). This is one of the more central issues in the history of modern OT scholarship. Generally, Moses was considered the sole or essential author throughout much of the history of Jewish and Christian interpretation. This is not to say that careful readers of the Pentateuch did not raise thoughtful questions concerning passages that were problematic for Mosaic authorship. For example, the fifth-century translator Jerome raised the question of whether Moses could have recorded the story of his own death (Deut. 34). Serious questions concerning Mosaic authorship, however, did not become the dominant trend among scholars until the seventeenth century. The presence of numerous post-Mosaic elements as well as repetition in some key stories (e.g., the two creation stories in Gen. 1–2 and the repetition in the flood narrative in Gen. 6–9) suggested that the authorship question might be more complicated than traditionally understood. Some of these earlier discussions were not necessarily hostile to divine inspiration or to the notion of “basic” or “essential” Mosaic authorship. Nevertheless, the scholarly debates were synthesized in the latter half of the nineteenth century by Julius Wellhausen and his well-known Documentary Hypothesis. His theory presented considerable challenges to traditional views of pentateuchal authorship, and the Documentary Hypothesis soon became widely accepted throughout the scholarly world.

Wellhausen’s views have undergone continual revision and refinement, as well as essential rejection. In contemporary academic dialogue, it is fair to say that precisely who wrote the Pentateuch that we have and when it was finalized remain open questions. A commonly accepted position, also among evangelicals, is that the Pentateuch we have today (i.e., its final form) is not the work of someone living in the middle of the second millennium BC (the traditional date for the life of Moses). The question is not of Moses’ genius and special preparation for the task before him, or of his having received the law on Mount Sinai and having recorded certain events; rather, the question specifically concerns the historical period in which the Pentateuch as we know it came to be. And with respect to this specific question, contemporary biblical scholars commonly attribute the final form of the Pentateuch to later scribes (in the exilic and postexilic eras), using older material, both written and oral, at least some of it going back to Moses himself. Hence, terms such as “essential Mosaic authorship,” although not precisely defined, have become common designations. References to the Pentateuch as the “Law of Moses” or similar phrases do not function as authorial statements in the modern sense of the word (i.e., refer to the one sitting down and doing the writing), but rather reflect the close association between the text and the events that lie behind it. We are perhaps not unwise to allow the question of the human authorship of the Pentateuch to remain open while also confessing that God is free to bring his word into existence in any way he sees fit.

Historicity. One reason why Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has been such a focal point, however, concerns the question of the historicity of Exodus and of the Pentateuch in general. If Moses is not the author in the usual sense of the word, and if the Pentateuch as we know it was written by hands much removed from the events themselves, how can we be assured of its historical reliability? This is a fair question, although it assumes that eyewitnesses (or near eyewitnesses) would better guarantee historical accuracy than those more removed from the events. But one could just as easily argue that having some historical distance could make one more perceptive about the significance of past events. More important, however, such a view could appear to be limiting God’s ability to allow the Pentateuch to develop through a historical process over a certain length of time. Since God is the ultimate author, non-Mosaic authorship does not imply an inability to produce a historically reliable text.

With respect to Exodus specifically, more serious questions concerning historicity have come from archaeological evidence—or better, lack of evidence. First, there are two reigning possibilities for the date of the exodus. The traditional date is around 1446/1447 BC and is based essentially on a literal reading of 1 Kings 6:1, which puts the exodus 480 years before the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, around 966/967 BC. The alternate date is around 1270/1260 BC and is based on a symbolic reading of 1 Kings 6:1 and indirect archaeological evidence concerning “Pithom and Rameses” (Exod. 1:11) and some conquest sites. Concerning the latter, there is evidence for the destruction of some Canaanite towns, beginning around 1230–1220 BC, which, according to the biblical record, were destroyed right after Israel’s entrance into Canaan. Hence, if the evidence for the destruction of these towns points to about 1230–1220 BC, a rough date of 1270/1260 BC for the exodus accounts for the intervening forty years of wilderness wandering.

However, biblical archaeologists have persistently maintained that there is no positive archaeological evidence for the existence of Israelite slaves in Egypt during the time when the exodus would have taken place. This absence of evidence has been understood in very different ways by people of different camps. For some, the absence of any sort of Israelite material remains in Egypt, not to mention the lack of any written Egyptian record of Israelite presence, is a fairly clear indication that such events never took place; modern scholarship is replete with theories to account for the biblical record, from complete fabrication to later legendizing of sparse, ancient records. Others consider the absence of written evidence to indicate Egyptian embarrassment at having been bested by a group of slaves (why would they want to keep a record of that?). The absence of evidence of specifically Israelite material culture in Egypt is attributed either to Israelite assimilation into Egyptian culture or to similarities with other Semitic peoples in Egypt during the second millennium BC.

Although the question of the historicity of the exodus is very much an open subject, recent work, particularly by evangelical scholars, has begun mounting arguments for the presence of Semitic peoples in second-millennium Egypt and therefore for the historical plausibility of Israelite presence, enslavement, and release from Egyptian captivity. From a scholarly point of view, this issue will not be settled in the near future, and much of the debate includes questions of a more philosophical nature, such as “What does it mean to ‘record’ history?” “What did it mean to record history in the ancient world as opposed to our modern world?” “What type of historical account should we expect from ancient Israelites?” These and other similar questions broaden the discussion considerably and ensure that it will be ongoing.

Outline

In its simplest outline, Exodus may be roughly divided into two parts, which highlight the Israelites’ departure from Egypt and their sojourn at the foot of Mount Sinai:

I. Departure from Egypt (1–15)

II. Journey to and Arrival at Mount Sinai (16–40)

A subdivision of section II can easily be justified, since two basic events at Mount Sinai are recounted in chapters 16–40, the giving of the law and the building of the tabernacle:

I. Departure from Egypt (1–15)

II. Mount Sinai: Law (16–24)

III. Mount Sinai: Tabernacle (25–40)

‘

This three-point outline gives the broad contours of Exodus, but a bit more detail will perhaps provide a more useful presentation of the book’s contents:

I. Departure from Egypt (1–15)

A. Prelude and call of Moses (1–6)

B. Plagues (7–12)

C. Departure (13–15)

II. Mount Sinai: Law (16–24)

A. Journey to Sinai (16–18)

B. Ten Commandments (19–20)

C. The Book of the Covenant (21–24)

III. Mount Sinai: Tabernacle (25–40)

A. Instructions for the tabernacle (25–31)

B. Rebellion and forgiveness (32–34)

C. Building the tabernacle (35–40)

What is immediately striking, even through such a sparse outline, is how much space is devoted to the events on Mount Sinai. Exodus is much more than a record of historical events, as one might find in a modern textbook of American history. It is, rather, a profound theological statement, both in its own right as well as part of the Pentateuch as a whole, whose focus is not simply on the Israelites’ release from Egypt but also on their arrival at Mount Sinai. The structure of the book, in other words, leads us to understand something of the book’s theology.

Theology

Creation. Already in the first chapter we see connections to Genesis, which tell us that we cannot read Exodus in isolation. For example, Exod. 1:1 closely parallels Gen. 46:8. The latter speaks of the Israelites going down into Egypt, and the former picks up on this theme, thus reminding us that Israel’s presence in Egypt was not an accident and that Exodus is a continuation of the story begun in Genesis. Likewise, the use of creation language in Exod. 1:7 (the Israelites were fruitful, multiplying, becoming numerous, filling the earth; compare to Gen. 1:21, 28; 8:17; 9:1) signals that Israel’s impending drama is somehow connected to creation. That point is made clearer in the chapters that follow. Perhaps most central is the crossing of the Red Sea. As in Gen. 1:9, where the dry land appears where once there was water, here the dry land (Exod. 14:21) appears to make a path through the sea.

There is, in fact, a fair amount of Exodus that plays on this theological theme of creation and the reversal of creation. In ancient Near Eastern conceptions of creation, water represented chaos. The gods’ role was to tame the chaos so that the earth could be inhabited. Separating the land from the primordial sea was an important part of that, and this is reflected in the biblical account in Gen. 1. The flood in Gen. 6–9 is a reversal of that creative act, where God allows the waters of chaos to come crashing down on his creation, thus making it uninhabitable again. Exodus continues this theme, but here creation is called upon to aid the Israelites in their escape, whereas it is used against the Egyptians. The ten plagues, for example, are declarations that Israel’s God controls the cosmos, whereas Egypt’s gods stand by helplessly. The plague of darkness in particular is a graphic reversal of what God had done in Genesis, the creation of light and the separation of light from darkness. Israel’s deliverance from Egypt is, in other words, another act of creation: the same God who brought order to cosmic chaos in Gen. 1 is now unleashing the forces of creation to save his people and punish their enemies. And whereas Pharaoh’s Egyptians are able to reproduce the first sign and the first two plagues, it is only Israel’s God who can end the plagues and restore order to chaos.

Israel has been delivered from Egypt for a purpose, and that purpose begins to become clear in the chapters that follow their departure. The newly created people of Israel are not delivered from Egypt so that they can be “free” from bondage. The key struggle in the opening chapters of Exodus, indeed, the whole reason for the ten plagues, is to determine to whom Israel belongs, whether to Pharaoh or to Yahweh, Israel’s God. The Hebrew word ’abad can mean both “serve” (in the sense of servitude) and “worship.” In a wonderful play on words, the question being asked in the opening chapters is “Whom will Israel ’abad, Pharaoh or Yahweh?” But Yahweh claims his people, not so that they can be liberated to go where they please, but rather so that they are free to move from serving/worshiping Pharaoh to serving/worshiping Yahweh on Mount Sinai.

This is why so much of Exodus concerns the journey to Mount Sinai and what happens there. Much of the “action” may end by chapter 19, but the reason for the action is to get the Israelites to Mount Sinai so that they can begin their proper life of service to Yahweh and Yahweh alone. And this service involves two things: proper behavior (law) and proper worship (tabernacle). These are the main topics of the remainder of the book of Exodus. And the fact that so much text is dedicated to these two topics, which may be of relatively little interest to Christian readers, is an indication of their central importance to the theology of the OT.

Law. It is important to understand that the law was given to the Israelites after they had been redeemed from Egypt, not before. The law is a gift to those who have been saved. It is not something to be followed in order to become saved. Israel is, as we read in Exod. 4:22–23, God’s son. This is why Israel was delivered from Egypt, and this is why Israel was given the gift of the law.

The purpose of the law, therefore, was not to prove to God that his people were somehow worthy of his covenant with them. The law was given so that Israel would be molded into a new people, one whose hearts were wholly devoted to God and so could be the instrument through which not only Israel but also the nations themselves would be blessed (see Gen. 12:1–3). As Exod. 19:6 puts it, Israel is to become a “kingdom of priests”—that is, the “holy nation” that would perform the mediatorial role of blessing the nations. The law, therefore, was not a burden but a delight, a gift from God to a redeemed people.

Also, the laws that God gives in Exodus are not necessarily new, as if no one had ever heard of these sorts of things before. Murder and adultery were considered to be wrong long before the Ten Commandments were given. Likewise, the laws of Exod. 21–23 (often referred to as the Book of the Covenant) are not new but rather reflect other ancient law codes much older than Israel’s (regardless of when one dates the exodus). What makes these laws different, however, is that these are the laws that Yahweh, the true God, gives to his people; these are the laws that reflect his character and, if the Israelites follow them, will ensure that they reflect God’s character to one another and the surrounding nations. In other words, the law performs not so much an exclusionary role as a missional role. Or perhaps better, the Israelites are being trained to be separate, and different, from surrounding peoples in order to properly fulfill their holy, mediating, priestly function.

Tabernacle. The section on the tabernacle begins in chapter 25 and extends to the end of the book, chapter 40. In between is an important episode, the rebellion involving the making of the golden calf. Just as the law represents much more than “rules to live by,” the tabernacle is more than just a building for sacrificing animals. The importance of the tabernacle can be seen by focusing on some key elements.

Chapters 25–31 provide the list of instructions for the tabernacle. For centuries, rabbis and biblical scholars have noticed a pattern in these chapters. Seven times the phrase is repeated “The Lord said to Moses,” and the seventh time is in 31:12 to introduce the topic of Sabbath observance. Just like the creation of the cosmos in Gen. 1, the tabernacle is a product of a six-stage creative act (“And the Lord said”) followed by rest. Some have suggested that the tabernacle is a microcosm of creation: for example, cherubim are worked into the curtains, so to look up is to look at the heavens; the lampstand is a sort of tree of life, as in the garden of Eden. To be in the tabernacle is to be in touch with creation as it was meant to be, in the garden apart from the chaos of life outside.

Chapters 35–40 relay how the instructions are carried out. This section begins with reference to the Sabbath (35:1–3), which is how the first section ends. In between, we find the episode of the golden calf (chaps. 32–34), which is about false worship. The Israelites nearly succeed in undoing all that God had planned in bringing his people out of Egypt. Still, through Moses’ intervention, God’s plan is not thwarted, and so chapter 35 does not miss a beat, picking up where chapter 31 leaves off, with the Sabbath. Some scholars see here a pattern of creation (chaps. 25–31), fall (chaps. 32–34), and redemption (chaps. 35–40).

The tabernacle is an important theological entity in Exodus: it is heaven on earth. It is a truly holy space where God communes with his holy (law-keeping) people. This is the ultimate purpose of the exodus: to create a people who embody God’s character and who worship him in purity. Then God would be with his people wherever they go (40:36–38).

The book of Genesis (“Origins”) is well named because it provides the foundation for the rest of the Bible and speaks of the beginnings of the world, humanity, sin, redemption, the people of God, covenant, marriage, Sabbath, work, and much more. Genesis is the first chapter of the Pentateuch, a five-part story of the origins of the nation of Israel. Genesis is the preamble to that account, leading up to the pivotal moment of the exodus and the move toward the promised land.

Authorship

As noted above, Genesis is the opening to the Pentateuch as a whole, so the question of the authorship of Genesis is connected to the question of the authorship of the Pentateuch as a whole. Genesis (and the entire Pentateuch) is anonymous, though Moses is said to have written down certain traditions that were included in the Pentateuch (Exod. 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:22).

Later tradition speaks of the “law of Moses” (Josh. 1:7–8) or the “Book of Moses” (2 Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1), though it is not certain whether these refer to the entire Pentateuch or merely to portions of it that were associated with Moses. The NT writers, as well as Jesus himself, speak of the Pentateuch in connection with Moses (e.g., Matt. 19:7; 22:24; Mark 7:10; 12:26; John 1:17; 5:46; 7:23).

The question of Moses’ role in writing the Pentateuch is more complicated, however. For instance, there are indications that Genesis was updated well after the death of Moses. Traditionally, these passages are called “post-Mosaica,” because they contain information that could be available only after the death of Moses. For example, Deut. 34 speaks of Moses’ death and burial. Apparently so much time has elapsed since his death that the writer can say, “to this day no one knows where his grave is” (v. 6). The writer then states, “since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses” (v. 10), which also presumes a considerable length of time has passed. Other examples include Gen. 11:31, which refers to Abraham’s hometown as “Ur of the Chaldeans.” Although Ur was a very ancient city, the Chaldeans were an Aramaic-speaking tribe that only occupied Ur long after the time of Moses. Similarly, in Gen. 14:14 a city by the name of “Dan” is mentioned, but we know from Judg. 18 that this city only received this name during the period of the judges.

Despite these considerations, some scholars are still comfortable ascribing some “essential” authorship role to Moses. (For the main alternative theory for the authorship and date of the writing of Genesis, see Documentary Hypothesis; Pentateuch.)

Structure and Outline

Genesis may be outlined in more than one way. One method is to follow the toledot formulas that serve as an organizing structure for the book. The phrase “these are the toledot of X” (where X is the personal name of the character whose sons are the subject of the narrative that follows) is repeated ten times: 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1 (cf. 36:9); 37:2 (see also 10:32; 25:13). For instance, Gen. 11:27 begins, “These are the toledot of Terah” (NIV: “This is the account of Terah’s family line”), while the account that follows is the story of Terah’s son Abraham. Toledot is best translated as “family history” or “account.” Hence, one can take Genesis as having a prologue (1:1–2:3) followed by ten episodes.

In terms of content and style, the book falls into three main units as follows:

I. The Primeval History (Gen. 1:1–11:26)

II. The Patriarchal Narrative (Gen. 11:27–36:43)

III. The Joseph Story (Gen. 37–50)

I. The primeval history (Gen. 1:1–11:26). The book opens with an account of creation given in two parts. Genesis 1:1–2:4a provides a creation account that describes the six days in which God created the heavens and the earth, followed by a seventh day of rest. Genesis 2:4b–25 then provides a second account of creation, this time with a focus on the creation of Adam and Eve. Genesis 3 then narrates the first sin of humanity, which introduces sin and death into the world. Genesis 4–11 provides four additional stories (the murder of Abel by Cain, the intermarrying of the “sons of God” with the “daughters of men,” the flood, and the tower of Babel). These stories show a creation gone wrong, God’s move to start over again with Noah and his family, and the persistence of sin thereafter. All of this leads to the story of the patriarchs, where God’s plan to set things right takes a decisive turn. These stories are connected by genealogies that mark the march of time as well as provide significant theological commentary.

II. The patriarchal narrative (Gen. 11:27–36:43). The middle section of the book of Genesis turns its attention to the patriarchs, so called because they are the fathers of the nation of Israel. The style of the book changes at this point, so that rather than following the story of all the world and moving at a fast pace, the narrative slows down and focuses on God creating a people to obey him and to bring those blessings to the whole world (12:1–3). God now determines to restore the blessing lost at Eden by reaching the world through the descendants of one individual, Abraham.

Abraham’s father, Terah, took Abram (as Abraham was then known), Abram’s wife Sarai (Sarah), and Terah’s grandson Lot and left Ur to settle in Harran in northern Mesopotamia. No explanation is given why. While they are settled in Harran, God commands Abraham to leave Ur in Mesopotamia and travel to Canaan. God promises that he will make him a great nation (implying land and many descendants), and that he will be blessed and will be a blessing to the nations (Gen. 12:1–3). That blessing requires Abraham and Sarah to have children, and this sets up much of the drama of his story. Often Abraham reacts in fear and not faith, but at the end of his story he has a solid confidence in God’s ability to take care of him and bring all the promises to fulfillment (Gen. 22).

Isaac, not Ishmael (Abraham’s son through Sarah’s maidservant Hagar; see Gen. 16), is the conduit of the promises to future generations. Even so, Isaac is not a highly developed character in the book of Genesis, although his near sacrifice in Gen. 22 is certainly a matter of great interest. The episode in his life that receives the lengthiest attention is the courtship with Rebekah (Gen. 24), and there the focus is primarily on her.

The account of Isaac’s life gives way to an account of his son Jacob. Jacob is a complex character. The first episodes of his story are about how he, the younger, inherits the blessing and becomes the conduit for the promise rather than his older brother, Esau. Jacob becomes an example of how God uses the foolish things of the world to accomplish his purposes. That the story of the patriarchs is a preamble to the story of the founding of Israel becomes obvious when Jacob’s name is changed to “Israel” after he fights with God (Gen. 32:22–32) and his wives give birth to twelve sons, who give their names to the twelve tribes of Israel.

III. The Joseph story (Gen. 37–50). The third section of Genesis focuses on the twelve sons of Jacob, in particular Joseph. A main theme seems to be God’s providential preservation of the family of the promise, in the context of a devastating famine. Joseph himself expresses the theme of this section at the end of the narrative, after his father dies and his brothers now wonder whether he will seek revenge against them. He reassures them by his statement that although they had meant their actions to harm him, he knows that God has used these very actions for good, for the salvation of the family of God (Gen. 50:19–20). Yes, they had just wanted to get rid of him, but God has used their jealousy to bring Joseph to Egypt. The wife of his owner had wanted to frame him for rape, but God has used this false accusation in order to have him thrown into jail, where he meets two of Pharaoh’s chief advisers. He had demonstrated to them his ability to interpret dreams, so when the chief cupbearer is restored to a position of influence, he can advise Pharaoh himself to turn to Joseph to interpret his disturbing dreams. These dreams have allowed Pharaoh, with Joseph’s help, to prepare for the famine. Joseph has risen to great prominence in Egypt, so when the famine comes, he is in a position to help his family, and the promise can continue to the next generations.

Among other secondary, yet important, themes of the Joseph narrative are the rising prominence of Judah and the lessening significance of Reuben. Judah at first is pictured as self-serving (Gen. 38), but by the end of the story he is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of his father and family (Gen. 44:18–34). This story thus demonstrates why the descendants of Judah have dominance over the descendants of the firstborn, Reuben, in later Israelite history. Also, the Joseph story recounts how Israel came to Egypt. This sets up the events of the book of Exodus.

Style and Genre

Style. Genesis is written in Hebrew prose of a high literary style. Words are carefully chosen not only to communicate the message of the book but also to attract the reader’s interest and attention.

Genre. Genesis is an account of the origins of the cosmos, humanity, and the people of God. Thus, it is proper to refer to the book as a work of history. Of course, there is more than one type of history. Some histories focus on wars, others on economics or politics. Moreover, Genesis is not history in the modern sense but follows ancient conventions, which do not call for scrupulous accuracy. The central concern of Genesis, as with the majority of biblical histories, is the relationship between God and his people. So, it is appropriate to identify Genesis as a theological history.

Some readers misunderstand the nature of the historical information that the book provides. For example, Gen. 1–2 communicates to the reader that it is the true God, not a god such as the Babylonian Marduk or the Canaanite Baal, who created the cosmos. The way some of the stories are told provides a challenge to rival stories from other ancient religions. One example is how the Bible describes the creation of Adam from the dust of the ground and the breath of God. This contrasts with the Mesopotamian creation account Enuma Elish, in which the god Marduk creates the first humans from the clay of the earth and the blood of a demon god. The biblical flood story also may be compared to other ancient flood stories, especially the account of the flood found in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. Genesis clearly interacts with such mythological stories to communicate important truths about the primeval period.

Message

The rich and complex book of Genesis pre-sents a profound message concerning God and his relationship with human beings. This short article cannot do justice to the book’s depth and importance, but it can point to what is perhaps its most important theme: God’s blessing.

Genesis 1–2 teaches that God created Adam and Eve and blessed them. They had everything they needed in the garden of Eden. They enjoyed a perfectly harmonious relationship with God and with each other. They wanted for nothing.

Genesis 3 explains how this blessed existence was disrupted. By choosing to rebel against God, Adam and Eve ruptured their relationship with God and, in consequence, with each other as well. They were expelled from the garden of Eden.

Even in the midst of his judgment, however, God began the work of restoring the blessing to his human creatures (Gen. 3:15). Thus begins the relentless work of God to bring restoration to his people.

New Testament Connections

Genesis is the foundation not just of the Pentateuch, and not just of the OT, but of the entire Bible. The story that begins with creation and fall is followed by the history of redemption, which continues into the NT and which understands Jesus Christ as the one whose death and resurrection serve to restore God’s blessing to his people. The full restoration of relationship awaits the consummation of history and the new Jerusalem, which is described in language telling us that heaven is a restoration (and more) of the conditions enjoyed by Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden (Rev. 21–22, esp. Rev. 22:2).

Of the many allusions to and quotations of Genesis found in the NT, only a few representative examples may be described here.

Paul points to the Abrahamic promise of the seed in Gen. 12:1–3 and proclaims that Jesus is that seed (Gal. 3:15–16). This claim is surprising in light of the OT’s clear understanding that it was the multiple descendants of Abraham constituting Israel who fulfilled this promise (Gen. 15:15). Paul would have known this, but he recognizes that Jesus is the ultimate descendant of Abraham, and that anyone who belongs to Jesus, Jew or Gentile, is also a participant in the Abrahamic promise (Gal. 3:29).

A second example comes from the way in which the author of Hebrews cites the Melchizedek tradition of Gen. 14:17–20. In Genesis, Melchizedek is a mysterious figure who is introduced as the priest-king of Salem (Jerusalem), whom Abraham acknowledges as a fellow worshiper of the true God. In order to make his argument that Jesus is the ultimate priest, the author of Hebrews connects Jesus with Melchizedek rather than with Aaron and asserts the superiority of Melchizedek because Abraham (and thus also Levi, Aaron’s ancestor) paid respects to this man (Heb. 7:1–10).

A final example comes from the Joseph narrative. Earlier, we observed that the narrative shows how God used the evil actions of people in order to save many people. In this, the Joseph narrative anticipates the death of Christ, who was nailed to the cross by the hands of wicked people, but God used this very action to accomplish a much greater salvation than he did through Joseph (see Acts 2:22–24).

Jeremiah is the second of the Major Prophets, after Isaiah and before Ezekiel, an order determined by the chronology of the beginning of their prophetic work. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were basically contemporaries, but the latter began his ministry after Jeremiah. The book of Jeremiah is the longest of the prophets (21,835 words), compared to Ezekiel (18,730 words) and Isaiah (16,932 words). Readers ancient and modern are attracted to the book not only by its stirring message but also because Jeremiah is the most transparent of all the prophetic personalities, often referred to as the Weeping Prophet.

Historical Background

Authorship and date. The superscription of the book announces that it contains “the words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin” (1:1). His prophetic ministry is then described as taking place between the thirteenth year of King Josiah and the eleventh year of King Zedekiah, equivalent to 626–586 BC, a period of great turbulence (see next section). Chapters 40–44 narrate events in the period immediately after the fall of Jerusalem.

On the one hand, there is no good reason to question the existence of the historical Jeremiah or the attribution to him of the prophecy that bears his name. On the other hand, the text indicates that the book was not written at one sitting but rather is the product of a process. Chapter 36 mentions that the prophet wrote down his sermons in 605 BC, and when King Jehoiakim burned the scroll, the narrator relates that Jeremiah again dictated them to Baruch, who wrote them all down, and Jeremiah added many more oracles (36:32). The book describes a close relationship between Jeremiah and his associate Baruch. It is possible that the stories about Jeremiah were written down and added by this close friend.

Ancient Near Eastern historical context. When Jeremiah started his prophetic work in 626 BC, the world was undergoing major political change. Assyria had been the dominant superpower for the preceding centuries. It had incorporated the northern kingdom of Israel into its vast empire in 722 BC, and Judah had been forced to pay tribute. In 626 BC, however, Babylon began its rebellion against Assyria. Nabopolassar, a Chaldean chieftain, now king of Babylon, threw off the yoke of Assyrian bondage, and over what was almost two decades he eradicated Assyria and inherited the empire.

In 626 BC Josiah was king of Judah. His father, Amon, and his grandfather Manasseh had been evil kings, promoting false worship. But Josiah served Yahweh, and soon before Jeremiah began his work, the king began to purify the religious institutions of Judah (2 Chron. 34:3b–7). Jeremiah’s early ministry then occurred in an environment that would find support from the royal court. In 609 BC, however, Josiah tried to block Necho of Egypt from reinforcing the remnants of Assyria against Babylon and in the process lost his life. Although the Egyptians were unsuccessful in helping Assyria survive, they were able to exercise control over Judah and placed a pro-Egyptian king, Jehoiakim, on the throne. Even so, by 605 BC Egypt could not stop Babylon under their new king, Nebuchadnezzar, from demanding that Judah be their vassal (Dan. 1:1–3). Jehoiakim revolted against Babylon in 597 BC. By the time the avenging Babylonian army arrived, Jehoiakim was gone, replaced by his son Jehoiachin. The latter was promptly deported to Babylon and replaced by Zedekiah. The book of Jeremiah records that both Jehoiakim and Zedekiah were determined opponents of the prophet. In any case, Zedekiah too eventually rebelled against Babylon, and this time Nebuchadnezzar not only captured and exiled many leaders but also systematically destroyed the city. He then incorporated Judah into his empire as a province and appointed a Judean governor, Gedaliah. Jeremiah 40–44 describes how Jewish insurgents assassinated Gedaliah and killed off the Babylonian garrison troops. Many of the remaining Jewish people then fled to Egypt against God’s will as announced by Jeremiah, who was forced to go with them.

These events provide the background to the prophetic oracles and the actions narrated in the book of Jeremiah. Some of Jeremiah’s words and actions are specifically dated to these events, while others are not dated.

Text

Jeremiah is one of the few books of the OT that present a significant text-critical issue. The main Hebrew text (the MT) is clearly different from the Greek text. The latter is about one-eighth shorter than the former, lacking about 2,700 words. In addition, the order of the book is different. The oracles against the foreign nations are chapters 46–51 in the Hebrew but are found right after 25:13 in the Greek. The DSS attest to early Hebrew manuscripts that reflect the Greek tradition, and therefore we cannot attribute the difference to translation error or intentional rearrangement. A better solution is to remember that the book of Jeremiah as we know it in the Hebrew is the result of a long history of composition. The Greek text may reflect an earlier shorter version. The longer Hebrew text then represents the final authoritative edition of the book and is rightly used for modern translations.

Literary Types

The book as a whole is a compendium of prophetic oracles and stories about Jeremiah. The following distinct literary types are found in the book.

Poetical prophetic oracles of judgment and salvation. Chapters 2–25 are composed primarily of poetic oracles of judgment directed toward God’s people. They are God’s words to his people uttered by the prophet. Chapters 46–51 are also judgment oracles, but these are directed toward foreign nations such as Egypt and Babylon. Although salvation oracles are found in the first part of the book, chapters 30–31 form a striking collection of such oracles, the best known of which is the anticipation of the new covenant (31:31–34).

Poetical confessions/laments. Jeremiah’s confessions are in the form of laments in which he complains about the burdens brought on by his prophetic task. These laments have many similarities with laments in the psalms, including elements such as an invocation, a declaration of innocence, an invocation against enemies, and divine response. While the laments have a certain ritual form, there is no good reason to deny that they authentically represent the emotions of the prophet. The confessions/laments are found in 11:18–23; 12:1–6; 15:15–21; 17:14–18; 18:19–23; 20:7–17.

Prose oracles. Jeremiah’s oracles come in the form of prose as well as poetry. Similarities have been drawn between these oracles (a good example is 7:1–8:3) and the theology of the book of Deuteronomy. Some want to use this similarity to deny a connection with the historical Jeremiah, but there is no good reason to deny that Jeremiah could reflect the theology of this foundational book.

Prose biographical material. A significant part of the prose material may be described as biographical, in that it relates events in Jeremiah’s life (chaps. 26–29; 34–45). These descriptions often carry a prophetic oracle. It is likely that these biographical descriptions were written by someone other than Jeremiah (Baruch?).

Prophetic sign-acts. Perhaps a special category of biographical material is the description of events and acts of Jeremiah’s that carry prophetic significance. A good example is 13:1–11, which narrates Jeremiah’s trip to the Euphrates River to bury his dirty underwear.

Outline

I. Introduction and Jeremiah’s Call (1:1–19)

II The First Half of Jeremiah’s Ministry (2:1–25:14)

A Sermons, oracles, and sign-acts (2:1–24:10)

B Summary (25:1–14)

III. The Second Half of Jeremiah’s Ministry: Judgment and the Fall of Jerusalem (25:15–51:64)

A. Judgment against the nations (25:15–38)

B. Stories about Jeremiah and reports of oracles (26:1–29:32)

C. The Book of Consolation: Salvation oracles (30:1–33:26)

D. Stories about Jeremiah and oracles of judgment (34:1–38:28)

E. Account of the exile (39:1–44:30)

F. Oracle to Baruch (45:1–5)

G. Oracles against foreign nations (46:1–51:64)

IV. Epilogue (52:1–34)

Structure

The book of Jeremiah does not have a clearly delineated structure. In this respect, Jeremiah is not unique among the prophets. Nonetheless, we may still make some general observations about the shape of the book and its large sections, even though we cannot always account for why one oracle follows another. When they are given chronological indicators, they are not arranged sequentially.

There are reasons to think that chapter 25 plays a pivotal role in the book, though it may be that this was more explicit in an earlier form of the book (when the oracles against the foreign nations followed immediately after it; cf. the Greek version). Even so, 25:1–14 summarizes the message of chapters 2–24, and then 25:15–38 announces judgment against the nations. Chapter 1, then, is an introduction to the book, with its account of the prophet’s commissioning, and chapter 52 is an epilogue describing the fall of Jerusalem.

Within these two large sections we can recognize blocks of material. Chapter 1 introduces the prophet, recounts his call, and presents two undated oracles that serve to introduce important themes of the book.

Chapters 2–24 follow as a collection of sermons, poetic and prose oracles, and prophetic sign-acts that are undated. Indeed, it is often difficult to tell when one oracle ends and another begins. It is likely that these are the oracles that come from the first part of the prophet’s ministry, that is, his first scroll, described in chapter 36.

After chapter 25 summarizes the first part of the book and turns attention to the judgment against the nations, a block of prose material follows consisting of stories about Jeremiah as well as reports of oracles (chaps. 26–29).

Chapters 30–33 are a collection of salvation oracles, a break from the heavy barrage of judgment in the book up to this point. Traditionally, these chapters are known as the Book of Consolation. Chapters 30–31 are poetic oracles, while chapters 32–33 are prose.

Chapters 34–38 return to prose stories about Jeremiah and oracles of judgment. This section culminates with the first account of the fall of Jerusalem.

The next section, chapters 39–44, gives the distressing account of the exile and the continuing failures on the part of those who stay in the land with Jeremiah. They end up in Egypt because of their lack of confidence in God’s ability to take care of them. Chapter 45 is an oracle directed toward Baruch, Jeremiah’s associate.

The book ends with a collection of oracles against foreign nations (chaps. 46–51), culminating with a lengthy prophetic statement directed toward Babylon. The book concludes with a second account of the fall of Jerusalem.

Theological Message

Jeremiah is a complex book with many themes. One of the central ideas, however, is covenant. The Bible often uses the idea of a covenant to describe the relationship between God and his people. A covenant is a divinely initiated and defined agreement. God makes promises and calls on his people to observe certain requirements. Research has found that the biblical covenants are close in form and concept to ancient Near Eastern treaties between the kings of superpowers and those of much less powerful nations (vassal treaties). The powerful, sovereign king announces the law to the vassal, and it is accompanied by curses and blessings. If the vassal obeys, then the king gives a reward, but if the vassal disobeys, then the king issues punishment.

There is a series of covenantal relationships between God and his people (Noah [Gen. 9]; Abraham [Gen. 12:1–3; 15; 17]; Moses [Exod. 19–24]; David [2 Sam. 7]), but most relevant for our understanding of Jeremiah is the covenant with Moses as reaffirmed in Deuteronomy. The Mosaic covenant emphasizes law (see Deut. 5–26) and has an extensive section of curses and blessings (Deut. 27–28).

Jeremiah and many of the other prophets may be styled “lawyers of the covenant.” God sends them to his people when they disobey the law. Their job is to warn the people to change their lives and live in conformity with God’s will or else the curses of the covenant will come into effect.

Jeremiah’s oracles focus on warning the people that they are covenant breakers, particularly in the matter of worshipping false gods (Jer. 10–11). The hope is that the people will repent and thus avoid the most extreme punishment. But it is not only the judgment oracles that are related to the covenant; so too are the salvation oracles. In Jer. 31:31–34 the prophet announces that God will replace the old covenant with a new one, which will be more internal, more intense, and more intimate.

New Testament Connections

Jeremiah anticipates the founding of a new and better covenant, and the NT witnesses to the fulfillment of this expectation. As he passed the cup to his disciples, Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20 [cf. 1 Cor. 11:24–25]). The cup, representing Christ’s death, functions as the sign of the new covenant. The point is that the new covenant is founded on the death and resurrection of Christ.

The new covenant replaces the old. This is the argument of the book of Hebrews, which twice cites the relevant passage in Jeremiah to make the point (Heb. 8:8–12; 10:15–17; see also 2 Cor. 3). According to the author of Hebrews, the old covenant failed not because of a defect in God or his instrument but because of the people (Heb. 8:8). They consistently broke that covenant by disobeying the law explicated in the covenant with Moses. As a result, as Jeremiah himself announced, the people would be expelled from the land (reversing the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant), bringing to conclusion the monarchy, which is a provision of the Davidic covenant.

The biblical corpus known as the Pentateuch consists of the first five books of the OT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The word “Pentateuch” comes from two Greek words (penta [“five”] and teuchos [“scroll case, book”]) and is a designation attested in the early church fathers. The collection is also commonly known as the “Five Books of Moses,” “the Law of Moses,” or simply the “Law,” reflecting the traditional Jewish name “Torah,” meaning “law” or “instruction.” The Torah is the first of three major sections that comprise the Hebrew Bible (Torah, Nebiim, Ketubim [Law, Prophets, Writings]); thus for both Jewish and Christian traditions it represents the introduction to the Bible as a whole as well as its interpretive foundation.

The English names for the books of the Pentateuch came from the Latin Vulgate, based on the Greek Septuagint. These appellations are mainly descriptive of their content. Genesis derives from “generations” or “origin,” Exodus means “going out,” Leviticus represents priestly (Levitical) service, Numbers refers to the censuses taken in the book, and Deuteronomy indicates “second law” because of Moses’ rehearsal of God’s commands (see Deut. 17:18). The Hebrew designations derive from opening words in each book. Bereshit (Genesis) means “in the beginning”; Shemot (Exodus), “[these are] the names”; Wayyiqra’ (Leviticus), “and he called”; Bemidbar (Numbers), “in the desert”; and Debarim (Deuteronomy), “[these are] the words.”

Referring to the Pentateuch as “Torah” or the “Law” reflects the climactic reception of God’s commands at Mount Sinai, which were to govern Israel’s life and worship in the promised land, including their journey to get there. However, calling the Pentateuch the “Law” can be a bit misleading because there are relatively few passages that simply list a set of commands, and all law passages are set within a broad narrative. The Pentateuch is a grand story that begins on a universal scale with the creation of the cosmos and ends on the plains of Moab as the reader anticipates the fulfillment of God’s plan to redeem a fallen world through his chosen people. The books offer distinct qualities and content, but they are also inherently dependent upon one another, as the narrative remains unbroken through the five volumes. Genesis ends with Jacob’s family in Egypt, and, though many years have passed, this is where Exodus begins. Leviticus outlines cultic life at the tabernacle (constructed at the end of Exodus) and even begins without a clear subject (“And he called . . .”), which requires the reader to supply “the Lord” from the last verse of Exodus. Numbers begins with an account of Israel’s fighting men as the nation prepares to leave Sinai, and Deuteronomy is Moses’ farewell address to the nation on the cusp of the promised land.

Authorship and Composition

Although the Pentateuch is technically an anonymous work, Jewish and Christian tradition attributes its authorship to Moses, the main figure of the story from Exodus to Deuteronomy. The arguments for attributing the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses come from internal evidence within both Testaments. That Moses is responsible for at least portions of the Pentateuch is suggested by references to his explicit literary activity reflected within the narrative itself (Exod. 17:14; 24:4; 34:28; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9, 22, 24), if not implied in various literary formulas such as “the Lord said to Moses” (e.g., Exod. 39:1, 7, 21; Lev. 4:1; 11:1; 13:1; Num. 1:1; 2:1). Mosaic authorship receives support from the historical books, which use terms such as “the Book of the Law of Moses” in various forms and references in the preexilic history (Josh. 8:30–35; 23:6; 2 Kings 14:6) as well as the postexilic history (e.g., 2 Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1). The same titles are used by NT authors (e.g., Mark 12:26; Luke 24:44; John 1:45), even referring to the Pentateuch simply by the name “Moses” at various points (e.g., Luke 16:29; 24:27; 2 Cor. 3:15).

Even with these examples, nowhere does the text explicitly state that Moses is responsible for the entire compilation of the Pentateuch or that he penned it with his own hand. Rather, a number of factors point to a later hand at work: Moses’ death and burial are referenced (Deut. 34), the conquest of Canaan is referred to as past (Deut. 2:12), and there is evidence that the names of people and places were updated and explained for later generations (e.g., “Dan” in Gen. 14:14; cf. Josh. 19:47; Judg. 18:28b–29). Based on these factors, it is reasonable to believe that the Pentateuch underwent editorial alteration as it was preserved within Jewish life and took its final shape after Moses’ lifetime.

Over the last century, the Documentary Hypothesis has dominated academic discussion of the Pentateuch’s composition. This theory was crystallized by Julius Wellhausen in his Prolegomena to the History of Israel in the late nineteenth century and posits that the Pentateuch originated from a variety of ancient sources derived from distinct authors and time periods that have been transmitted and joined through a long and complex process. Traditionally these documents are identified as J, E, D, and P. The J source is a document authored by the “Yahwist” (German, Jahwist) in Judah around 840 BC and is so called because the name “Yahweh” is used frequently in its text. The E source stands for “Elohist” because of its preference for the divine title “Elohim” and was composed in Israel around 700 BC. The D source stands for “Deuteronomy” because it reflects material found in that book; it was composed sometime around Josiah’s reform in 621 BC. The P document reflects material that priests would be concerned with in the postexilic time period, approximately 500 BC. This theory and its related forms stem from the scholarly concern over various literary characteristics such as the use of divine names; doublets and duplications in the text; observable patterns of style, terminology, and themes; and alleged discrepancies in facts, descriptions, and geographic or historical perspective.

Various documentary theories of composition have flourished over the last century of pentateuchal scholarship and still have many adherents. However, lack of scholarly agreement about the dating and character of the sources and the rise of other literary approaches to the text have many conservative and liberal scholars calling into question the accuracy and even interpretive benefit of the source theories. Moreover, if the literary observations used to create source distinctions can be explained in other ways, then the Documentary Hypothesis is significantly undermined.

In its canonical form, the pentateuchal narrative combines artistic prose, poetry, and law to tell a dramatic history spanning thousands of years. One could divide the story into six major sections: primeval history (Gen. 1–11), the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50), liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18), Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10), wilderness journey (Num. 10:11–36:13), and Moses’ farewell (Deuteronomy).

Primeval History (Gen. 1–11)

It is possible to divide Genesis into two parts based upon subject matter: the origin of creation and humankind’s call, fall, and punishment (chaps 1–11), and the origin of a family that would become God’s conduit of salvation and blessing for the world (chaps. 12–50).

The primeval history comprises essentially the first eleven chapters of Genesis, ending with the genealogy of Abraham in 11:26. Strictly speaking, 11:27 begins the patriarchal section with the sixth instance of the toledot formula found in Genesis, referencing Abraham’s father, Terah. The Hebrew phrase ’elleh toledot (“these are the generations of”) occurs in eleven places in Genesis and reflects a deliberate structural marker that one may use to divide the book into distinct episodes (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2).

Genesis as we know it exhibits two distinct creation accounts in its first two chapters. Although critical scholars contend that the differing accounts reflect contradictory stories and different authors, it is just as convenient to recognize that the two stories vary in style and some content because they attempt to accomplish different aims. The first account, 1:1–2:3, is an artistic, poetic, symmetrical, and “heavenly” view of creation by a transcendent God, who spoke creation into being. In the second account, 2:4–25, God is immanently involved with creation as he is present in a garden, breathes life into Adam’s nostrils, dialogues and problem-solves, fashions Eve from Adam’s side, and bestows warnings and commands. Both perspectives are foundational for providing an accurate view of God’s interaction with creation in the rest of Scripture.

As one progresses through chapters 1–11, the story quickly changes from what God has established as “very good” to discord, sin, and shame. Chapter 3 reflects the “fall” of humanity as Adam and Eve sin in eating from the forbidden tree in direct disobedience to God. The serpent shrewdly deceives the first couple, and thus all three incur God’s curses, which extend to unlimited generations. Sin that breaks the vertical relationship between God and humanity intrinsically leads to horizontal strife between humans. Sin and disunity on the earth only intensify as one moves from the murder story of Cain and Abel in chapter 4 to the flood in chapters 5–9. Violence, evil, and disorder have so pervaded the earth that God sends a deluge to wipe out all living things, save one righteous man and his family, along with an ark full of animals. God makes the first covenant recorded in the biblical narrative with Noah (6:18), promising to save him from the flood as he commands Noah to build an ark and gather food for survival. Noah fulfills all that God has commanded (6:22; 7:5), and God remembers his promise (8:1). This is the prototypical salvation story for the rest of Scripture.

Chapter 9 reflects a new start for humanity and all living things as the creation mandate to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it,” first introduced in 1:28, is restated along with the reminder that humankind is made in God’s image (1:27). Bearing the image involves new responsibilities and stipulations in the postdiluvian era (9:2–6). There will be enmity between humans and animals, animals are now appropriate food, and yet lifeblood will be specially revered. God still requires accountability for just and discriminate shedding of blood and orderly relationships, as he has proved in the deluge, but now he relinquishes this responsibility to humankind. In return, God promises never to destroy all flesh again, and he will set the rainbow in the sky as a personal reminder. Like the covenant with Noah in 6:18, the postdiluvian covenant involves humankind fulfilling commands (9:1–7) and God remembering his covenant (9:8–17), specially termed “everlasting” (9:16).

The primeval commentary on humankind’s unabating sinful condition (e.g., 6:5; 8:21) proves true as Noah becomes drunk and naked and his son Ham (father of Canaan) shames him by failing to conceal his father’s negligence. Instead of multiplying, filling, and subduing the earth as God has intended, humankind collaborates to make a name for itself by building a sort of stairway to heaven within a special city (11:4). God foils such haughty plans by scattering the people across the earth and confusing their language. Expressed in an orderly chiastic structure, the story of the tower of Babel demonstrates that God condescends (11:5) to set things straight with humanity.

Patriarchs (Gen. 12–50)

Although the primeval history is foundational for understanding the rest of the Bible, more space in Genesis is devoted to the patriarchal figures Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In general, the Abrahamic narrative spans chapters 12–25, the story of Isaac serves as a transition to the Jacob cycle of chapters 25–37, and the Joseph narrative finishes the book of Genesis in chapters 37–50.

The transition from the primeval history to the patriarchs (11:27–32) reveals how Abraham, the father of Israel, moves from the east and settles in Harran as the family ventures to settle in Canaan. In Harran, Abraham receives the call of God’s redemptive plan, which reverberates through Scripture. God will bless him with land, make him a great nation, grant him special favor, and use him as a conduit of blessings to the world (12:1–3). In 11:30 is the indication that the barrenness of Abraham’s wife (Sarah) relates to the essence of God’s magnificent promises. How one becomes great in name and number, secures enemy territory, and is to bless all peoples without a descendant becomes the compelling question of the Abrahamic narrative. The interchange between Abraham’s faith in God and his attempts to contrive covenant fulfillment colors the entire narrative leading up to chapter 22. It is there that Abraham’s faith is ultimately put to the test as God asks him to sacrifice the promised son, Isaac. Abraham passes God’s faith test, and a ram is provided to take Isaac’s place. This everlasting covenant that was previously sealed by the sign of circumcision is climactically procured for future generations through Abraham’s exemplary obedience (22:16–18; cf. 15:1–21; 17:1–27).

The patriarchal stories that follow show that the Abrahamic promises are renewed with subsequent generations (see 26:3–4; 28:13–14) and survive various threats to fulfillment. The story of Isaac serves mainly as a bridge to the Jacob cycle, as he exists primarily as a passive character in relation to Abraham and Jacob.

Deception, struggle, rivalry, and favoritism characterize the Jacob narrative, as first exemplified in the jostling of twin boys in Rebekah’s womb (25:22). Jacob supplants his twin brother, Esau, for the firstborn’s blessing and birthright. He flees to Paddan Aram (northern Mesopotamia), marries two sisters, takes their maidservants as concubines, and has eleven children, followed by a falling-out with his father-in-law. Jacob’s struggle for God’s blessing that began with Esau comes to a head in his wrestling encounter with God at Peniel. Ultimately, Jacob emerges victorious and receives God’s blessing and a name change, “Israel” (“one who struggles with God”). Throughout the Jacob story, God demonstrates his faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant and reiterates the promises to Jacob, most notably at Bethel (chaps. 28; 35). The interpersonal strife of Jacob’s life is thus enveloped within a message of reconciliation not just with Esau (chap. 33) but ultimately with God. The reader learns from the episodes in Jacob’s life that although God works through the lives of weak and failing people, his promises for Israel remain secure.

Although Jacob and his family are already living in Canaan, God intends for them to move to Egypt and grow into a powerful nation before fulfilling their conquest of the promised land (see 15:13–16). The story of Joseph explains how the family ends up in Egypt at the close of Genesis. Joseph is specially loved by his father, which elicits significant jealousy from his brothers, who sell him off to some nomads and fabricate the alibi that he has been killed by a wild beast. Joseph winds up in Pharaoh’s household and eventually becomes his top official. When famine strikes Canaan years later, Joseph’s brothers go to Egypt to purchase food from the royal court, and Joseph reveals his identity to them in an emotional reunion. Jacob’s entire family moves to Egypt to live for a time in prosperity under Joseph’s care. The Joseph story illustrates the mysterious relationship of human decision and divine sovereignty (50:20).

Liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18)

Genesis shows how Abraham develops into a large family. Exodus shows how this family becomes a nation—enslaved, freed, and then taught the ways of God. Although it appears that Exodus continues a riveting story of God’s chosen people, it is actually the identity and power of God that take center stage.

Many years have passed since Joseph’s family arrived in Egypt. The Hebrews’ good standing in Egypt has also diminished as their multiplication and fruitfulness during the intervening period—just as God had promised Abraham (Gen. 17:4–8)—became a national threat to the Egyptians. Abraham’s family will spend time in Egyptian slavery before being liberated with many possessions in hand (cf. Gen. 15:13–14).

In the book of Exodus the drama of suffering and salvation serves as the vehicle for God’s self-disclosure to a single man, Moses. Moses is an Israelite of destiny even from birth, as he providentially avoids infant death and rises to power and influence in Pharaoh’s household. Moses never loses his passion for his own people, and he kills an Egyptian who was beating a fellow Hebrew. Moses flees to obscurity in the desert, where he meets God and his call to lead his people out of Egypt and to the promised land (3:7–8; 6:8). Like the days of Noah’s salvation, God has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs and responded to the groans of his people in Egypt (2:24; 6:4–5; cf. Gen. 8:1). God reveals himself, and his personal name “Yahweh” (“I am”), to Moses in the great theophany of the burning bush at Mount Horeb (Sinai), the same place where later he will receive God’s law. Moses doubts his own ability to carry out the task of confronting Pharaoh and leading the exodus, but God foretells that many amazing signs and wonders not only will make the escape possible but also will ultimately reveal the mighty nature of God to the Hebrews, Egypt, and presumably the world (6:7; 7:5).

This promise of creating a nation of his people through deliverance is succinctly conveyed in the classic covenant formula that finds significance in the rest of the OT: “I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God” (6:7). Wielding great power over nature and at times even human decision, God “hardens” Pharaoh’s heart and sends ten plagues to demonstrate his favor for his own people and wrath against their enemy nation. The tenth plague on the firstborn of all in Egypt provides the context for the Passover as God spares the firstborn of Israel in response to the placement of sacrificial blood on the doorposts of their homes. Pharaoh persists in the attempt to overtake the Israelites in the desert, where the power of God climaxes in parting the Red Sea (or Sea of Reeds). The Israelites successfully pass through, but the Egyptian army drowns in pursuit. This is the great salvation event of the OT.

The song of praise for God’s deliverance (15:1–21) quickly turns to cries of groaning in the seventy days following the exodus as the people of the nation, grumbling about their circumstances in the desert, quickly demonstrate their fleeting trust in the one who has saved them (Exod. 15:22–18:27). When a shortage of water and food confronts the people, their faith in God’s care proves shallow, and they turn on Moses. Even though the special marks of God’s protection have been evident in the wilderness through the pillars of cloud and fire, the angel of God, the provision of manna and quail, water from the rock, and the leadership of Moses, the nation continually fails God’s tests of trust and obedience (16:4; cf. 17:2; 20:20). Yet God continues to endure with his people through the leadership of Moses.

Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10)

Most of the pentateuchal narrative takes place at Mount Sinai. It is there that Israel receives national legislation and prescriptions for the tabernacle, the priesthood, feasts and festivals, and other covenantal demands for living as God’s chosen people. The eleven-month stay at Sinai takes the biblical reader through the center of the Pentateuch, covering approximately the last half of Exodus, all of Leviticus, and the first third of Numbers, before the nation leaves this sacred site and sojourns in the wilderness. Several key sections of the Pentateuch fall within the Sinai story: the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17), the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), the tabernacle prescriptions (Exod. 25–31), the tabernacle construction (Exod. 35–40), the manual on ritual worship (Lev. 1–7), and the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–27).

The events and instruction at Sinai are central to the Israelite religious experience and reflect the third eternal covenant that God establishes in the Pentateuch—this time with Israel, whereby the Sabbath is the sign (Exod. 31:16; cf. Noahic/rainbow covenant [Gen. 9:16] and the Abrahamic/circumcision covenant [Gen. 17:7, 13, 19]). The offices of prophet and priest develop into clear view in this portion of the Pentateuch. Moses exemplifies the dual prophetic function of representing the people when speaking with God and, in turn, God when speaking to the people. The priesthood is bestowed upon Aaron and his descendants in Exodus and inaugurated within one of the few narrative sections of Leviticus (Lev. 8–10). The giving of the law, the ark, the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the Sabbath are all a part of God’s making himself “known” to Israel and the world, which is a constant theme in Exodus (see, e.g., 25:22; 29:43, 46; 31:13).

The Israelites’ stay at Sinai opens with one of the greatest theophanies of the Bible: God speaks aloud to the people (Exod. 19–20) and then is envisioned as a consuming fire (Exod. 24). After communicating the Ten Commandments (“ten words”) directly to the people (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4), Moses mediates the rest of the detailed obligations that will govern the future life of the nation. The covenant is ratified in ceremonial fashion (Exod. 24), and the Israelites vow to fulfill all that has been spoken. God expects Israel to be a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) with whom he may dwell, but Moses descends Sinai only to find that the Israelites have already violated the essence of the Decalogue by fashioning a golden calf to worship as that which delivered them from Egypt (Exod. 32). This places Israel’s future and calling in jeopardy, but Moses intercedes for his people, and God graciously promises to preserve the nation and abide with it in his mercy, even while punishing the guilty. This becomes prototypical of God’s relationship with his people in the future (Exod. 34:6–7).

Exodus ends with the consecration of the tabernacle and the descent of God’s presence there. With the tent of worship in order, the priesthood and its rituals can be officially established. Leviticus reflects divine instructions for how a sinful people may live safely in close proximity to God. Holy living involves dealing with sin and minimizing the need for atonement, purification, and restitution. The sacrificial and worship system established in Leviticus is based on a worldview of order, perfection, and purity, which should characterize a people who are commanded, “Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy’ (Lev. 19:2; cf. 11:44–45; 20:26). With these rules in place, the Israelites can make final preparations to depart Sinai and move forward on their journey. Numbers 1–10 spans a nineteen-day period of such activities as the Israelites begin to focus on dispossessing their enemies. These chapters reflect a census of fighting men, the priority of purity, the dedication of the tabernacle, and the observance of the Passover before commencing the quest to Canaan.

Wilderness Journey (Num. 10:11–36:13)

The rest of the book of Numbers covers the remainder of a forty-year stretch of great peaks and valleys in the faith and future of the nation. Chapters 11–25 recount the various events that show the exodus generation’s lack of trust in God. Chapters 26–36 reveal a more positive section whereby a new generation prepares for the conquest. With the third section of Numbers framed by episodes involving the inheritance rights of Zelophehad’s daughters (27:1–11; 36:1–13), it is clear that the story has turned to the future possession of the land.

After the departure from Sinai, the narrative consists of a number of Israelite complaints in the desert. The Israelites have grown tired of manna and ironically crave the food of Egypt, which they recall as free fish, fruits, and vegetables. Having forgotten the hardship of life in slavery, about which they had cried out to God, now the nation is crying out for a lifestyle of old. Moses becomes so overwhelmed with the complaints of the people that God provides seventy elders, who, to help shoulder the leadership burden, will receive the same prophetic spirit given to Moses.

In chapters 13–14 twelve spies are sent out from Kadesh Barnea to peruse Canaan, but the people’s lack of faith to procure the land from the mighty people there proves costly. This final example of distrust moves God to punish and purify the nation. The unbelieving generation will die in the wilderness during a forty-year period of wandering.

The discontent in the desert involves not only food and water but also leadership status. Moses’ own brother and sister resent his special relationship with God and challenge his exclusive authority. Later, Aaron’s special high priesthood is threatened as another Levitical family (Korah) vies for preeminence. Through a sequence of signs and wonders, God makes it clear that Moses and Aaron have exclusive roles in God’s economy. Due to the deaths related to Korah’s rebellion and the fruitless staffs that represent the tribes of Israel, the nation’s concern about sudden extinction in the presence of a holy God is appeased through the eternal covenant of priesthood granted to Aaron’s family (chap. 18). He and the Levites, at the potential expense of their own lives and as part of their priestly service, will be held accountable for keeping the tabernacle pure of encroachers.

Even after the people’s significant rebellion and punishment, God continues to prove his faithfulness to his word. Hope is restored for the nation as the Abrahamic promises of blessing are rehearsed from the mouth of Balaam, a Mesopotamian seer. The Israelites will indeed one day be numerous (23:10), enjoy the presence of God (23:21), be blessed and protected (24:9), and have a kingly leader (24:17). This wonderful mountaintop experience of hope for the exodus generation is tragically countered by an even greater event of apostasy in the subsequent scene. Reminiscent of the incident of the golden calf, when pagan revelry in the camp had foiled Moses’ interaction with God on Sinai, apostasy at the tabernacle undermines Balaam’s oracles of covenant fulfillment. Fornication with Moabite women not only joins the nation to a foreign god but also betrays God’s holiness at his place of dwelling. If not for the zeal of Aaron’s grandson Phinehas, who puts an end to the sin, the ensuing plague could have finished the nation. For his righteous action, Phinehas is awarded an eternal priesthood and ensures a future for the nation and Aaron’s priestly lineage.

In chapter 26 a second census of fighting men indicates that the old, unbelieving exodus generation has officially died off (except for Joshua and Caleb), and God is proceeding with a new people. God dispossesses the enemies of the new generation; reinstates the tribal boundaries of the land; reinstates rules concerning worship, service, and bloodshed; and places Joshua at the helm of leadership. Chapters 26–36 mention no deaths or rebellions as the nation optimistically ends its journey in Moab, just east of the promised land.

Moses’ Farewell (Deuteronomy)

Although one could reasonably move into the historical books at the end of Numbers, much would be lost in overstepping Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy presents Moses’ farewell speeches as his final words to a nation on the verge of Caanan. Moses’ speeches are best viewed as sermons motivating his people to embrace the Sinai covenant, love their God, and choose life over death and blessings over cursings (30:19). Moses reviews the desert experience since Mount Horeb/Sinai (chaps. 1–4) and recapitulates God’s expectations for lawful living in the land (chaps. 5–26). The covenant code is recorded on a scroll, is designated the “Book of the Law” (31:24–26), and is to be read and revered by the future king. Finally, Moses leads the nation in covenant renewal (chaps. 29–32) before the book finishes with an account of his death (chaps. 33–34), including tributes such as “since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (34:10).

Deuteronomy reflects that true covenant faithfulness is achieved from a right heart for God. If there were any previous doubts about the essence of covenant keeping, Moses eliminates such in Deuteronomy with the frequent use of emotive terms. Loving God involves committing to him alone and spurning idols and foreign gods. The Ten Commandments (chap. 5) are not a list of stale requirements; they reflect the great Shema with the words “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (6:5–6). God desires an unrivaled love from the nation, not cold and superficial religiosity.

Obedience by the Israelites will incur material and spiritual blessing, whereas disobedience ends in the loss of both. Although Moses strongly commends covenant obedience, and the nation participates in a covenant-renewal ceremony (chap. 27), it is clear that in the future the Israelites will fail to uphold their covenant obligations and will suffer the consequences (29:23; 30:1–4; 31:16–17). Yet Moses looks to a day when the command for circumcised hearts (10:16) will be fulfilled by the power of God himself (30:6). In the future a new king will arise from the nation (17:14–20) as well as a prophet like Moses (18:15–22). Deuteronomy thus underscores the extent of God’s own devotion to his patriarchal promises despite the sinful nature of his people.

For much of the middle and end of the twentieth century, Deuteronomy has received a significant amount of attention for its apparent resemblance in structure and content to ancient Hittite and Assyrian treaties. Scholars debate the extent of similarity, but it is possible that Deuteronomy reflects a suzerain-vassal treaty form between Israel and God much like the common format between nations in the ancient Near East. Although comparative investigation of this type can be profitable for interpretation, it is prudent to be conservative when outlining direct parallels, since Deuteronomy is not a legal document but rather a dramatic narrative of God’s redemptive interaction with the world.

Son of Ham, grandson of Noah, and the father of the families that would become known as the Canaanites (Gen. 10:6, 15–19). Oddly, in the account of Ham’s great sin against Noah (seeing his father’s nakedness), Noah cursed his grandson Canaan rather than his son Ham (Gen. 9:18–27). The explanations of such cursing vary, but the passage ultimately establishes the context by which the Bible explains the relationship of the Canaanites to the Israelites in the centuries that followed. The most plausible reasons for why Canaan was cursed rather than Ham center on the irrevocability of God’s blessing of Ham in Gen. 9:1 or that Canaan played some undescribed role in the sinful act. The curse also included a promise of animosity between Canaan and the sons of Japheth (9:27). This element of the curse probably found fulfillment with the entrance of the Philistines (Sea Peoples) into the land at about the same time Israel was entering it under Joshua’s leadership.

Bible formation and canon development are best understood in light of historical events and theological principles. In the historical-theological process we learn what God did and how he engaged a variety of people to produce Scripture as the word of God. The Bible is the written revelation of the triune God, who made himself known to his creation. The divine actions of God to reveal himself resulted in a written text recognized to be authoritative and thus copied and preserved for future generations. The process of recognizing and collecting authoritative books of the Scriptures occurred over time and involved consensus.

Bible Formation

Revelation. The process of Bible formation begins with God revealing. The act of revelation involved God communicating truth to the human writers in a progressive and unified manner. Inspiration is the act of God the Holy Spirit, who superintended the biblical authors so that they composed the books of Scripture exactly as he intended. God used the biblical writers, their personalities and their writing styles, in a manner that kept them from error in composing the original written product, the Scriptures. The resulting books of the Bible constitute God’s permanent special revelation to humankind.

Both Testaments affirm the work of revelation along with the formation of a body of divine writings. The OT is dominated by the phrase “thus says the Lord” and similar expressions (cf. Gen. 9:8; Josh. 24:27; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:7 and contrast Ps. 135:15–19). Every part of the OT is viewed as the word of God (Rom. 3:2). This is confirmed by Jesus’ attitude toward the Scriptures (Matt. 19:4–5; 21:42; 22:29; cf. Luke 11:50–51; 24:44).

Four NT passages help us understand the work of inspiration. A factual statement regarding the extent and nature of inspiration is made in 2 Tim. 3:16. According to 2 Pet. 1:19–20, the Holy Spirit purposefully carried persons along to produce the prophetic word, and 1 Cor. 2:10–13 supports the choice of the words in the work of composing the inspired product. Finally, Peter comments that Paul was given wisdom to produce inspired literary documents in the canon of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:14–18).

Authority. Books formed and authored by God in this manner are authoritative. Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliably composed in the originals, it is binding upon people in their relationship with God and other people. Biblical authority derives from God’s eternal character and the content of his word preserved in Scripture. The inscripturated word of God is authoritative and requires obedience.

The authority of God’s word is affirmed and illustrated in the creation and fall narratives. In the fall, Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s command (Gen. 3:3–4) and were expelled from the garden. In subsequent periods of biblical history, God’s spoken and written word continued to be the basis for belief and conduct. God summarized his will in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17; Deut. 5:6–21) and held his people accountable to it (Deut. 6:2; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 17:5–23). The authoritative word embraced by faith protects the believer from sin (Ps. 119:11). The fool is the person who rejects God’s authority (Pss. 14:1; 53:1). The apostle Paul acknowledged the authority of the gospel for his own life and ministry (Gal. 1:6–9). God the Holy Spirit impresses upon the believer the authority of the Bible as the reliable rule for faith and practice (John 6:63).

God made provision for a reliable and trustworthy preservation of his authoritative word in the multiplicity of extant manuscripts. God commanded that his revealed word be copied (Deut. 17:8–18; 24:8; 31:9, 25–26; 33:8–10) for administrative and personal purposes (Deut. 6:6; Josh. 1:8; 23:6; Prov. 3:3; 7:3). Through this process of multiplication the word of God was preserved (Ps. 119:152, 160; Isa. 40:8; cf. Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35; 1 Pet. 1:22–25).

Canonization

Canonization is the next critical step in the development of the Bible. The word “canon” (Gk. kanōn) refers to a standard, norm, or rule (Gal. 6:16; cf. Ezek. 42:16), and when applied to the Bible, it designates the collection of books revealed by God, divinely inspired, and recognized by the people of God as the authoritative norm for faith and practice. The presupposition of canonicity is that God spoke to his human creatures and his word was accurately recorded. Since inspiration determines canonicity, the books composed by human beings under the direction of the Holy Spirit functioned authoritatively at the time of writing. The people of God then recognized and collected the books that they discerned to be inspired and authoritative (1 Thess. 2:10–16; 2 Pet. 3:15).

The canonical process. The challenge associated with canon and Bible formation is that the Scriptures do not reveal a detailed historical process for recognizing and collecting inspired works. An understanding of this process is derived from the testimony of Jesus, biblical principles, and historical precedents.

Canonical identification is associated with the witness of the Holy Spirit, who worked in connection with the believers to recognize the written documents given by inspiration (1 Thess. 2:13). The Holy Spirit enabled believers to discern a book’s authority and its compatibility with existing canonical revelation (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). Although the question of authorship cannot be positively settled for every OT or NT book, believers recognized the prophets as the OT authors (Deut. 18:14–22) and the apostles as the NT authors. Canonical books were recognized to bear the power of God and to contain an effective message (2 Tim. 3:15–16; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Over time, the authoritative books of Scripture were collected into a body of literature that today forms one book, the Bible. During this process, some believers struggled with the message, content, and ambiguous authorship of books such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Esther in the OT and Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter in the NT. The pattern of composition and canonical process for the OT provided the foundation for the composition and development of the NT canon. Therefore, the NT books that came to be recognized as canonical were those that were composed in connection with an apostle, doctrinally sound, and widely circulated and used by the churches.

In the collection task some texts were recognized (homologoumena), some were disputed (antilegomena), and others were rejected as unorthodox (pseudepigrapha). Historically, there is no evidence for widespread acceptance of the present-day canon of sixty-six books until the third century AD.

Structure and content. Over the centuries, several canonical lists began to emerge, often influenced by particular theological conclusions. For example, the Samaritan canon, which includes only the first five books of our OT, was compiled by the Samaritans, who were hostile to anything in Israel or Judea outside Samaria. Today, Christian traditions vary in their inclusion or omission of the Apocrypha from their Bibles and in their list of which books are contained in the Apocrypha.

The Babylonian canon, accepted as standard by Jews, contains all the books now recognized as the OT and is divided into three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. This canon is also known as the Tanak, an acronym derived from the Hebrew words for “law” (torah), “prophets” (nebi’im), “writings” (ketubim). This canonical list traditionally includes twenty-four books (the twelve Minor Prophets are considered to be one book, as are 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah). The twenty-four books of this canonical list are the same as the thirty-nine OT books in current English Bible editions. The law or instruction section includes the first five books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets section is divided into the Former and Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets are the historical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The Latter Prophets include both the Major and the Minor Prophets. The Writings section contains both poetic and wisdom material, along with some historical material.

Historical references to this canonical format are found in extrabiblical sources as early as the second century BC. The grandson of Jesus Ben Sira referenced a threefold canon in the prologue of the apocryphal book Sirach (c. 190 BC); Josephus referenced it in Against Apion (AD 37–95). Jesus acknowledged the threefold division in Luke 24:44 (cf. Matt. 23:34). Among Christian sources, this division is preserved in the oldest extant list of OT books, associated with Bishop Melito of Sardis (AD 170). Tertullian, an early Latin church father (AD 160–250), Origen (AD 254), Hilary of Poitiers (AD 305–366), and Jerome (AD 340–420) affirmed an OT canon of twenty-two or twenty-four books. Most current English versions follow a fourfold structure of law, history, poetry, and prophets.

The twenty-seven books of the NT are attested in lists associated with churches in the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean world. Two such witnesses are the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius (AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). The canonical list associated with Marcion and the Muratorian list represent fragmentary lists from the early part of the second century AD. In terms of usage, a majority of church fathers recognized and used the twenty-seven NT books in our canon. See also Apocrypha, New Testament; Apocrypha, Old Testament.

The government-sanctioned killing of a perpetrator of a serious offense. The biblical portrayal of capital punishment involves the concept as a God-ordained institution related to the value of humanity and the necessary recompense for the corruption or murder of that ideal (Gen. 9:6).

Methods of capital punishment. The methods of capital punishment listed in the Scriptures are several. The most common method was stoning (Lev. 24:16; Num. 15:32–36; Deut. 13:1–10; 17:2–5), and this required that the primary witnesses for the prosecution be the first to take up stones against the accused. The burning of a person was rare, but it was commanded for certain sexual crimes (Lev. 20:14). In the story of Judah and Tamar, before learning the true nature of her pregnancy, Judah ordered his daughter-in-law to be burned to death outside the city (Gen. 38:24). On occasion, the method of punishment involved being run through by a weapon: Phinehas impaled an Israelite and his Midianite lover with a spear in order to soothe the wrath of God and stop a plague (Num. 25:7–8); Canaanites under the kherem (divine command of total destruction) were to be put to the sword (Deut. 13:15), and God commanded that anyone who touched Mount Sinai be shot through with arrows (Exod. 19:13). Beheading seems to have been practiced for crimes against royalty, though there are no mandates concerning it (2 Sam. 16:9; 2 Kings 6:31–32). Other forms of capital punishment included impalement or placement upon a wooden stake (Ezra 6:11; Esther 2:23). Although some understand this to be a form of hanging, archaeological evidence and understandings of the cultures of the time suggest that impalement is more likely. Finally, the Romans took the punishment of crucifixion that they had learned from Carthage and applied it with vigor to those guilty of insurrection (Luke 23:13–33).

Offenses leading to capital punishment. With respect to Israel, the list of offenses deemed worthy of capital punishment primarily focused upon human interrelations, though a few crimes listed did involve the breaking of covenant stipulations involving one’s direct relationship with God. From this latter group, crimes such as witchcraft and divination (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27; Deut. 18:20), profaning the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–17), idolatry (Lev. 20:1–5), and blasphemy (Lev. 24:14–16; Matt. 26:65–66) were included. In these laws one sees the expression of God’s wrath and jealousy for his position in the lives of those who claim to be his. Mandates demanding death in response to some sort of corruption of the human ideal included acts such as costing another person his or her life, sexual aberrations, and familial relationships. Anyone who committed murder (Exod. 21:12), put another’s life at risk by giving false testimony in a trial (Deut. 19:16–21), or enslaved a person wrongfully (Exod. 21:16) could be considered to have cost someone’s life. Sexual aberrations regarded as worthy of death included sexual acts of bestiality, incest, and homosexuality (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:11–17), rape (Deut. 22:23–27), adultery (Lev. 20:10–12), and sexual relations outside of marriage (Lev. 21:9; Deut. 22:20–24). The final group of familial relationships primarily applies to the crass rebellion of children against their parents (Deut. 21:18–21).

At times, the righteous faced capital punishment for their beliefs. For example, at the hands of government faithful saints of God were sawn in two (Heb. 11:37 [a Jewish tradition may indicate that the prophet Isaiah died in such a manner]), stoned (Acts 7:58–59), and beheaded (Mark 6:27; Acts 12:2). At other times, attempts were made to inflict such punishment, but God intervened. In these examples, the punishments that God prevented include consumption by lions (Dan. 6), burning in a fiery furnace (Dan. 3), being thrown over a cliff (Luke 4:29–30), and stoning (Acts 14:19).

Capital punishment today. Several opinions persist regarding the appropriateness of continuing the practice of capital punishment in the modern era. For some, passages expressing a command concerning such types of punishment are either descriptive of what was going on or fall under the principle of a culture that no longer exists, so their laws are no longer relevant. Indeed, few today would enforce capital punishment for the same crimes that Israel punished with death. For these individuals, the question then becomes whether Scripture, which required capital punishment at the time it was written, permits capital punishment today. Those who are consistent will admit that if there is no mandate to require it, it must also be admitted that there is no mandate preventing its use as well.

On the other side are those who argue that while one cannot directly apply the laws of the OT to today’s situation, the principle expressed, particularly as it pertains to value of humanity, demands the continuation of capital punishment at least in response to heinous crimes that cost an individual his or her life, either literally as with murder, or more figuratively (but just as real) as with rape. For these people, it is significant that the requirements of capital punishment for murder precede the giving of the law (Gen. 9:6). Since the status of humanity in the eyes of God has not altered, neither has his prescribed method of dealing with those crimes been lifted; here the principle requires the practice (Rom. 13:4).

The answers are not easy, but they are important. The biblical text itself regularly balances the expected payment for sins worthy of the death penalty with expressions of grace (Gen. 4:15; Josh. 6:22–23). Furthermore, one must account for the perfect knowledge of God and his execution of his fully justified wrath in contrast to the imperfect knowledge of humanity and the inequalities that sometimes find expression in modern court settings. Finding the balance between holding a biblical worldview that appropriately seeks justice and one regulated by grace is difficult enough in terms of interpersonal relationships; when it is moved to the greater scope of society as a whole, the questions are even more significant and even more difficult to answer. See also Crimes and Punishments.

There are several censuses in Scripture, and their concern is not simply to account for the number of people or the number of men available for military service; they also have a literary and theological function.

In the creation narrative in Gen. 1–11 the fulfillment of the creation mandate is accounted for through the genealogy of Adam (Gen. 5) and the genealogy of the sons of Noah (Gen. 9:18–19; 10:1–32), which serve as a type of census. The creation narrative has a universal scope; it attempts to account for the total human population on earth.

Census lists are given for the Abrahamic family (Abraham-Isaac-Jacob line) as it grows to become a nation in accordance with God’s promise to Abraham of a great nation and innumerable offspring (Gen. 12:1–3; 15:5). The total number of Jacob’s descendants who went to Egypt was seventy (Gen. 46:8–27; Exod. 1:1–4). This old generation of Israel passed, and a new generation was born that was fruitful, multiplied, and became exceedingly numerous (Exod. 1:6–7). The total number of men of at least twenty years of age who came out of Egypt was 603,550 (Num. 1:1–46; cf. Exod. 12:37–38), and of the new generation that stood on the verge of entering the Promised Land, 601,730 (Num. 26:1–51).

In the book of Numbers there are two census accounts (actually, military registrations). These are important to the structure and theme of the book. The theme of Numbers has to do with the judgment on the first generation (the object of the census in Num. 1) and the hope for the second generation, which will enter the Promised Land (the object of the second census).

David conducted a census to measure his military power, but this is condemned by God and regarded as satanic (2 Sam. 24:1–17; 1 Chron. 21:1–30). For the Chronicler, any attempt to account for the total number of Israelite men twenty years and older, similar to the census in the book of Numbers, is regarded as challenging God’s promise to make Israel as numerous as the stars (1 Chron. 29:23–26).

Ezra and Nehemiah contain census lists of the returnees from exile: under Zerubbabel, 42,360 men returned (Ezra 2:1–66; Neh. 7:4–73), and under Ezra, 1,496 men (Ezra 8:1–14).

In the NT, Jesus participates in the universal census that encompasses not only Israel but other nations as well—a census of the entire Roman world (Luke 2:1–7). The census motif reaches its fulfillment when a great multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language will stand before the throne and in front of the Lamb, symbolized by the 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel, 12,000 from each tribe (Rev. 7:4–10).

Broadly speaking, child abuse refers to physical maltreatment and/or sexual molestation of a child. Often both occur together. In child abuse, legal, moral, and psychological domains are affected. A natural dependence, trust, and frailty define a child, with adulthood typically starting around age eighteen.

Child abuse brings chaos where the Creator blessed with fruitful life (Gen. 1:28; 9:7). Children signify one of God’s richest blessings (Ps. 127:3–6). Pharaoh’s pogrom against the Hebrew children only served to highlight the midwives who “feared God” and chose to foster rather than harm life (Exod. 1:15–22). Orphans lacked parental protection and uniquely came under God’s care as the “helper of fatherless” (Ps. 10:14, 18; cf. James 1:27).

Sadly, one in three girls and one in five boys are sexually abused, 14 percent under the age of six. Most sexual abuse is incest, perpetrated by known providers, often the father. But fathers are exhorted not to even “exasperate” their children (Eph. 6:4; cf. Col. 3:21). For an abused child, their bridging metaphors for God (e.g., “father” and “mother”) can be permanently crushed.

Fortunately, the abused child can find a “spiritual family” in the church (cf. Mark 10:28–30). But woe to those who cause “one of these little ones—those who believe in me” to stumble (Matt. 18:1–6).

Cities in the OT period that were divinely designated places of asylum to which a manslayer might flee for safety (Exod. 21:12–14). Refuge was provided in these cities for the manslayer from family members of the slain person who were seeking to avenge the death of their relative. According to the principle of lex talionis enshrined in OT revelation and subsequent Israelite law (Gen. 9:5–6; Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17), the death penalty applied to the willful murderer. In ancient Israel the sacred duty of punishing a murderer was placed in the hands of the closest relative of the murdered person (“the avenger of blood”). The manslayer was admitted to the city of refuge only after stating his case before the city’s elders at the city gate (Josh. 20:4–5), for this provision applied only to those implicated in an accidental or unintentional death. This institution gave the accused person an opportunity to stand trial before a legal assembly and possibly be acquitted (Num. 35:12). After the death of the high priest (marking the end of an era), the acquitted manslayer was free to return home (Josh. 20). The manslayer who left the city before that time could be killed by the avenger of blood with impunity. In Deuteronomy, with its “holy land” theology, the safety of a person who accidentally killed another prevented the defilement of the land: “Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the Lord your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed” (Deut. 19:10). More widely, the provision reflects the moral character of the God of Israel and the humane spirit of OT legislation that sought to limit vengeance and the blood feuds that easily resulted.

They were six cities of refuge, chosen out of the forty-eight Levitical cities (Num. 34:6–15). Three of these cities were on the east side of the Jordan River, and three on the west. The cities were well spaced and centrally located, so that there was ready access to a city of refuge wherever a person happened to live in Israelite territory. Roads were to be built to the cities to assist the person fleeing (Deut. 19:3). The eastern cities were set apart by Moses (Deut. 4:41–43), and the western ones by Joshua (Josh. 20). The three in Cisjordan (the Promised Land proper) were, from north to south, Kedesh in Naphtali, Shechem in Ephraim, and Kiriath Arba (= Hebron) in Judah. The matching three cities in Transjordan were, from south to north, Bezer in Reubenite territory, Ramoth in the tribal allotment of Gad, and Golan in Bashan.

This institution extended and broadened the primitive custom of a manslayer finding safety in the sanctuary (Exod. 21:14). In the wilderness period, with all Israel encamped around a central sanctuary, this was all that was required. The entrance into the land and the spreading out of the tribes required the establishment of designated cities of refuge. The earlier custom is reflected in 1 Kings 1:50–53; 2:28–35, wherein Adonijah and Joab, who feared for their lives because of the wrath of Solomon, are described as “clinging to the horns of the altar.” This drastic procedure did not, however, prevent the death of Joab at the hands of Benaiah, Solomon’s executioner. A similar custom of sanctuaries as places of asylum is found in other ancient cultures (e.g., Phoenician, Syrian, Greek, and Roman). This social understanding is also reflected in the Psalter, wherein the temple is described as a place of spiritual refuge (e.g., Pss. 27:5; 31:20; 61:4; 91:1–2).

Cities in the OT period that were divinely designated places of asylum to which a manslayer might flee for safety (Exod. 21:12–14). Refuge was provided in these cities for the manslayer from family members of the slain person who were seeking to avenge the death of their relative. According to the principle of lex talionis enshrined in OT revelation and subsequent Israelite law (Gen. 9:5–6; Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17), the death penalty applied to the willful murderer. In ancient Israel the sacred duty of punishing a murderer was placed in the hands of the closest relative of the murdered person (“the avenger of blood”). The manslayer was admitted to the city of refuge only after stating his case before the city’s elders at the city gate (Josh. 20:4–5), for this provision applied only to those implicated in an accidental or unintentional death. This institution gave the accused person an opportunity to stand trial before a legal assembly and possibly be acquitted (Num. 35:12). After the death of the high priest (marking the end of an era), the acquitted manslayer was free to return home (Josh. 20). The manslayer who left the city before that time could be killed by the avenger of blood with impunity. In Deuteronomy, with its “holy land” theology, the safety of a person who accidentally killed another prevented the defilement of the land: “Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the Lord your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed” (Deut. 19:10). More widely, the provision reflects the moral character of the God of Israel and the humane spirit of OT legislation that sought to limit vengeance and the blood feuds that easily resulted.

They were six cities of refuge, chosen out of the forty-eight Levitical cities (Num. 34:6–15). Three of these cities were on the east side of the Jordan River, and three on the west. The cities were well spaced and centrally located, so that there was ready access to a city of refuge wherever a person happened to live in Israelite territory. Roads were to be built to the cities to assist the person fleeing (Deut. 19:3). The eastern cities were set apart by Moses (Deut. 4:41–43), and the western ones by Joshua (Josh. 20). The three in Cisjordan (the Promised Land proper) were, from north to south, Kedesh in Naphtali, Shechem in Ephraim, and Kiriath Arba (= Hebron) in Judah. The matching three cities in Transjordan were, from south to north, Bezer in Reubenite territory, Ramoth in the tribal allotment of Gad, and Golan in Bashan.

This institution extended and broadened the primitive custom of a manslayer finding safety in the sanctuary (Exod. 21:14). In the wilderness period, with all Israel encamped around a central sanctuary, this was all that was required. The entrance into the land and the spreading out of the tribes required the establishment of designated cities of refuge. The earlier custom is reflected in 1 Kings 1:50–53; 2:28–35, wherein Adonijah and Joab, who feared for their lives because of the wrath of Solomon, are described as “clinging to the horns of the altar.” This drastic procedure did not, however, prevent the death of Joab at the hands of Benaiah, Solomon’s executioner. A similar custom of sanctuaries as places of asylum is found in other ancient cultures (e.g., Phoenician, Syrian, Greek, and Roman). This social understanding is also reflected in the Psalter, wherein the temple is described as a place of spiritual refuge (e.g., Pss. 27:5; 31:20; 61:4; 91:1–2).

Those individual entitlements protected by a government, such as due process and equal protection under the law (cf. Amendments 13 and 14 of the U.S. Constitution). God gives secular rulers the authority to legislate, enforce, and interpret civil laws; he has therefore entrusted them with administering justice, which includes protecting civil rights (Rom. 13:1–7; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13–14; cf. Matt. 22:21). Until Christ returns to rule his kingdom on earth, the church must defer the protection of civil rights to the state (see John 18:36).

Nonetheless, as Christians preach the gospel, they can embody and promote the principles characteristic of God’s kingdom. Since God created man and woman in his own image and likeness (Gen. 1:26), Christians ought to practice and promote the respect and dignity of all people. All humans bear God’s image regardless of the circumstances of their birth, and whether or not they are Christians. Hence, the Bible explicitly grounds the rights to life (Gen. 9:6) and fair treatment (James 3:9) in the principle of the divine image. For these reasons, believing citizens do well to advocate a society that serves justice regardless of an individual or group’s race, ethnicity, religion, sex, or class.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

The Bible is full of teeming creatures and swarming things. These creatures, insects, often play significant roles in the stories and the events described in them. From the first chapter of the Bible to the very last book, these flying, creeping, hopping, and crawling things are prominent.

Terms for Insects

Insects are described in the Bible with both general and specific terms. In the OT, there are three general terms for insects and twenty terms used to refer to specific types of insects. In the NT, two different types of insects are referenced: gnats and locusts.

The two most common general terms for insects are variously translated. Terms and phrases used to describe them include “living creatures” (Gen. 1:20), “creatures that move along the ground” (Gen. 1:24–26; 6:7, 20; 7:8, 14, 23; 8:17, 19; Lev. 5:2; Ezek. 38:20; Hos. 2:18), that which “moves” (Gen. 9:3), “swarming things” (Lev. 11:10), “flying insects” (Lev. 11:20–21, 23; Deut. 14:19), “creatures” (Lev. 11:43), “crawling things” (Lev. 22:5; Ezek. 8:10), “reptiles” (1 Kings 4:33), “teeming creatures” (Ps. 104:25), “small creatures” (Ps. 148:10), and “sea creatures” (Hab. 1:14). The other general term for insects is used with reference to swarms of insects, typically flies (Exod. 8:21–22, 24, 29; Pss. 78:45; 105:31). Specific insects named in Scripture are listed below.

Ants. Ants are used in Proverbs as an example of and encouragement toward wisdom. In 6:6 ants serve as an example for sluggards to reform their slothful ways. Also, in 30:25 ants serve as an example of creatures that, despite their diminutive size, are wise enough to make advance preparations for the long winter.

Bees. Bees are used both literally and figuratively in Scripture. Judges 14:8 refers to honeybees, the product of which becomes the object of Samson’s riddle. The other three uses of bees in the OT are figurative of swarms of enemies against God’s people (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18).

Fleas. Fleas are referenced in the OT only by David to indicate his insignificance in comparison with King Saul (1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20). The irony of the comparison becomes clear with David’s later ascendancy.

Flies. The plague of flies follows that of gnats on Egypt (Exod. 8:20–31). Although the gnats are never said to have left Egypt, the flies are removed upon Moses’ prayer. In Eccles. 10:1 the stench of dead flies is compared to the impact that folly can have on the wise. In Isa. 7:18 flies represent Egypt being summoned by God as his avenging agents on Judah’s sin. In addition, one of the gods in Ekron was named “Baal-Zebub,” which means “lord of the flies” (2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). The reference to Satan in the NT using a similar name is likely an adaptation of the OT god of Ekron (Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18–19).

Gnats. Gnats are distinguished from flies in the OT, though the distinction is not always apparent. Gnats are employed by God in the third plague on Egypt (Exod. 8:16–19), while flies form the means of punishment in the fourth plague. The two are listed together in Ps. 105:31 and appear parallel, though the former may be a reference to a swarm. Gnats were also used by Jesus to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the scribes (Matt. 23:24).

Hornets. The Bible uses hornets in Scripture as an agent of God’s destruction. The term occurs three times in the OT. In each occurrence these stinging insects refer to God’s expulsion of the Canaanites from the land that God promised to his people. The first two times, Exod. 23:28 and Deut. 7:20, hornets are used in reference to a promise of what God will do; the third time, Josh. 24:12, they illustrate what God did.

Locusts. Of particular interest is the use of locusts in the Bible. The term or a similar nomenclature occurs close to fifty times in the NIV. Locusts demonstrate a number of characteristics in Scripture. First, they are under God’s control (Exod. 10:13–19). As such, they have no king (Prov. 30:27). They serve God’s purposes. Second, locusts often occur in very large numbers or swarms (Judg. 6:5; Jer. 46:23; Nah. 3:15). At times, their numbers can be so large as to cause darkness in the land (Exod. 10:15). Third, in large numbers these insects have been known to ravage homes, devour the land, devastate fields, and debark trees (Exod. 10:12–15; Deut. 28:38; 1 Kings 8:37; 2 Chron. 7:13; Pss. 78:46; 105:34; Isa. 33:4; Joel 1:4–7). Due to their fierceness, they were compared to horses (Rev. 9:7). Fourth, locusts hide at night (Nah. 3:17). Finally, certain types of locusts were used as food.

Moths. Moths are referred to seven times in the OT and four times in the NT. Job uses moths to illustrate the fragility of the unrighteous before God (4:19) and the impermanence of their labors (27:18). The other references to moths in Scripture present them as the consumers of the wealth (garments) and pride of humankind as a means of God’s judgment (Job 13:28; Ps. 39:11; Isa. 50:9; 51:8; Hos. 5:12; Matt. 6:19–20; Luke 12:33; James 5:2).

Functions of Insects in Scripture

As agents in God’s judgment. Insects serve a variety of functions in Scripture. Most notably, insects serve as agents of judgment from God. The OT indicates how insects were used as judgment on both Israel and their enemies.

Moses warned of God’s judgment for Israel’s violation of the covenant. He advised Israel that as a consequence of their sin, they would expend much labor in the field but harvest little, because the locusts would consume them (Deut. 28:38).

Solomon, in his prayer of dedication at the temple, beseeched God regarding judgment that he might send in the form of grasshoppers to besiege the land. He asked that when the people of God repent and pray, God would hear and forgive (2 Chron. 6:26–30). God similarly responded by promising that when he “command[s] locusts to devour the land” as judgment for sin, and his people humble themselves and pray, he will heal and forgive (2 Chron. 7:13–14; cf. 1 Kings 8:37).

The psalmist reminded Israel of God’s wonderful works in their past, one of which was his use of insects as a means of his judgment (Ps. 78:45–46; cf. 105:34).

Joel 1:4 and 2:25 describe God’s judgment on Israel for their unfaithfulness in successive waves of intensity (cf. Deut. 28:38, 42; 2 Chron. 6:28; Amos 4:9–10; 7:1–3). The devastation led to crop failure, famine, destruction of vines and fig trees, and great mourning. The severity of the judgment is described as being unlike anything anyone in the community had ever experienced (Joel 1:2–3).

Locusts are the subject of one of the visions of the prophet Amos. In the vision, God showed him the destructive power of these insects as a means of judgment. Upon seeing the vision, the prophet interceded for the people, and God relented (Amos 7:1–3).

Insects were also used as judgments on Israel’s enemies. In the plagues on Egypt, insects were the agents of the third, fourth, and eighth plagues. The third plague (Exod. 8:16–19) was gnats. Interestingly, this was the first of Moses’ signs that the magicians of Pharaoh could not reproduce. Their response to the Egyptian king was that this must be the “finger of God.” There is no record of the gnats ever leaving Egypt, unlike the other plagues.

The fourth plague was flies (Exod. 8:20–32). Here the Bible specifically indicates a distinction between the land of Goshen, where the Israelites dwelled, and the rest of the land of Egypt. The flies covered all of Egypt except Goshen. This plague led to Pharaoh’s first offer of compromise. Once Moses prayed and the flies left Egypt, Pharaoh hardened his heart.

The eighth plague was in the form of locusts (Exod. 10:1–20). In response to this plague, Pharaoh’s own officials complained to him, beseeching him to let Israel leave their country lest it be entirely destroyed. The threat of this plague led to Pharaoh’s second offer of compromise. Once the locusts began to devastate the land of Egypt, Pharaoh confessed his sin before God, but as soon as the locusts were removed, his heart again became hardened. Thus, three of the ten plagues on Egypt were in the form of insects.

At the end of a series of “woe” passages, the prophet Isaiah proclaimed God’s judgment against the enemies of his people because of their oppression. In the end, those who plundered will themselves be plundered, as if by a “swarm of locusts” (Isa. 33:1–4; cf. Jer. 51:14, 27).

Insects were also used as judgment on people who dwelled in the land of Israel prior to Israel’s occupation. Both before and after the event took place, the Bible describes how God sent hornets to help drive out the occupants of the land of Canaan in preparation for Israel’s arrival. This is described as part of God’s judgment on these nations for their sins against him (Exod. 23:28; Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12).

As food. Insects also are mentioned in Scripture as food. Certain types of locusts are listed as clean and eligible for consumption. The NT describes the diet of John the Baptist, which consisted of locusts and wild honey—a diet entirely dependent on insects (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6). The OT also notes Samson enjoying the labor of bees as food (Judg. 14:8–9).

Used figuratively. Most often, insects are used figuratively in Scripture. They are used in the proverbs of Scripture to illustrate wisdom. The sages wrote about ants (Prov. 6:6; 30:25), locusts (Prov. 30:27), and even dead flies (Eccles. 10:1) both to extol wisdom and to encourage its development in humankind.

Another figurative use of insects is in the riddle about bees and honey posed by Samson to the Philistines (Judg. 14:12–18). As noted above, Samson ate honey (Judg. 14:8–9; cf. 1 Sam. 14:25–29, 43). Also, Scripture describes the promised land as a place of “milk and honey.”

Insects also are used to symbolize pursuing enemies (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18), innumerable forces (Judg. 6:5; 7:12; Ps. 105:34; Jer. 46:23; Joel 2:25), insignificance (Num. 13:33; 1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20; Job 4:19; 27:18; Ps. 109:23; Eccles. 12:5; Isa. 40:22), vulnerability (Job 4:19), God’s incomparable nature (Job 39:20), the brevity of life (Ps. 109:23), wisdom and organization (Prov. 30:27), and an invading army (Isa. 7:18; Jer. 51:14, 27), and they are employed in a taunt against Israel’s enemies (Nah. 3:15–17), a lesson on hypocrisy (Matt. 23:24), and an image of eschatological judgment (Rev. 9:4–11).

Scriptural Truths about Insects

1. Insects are part of God’s creation. In view of all the uses of insects in Scripture, several key truths emerge. First, insects are a part of the totality of God’s creation. The very first chapter of the Bible uses one of the general terms for insects as part of God’s creative activity on the sixth day of creation (Gen. 1:24). After God reviewed the creation on that day, his assessment of it, including the insects, was that it was “good” (1:25).

2. Insects are under God’s control. A second scriptural truth related to insects in the Bible is that they are under God’s control. In Deut. 7:20 God promised to send hornets ahead of the children of Israel to prepare the promised land for their arrival. Also, in Joel 2:25, when God promised to repair the damage to the land caused by the locusts, he described them as “my great army that I sent.” Thus, the picture emerges that what God has created, he alone reserves the authority to control.

3. Insects are cared for by God. A final truth regarding insects in Scripture is that God takes care of them. Just as Jesus explained God’s care for the birds of the air (Matt. 7:26), the psalmist explained that all of God’s creation, specifically insects, “look to you to give them their food at the proper time” (Ps. 104:25–27). The conclusion of the psalmist is appropriate for all of God’s creation: “When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground” (104:29–30). Thus, in the end, God creates, God controls, and God cares—a lesson that all of God’s creation shares.

The foundational story in all of the OT is the story of creation, found in Gen. 1–2. Throughout the history of interpretation there have been many approaches to understanding these chapters. In the modern world, discoveries from both science and archaeology have challenged some traditional convictions, and debates continue to rage. Still, what Gen. 1–2 communicates is generally clear: (1) it establishes Yahweh, the God of Israel, as the God by whose word all exists; (2) it presents for ancient readers a compelling argument for why they should worship Israel’s God and not other gods of the ancient world. On this second point, it must be remembered that Israel’s belief in one God flew in the face of contemporary religious notions, where each nation had a high god along with lesser gods. Hence, when reading Gen. 1–2, we must keep in mind its ancient polemical dimension rather than approaching it with modern expectations.

The differing perspectives of Genesis 1 and 2. Even a quick reading of Gen. 1–2 shows that the perspectives on creation in the two chapters are somewhat different. Genesis 1 is ordered famously as a seven-day process, whereby humanity is created as the pinnacle of God’s work on day six. On the seventh day, as is well known, God rested. Much has been made among some Christians about the need to read this chapter literally, but that no longer seems to be the dominant view. Much less is a scientific explanation winning the day (where the details of the text correspond to certain scientific models, which are themselves disputed). A commonly accepted understanding of these chapters among Christians goes by various names, and it attempts to account for the poetic structure of Gen. 1. In Gen. 1:2 we read that the earth was “formless and empty.” What follows is a description of God providing “form” in days one through three and then a corresponding filling of the “emptiness” in days four through six. Hence, in day one God separates light from darkness, and in day four he fills the void with the sun, the moon, and the stars. Day two yields the expanses between the waters and the sky, and day five fills the voids with water creatures and sky creatures. Day three yields the land and vegetation, and day six fills the void with land creatures, the crowning achievement being humanity.

Genesis 2 provides a different perspective on the events. It seems that humanity is created before there were any shrubs or plants. Apart from this difference in order, more important is the focus on Adam and Eve and their role in creation, as those called to work the land together. These two perspectives are not contradictory, since one can easily understand Gen. 2 as explicating Gen. 1:26–30. Modern scholarship has largely assigned these two versions to two different literary sources (see Documentary Hypothesis), a theory based not only on the different perspectives of the two stories but also on other differences, such as language and style. Regardless of the alleged origins of these stories, however, they are presented to us together in the OT. As a unit, along with what follows in Gen. 3–11, these early chapters in Genesis in some ways stand in stark contrast to creation stories of the ancient Mesopotamian world, while at the same time adopting many of the concepts and much of the language of those stories.

Modern and ancient questions. To enter into this discussion is to ask, “What are these opening chapters of Genesis trying to say? How did the Israelites hear the creation story in Genesis?” It sometimes is tempting to read the creation story and ask modern questions. For example, “How does the Genesis creation narrative conform to scientific knowledge?” Modern questions such as these are not, in and of themselves, out of bounds. In fact, they may be unavoidable to a certain degree. But we must remember that ancient Israelites did not ask such questions. In the ancient Near East described in Genesis, which is thousands of years old, there was no science in any sense close to the way we think of it today.

The creation story was written not to answer modern questions but rather to address Israel’s questions. Beginning about the middle of the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century, archaeologists discovered a number of creation stories from different peoples of the ancient Near East that help put the biblical account in context. These accounts tell stories of creation in which a number of gods are responsible. In one prominent example from ancient Babylon, creation was a result of a bloody conflict among the gods. Genesis 1 shares some of the descriptions of one or more of these other accounts (e.g., light exists before the creation of the sun, the moon, and the stars).

The theology of creation. Where Gen. 1 stands out is in its insistence that Israel’s God alone created the world through his spoken word. The purpose of such a declaration is not to satisfy contemporary intellectual curiosities about the nature of matter or the first moments of the universe’s existence. Its purpose is to declare to the Israelites that their God, not the gods of the ancient world, is responsible for everything there is, and that he alone is the one, therefore, who is worthy of their worship. The creation story is not an intellectual exercise but rather a deeply religious one. The Israelites lived in a world where every surrounding nation had a plurality of gods (pantheon). The Israelites were different. They had one God, and this is the message that rings loud and clear from Gen. 1.

That Yahweh, Israel’s God, is alone the creator is not an abstract theological statement. It is a call to worship. This is why, for example, numerous passages in the OT burst out in praise of Yahweh the creator. One example is Ps. 19. God’s glory is so great and so apparent that even creation itself is said to speak of it. The psalm uses specific Genesis language: the “heavens” and the “firmament” proclaim what God has done (these words occur in Gen. 1:1, 6–8, and the Hebrew words in Gen. 1 and Ps. 19 are the same). Even though the heavens and the firmament have no powers of speech, as the psalm tells us (19:3–4), nevertheless they are “heard” throughout the world because of the awesomeness of the sun’s circuit (19:5–6). The message is this: if you want to see how great God is, look up.

But the psalm does not end there. David is not simply interested in a contemplative posture for his people. Six verses about creation are followed, somewhat abruptly, by eight verses about the law. Clearly, a connection between them is being established, and that connection seems to be fairly straightforward: knowing God as creator should have an effect on how you behave. The God who created the heavens is also the God who gave you the law, David seems to be saying. And as worthy as God is of praise for the creation (even the heavens and the firmament join in), so too is the law. It is to be desired more than gold or sweet honey (v. 10). Knowing God as creator has very practical implications.

Creation and re-creation. Another important recurrence of creation in the OT, which also has practical implications, concerns God’s saving activity. In brief, according to the OT (and the NT as well), when God saves his people, it is an act of “re-creation.” One can see this theme developed in numerous places. For example, God is Israel’s “maker” in texts such as Ps. 95:6; Hos. 8:14. These two texts are found in the context of God having delivered the Israelites from Egypt; their deliverance corresponds to their “creation” as God’s people. Similarly, Isa. 43:14–17 concerns Israel’s captivity in Babylon and what God will do to deliver his people. The prophecy describes their deliverance by using “exodus” language and in doing so refers to Yahweh as Israel’s “Creator” (v. 15).

This connection between creation and redemption (re-creation) is also well articulated in the NT. For example, the opening words of John’s Gospel echo the very first verses of the Bible: “in the beginning.” With the coming of Christ, there is a new beginning. His act of redemption is described as the act of a second or new Adam (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:22). When one confesses faith in Christ, one is “born again” or “from above” (John 3:3, 7; see also John 1:13; 1 Pet. 1:3, 23). To be a Christian is to start over, to begin anew, or as Paul put it, “If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (2 Cor. 5:17). And in Rev. 22:2 paradise is described as containing a “tree of life,” to which God’s people once again have access. At the end, in other words, it will be as it was in the beginning. In the coming of Christ we see a new creation. That new creation is inaugurated in his first coming, where the church, his redeemed people, by the power of the Spirit, live as newly created beings in a fallen world. At his second coming, this new creation will be complete, and all creation will be redeemed.

Death is commonly defined as the end of physical life, wherein the normal biological processes associated with life (such as respiration) cease. This definition, however, does not adequately encompass the varied nuances associated with death in the Bible.

The Beginning of Death

Death is introduced in the Bible as the penalty for transgressing the prohibition against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil—a contrast to Mesopotamia, where death was part of the divine design of human beings. In Gen. 2:16–17 God tells the first man, “When you eat from [the fruit of the tree] you will certainly die.” The consequences of eating provide a useful basis for discussing the nature of death from a biblical perspective.

First, as is apparent from the subsequent narrative, neither the man nor the woman experiences physical, biological death immediately after eating the fruit. In this way, Gen. 2–3 reflects the common biblical notion that death refers to more than just biological death, pointing to the more significant aspect of death that embodies alienation and separation from the source of life, God. The point is presupposed by Jesus when he offers life to those who are dead (John 5:24), and by Paul when he proclaims that before Christ all were dead in their sins and transgressions (Eph. 2:1, 5). It is also reflected in the common punishment prescribed in the Pentateuch whereby offenders were cut off from the people (Gen. 17:14; Exod. 12:15, 19; 30:38; cf. Gen. 9:11; Exod. 9:15). Within Gen. 2–3, death arrives with loss of access to the tree of life in the garden. Biologically, the first man and woman may continue to live for a while outside the garden, but their fate is sealed when they are cut off from the garden and the intimate fellowship with the Creator that had been enjoyed therein.

Second, the strong implication of Gen. 2:16–17 is that human beings, as originally created, were not subject to death (see also Rom. 5:12; 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:21). This does not mean that they were immortal in the same manner as God (cf. 1 Tim. 6:16), but rather that they were contingently immortal: they were not subject to death but sustained by their relationship to the life-giving God through the provision of the tree of life (cf. Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14). Once they were cut off from the source of life, death ensued.

The account of the arrival of death in Gen. 3, however, tells us little about how death affected animals, since the Bible consistently presents a predominantly human focus. While Eccles. 3:21 affirms human ignorance over the relative postmortem fate of humans and animals, little else is said on the matter. Similarly, it is not entirely clear whether death is introduced as a punishment for sin for humans only (and so whether animals could have died prior to the fall) or whether animals were perceived as sharing in immortality prior to the fall.

Death in the Old Testament

Death is frequently depicted negatively throughout the OT. Aside from its initial presentation as a divine punishment for sin, it is presented as that which seeks out and devours life and is terrifying (Pss. 18:4–5; 55:4; Prov. 30:15–16; Hab. 2:5). For the author of Ecclesiastes, death is that which ultimately undermines any possible value that life may otherwise have (e.g., Eccles. 9:3). The tragedy of death, in the OT, is that it results in separation, from God (as noted above in the context of Gen. 2–3) and from people. The psalms, for example, frequently cite the finality and profundity of death’s effects (e.g., Pss. 6:5; 88:5; 115:17; cf. Isa. 38:18). Even those few passages that appear to present death more positively (e.g., Job 3:13, 17) ultimately serve to highlight the appalling circumstances of the speaker’s life rather than any blessed state of the dead (for a similar idea in the NT, see Rev. 9:6).

The OT does, however, depict death as the natural end of life, and a good death as one that arrives only after a long and prosperous life. So Abraham (Gen. 25:8), Isaac (Gen. 35:29), and Job (Job 42:16–17) are said to live long lives before they die. Furthermore, some passages refer to the person being “gathered to his people,” suggesting some form of reunion with previous generations in death, presumably in Sheol, although the location and state of the dead are never explicated. Isaiah can even include the idea of death within language used to describe the ideal future world (Isa. 65:20).

Although there are no laws relating to the manner in which the bodies of the dead were to be handled, all the descriptive indicators show that burial was normative, often in a family tomb or plot (e.g., Gen. 23; cf. 1 Kings 13:22). Indeed, the importance of an appropriate burial is apparent in Ecclesiastes’ comment that a stillborn child is better off than someone who lives a long life but receives no burial (Eccles. 6:3) and in the prophets’ presentation of those not buried as being accursed (Jer. 8:2; 14:16; 16:4).

Life after Death in the Old Testament

Belief in some form of postmortem existence was common in many parts of the ancient world. In Egypt, an elaborate set of beliefs relating to the state of those who had died included the possibility of an ongoing existence that could even surpass what one may have experienced before death (although such an opportunity was a reasonable expectation only for the upper classes, while the general population probably had more modest expectations of the nature of their existence in the afterlife). By way of contrast, Mesopotamian beliefs depicted a far darker and more troubling afterlife for all but the very few whose lives and deaths were sufficiently blessed to ensure them some degree of postmortem comfort. For the remainder, there was little hope for any positive experience following death.

The OT, however, has little to say about the state of those who have died. The widespread belief in some form of continued existence beyond biological death in the ancient world suggests that, in the absence of contrary data in the Bible, the people of Israel probably assumed that some aspect of a person persisted beyond death. Furthermore, there are hints that this may have been the case, such as the raising of Samuel’s shade by the medium at Endor (1 Sam. 28), the escape from death of Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), the revivification of the body dropped on Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:21), and expressions used to refer to death such as “gathered to his people” (Gen. 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29; Num. 27:13; Deut. 32:50; cf. Gen. 47:30; Deut. 31:16). The dead (sometimes referred to by the term repa’im, “shades/spirits of the dead”) were thought to dwell in Sheol, generally described as under the earth (e.g., Ezek. 31:14). Beyond this, there are prophetic expectations that God will ultimately destroy death (e.g., Isa. 25:8), and that God does not take pleasure in anyone’s death (Ezek. 18:23, 32).

Death in the New Testament

The NT continues, and in some places expands upon, the negative view of death presented in the OT. The notion that death is a consequence of and punishment for the sinful state that imprisons all humanity is stated emphatically (e.g., Rom. 3:23; 6:23) and reinforced by the notion that, although biologically alive, sinful humans are dead in their sin and so incapable of reviving themselves (Eph. 2:1). Death, according to Paul, is the last enemy (1 Cor. 15:26), and yet to die is gain (Phil. 1:21–24) because it heralds being with Christ, which, explains Paul, “is better by far” than being alive in this body in this world.

Central to both the message of the Bible and to the significance of death in the Bible is the death of the Messiah, God’s Son. Jesus’ death provides the basis for countering the consequences of the original rebellion against God by the first couple (2 Cor. 5:21). Consequently, Paul could write that Jesus’ death itself destroyed death (2 Tim. 1:10). Furthermore, the life that Jesus offers—eternal life—is available to the believer in the present (John 3:36; 5:24), prior to the time when death is ultimately abolished, such that Jesus could assert that all those who believe in him will live even though they die (John 11:25–26).

The NT expands somewhat on the details relating to the state of the dead from the OT. For one thing, the existence of an afterlife is clearly presented. Furthermore, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31) reflects a more comprehensive understanding of the existence of distinctions among those who have died, such that the rich man is said to be suffering in Hades (Gk. hadēs, used in the LXX to translate Heb. she’ol in the OT), while Lazarus is far off with Abraham and being comforted. Although there is a danger in reading too much into a parable, the detail appears to reflect something of the expanded understanding of the afterlife among some in Jesus’ day.

The NT makes several references to a “second death” (Rev. 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8; cf. Jude 12). The expression refers to the state of eternal judgment under God’s wrath, a death from which there will be no escape. But those who remain faithful to Christ will not experience this second death (Rev. 20:6), and in their dwelling place with God, the new Jerusalem, death will be no more (21:4).

Recounted in Gen. 6:5–9:19, the flood is the event whereby God destroys all creatures except for Noah, his family, and a gathering of animals. The account is highly literary and God-centered. It opens and closes with Noah’s three sons (6:10; 9:18–19). Noah’s obedience is highlighted (7:5, 9, 16). God is the protagonist, and Noah remains silent.

Terminology. The Hebrew word for “flood” is mabbul, and the Greek word is kataklysmos. Outside of the Gen. 6–9 narrative and references to the flood in Gen. 10:1, 32; 11:10, mabbul occurs only in Ps. 29:10, probably a reference to the primordial water stored above the firmament in jars (cf. Gen. 1:7; 7:11). The LXX translates mabbul with kataklysmos in Sir. 40:10; 44:17–18; 4 Macc. 15:31. Hebrew Sirach and the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon also use mabbul for the flood (Sir. 44:17; 1QapGen ar 12:9–10). All four uses of kataklysmos in the NT refer to the flood (Matt. 24:38–39; Luke 17:27; 2 Pet. 2:5).

The flood narrative. In Gen. 6:5–22, God observes the grand scale of human wickedness, determines to destroy all life, and selects righteous Noah to build an ark. God’s “seeing” is judicial investigation (6:5, 13) that counters the sons of God who “saw” (6:2), just as his pained heart counters humankind’s wicked heart (6:5–6). God’s second statement, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race” (6:7), is his judicial sentence (cf. 3:15–19), affecting all life in the domain of human care (1:28; cf. Job 38:41; Ps. 36:6; Hos. 4:3; Joel 1:20).

The earth’s corruption and violence (Gen. 6:12–13) reflect a spectrum of evil that has despoiled a creation that was once “very good” (1:31; cf. 6:17; 7:21; 8:17; 9:11). God’s destruction responds to the moral corruption of the earth. The ark is a rectangular vessel designed for floating rather than sailing (6:14–15). Noah builds a microcosm of the earth to save its life. The boat’s windowlike openings and three decks reflect the cosmology of Gen. 1 (heavens, water, earth [cf. 6:16]). God makes a promise that Noah will survive and receive a covenant from God (6:18), fulfilled in the Noahic covenant following the flood (9:9, 11, 14–17).

Genesis 7:1–24 recounts the boarding of the ark and then the rising waters. Two numbering systems are used by the narrator in the flood narrative: one for dates of Noah’s age (day, month, year) and one for periods between flood stages. Both systems number between 365 and 370 days. The flood is portrayed as a reversal of the second and third days of creation. Watery boundaries that God once separated collapse (cf. 1:6–10). The rising flood is described in three phases: rising and lifting the ark (7:17), increasing greatly and floating the ark on the surface (7:18), and covering all the high mountains (7:19). Total destruction is amplified by reversing the order of creation—people, animals, birds (7:23)—with “all/every” occurring repeatedly in 7:21–23.

Genesis 8:1–22 recounts the disembarking and Noah’s sacrifice. Genesis 8:1 is the structural and theological center, with God fulfilling (= “remember”) his covenant promise for Noah’s safety. The ark rests on one mountain within the range in eastern Turkey (Kurdistan). The earth’s drying occurs as a process (8:3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14), and echoes of creation reappear (e.g., “wind” [8:1; cf. 1:2]). Although the old curse is not lifted (cf. 5:29), God promises not to add to it (8:21). The flood has not reformed the human heart; it has only stopped the violence. God’s oath of restoration reaffirms the seamless rhythm of seasons that comprise a full year (8:22).

Genesis 9:1–19 recounts the restoration of world order. Since murder was part of the antediluvian violence (6:11, 13), God’s law recalibrates earthly morality (9:5). God’s second postdiluvian speech encodes his plan for the broader preservation of creation (9:8–17). “My rainbow” is God’s confirming sign (9:13). The meteorological phenomenon of the storm is now harnessed as an image of peace. The cosmic warrior “hangs up” his bow in divine disarmament. Humankind now shares the responsibility of justice with God, illustrated in Noah’s first speech of cursing and blessing (9:20–27).

Ancient Near Eastern parallels. Without literary dependence on the biblical story, parallels to the biblical account exist in the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic, Gilgamesh Tablet XI, and the Sumerian King List. The exact relationship between the biblical account and these Near Eastern accounts is a debated subject. Perhaps they are variants of a similar story based on the same historical event.

A prescribed selection of foods. The Mosaic law requires a distinctive diet for Israel that excludes, among other foods, camel, hare, rock badger, and blood (see Lev. 11; Deut. 14:1–21) and requires a day-long fast on the Day of Atonement. The basis is not entirely clear. Some argue for a nutritional advantage to the diet; others view the commandments as an opportunity to express obedience and self-discipline. Although God allows the consumption of the flesh of certain animals, but not their blood (Gen. 9:2–4; Lev. 17:10–16), the ideal diet appears to be fruits, grains, and vegetables (Gen. 1:11–12; 2:5; Exod. 16; Dan. 1:11–16; Matt. 6:11). Israelites could also make a Nazirite vow, by which they abstained from wine and anything derived from grapes (Num. 6:1–21; Judg. 13:5–7). John the Baptist adopted a restrictive diet of locusts and wild honey, probably as an expression of mournful fasting—a diet that Jesus departs from, leading to accusations of him being a drunkard and glutton (Matt. 3:4; 9:14–17; 11:16–19). Otherwise, the Bible eschews stringent asceticism. With rampant poverty and drought, few people then struggled with the modern preoccupation with overeating and becoming overweight (but see Judg. 3:17). Within the bounds of moderation, humaneness toward animals killed for food, and sensitivity to the conscience of others, Christians are free from restrictions concerning food (Mark 7:19; Rom. 14:14; Phil. 3:19). Like Paul, they may choose to adopt a Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18) or observe other restrictions for the sake of their conscience (e.g., vegetarianism), but they should do so without judging another’s diet.

Geography

Whereas the principal direction in the modern world is north, in the ancient world different cultures used a variety of orientations as they sought to describe their relationship to their geographical environment. In Israel the primary direction was determined by the sunrise: east. This is reflected in Hebrew, where the main word used to refer to east as a direction was qedem, which could also be used to simply refer to that which was directly ahead or in front of the speaker (e.g., Ps. 139:5). Elsewhere, east is designated by the terms mizrakh (“rising” [Josh. 11:3]) or mizrakh hashamesh (“rising of the sun” [Num. 21:11]), both of which derive from the direction of sunrise. By way of contrast, in Egypt the primary direction was south, in alignment with the source of the Nile River.

The ancient world employed the same notion of four cardinal directions, which persists to the present, and the terminology related to these was influenced by the choice of primary direction. Thus, in Israel north is often designated by “left”; south could be designated by “right,” and west by “behind.” In addition, directions could be specified by reference to geographical features found in those directions. North could be specified by the word tsapon, which was derived from the name of a northern Syrian mountain (Zaphon); south by negeb, a name for the region south of Israel (Negev); and west by yam (“sea”), since the Mediterranean Sea lay to the west.

Symbolism

Aside from their purely geographical significance, the directions also came to bear figurative significance. Some caution is warranted in assigning symbolic significance to language, for there is danger of reading invalid meanings into texts. Furthermore, given the ambiguity inherent in the use of terms to refer to directions, which also have alternate significances, there is danger of assigning a symbolic meaning to the direction that actually resides in the alternate. So, for example, while yam (“sea”) carries significant symbolic overtones in the Bible, this association does not appear to have been extended to encompass the term when used to designate a westerly direction.

East and west. Nonetheless, there is, for example, probably some significance in the expulsion from Eden and progressive movement eastward to the tower of Babel through Gen. 1–11, followed by a return to the promised land, which was approached by reversing the easterly migration and returning toward Eden. Eden itself was said to lie “in the east” (Heb. miqqedem; Gen. 2:8), although the same Hebrew expression in Pss. 74:12; 77:5, 11; 78:2; 143:5 means “in ancient times,” and there is perhaps a deliberate ambiguity in the use of the expression in Gen. 2:8. In Isa. 2:6 the east is the source of influences on the people that lead them astray. Following the exile, Ezekiel sees the glory of God returning to the temple from the east (Ezek. 43:1–2). Thus, when used symbolically, “east” is often viewed negatively or else may be used to mark a connection with distant antiquity (Gen. 2:8; Job 1:3). Any symbolic significance assigned to west appears primarily to be associated with it being the antithesis of east. The distance between east and west was used poetically to express vast distance (Ps. 103:12).

North and south. North is significant for two primary reasons. First, it is the direction from which invading armies most often descended upon Israel (Jer. 1:13) as well as from which Babylon’s destruction is said to come (Jer. 50:3). In light of this, Ezekiel’s vision of God approaching from the north strikes an ominous tone of impending judgment (Ezek. 1:1–4). Second, in Canaanite mythology the abode of the gods, and specifically Baal, lay to the north, on Mount Zaphon. Thus, the king of Babylon’s plans in Isa. 14:13 amount to a claim to establish himself as one of the gods. In contrast to this, Ps. 48:2 pre-sents Mount Zion as supplanting Mount Zaphon and thus implicitly presents Israel’s one God as supplanting the Canaanite pantheon.

As with west, there is little symbolic significance associated with the direction south in the Bible, aside from its use in combination with other directions.

The four directions. The four directions (or sometimes just pairs of directions) are used together to describe both the scattering of the Israelites as well as their being gathered by God back to the promised land (Ps. 107:3; Isa. 43:5–6; Luke 13:29). They are also used together to express the extent of the promised land (Gen. 13:14) or else to describe something that is all-encompassing (1 Chron. 9:24).

Retribution refers to “giving what is due,” usually in response to evil. Retribution is an important theological doctrine whose significance is belied by scant use of the term in English translations (ESV 2×; NIV 6×; NRSV 9×). Retribution is driven by the theological conviction that moral order is built into the fabric of the world (Ps. 7:14–16; Prov. 26:27). This moral compass is guaranteed by God’s oversight, meting out justice in judgment and rewards to the righteous, not only on the human-human level, but also on the divine-human level (2 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 6:7). This biblical equation assures that (1) life is not overwhelmed by moral chaos, (2) human actions affect the future, (3) the world is morally uniform, and (4) human revenge is to be avoided (Lev. 19:17–18; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 12:19). With the human community in view, God’s commands are intended to instruct and guide. Not surprisingly, address of retribution is found throughout biblical literature: legal (Deut. 28), narrative (Num. 16), poetic (Pss. 18:20; 94:15), sapiential (Prov. 11:24–25), and prophetic (Hab. 2:2–20).

This poetic justice pervades the OT in the judgment and exile of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:8–24), Cain’s sentence and blood revenge (Gen. 4:15, 24), and the worldwide flood and annihilation (Gen. 6–9) (cf. Exod. 21:20–21; Deut. 30:15–20; Josh. 7; Amos 3:14–15; Mic. 2:1–3). Such stories reveal a sovereign God acting as an external agent who exacts punishment in light of his intentions for creation. For Israel, retribution is the exercise of Yahweh’s legal rights in an attempt to restore covenant fellowship (Lev. 26:40–45). Although serious tensions exist—sometimes the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer—this does not alter the grand scheme of Scripture (Job 33; Jer. 12:1–4). In some scenarios, only the next lifetime will fully bring justice and reward (Ps. 49:5–15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rev. 22:1–5). Deep wisdom, however, embraces mystery and understands the limits of human agency (Gen. 50:19–20; James 1:5).

While the notion of consequence may be too strong, the concept of correspondence is helpful for understanding the concept of retribution. God’s judgments reveal (1) a correspondence between act and effect, (2) accountability to known law, (3) a debt requiring resolve/restitution, and (4) punishment that reenacts elements of the sin itself. God’s roles as divine warrior, judge, and king proclaim his universal rule and preserve it from all who would mock or defy his royal authority (Gen. 3:14–19; Deut. 7:10; 1 Sam. 24:19; 2 Sam. 12:11–12; Ps. 149; Prov. 15:25; Mic. 5:15; 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9; 2 Thess. 1:5–10).

God’s reasons for retribution center on disobedience and injustice, while his purposes are essentially restorative and developmental. Retribution is an application of God’s holiness that purifies the world for his kingdom of peace. In this way, vengeance and deliverance work together (Nah. 1:2, 7). Paradoxically, retribution gives hope to fallen humanity for sin acknowledged and unacknowledged, anticipating the triumph of righteousness (Ps. 58:11). Retribution grants rationality and stability to humanity, promotes closure in crisis, and fosters hope—a forerunner of the ultimate judgment before the throne of God the King.

Geography

Whereas the principal direction in the modern world is north, in the ancient world different cultures used a variety of orientations as they sought to describe their relationship to their geographical environment. In Israel the primary direction was determined by the sunrise: east. This is reflected in Hebrew, where the main word used to refer to east as a direction was qedem, which could also be used to simply refer to that which was directly ahead or in front of the speaker (e.g., Ps. 139:5). Elsewhere, east is designated by the terms mizrakh (“rising” [Josh. 11:3]) or mizrakh hashamesh (“rising of the sun” [Num. 21:11]), both of which derive from the direction of sunrise. By way of contrast, in Egypt the primary direction was south, in alignment with the source of the Nile River.

The ancient world employed the same notion of four cardinal directions, which persists to the present, and the terminology related to these was influenced by the choice of primary direction. Thus, in Israel north is often designated by “left”; south could be designated by “right,” and west by “behind.” In addition, directions could be specified by reference to geographical features found in those directions. North could be specified by the word tsapon, which was derived from the name of a northern Syrian mountain (Zaphon); south by negeb, a name for the region south of Israel (Negev); and west by yam (“sea”), since the Mediterranean Sea lay to the west.

Symbolism

Aside from their purely geographical significance, the directions also came to bear figurative significance. Some caution is warranted in assigning symbolic significance to language, for there is danger of reading invalid meanings into texts. Furthermore, given the ambiguity inherent in the use of terms to refer to directions, which also have alternate significances, there is danger of assigning a symbolic meaning to the direction that actually resides in the alternate. So, for example, while yam (“sea”) carries significant symbolic overtones in the Bible, this association does not appear to have been extended to encompass the term when used to designate a westerly direction.

East and west. Nonetheless, there is, for example, probably some significance in the expulsion from Eden and progressive movement eastward to the tower of Babel through Gen. 1–11, followed by a return to the promised land, which was approached by reversing the easterly migration and returning toward Eden. Eden itself was said to lie “in the east” (Heb. miqqedem; Gen. 2:8), although the same Hebrew expression in Pss. 74:12; 77:5, 11; 78:2; 143:5 means “in ancient times,” and there is perhaps a deliberate ambiguity in the use of the expression in Gen. 2:8. In Isa. 2:6 the east is the source of influences on the people that lead them astray. Following the exile, Ezekiel sees the glory of God returning to the temple from the east (Ezek. 43:1–2). Thus, when used symbolically, “east” is often viewed negatively or else may be used to mark a connection with distant antiquity (Gen. 2:8; Job 1:3). Any symbolic significance assigned to west appears primarily to be associated with it being the antithesis of east. The distance between east and west was used poetically to express vast distance (Ps. 103:12).

North and south. North is significant for two primary reasons. First, it is the direction from which invading armies most often descended upon Israel (Jer. 1:13) as well as from which Babylon’s destruction is said to come (Jer. 50:3). In light of this, Ezekiel’s vision of God approaching from the north strikes an ominous tone of impending judgment (Ezek. 1:1–4). Second, in Canaanite mythology the abode of the gods, and specifically Baal, lay to the north, on Mount Zaphon. Thus, the king of Babylon’s plans in Isa. 14:13 amount to a claim to establish himself as one of the gods. In contrast to this, Ps. 48:2 pre-sents Mount Zion as supplanting Mount Zaphon and thus implicitly presents Israel’s one God as supplanting the Canaanite pantheon.

As with west, there is little symbolic significance associated with the direction south in the Bible, aside from its use in combination with other directions.

The four directions. The four directions (or sometimes just pairs of directions) are used together to describe both the scattering of the Israelites as well as their being gathered by God back to the promised land (Ps. 107:3; Isa. 43:5–6; Luke 13:29). They are also used together to express the extent of the promised land (Gen. 13:14) or else to describe something that is all-encompassing (1 Chron. 9:24).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

The name “Hittite” derives from the name of the Hittite homeland: Hatti. The Bible refers to “children (daughters) of Heth” and “Hittite” or “Hittites.”

Historical overview. Hittite precursors appeared in Anatolia (Turkey) during the third millennium. Of unknown origin, their language was Indo-European rather than Semitic like Hebrew. During the second millennium a Hittite kingdom emerged, with Hattusa (modern Bogazkale) as its capital. Hattusili I (c. 1650 BC) was the first Hittite king of historical rec-ord. He gained control of the trade routes and eliminated regional threats. He also established a Hittite law code, and under him Hittite literature flourished. His son, Mursili I, sacked Babylon, ending Hammurabi’s dynasty (1595 BC).

Hittite influence greatly increased under Tadhaliya II (c. 1400 BC) and especially under Suppiluliuma I (c. 1350 BC). At its height, the Hittite Empire spanned from central Anatolia to northern Syria (including Ugarit and Amurru), controlling various vassal states. The Hittites skirmished briefly with Egypt over territory in northern Syria (Muwatalli II engaged Ramesses II at Qadesh in 1275 BC), and then followed a period of negotiated peace and increased contact between the two kingdoms. In contrast, dealings with Assyria, typically strained, eventually led to defeat and loss of Hittite territory (late thirteenth century).

Shortly thereafter, the Hittite Empire, weakened by uprisings and defections among its territories, succumbed to the upheavals of the period. In its wake rose numerous minor states (e.g., Karkamis and Hamath) that saw themselves as successors to the Hittite Empire and perpetuated Hittite culture. These are referred to collectively as the Neo-Hittite states; Karkamis was the last to fall to the Neo-Assyrians (717 BC).

Hittites in the Bible. According to the Bible, the Hittites descended from Canaan (Gen. 10:15; 1 Chron. 1:13 [the NIV reads “Hittites” for the proper name “Heth”) and were destined to be subjugated—for example, by the Israelites (see Gen. 9:25–27). Genesis portrays the patriarchs in regular contact with Hittites, through which we learn of several Hittite individuals. Abraham purchased a cave and surrounding field from “Ephron the Hittite” (Gen. 23). Esau took Hittite wives (27:46); however, discrepancies exist concerning their names and ethnicities (cf. 26:34; 28:9; 36:2–3).

The OT consistently mentions the Hittites among those peoples whom the Israelites would dispossess upon entering the promised land (Gen. 15:18–21; Exod. 3:8). Yahweh vowed to drive them out before the Israelites (Exod. 23:28 [cf. v. 23]), while the Israelites were instructed to eradicate their presence from the land (Deut. 7:1–2; 20:17). The Israelites only partly succeeded, eventually settling among the other peoples (Judg. 3:5–6).

During this time, the Hittites are depicted as occupying the central hill country between the coastal plain to the west and the Dead Sea to the east (Num. 13:29; Josh. 9:1), though Josh. 1:4 refers to the entire region of Canaan and Transjordan as “the Hittite country.” This perhaps recalls Hittite influence upon the region, revealing a generic or political (versus ethnic) use of the term.

Further references pertain to the monarchic period. David had several close Hittite associates: Ahimelek, of whom nothing else is known (1 Sam. 26:6), and Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband and a member of David’s bodyguard (2 Sam. 11:3; 23:39). Under Solomon’s reign Hittites were conscripted for forced labor (1 Kings 9:20). Solomon also conducted trade between Egypt and Hittite states to the north (10:29), taking for himself Hittite wives (11:1). The final reference to extant Hittites comes from Joram’s reign, in the mid-ninth century BC (2 Kings 7:6).

During the exile and afterward, the Hittites became a byword (Ezek. 16:3, 45), exemplifying practices from which pious Jews sought to distance themselves (Ezra 9:1).

Conclusions. Identification of the biblical Hittites with those of Anatolia remains problematic. Clearly, Israel had contact with later Neo-Hittite states during its monarchic period (see 2 Sam. 8:9–10; 1 Kings 10:29; 11:1). Nevertheless, archaeology does not support a Hittite presence in the Judean hill country at the time of the conquest. Thus, the biblical Hittites may have been an unrelated, unidentified people inhabiting Canaan; alternately, “Hittites” (and the like) may have conveyed rhetorically the idea of “otherness, inferiority” (already anticipated by Gen. 9–10; cf. Ezek. 16:3, 45; Ezra 9:1).

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin; hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, or portrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of the driving forces of the entire Bible.

Sin in the Bible

Old Testament. Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete. They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves were inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with their attempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).

In the midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways that sin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blow upon the offspring of the woman, the offspring of the woman would defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adam and Eve, covering their sin.

In Gen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on full display. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able to eradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humans gathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make a name for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them to scatter across the earth (11:1–9).

In one sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holy God satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationship with human beings without compromising his justice? The short answer is: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), who eventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemed them from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought them to Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated on obedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant was the sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided as a means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrifices made for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year to atone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies and sprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took a second goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness. . . . The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinful people, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.

Despite these provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke its covenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under the reign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people, including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder (2 Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wives and concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods (1 Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israel and Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry became rampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judah in 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised to raise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as a guilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

After God’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that the great prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, were at hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remained under foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell of Solomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Before long, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning away from him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administration of the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failed to properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).

New Testament. During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it was revealed that he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to be the obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation (Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13; Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also the Suffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. With his justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify all who are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus Christ did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).

After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers began proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus did and calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness, they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned against them (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believers continue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal. 5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23). The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the new heaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse (Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).

As even this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesis to Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’s plot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative; it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved in order for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.

Definition and Terminology

Definition of sin. Although no definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of the concept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conform to God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action, orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered that God’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character, so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather is a personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited to actions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen. 4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature as human beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.

Terminology. The Bible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying them is not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and use of the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one of the following four categories.

1. Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator and ruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’s self-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankind foolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows to humans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31). Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodliness or impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa. 9:17; 1 Pet. 4:18).

2. Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from the lawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass” picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or the crossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42; Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’s law, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45; Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violating his statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result is guilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’s law is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectively feels guilt.

3. Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what is good. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what is good (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contrasts the upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could also include here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speak of perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequent mention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievous departure from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 5:1–11).

4. Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individual had to be in a state of purity before him. While a person could become impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating woman was impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity” clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek. 24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Although it is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, in other places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7; Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).

Metaphors

In addition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible uses several metaphors or images to describe it. The following four are among the more prominent.

Missing the mark. In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin” have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sin is reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that a person simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it is that he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9; Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional or not, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num. 15:30).

Departing from the way. Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in the wisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19). Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways, but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18). Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed by their own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).

Adultery. Since God’s relationship with his people is described as a marriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32), it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness as adultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous woman vividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3). When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them of spiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52). When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate in idolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1 Cor. 6:12–20; 10:1–22).

Slavery. Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clear that Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture of its far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7; 49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to those who do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything that pleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic power that is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare (Rom. 7:7–25).

Scope and Consequences

Sin does not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage along with it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.

Scope. The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As a result of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist human efforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under the weight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2 Chron. 36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation as well (Rom. 8:19–22).

Sin affects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions, motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “total depravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful as they could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is tainted by sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as a sinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societal structures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economic markets, to name but a few.

Consequences. Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sin has consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level. Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen. 2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty in God’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, and subjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20; 5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict between individuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breeds mistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closest relationships.

Conclusion

No subject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding of sin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As the Puritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ will not be sweet.”

The Bible is full of teeming creatures and swarming things. These creatures, insects, often play significant roles in the stories and the events described in them. From the first chapter of the Bible to the very last book, these flying, creeping, hopping, and crawling things are prominent.

Terms for Insects

Insects are described in the Bible with both general and specific terms. In the OT, there are three general terms for insects and twenty terms used to refer to specific types of insects. In the NT, two different types of insects are referenced: gnats and locusts.

The two most common general terms for insects are variously translated. Terms and phrases used to describe them include “living creatures” (Gen. 1:20), “creatures that move along the ground” (Gen. 1:24–26; 6:7, 20; 7:8, 14, 23; 8:17, 19; Lev. 5:2; Ezek. 38:20; Hos. 2:18), that which “moves” (Gen. 9:3), “swarming things” (Lev. 11:10), “flying insects” (Lev. 11:20–21, 23; Deut. 14:19), “creatures” (Lev. 11:43), “crawling things” (Lev. 22:5; Ezek. 8:10), “reptiles” (1 Kings 4:33), “teeming creatures” (Ps. 104:25), “small creatures” (Ps. 148:10), and “sea creatures” (Hab. 1:14). The other general term for insects is used with reference to swarms of insects, typically flies (Exod. 8:21–22, 24, 29; Pss. 78:45; 105:31). Specific insects named in Scripture are listed below.

Ants. Ants are used in Proverbs as an example of and encouragement toward wisdom. In 6:6 ants serve as an example for sluggards to reform their slothful ways. Also, in 30:25 ants serve as an example of creatures that, despite their diminutive size, are wise enough to make advance preparations for the long winter.

Bees. Bees are used both literally and figuratively in Scripture. Judges 14:8 refers to honeybees, the product of which becomes the object of Samson’s riddle. The other three uses of bees in the OT are figurative of swarms of enemies against God’s people (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18).

Fleas. Fleas are referenced in the OT only by David to indicate his insignificance in comparison with King Saul (1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20). The irony of the comparison becomes clear with David’s later ascendancy.

Flies. The plague of flies follows that of gnats on Egypt (Exod. 8:20–31). Although the gnats are never said to have left Egypt, the flies are removed upon Moses’ prayer. In Eccles. 10:1 the stench of dead flies is compared to the impact that folly can have on the wise. In Isa. 7:18 flies represent Egypt being summoned by God as his avenging agents on Judah’s sin. In addition, one of the gods in Ekron was named “Baal-Zebub,” which means “lord of the flies” (2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). The reference to Satan in the NT using a similar name is likely an adaptation of the OT god of Ekron (Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18–19).

Gnats. Gnats are distinguished from flies in the OT, though the distinction is not always apparent. Gnats are employed by God in the third plague on Egypt (Exod. 8:16–19), while flies form the means of punishment in the fourth plague. The two are listed together in Ps. 105:31 and appear parallel, though the former may be a reference to a swarm. Gnats were also used by Jesus to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the scribes (Matt. 23:24).

Hornets. The Bible uses hornets in Scripture as an agent of God’s destruction. The term occurs three times in the OT. In each occurrence these stinging insects refer to God’s expulsion of the Canaanites from the land that God promised to his people. The first two times, Exod. 23:28 and Deut. 7:20, hornets are used in reference to a promise of what God will do; the third time, Josh. 24:12, they illustrate what God did.

Locusts. Of particular interest is the use of locusts in the Bible. The term or a similar nomenclature occurs close to fifty times in the NIV. Locusts demonstrate a number of characteristics in Scripture. First, they are under God’s control (Exod. 10:13–19). As such, they have no king (Prov. 30:27). They serve God’s purposes. Second, locusts often occur in very large numbers or swarms (Judg. 6:5; Jer. 46:23; Nah. 3:15). At times, their numbers can be so large as to cause darkness in the land (Exod. 10:15). Third, in large numbers these insects have been known to ravage homes, devour the land, devastate fields, and debark trees (Exod. 10:12–15; Deut. 28:38; 1 Kings 8:37; 2 Chron. 7:13; Pss. 78:46; 105:34; Isa. 33:4; Joel 1:4–7). Due to their fierceness, they were compared to horses (Rev. 9:7). Fourth, locusts hide at night (Nah. 3:17). Finally, certain types of locusts were used as food.

Moths. Moths are referred to seven times in the OT and four times in the NT. Job uses moths to illustrate the fragility of the unrighteous before God (4:19) and the impermanence of their labors (27:18). The other references to moths in Scripture present them as the consumers of the wealth (garments) and pride of humankind as a means of God’s judgment (Job 13:28; Ps. 39:11; Isa. 50:9; 51:8; Hos. 5:12; Matt. 6:19–20; Luke 12:33; James 5:2).

Functions of Insects in Scripture

As agents in God’s judgment. Insects serve a variety of functions in Scripture. Most notably, insects serve as agents of judgment from God. The OT indicates how insects were used as judgment on both Israel and their enemies.

Moses warned of God’s judgment for Israel’s violation of the covenant. He advised Israel that as a consequence of their sin, they would expend much labor in the field but harvest little, because the locusts would consume them (Deut. 28:38).

Solomon, in his prayer of dedication at the temple, beseeched God regarding judgment that he might send in the form of grasshoppers to besiege the land. He asked that when the people of God repent and pray, God would hear and forgive (2 Chron. 6:26–30). God similarly responded by promising that when he “command[s] locusts to devour the land” as judgment for sin, and his people humble themselves and pray, he will heal and forgive (2 Chron. 7:13–14; cf. 1 Kings 8:37).

The psalmist reminded Israel of God’s wonderful works in their past, one of which was his use of insects as a means of his judgment (Ps. 78:45–46; cf. 105:34).

Joel 1:4 and 2:25 describe God’s judgment on Israel for their unfaithfulness in successive waves of intensity (cf. Deut. 28:38, 42; 2 Chron. 6:28; Amos 4:9–10; 7:1–3). The devastation led to crop failure, famine, destruction of vines and fig trees, and great mourning. The severity of the judgment is described as being unlike anything anyone in the community had ever experienced (Joel 1:2–3).

Locusts are the subject of one of the visions of the prophet Amos. In the vision, God showed him the destructive power of these insects as a means of judgment. Upon seeing the vision, the prophet interceded for the people, and God relented (Amos 7:1–3).

Insects were also used as judgments on Israel’s enemies. In the plagues on Egypt, insects were the agents of the third, fourth, and eighth plagues. The third plague (Exod. 8:16–19) was gnats. Interestingly, this was the first of Moses’ signs that the magicians of Pharaoh could not reproduce. Their response to the Egyptian king was that this must be the “finger of God.” There is no record of the gnats ever leaving Egypt, unlike the other plagues.

The fourth plague was flies (Exod. 8:20–32). Here the Bible specifically indicates a distinction between the land of Goshen, where the Israelites dwelled, and the rest of the land of Egypt. The flies covered all of Egypt except Goshen. This plague led to Pharaoh’s first offer of compromise. Once Moses prayed and the flies left Egypt, Pharaoh hardened his heart.

The eighth plague was in the form of locusts (Exod. 10:1–20). In response to this plague, Pharaoh’s own officials complained to him, beseeching him to let Israel leave their country lest it be entirely destroyed. The threat of this plague led to Pharaoh’s second offer of compromise. Once the locusts began to devastate the land of Egypt, Pharaoh confessed his sin before God, but as soon as the locusts were removed, his heart again became hardened. Thus, three of the ten plagues on Egypt were in the form of insects.

At the end of a series of “woe” passages, the prophet Isaiah proclaimed God’s judgment against the enemies of his people because of their oppression. In the end, those who plundered will themselves be plundered, as if by a “swarm of locusts” (Isa. 33:1–4; cf. Jer. 51:14, 27).

Insects were also used as judgment on people who dwelled in the land of Israel prior to Israel’s occupation. Both before and after the event took place, the Bible describes how God sent hornets to help drive out the occupants of the land of Canaan in preparation for Israel’s arrival. This is described as part of God’s judgment on these nations for their sins against him (Exod. 23:28; Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12).

As food. Insects also are mentioned in Scripture as food. Certain types of locusts are listed as clean and eligible for consumption. The NT describes the diet of John the Baptist, which consisted of locusts and wild honey—a diet entirely dependent on insects (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6). The OT also notes Samson enjoying the labor of bees as food (Judg. 14:8–9).

Used figuratively. Most often, insects are used figuratively in Scripture. They are used in the proverbs of Scripture to illustrate wisdom. The sages wrote about ants (Prov. 6:6; 30:25), locusts (Prov. 30:27), and even dead flies (Eccles. 10:1) both to extol wisdom and to encourage its development in humankind.

Another figurative use of insects is in the riddle about bees and honey posed by Samson to the Philistines (Judg. 14:12–18). As noted above, Samson ate honey (Judg. 14:8–9; cf. 1 Sam. 14:25–29, 43). Also, Scripture describes the promised land as a place of “milk and honey.”

Insects also are used to symbolize pursuing enemies (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18), innumerable forces (Judg. 6:5; 7:12; Ps. 105:34; Jer. 46:23; Joel 2:25), insignificance (Num. 13:33; 1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20; Job 4:19; 27:18; Ps. 109:23; Eccles. 12:5; Isa. 40:22), vulnerability (Job 4:19), God’s incomparable nature (Job 39:20), the brevity of life (Ps. 109:23), wisdom and organization (Prov. 30:27), and an invading army (Isa. 7:18; Jer. 51:14, 27), and they are employed in a taunt against Israel’s enemies (Nah. 3:15–17), a lesson on hypocrisy (Matt. 23:24), and an image of eschatological judgment (Rev. 9:4–11).

Scriptural Truths about Insects

1. Insects are part of God’s creation. In view of all the uses of insects in Scripture, several key truths emerge. First, insects are a part of the totality of God’s creation. The very first chapter of the Bible uses one of the general terms for insects as part of God’s creative activity on the sixth day of creation (Gen. 1:24). After God reviewed the creation on that day, his assessment of it, including the insects, was that it was “good” (1:25).

2. Insects are under God’s control. A second scriptural truth related to insects in the Bible is that they are under God’s control. In Deut. 7:20 God promised to send hornets ahead of the children of Israel to prepare the promised land for their arrival. Also, in Joel 2:25, when God promised to repair the damage to the land caused by the locusts, he described them as “my great army that I sent.” Thus, the picture emerges that what God has created, he alone reserves the authority to control.

3. Insects are cared for by God. A final truth regarding insects in Scripture is that God takes care of them. Just as Jesus explained God’s care for the birds of the air (Matt. 7:26), the psalmist explained that all of God’s creation, specifically insects, “look to you to give them their food at the proper time” (Ps. 104:25–27). The conclusion of the psalmist is appropriate for all of God’s creation: “When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground” (104:29–30). Thus, in the end, God creates, God controls, and God cares—a lesson that all of God’s creation shares.

Retribution refers to “giving what is due,” usually in response to evil. Retribution is an important theological doctrine whose significance is belied by scant use of the term in English translations (ESV 2×; NIV 6×; NRSV 9×). Retribution is driven by the theological conviction that moral order is built into the fabric of the world (Ps. 7:14–16; Prov. 26:27). This moral compass is guaranteed by God’s oversight, meting out justice in judgment and rewards to the righteous, not only on the human-human level, but also on the divine-human level (2 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 6:7). This biblical equation assures that (1) life is not overwhelmed by moral chaos, (2) human actions affect the future, (3) the world is morally uniform, and (4) human revenge is to be avoided (Lev. 19:17–18; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 12:19). With the human community in view, God’s commands are intended to instruct and guide. Not surprisingly, address of retribution is found throughout biblical literature: legal (Deut. 28), narrative (Num. 16), poetic (Pss. 18:20; 94:15), sapiential (Prov. 11:24–25), and prophetic (Hab. 2:2–20).

This poetic justice pervades the OT in the judgment and exile of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:8–24), Cain’s sentence and blood revenge (Gen. 4:15, 24), and the worldwide flood and annihilation (Gen. 6–9) (cf. Exod. 21:20–21; Deut. 30:15–20; Josh. 7; Amos 3:14–15; Mic. 2:1–3). Such stories reveal a sovereign God acting as an external agent who exacts punishment in light of his intentions for creation. For Israel, retribution is the exercise of Yahweh’s legal rights in an attempt to restore covenant fellowship (Lev. 26:40–45). Although serious tensions exist—sometimes the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer—this does not alter the grand scheme of Scripture (Job 33; Jer. 12:1–4). In some scenarios, only the next lifetime will fully bring justice and reward (Ps. 49:5–15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rev. 22:1–5). Deep wisdom, however, embraces mystery and understands the limits of human agency (Gen. 50:19–20; James 1:5).

While the notion of consequence may be too strong, the concept of correspondence is helpful for understanding the concept of retribution. God’s judgments reveal (1) a correspondence between act and effect, (2) accountability to known law, (3) a debt requiring resolve/restitution, and (4) punishment that reenacts elements of the sin itself. God’s roles as divine warrior, judge, and king proclaim his universal rule and preserve it from all who would mock or defy his royal authority (Gen. 3:14–19; Deut. 7:10; 1 Sam. 24:19; 2 Sam. 12:11–12; Ps. 149; Prov. 15:25; Mic. 5:15; 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9; 2 Thess. 1:5–10).

God’s reasons for retribution center on disobedience and injustice, while his purposes are essentially restorative and developmental. Retribution is an application of God’s holiness that purifies the world for his kingdom of peace. In this way, vengeance and deliverance work together (Nah. 1:2, 7). Paradoxically, retribution gives hope to fallen humanity for sin acknowledged and unacknowledged, anticipating the triumph of righteousness (Ps. 58:11). Retribution grants rationality and stability to humanity, promotes closure in crisis, and fosters hope—a forerunner of the ultimate judgment before the throne of God the King.

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

Mishpat and Tsedaqah

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

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

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

God as the Source and Model of Justice

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

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

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

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

When one or more of a person’s vital bodily systems fails to function without the aid of medical technology, physicians and family members must sometimes make the painful decision to either continue or end life support. Some people decide for themselves in advance and record their wishes in a living will.

This raises important ethical questions. When is a person dead? To what extent and with what measures should life be preserved? Does quality of life matter? More specifically, should “life” or “personhood” be defined by the ability to choose? By consciousness? By neocortical function?

In light of these dilemmas, the mind-body relationship deserves particular Christian reflection. Somehow, mind and body form an organic, unified creature made in God’s image. Human life is therefore of highest value in creation (Gen. 1:26; 9:6). Also worth consideration is the physical, bodily nature of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15). Scripture’s high regard for the body seems to call into question ethical paradigms that downplay the desirability of preserving it. In any case, the beginning and the end point for someone faced with difficult medical choices is the apostle’s exhortation to act in faith, hope, and love (1 Cor. 13:13).

Because Scripture sees all things as providentially arranged and sustained by God’s sovereign power at all times (Heb. 1:3), miracles are not aberrations in an otherwise closed and mechanical universe. Nor are miracles raw demonstrations of divinity designed to overcome prejudice or unbelief and to convince people of the existence of God (Mark 8:11–12). Still less are they clever conjuring tricks involving some kind of deception that can be otherwise explained on a purely scientific basis. Rather, God in his infinite wisdom sometimes does unusual and extraordinary things to call attention to himself and his activity. Miracles are divinely ordained acts of God that dramatically alert us to the presence of his glory and power and advance his saving purposes in redemptive history.

Terminology

The biblical writers describe miracles with various terms, such as “signs,” “wonders,” and “miracles” (or “powers”), which can carry various connotations. As the word “sign” suggests, divine miracles are significant and should cause us to think more deeply about God in a way that goes beyond mere amazement or curiosity (Exod. 4:30–31; John 2:11). Not all of God’s signs are miraculous. Some are given as part of his ordering of the natural world (Gen. 1:14) or as an encouragement to faith that God will do as he has said (e.g., the rainbow in Gen. 9:8–17; the blood of the Passover lamb in Exod. 12:13). (See also Sign.)

Often coupled with signs are “wonders” (Jer. 32:21; John 4:48; 2 Cor. 12:12). If the depiction of miracles as “signs” indicates an appeal to the intellect, that of “wonders” points to the emotions. Miracles evoke astonishment and awe at the one who did them.

The NT word “miracle” carries the meaning of power and therefore points to the supernatural source of these events (Luke 10:13; Acts 8:13).

Miracles in the Bible

Old Testament. In the OT, miracles are not evenly distributed but rather are found in greater number during times of great redemptive significance, such as the exodus and the conquest of Canaan. Miracles were performed also during periods of apostasy, such as in the days of the ninth-century prophets Elijah and Elisha. Common to both of these eras is the powerful demonstration of the superiority of God over pagan deities (Exod. 7–12; 1 Kings 18:20–40).

New Testament. In the NT, miracles often are acts of compassion, but more significantly they attest the exalted status of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:22) and the saving power of his word (Heb. 2:3–4). In the Synoptic Gospels, they reveal the coming of God’s kingdom and the conquest of Satan’s dominion (Matt. 8:16–17; 12:22–30; Mark 3:27). They point to the person of Jesus as the promised Messiah of OT Scripture (Matt. 4:23; 11:4–6). John shows a preference for the word “signs,” and his Gospel is structured around them (John 20:30–31). According to John, the signs that Jesus performed were such that only the one who stood in a unique relationship to the Father as the Son of God could do them.

Miracles and faith. Just as entrenched skepticism is injurious to faith, so too is naive credulity, for although signs and wonders witness to God, false prophets also perform them “to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matt. 24:24). Christians are to exercise discernment and not be led astray by such impostors (Matt. 7:15–20).

The relationship between miracles and faith is not as straightforward as sometimes supposed. Miracles do not necessarily produce faith, nor does faith necessarily produce miracles. Miracles were intended to bring about the faith that leads to eternal life (John 20:31), but not all who witnessed them believed (John 10:32). Additionally, Jesus regarded a faith that rested only on the miracle itself as precarious (Mark 8:11–13; John 2:23–25; 4:48), though better than no faith at all (John 10:38). Faith that saves must ultimately find its grounding in the person of Jesus as the Son of God.

It is also clear that although Jesus always encouraged faith in those who came to him for help (Mark 9:23), and that he deliberately limited his miraculous powers in the presence of unbelief (Mark 6:5), many of his miracles were performed on those who did not or could not exercise faith (Matt. 12:22; Mark 1:23–28; 5:1–20; Luke 14:1–4).

The fact that Jesus performed miracles was never an issue; rather, his opponents disputed the source of his power (Mark 3:22). Arguments about his identity were to be settled by appeal not to miracles but to the word of God (Matt. 22:41–46).

The function of miracles. Miracle accounts function in a symbolic and prophetic manner. Hence, the cursing of the fig tree was prophetic of the coming judgment (Mark 11:12–21). The unusual two-stage healing of the blind man of Bethsaida symbolized Peter’s incomplete understanding of Jesus’ messiahship (Mark 8:22–33).

The miraculous element of Jesus’ ministry carries an eschatological significance, pointing to the order of things in the age to come. For example, the nature miracles (Mark 4:35–41) look forward to the redemption of creation itself, which is presently subject to frustration and decay (Rom. 8:20–21); the healing miracles point to a day when disease and deformity will be abolished (Rev. 21:4); and miracles in which the dead are raised to life anticipate a time when death itself will be no more (Rev. 20:14; 21:4). From this perspective, the miracles are a gracious foretaste of a far more glorious future.

Murder is distinguishable in the Bible from the larger category of killing. Thus, the sixth commandment (Exod. 20:13) is appropriately translated by the NIV and other versions as “You shall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.” The taking of lives in warfare, for example, would not have been considered murder. The word used in Exod. 20:13, ratsakh, occurs approximately fifty times in the OT and never refers to killing in battle, in contrast to two other words for “kill” that together occur over three hundred times and quite often refer to battle contexts. Ezekiel 21:22 (21:27 MT) might appear to be an exception, but ratsakh (NIV: “slaughter”) is probably used there to indicate the slaying of innocent people rather than military combatants.

Ratsakh, however, can also refer to unintentional killing or manslaughter (e.g., Num. 35:11); thus, the word does not necessarily mean “murder” but rather refers to the taking of any innocent life, whether intentionally or accidentally. The lone exception in Num. 35:30 is only apparently so; it is rather a statement of poetic justice: “the murderer shall be murdered.”

The prohibition against murder is grounded in the image-bearing character of humankind. Human beings are made in the image of God; therefore, to kill an innocent person is equivalent to striking out against God (Gen. 9:6).

Significantly, Jesus viewed his own approaching death in Jerusalem as a murder in a long line of murders stretching from the murder of Abel by Cain, through the killing of the OT prophets, to himself (Matt. 21:33–46; 23:29–39; Luke 11:47–54; 20:9–20).

Murder is distinguishable in the Bible from the larger category of killing. Thus, the sixth commandment (Exod. 20:13) is appropriately translated by the NIV and other versions as “You shall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.” The taking of lives in warfare, for example, would not have been considered murder. The word used in Exod. 20:13, ratsakh, occurs approximately fifty times in the OT and never refers to killing in battle, in contrast to two other words for “kill” that together occur over three hundred times and quite often refer to battle contexts. Ezekiel 21:22 (21:27 MT) might appear to be an exception, but ratsakh (NIV: “slaughter”) is probably used there to indicate the slaying of innocent people rather than military combatants.

Ratsakh, however, can also refer to unintentional killing or manslaughter (e.g., Num. 35:11); thus, the word does not necessarily mean “murder” but rather refers to the taking of any innocent life, whether intentionally or accidentally. The lone exception in Num. 35:30 is only apparently so; it is rather a statement of poetic justice: “the murderer shall be murdered.”

The prohibition against murder is grounded in the image-bearing character of humankind. Human beings are made in the image of God; therefore, to kill an innocent person is equivalent to striking out against God (Gen. 9:6).

Significantly, Jesus viewed his own approaching death in Jerusalem as a murder in a long line of murders stretching from the murder of Abel by Cain, through the killing of the OT prophets, to himself (Matt. 21:33–46; 23:29–39; Luke 11:47–54; 20:9–20).

Murder is distinguishable in the Bible from the larger category of killing. Thus, the sixth commandment (Exod. 20:13) is appropriately translated by the NIV and other versions as “You shall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.” The taking of lives in warfare, for example, would not have been considered murder. The word used in Exod. 20:13, ratsakh, occurs approximately fifty times in the OT and never refers to killing in battle, in contrast to two other words for “kill” that together occur over three hundred times and quite often refer to battle contexts. Ezekiel 21:22 (21:27 MT) might appear to be an exception, but ratsakh (NIV: “slaughter”) is probably used there to indicate the slaying of innocent people rather than military combatants.

Ratsakh, however, can also refer to unintentional killing or manslaughter (e.g., Num. 35:11); thus, the word does not necessarily mean “murder” but rather refers to the taking of any innocent life, whether intentionally or accidentally. The lone exception in Num. 35:30 is only apparently so; it is rather a statement of poetic justice: “the murderer shall be murdered.”

The prohibition against murder is grounded in the image-bearing character of humankind. Human beings are made in the image of God; therefore, to kill an innocent person is equivalent to striking out against God (Gen. 9:6).

Significantly, Jesus viewed his own approaching death in Jerusalem as a murder in a long line of murders stretching from the murder of Abel by Cain, through the killing of the OT prophets, to himself (Matt. 21:33–46; 23:29–39; Luke 11:47–54; 20:9–20).

Murder is distinguishable in the Bible from the larger category of killing. Thus, the sixth commandment (Exod. 20:13) is appropriately translated by the NIV and other versions as “You shall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.” The taking of lives in warfare, for example, would not have been considered murder. The word used in Exod. 20:13, ratsakh, occurs approximately fifty times in the OT and never refers to killing in battle, in contrast to two other words for “kill” that together occur over three hundred times and quite often refer to battle contexts. Ezekiel 21:22 (21:27 MT) might appear to be an exception, but ratsakh (NIV: “slaughter”) is probably used there to indicate the slaying of innocent people rather than military combatants.

Ratsakh, however, can also refer to unintentional killing or manslaughter (e.g., Num. 35:11); thus, the word does not necessarily mean “murder” but rather refers to the taking of any innocent life, whether intentionally or accidentally. The lone exception in Num. 35:30 is only apparently so; it is rather a statement of poetic justice: “the murderer shall be murdered.”

The prohibition against murder is grounded in the image-bearing character of humankind. Human beings are made in the image of God; therefore, to kill an innocent person is equivalent to striking out against God (Gen. 9:6).

Significantly, Jesus viewed his own approaching death in Jerusalem as a murder in a long line of murders stretching from the murder of Abel by Cain, through the killing of the OT prophets, to himself (Matt. 21:33–46; 23:29–39; Luke 11:47–54; 20:9–20).

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).

(1) The eighth descendant listed in the line of Seth and the grandson of Methuselah, Noah was used by God to preserve the human race through the flood. His name means “rest,” chosen because his father, Lamech, believed that God would use his son to bring rest from the toil of life resulting from the fall (Gen. 5:29). Enoch was his great-grandfather, and like him, Noah is described as one who “walked faithfully with God” (Gen. 6:9; cf. 5:22, 24). He was the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

His story is told mainly in Gen. 6–9. Because of its great wickedness, God resolved to destroy the human race. But Noah found grace in God’s sight, so God instructed him to build a large boat as directed and to take aboard provisions for his family as well as selected representatives of animal life. Noah dutifully obeyed, and his family thus was preserved through the ensuing catastrophe. From them the earth was repopulated (Gen. 10), and Noah was the recipient of various directives for the governance of the postdiluvian world, often referred to as the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:1–17). Noah’s personal story ends with the curious episode of him getting drunk and subsequently cursing a son of Ham for some offense that Ham committed, the nature of which is described only as seeing “the nakedness of his father” (Gen. 9:22 ESV, NRSV, NASB). His age at the time of his death is given as 950.

Noah is mentioned two other times in the OT. God cites his promise that the “waters of Noah” never again would destroy the earth to affirm his covenant faithfulness to Israel (Isa. 54:9), and in another text groups Noah together with Job and Daniel as those who could deliver themselves by their righteousness, but not disobedient Israel (Ezek. 14:14, 20). In the NT, Jesus cites the conditions in Noah’s day as being representative of conditions at the time of his coming (Matt. 24:37–38; Luke 17:26–27). Peter mentions Noah twice, once to refer to the spirits of those who perished in the flood (1 Pet. 3:20) and once to use Noah as an example of God’s ability to deliver his people (2 Pet. 2:5). Hebrews 11:7 lists Noah as a hero of faith.

(2) One of the five daughters of Zelophehad. Their petition for a portion of their deceased father’s property helped set a precedent for inheritance law in ancient Israel (Num. 27:1–11; cf. Josh. 17:1–6). When it came time for the daughters of Zelophehad to marry, a further decree was issued that inherited land must not pass from tribe to tribe (Num. 36).

Geography

Whereas the principal direction in the modern world is north, in the ancient world different cultures used a variety of orientations as they sought to describe their relationship to their geographical environment. In Israel the primary direction was determined by the sunrise: east. This is reflected in Hebrew, where the main word used to refer to east as a direction was qedem, which could also be used to simply refer to that which was directly ahead or in front of the speaker (e.g., Ps. 139:5). Elsewhere, east is designated by the terms mizrakh (“rising” [Josh. 11:3]) or mizrakh hashamesh (“rising of the sun” [Num. 21:11]), both of which derive from the direction of sunrise. By way of contrast, in Egypt the primary direction was south, in alignment with the source of the Nile River.

The ancient world employed the same notion of four cardinal directions, which persists to the present, and the terminology related to these was influenced by the choice of primary direction. Thus, in Israel north is often designated by “left”; south could be designated by “right,” and west by “behind.” In addition, directions could be specified by reference to geographical features found in those directions. North could be specified by the word tsapon, which was derived from the name of a northern Syrian mountain (Zaphon); south by negeb, a name for the region south of Israel (Negev); and west by yam (“sea”), since the Mediterranean Sea lay to the west.

Symbolism

Aside from their purely geographical significance, the directions also came to bear figurative significance. Some caution is warranted in assigning symbolic significance to language, for there is danger of reading invalid meanings into texts. Furthermore, given the ambiguity inherent in the use of terms to refer to directions, which also have alternate significances, there is danger of assigning a symbolic meaning to the direction that actually resides in the alternate. So, for example, while yam (“sea”) carries significant symbolic overtones in the Bible, this association does not appear to have been extended to encompass the term when used to designate a westerly direction.

East and west. Nonetheless, there is, for example, probably some significance in the expulsion from Eden and progressive movement eastward to the tower of Babel through Gen. 1–11, followed by a return to the promised land, which was approached by reversing the easterly migration and returning toward Eden. Eden itself was said to lie “in the east” (Heb. miqqedem; Gen. 2:8), although the same Hebrew expression in Pss. 74:12; 77:5, 11; 78:2; 143:5 means “in ancient times,” and there is perhaps a deliberate ambiguity in the use of the expression in Gen. 2:8. In Isa. 2:6 the east is the source of influences on the people that lead them astray. Following the exile, Ezekiel sees the glory of God returning to the temple from the east (Ezek. 43:1–2). Thus, when used symbolically, “east” is often viewed negatively or else may be used to mark a connection with distant antiquity (Gen. 2:8; Job 1:3). Any symbolic significance assigned to west appears primarily to be associated with it being the antithesis of east. The distance between east and west was used poetically to express vast distance (Ps. 103:12).

North and south. North is significant for two primary reasons. First, it is the direction from which invading armies most often descended upon Israel (Jer. 1:13) as well as from which Babylon’s destruction is said to come (Jer. 50:3). In light of this, Ezekiel’s vision of God approaching from the north strikes an ominous tone of impending judgment (Ezek. 1:1–4). Second, in Canaanite mythology the abode of the gods, and specifically Baal, lay to the north, on Mount Zaphon. Thus, the king of Babylon’s plans in Isa. 14:13 amount to a claim to establish himself as one of the gods. In contrast to this, Ps. 48:2 pre-sents Mount Zion as supplanting Mount Zaphon and thus implicitly presents Israel’s one God as supplanting the Canaanite pantheon.

As with west, there is little symbolic significance associated with the direction south in the Bible, aside from its use in combination with other directions.

The four directions. The four directions (or sometimes just pairs of directions) are used together to describe both the scattering of the Israelites as well as their being gathered by God back to the promised land (Ps. 107:3; Isa. 43:5–6; Luke 13:29). They are also used together to express the extent of the promised land (Gen. 13:14) or else to describe something that is all-encompassing (1 Chron. 9:24).

The biblical corpus known as the Pentateuch consists of the first five books of the OT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The word “Pentateuch” comes from two Greek words (penta [“five”] and teuchos [“scroll case, book”]) and is a designation attested in the early church fathers. The collection is also commonly known as the “Five Books of Moses,” “the Law of Moses,” or simply the “Law,” reflecting the traditional Jewish name “Torah,” meaning “law” or “instruction.” The Torah is the first of three major sections that comprise the Hebrew Bible (Torah, Nebiim, Ketubim [Law, Prophets, Writings]); thus for both Jewish and Christian traditions it represents the introduction to the Bible as a whole as well as its interpretive foundation.

The English names for the books of the Pentateuch came from the Latin Vulgate, based on the Greek Septuagint. These appellations are mainly descriptive of their content. Genesis derives from “generations” or “origin,” Exodus means “going out,” Leviticus represents priestly (Levitical) service, Numbers refers to the censuses taken in the book, and Deuteronomy indicates “second law” because of Moses’ rehearsal of God’s commands (see Deut. 17:18). The Hebrew designations derive from opening words in each book. Bereshit (Genesis) means “in the beginning”; Shemot (Exodus), “[these are] the names”; Wayyiqra’ (Leviticus), “and he called”; Bemidbar (Numbers), “in the desert”; and Debarim (Deuteronomy), “[these are] the words.”

Referring to the Pentateuch as “Torah” or the “Law” reflects the climactic reception of God’s commands at Mount Sinai, which were to govern Israel’s life and worship in the promised land, including their journey to get there. However, calling the Pentateuch the “Law” can be a bit misleading because there are relatively few passages that simply list a set of commands, and all law passages are set within a broad narrative. The Pentateuch is a grand story that begins on a universal scale with the creation of the cosmos and ends on the plains of Moab as the reader anticipates the fulfillment of God’s plan to redeem a fallen world through his chosen people. The books offer distinct qualities and content, but they are also inherently dependent upon one another, as the narrative remains unbroken through the five volumes. Genesis ends with Jacob’s family in Egypt, and, though many years have passed, this is where Exodus begins. Leviticus outlines cultic life at the tabernacle (constructed at the end of Exodus) and even begins without a clear subject (“And he called . . .”), which requires the reader to supply “the Lord” from the last verse of Exodus. Numbers begins with an account of Israel’s fighting men as the nation prepares to leave Sinai, and Deuteronomy is Moses’ farewell address to the nation on the cusp of the promised land.

Authorship and Composition

Although the Pentateuch is technically an anonymous work, Jewish and Christian tradition attributes its authorship to Moses, the main figure of the story from Exodus to Deuteronomy. The arguments for attributing the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses come from internal evidence within both Testaments. That Moses is responsible for at least portions of the Pentateuch is suggested by references to his explicit literary activity reflected within the narrative itself (Exod. 17:14; 24:4; 34:28; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9, 22, 24), if not implied in various literary formulas such as “the Lord said to Moses” (e.g., Exod. 39:1, 7, 21; Lev. 4:1; 11:1; 13:1; Num. 1:1; 2:1). Mosaic authorship receives support from the historical books, which use terms such as “the Book of the Law of Moses” in various forms and references in the preexilic history (Josh. 8:30–35; 23:6; 2 Kings 14:6) as well as the postexilic history (e.g., 2 Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1). The same titles are used by NT authors (e.g., Mark 12:26; Luke 24:44; John 1:45), even referring to the Pentateuch simply by the name “Moses” at various points (e.g., Luke 16:29; 24:27; 2 Cor. 3:15).

Even with these examples, nowhere does the text explicitly state that Moses is responsible for the entire compilation of the Pentateuch or that he penned it with his own hand. Rather, a number of factors point to a later hand at work: Moses’ death and burial are referenced (Deut. 34), the conquest of Canaan is referred to as past (Deut. 2:12), and there is evidence that the names of people and places were updated and explained for later generations (e.g., “Dan” in Gen. 14:14; cf. Josh. 19:47; Judg. 18:28b–29). Based on these factors, it is reasonable to believe that the Pentateuch underwent editorial alteration as it was preserved within Jewish life and took its final shape after Moses’ lifetime.

Over the last century, the Documentary Hypothesis has dominated academic discussion of the Pentateuch’s composition. This theory was crystallized by Julius Wellhausen in his Prolegomena to the History of Israel in the late nineteenth century and posits that the Pentateuch originated from a variety of ancient sources derived from distinct authors and time periods that have been transmitted and joined through a long and complex process. Traditionally these documents are identified as J, E, D, and P. The J source is a document authored by the “Yahwist” (German, Jahwist) in Judah around 840 BC and is so called because the name “Yahweh” is used frequently in its text. The E source stands for “Elohist” because of its preference for the divine title “Elohim” and was composed in Israel around 700 BC. The D source stands for “Deuteronomy” because it reflects material found in that book; it was composed sometime around Josiah’s reform in 621 BC. The P document reflects material that priests would be concerned with in the postexilic time period, approximately 500 BC. This theory and its related forms stem from the scholarly concern over various literary characteristics such as the use of divine names; doublets and duplications in the text; observable patterns of style, terminology, and themes; and alleged discrepancies in facts, descriptions, and geographic or historical perspective.

Various documentary theories of composition have flourished over the last century of pentateuchal scholarship and still have many adherents. However, lack of scholarly agreement about the dating and character of the sources and the rise of other literary approaches to the text have many conservative and liberal scholars calling into question the accuracy and even interpretive benefit of the source theories. Moreover, if the literary observations used to create source distinctions can be explained in other ways, then the Documentary Hypothesis is significantly undermined.

In its canonical form, the pentateuchal narrative combines artistic prose, poetry, and law to tell a dramatic history spanning thousands of years. One could divide the story into six major sections: primeval history (Gen. 1–11), the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50), liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18), Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10), wilderness journey (Num. 10:11–36:13), and Moses’ farewell (Deuteronomy).

Primeval History (Gen. 1–11)

It is possible to divide Genesis into two parts based upon subject matter: the origin of creation and humankind’s call, fall, and punishment (chaps 1–11), and the origin of a family that would become God’s conduit of salvation and blessing for the world (chaps. 12–50).

The primeval history comprises essentially the first eleven chapters of Genesis, ending with the genealogy of Abraham in 11:26. Strictly speaking, 11:27 begins the patriarchal section with the sixth instance of the toledot formula found in Genesis, referencing Abraham’s father, Terah. The Hebrew phrase ’elleh toledot (“these are the generations of”) occurs in eleven places in Genesis and reflects a deliberate structural marker that one may use to divide the book into distinct episodes (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2).

Genesis as we know it exhibits two distinct creation accounts in its first two chapters. Although critical scholars contend that the differing accounts reflect contradictory stories and different authors, it is just as convenient to recognize that the two stories vary in style and some content because they attempt to accomplish different aims. The first account, 1:1–2:3, is an artistic, poetic, symmetrical, and “heavenly” view of creation by a transcendent God, who spoke creation into being. In the second account, 2:4–25, God is immanently involved with creation as he is present in a garden, breathes life into Adam’s nostrils, dialogues and problem-solves, fashions Eve from Adam’s side, and bestows warnings and commands. Both perspectives are foundational for providing an accurate view of God’s interaction with creation in the rest of Scripture.

As one progresses through chapters 1–11, the story quickly changes from what God has established as “very good” to discord, sin, and shame. Chapter 3 reflects the “fall” of humanity as Adam and Eve sin in eating from the forbidden tree in direct disobedience to God. The serpent shrewdly deceives the first couple, and thus all three incur God’s curses, which extend to unlimited generations. Sin that breaks the vertical relationship between God and humanity intrinsically leads to horizontal strife between humans. Sin and disunity on the earth only intensify as one moves from the murder story of Cain and Abel in chapter 4 to the flood in chapters 5–9. Violence, evil, and disorder have so pervaded the earth that God sends a deluge to wipe out all living things, save one righteous man and his family, along with an ark full of animals. God makes the first covenant recorded in the biblical narrative with Noah (6:18), promising to save him from the flood as he commands Noah to build an ark and gather food for survival. Noah fulfills all that God has commanded (6:22; 7:5), and God remembers his promise (8:1). This is the prototypical salvation story for the rest of Scripture.

Chapter 9 reflects a new start for humanity and all living things as the creation mandate to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it,” first introduced in 1:28, is restated along with the reminder that humankind is made in God’s image (1:27). Bearing the image involves new responsibilities and stipulations in the postdiluvian era (9:2–6). There will be enmity between humans and animals, animals are now appropriate food, and yet lifeblood will be specially revered. God still requires accountability for just and discriminate shedding of blood and orderly relationships, as he has proved in the deluge, but now he relinquishes this responsibility to humankind. In return, God promises never to destroy all flesh again, and he will set the rainbow in the sky as a personal reminder. Like the covenant with Noah in 6:18, the postdiluvian covenant involves humankind fulfilling commands (9:1–7) and God remembering his covenant (9:8–17), specially termed “everlasting” (9:16).

The primeval commentary on humankind’s unabating sinful condition (e.g., 6:5; 8:21) proves true as Noah becomes drunk and naked and his son Ham (father of Canaan) shames him by failing to conceal his father’s negligence. Instead of multiplying, filling, and subduing the earth as God has intended, humankind collaborates to make a name for itself by building a sort of stairway to heaven within a special city (11:4). God foils such haughty plans by scattering the people across the earth and confusing their language. Expressed in an orderly chiastic structure, the story of the tower of Babel demonstrates that God condescends (11:5) to set things straight with humanity.

Patriarchs (Gen. 12–50)

Although the primeval history is foundational for understanding the rest of the Bible, more space in Genesis is devoted to the patriarchal figures Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In general, the Abrahamic narrative spans chapters 12–25, the story of Isaac serves as a transition to the Jacob cycle of chapters 25–37, and the Joseph narrative finishes the book of Genesis in chapters 37–50.

The transition from the primeval history to the patriarchs (11:27–32) reveals how Abraham, the father of Israel, moves from the east and settles in Harran as the family ventures to settle in Canaan. In Harran, Abraham receives the call of God’s redemptive plan, which reverberates through Scripture. God will bless him with land, make him a great nation, grant him special favor, and use him as a conduit of blessings to the world (12:1–3). In 11:30 is the indication that the barrenness of Abraham’s wife (Sarah) relates to the essence of God’s magnificent promises. How one becomes great in name and number, secures enemy territory, and is to bless all peoples without a descendant becomes the compelling question of the Abrahamic narrative. The interchange between Abraham’s faith in God and his attempts to contrive covenant fulfillment colors the entire narrative leading up to chapter 22. It is there that Abraham’s faith is ultimately put to the test as God asks him to sacrifice the promised son, Isaac. Abraham passes God’s faith test, and a ram is provided to take Isaac’s place. This everlasting covenant that was previously sealed by the sign of circumcision is climactically procured for future generations through Abraham’s exemplary obedience (22:16–18; cf. 15:1–21; 17:1–27).

The patriarchal stories that follow show that the Abrahamic promises are renewed with subsequent generations (see 26:3–4; 28:13–14) and survive various threats to fulfillment. The story of Isaac serves mainly as a bridge to the Jacob cycle, as he exists primarily as a passive character in relation to Abraham and Jacob.

Deception, struggle, rivalry, and favoritism characterize the Jacob narrative, as first exemplified in the jostling of twin boys in Rebekah’s womb (25:22). Jacob supplants his twin brother, Esau, for the firstborn’s blessing and birthright. He flees to Paddan Aram (northern Mesopotamia), marries two sisters, takes their maidservants as concubines, and has eleven children, followed by a falling-out with his father-in-law. Jacob’s struggle for God’s blessing that began with Esau comes to a head in his wrestling encounter with God at Peniel. Ultimately, Jacob emerges victorious and receives God’s blessing and a name change, “Israel” (“one who struggles with God”). Throughout the Jacob story, God demonstrates his faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant and reiterates the promises to Jacob, most notably at Bethel (chaps. 28; 35). The interpersonal strife of Jacob’s life is thus enveloped within a message of reconciliation not just with Esau (chap. 33) but ultimately with God. The reader learns from the episodes in Jacob’s life that although God works through the lives of weak and failing people, his promises for Israel remain secure.

Although Jacob and his family are already living in Canaan, God intends for them to move to Egypt and grow into a powerful nation before fulfilling their conquest of the promised land (see 15:13–16). The story of Joseph explains how the family ends up in Egypt at the close of Genesis. Joseph is specially loved by his father, which elicits significant jealousy from his brothers, who sell him off to some nomads and fabricate the alibi that he has been killed by a wild beast. Joseph winds up in Pharaoh’s household and eventually becomes his top official. When famine strikes Canaan years later, Joseph’s brothers go to Egypt to purchase food from the royal court, and Joseph reveals his identity to them in an emotional reunion. Jacob’s entire family moves to Egypt to live for a time in prosperity under Joseph’s care. The Joseph story illustrates the mysterious relationship of human decision and divine sovereignty (50:20).

Liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18)

Genesis shows how Abraham develops into a large family. Exodus shows how this family becomes a nation—enslaved, freed, and then taught the ways of God. Although it appears that Exodus continues a riveting story of God’s chosen people, it is actually the identity and power of God that take center stage.

Many years have passed since Joseph’s family arrived in Egypt. The Hebrews’ good standing in Egypt has also diminished as their multiplication and fruitfulness during the intervening period—just as God had promised Abraham (Gen. 17:4–8)—became a national threat to the Egyptians. Abraham’s family will spend time in Egyptian slavery before being liberated with many possessions in hand (cf. Gen. 15:13–14).

In the book of Exodus the drama of suffering and salvation serves as the vehicle for God’s self-disclosure to a single man, Moses. Moses is an Israelite of destiny even from birth, as he providentially avoids infant death and rises to power and influence in Pharaoh’s household. Moses never loses his passion for his own people, and he kills an Egyptian who was beating a fellow Hebrew. Moses flees to obscurity in the desert, where he meets God and his call to lead his people out of Egypt and to the promised land (3:7–8; 6:8). Like the days of Noah’s salvation, God has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs and responded to the groans of his people in Egypt (2:24; 6:4–5; cf. Gen. 8:1). God reveals himself, and his personal name “Yahweh” (“I am”), to Moses in the great theophany of the burning bush at Mount Horeb (Sinai), the same place where later he will receive God’s law. Moses doubts his own ability to carry out the task of confronting Pharaoh and leading the exodus, but God foretells that many amazing signs and wonders not only will make the escape possible but also will ultimately reveal the mighty nature of God to the Hebrews, Egypt, and presumably the world (6:7; 7:5).

This promise of creating a nation of his people through deliverance is succinctly conveyed in the classic covenant formula that finds significance in the rest of the OT: “I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God” (6:7). Wielding great power over nature and at times even human decision, God “hardens” Pharaoh’s heart and sends ten plagues to demonstrate his favor for his own people and wrath against their enemy nation. The tenth plague on the firstborn of all in Egypt provides the context for the Passover as God spares the firstborn of Israel in response to the placement of sacrificial blood on the doorposts of their homes. Pharaoh persists in the attempt to overtake the Israelites in the desert, where the power of God climaxes in parting the Red Sea (or Sea of Reeds). The Israelites successfully pass through, but the Egyptian army drowns in pursuit. This is the great salvation event of the OT.

The song of praise for God’s deliverance (15:1–21) quickly turns to cries of groaning in the seventy days following the exodus as the people of the nation, grumbling about their circumstances in the desert, quickly demonstrate their fleeting trust in the one who has saved them (Exod. 15:22–18:27). When a shortage of water and food confronts the people, their faith in God’s care proves shallow, and they turn on Moses. Even though the special marks of God’s protection have been evident in the wilderness through the pillars of cloud and fire, the angel of God, the provision of manna and quail, water from the rock, and the leadership of Moses, the nation continually fails God’s tests of trust and obedience (16:4; cf. 17:2; 20:20). Yet God continues to endure with his people through the leadership of Moses.

Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10)

Most of the pentateuchal narrative takes place at Mount Sinai. It is there that Israel receives national legislation and prescriptions for the tabernacle, the priesthood, feasts and festivals, and other covenantal demands for living as God’s chosen people. The eleven-month stay at Sinai takes the biblical reader through the center of the Pentateuch, covering approximately the last half of Exodus, all of Leviticus, and the first third of Numbers, before the nation leaves this sacred site and sojourns in the wilderness. Several key sections of the Pentateuch fall within the Sinai story: the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17), the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), the tabernacle prescriptions (Exod. 25–31), the tabernacle construction (Exod. 35–40), the manual on ritual worship (Lev. 1–7), and the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–27).

The events and instruction at Sinai are central to the Israelite religious experience and reflect the third eternal covenant that God establishes in the Pentateuch—this time with Israel, whereby the Sabbath is the sign (Exod. 31:16; cf. Noahic/rainbow covenant [Gen. 9:16] and the Abrahamic/circumcision covenant [Gen. 17:7, 13, 19]). The offices of prophet and priest develop into clear view in this portion of the Pentateuch. Moses exemplifies the dual prophetic function of representing the people when speaking with God and, in turn, God when speaking to the people. The priesthood is bestowed upon Aaron and his descendants in Exodus and inaugurated within one of the few narrative sections of Leviticus (Lev. 8–10). The giving of the law, the ark, the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the Sabbath are all a part of God’s making himself “known” to Israel and the world, which is a constant theme in Exodus (see, e.g., 25:22; 29:43, 46; 31:13).

The Israelites’ stay at Sinai opens with one of the greatest theophanies of the Bible: God speaks aloud to the people (Exod. 19–20) and then is envisioned as a consuming fire (Exod. 24). After communicating the Ten Commandments (“ten words”) directly to the people (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4), Moses mediates the rest of the detailed obligations that will govern the future life of the nation. The covenant is ratified in ceremonial fashion (Exod. 24), and the Israelites vow to fulfill all that has been spoken. God expects Israel to be a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) with whom he may dwell, but Moses descends Sinai only to find that the Israelites have already violated the essence of the Decalogue by fashioning a golden calf to worship as that which delivered them from Egypt (Exod. 32). This places Israel’s future and calling in jeopardy, but Moses intercedes for his people, and God graciously promises to preserve the nation and abide with it in his mercy, even while punishing the guilty. This becomes prototypical of God’s relationship with his people in the future (Exod. 34:6–7).

Exodus ends with the consecration of the tabernacle and the descent of God’s presence there. With the tent of worship in order, the priesthood and its rituals can be officially established. Leviticus reflects divine instructions for how a sinful people may live safely in close proximity to God. Holy living involves dealing with sin and minimizing the need for atonement, purification, and restitution. The sacrificial and worship system established in Leviticus is based on a worldview of order, perfection, and purity, which should characterize a people who are commanded, “Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy’ (Lev. 19:2; cf. 11:44–45; 20:26). With these rules in place, the Israelites can make final preparations to depart Sinai and move forward on their journey. Numbers 1–10 spans a nineteen-day period of such activities as the Israelites begin to focus on dispossessing their enemies. These chapters reflect a census of fighting men, the priority of purity, the dedication of the tabernacle, and the observance of the Passover before commencing the quest to Canaan.

Wilderness Journey (Num. 10:11–36:13)

The rest of the book of Numbers covers the remainder of a forty-year stretch of great peaks and valleys in the faith and future of the nation. Chapters 11–25 recount the various events that show the exodus generation’s lack of trust in God. Chapters 26–36 reveal a more positive section whereby a new generation prepares for the conquest. With the third section of Numbers framed by episodes involving the inheritance rights of Zelophehad’s daughters (27:1–11; 36:1–13), it is clear that the story has turned to the future possession of the land.

After the departure from Sinai, the narrative consists of a number of Israelite complaints in the desert. The Israelites have grown tired of manna and ironically crave the food of Egypt, which they recall as free fish, fruits, and vegetables. Having forgotten the hardship of life in slavery, about which they had cried out to God, now the nation is crying out for a lifestyle of old. Moses becomes so overwhelmed with the complaints of the people that God provides seventy elders, who, to help shoulder the leadership burden, will receive the same prophetic spirit given to Moses.

In chapters 13–14 twelve spies are sent out from Kadesh Barnea to peruse Canaan, but the people’s lack of faith to procure the land from the mighty people there proves costly. This final example of distrust moves God to punish and purify the nation. The unbelieving generation will die in the wilderness during a forty-year period of wandering.

The discontent in the desert involves not only food and water but also leadership status. Moses’ own brother and sister resent his special relationship with God and challenge his exclusive authority. Later, Aaron’s special high priesthood is threatened as another Levitical family (Korah) vies for preeminence. Through a sequence of signs and wonders, God makes it clear that Moses and Aaron have exclusive roles in God’s economy. Due to the deaths related to Korah’s rebellion and the fruitless staffs that represent the tribes of Israel, the nation’s concern about sudden extinction in the presence of a holy God is appeased through the eternal covenant of priesthood granted to Aaron’s family (chap. 18). He and the Levites, at the potential expense of their own lives and as part of their priestly service, will be held accountable for keeping the tabernacle pure of encroachers.

Even after the people’s significant rebellion and punishment, God continues to prove his faithfulness to his word. Hope is restored for the nation as the Abrahamic promises of blessing are rehearsed from the mouth of Balaam, a Mesopotamian seer. The Israelites will indeed one day be numerous (23:10), enjoy the presence of God (23:21), be blessed and protected (24:9), and have a kingly leader (24:17). This wonderful mountaintop experience of hope for the exodus generation is tragically countered by an even greater event of apostasy in the subsequent scene. Reminiscent of the incident of the golden calf, when pagan revelry in the camp had foiled Moses’ interaction with God on Sinai, apostasy at the tabernacle undermines Balaam’s oracles of covenant fulfillment. Fornication with Moabite women not only joins the nation to a foreign god but also betrays God’s holiness at his place of dwelling. If not for the zeal of Aaron’s grandson Phinehas, who puts an end to the sin, the ensuing plague could have finished the nation. For his righteous action, Phinehas is awarded an eternal priesthood and ensures a future for the nation and Aaron’s priestly lineage.

In chapter 26 a second census of fighting men indicates that the old, unbelieving exodus generation has officially died off (except for Joshua and Caleb), and God is proceeding with a new people. God dispossesses the enemies of the new generation; reinstates the tribal boundaries of the land; reinstates rules concerning worship, service, and bloodshed; and places Joshua at the helm of leadership. Chapters 26–36 mention no deaths or rebellions as the nation optimistically ends its journey in Moab, just east of the promised land.

Moses’ Farewell (Deuteronomy)

Although one could reasonably move into the historical books at the end of Numbers, much would be lost in overstepping Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy presents Moses’ farewell speeches as his final words to a nation on the verge of Caanan. Moses’ speeches are best viewed as sermons motivating his people to embrace the Sinai covenant, love their God, and choose life over death and blessings over cursings (30:19). Moses reviews the desert experience since Mount Horeb/Sinai (chaps. 1–4) and recapitulates God’s expectations for lawful living in the land (chaps. 5–26). The covenant code is recorded on a scroll, is designated the “Book of the Law” (31:24–26), and is to be read and revered by the future king. Finally, Moses leads the nation in covenant renewal (chaps. 29–32) before the book finishes with an account of his death (chaps. 33–34), including tributes such as “since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (34:10).

Deuteronomy reflects that true covenant faithfulness is achieved from a right heart for God. If there were any previous doubts about the essence of covenant keeping, Moses eliminates such in Deuteronomy with the frequent use of emotive terms. Loving God involves committing to him alone and spurning idols and foreign gods. The Ten Commandments (chap. 5) are not a list of stale requirements; they reflect the great Shema with the words “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (6:5–6). God desires an unrivaled love from the nation, not cold and superficial religiosity.

Obedience by the Israelites will incur material and spiritual blessing, whereas disobedience ends in the loss of both. Although Moses strongly commends covenant obedience, and the nation participates in a covenant-renewal ceremony (chap. 27), it is clear that in the future the Israelites will fail to uphold their covenant obligations and will suffer the consequences (29:23; 30:1–4; 31:16–17). Yet Moses looks to a day when the command for circumcised hearts (10:16) will be fulfilled by the power of God himself (30:6). In the future a new king will arise from the nation (17:14–20) as well as a prophet like Moses (18:15–22). Deuteronomy thus underscores the extent of God’s own devotion to his patriarchal promises despite the sinful nature of his people.

For much of the middle and end of the twentieth century, Deuteronomy has received a significant amount of attention for its apparent resemblance in structure and content to ancient Hittite and Assyrian treaties. Scholars debate the extent of similarity, but it is possible that Deuteronomy reflects a suzerain-vassal treaty form between Israel and God much like the common format between nations in the ancient Near East. Although comparative investigation of this type can be profitable for interpretation, it is prudent to be conservative when outlining direct parallels, since Deuteronomy is not a legal document but rather a dramatic narrative of God’s redemptive interaction with the world.

A technical term for “promise” does not appear in the OT, but its concept is present throughout Scripture. God unfolds the history of redemption by employing the idea of promises. The writers of the NT repeatedly assert that Jesus Christ has fulfilled God’s promises in the OT (e.g., Luke 24:44–48; 1 Cor. 15:3–8).

Old Testament

The promises in the OT are closely related to the history of salvation. At each stage of redemptive history, God delivered a new message about redemption, usually in the form of a covenant. Immediately after the fall of humankind, God first revealed his plan of salvation: the promise that the seed of the woman would ultimately crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). After the flood, God made a covenant with Noah, promising never again to destroy the earth with a flood (Gen. 8:21–9:17).

Most remarkable is the promise that God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 17:4–8; 22:17–18; 26:1–5; 28:13–15). God called Abraham in order to give him three specific blessings: the land, descendants, and the channel of blessing among the nations. As a sign of his promise, God made a covenant of circumcision with Abraham and his descendants (17:10–14). With Isaac (26:1–5) and Jacob (28:13–15), God repeatedly reconfirmed the promise made to Abraham. At the time of the exodus and later the settlement in Canaan, God’s promise to Abraham was partially fulfilled by multiplying his descendants into millions and by giving them the promised land.

At Mount Sinai, God made another covenant with the Israelites. In this covenant, God promised that they would be his “treasured possession” among the nations if they would obey him and keep his covenant (Exod. 19:5). God’s special blessings were pronounced for them to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (19:6). For this purpose, God gave them the Ten Commandments, which became the religious and ethical standard for his covenant people (20:1–17). In the book of Deuteronomy, moreover, God’s promises were made in the form of blessings to the obedient and of curses to the disobedient (Deut. 28). Later these became the criteria by which the kings of Israel were judged to determine whether they had lived an obedient life.

According to 2 Sam. 7:11–16, God made an eternal covenant with David, promising the permanence of David’s house, kingdom, and throne. In this covenant it was also promised that his offspring would build the house of the Lord. The Davidic covenant was partially fulfilled at the time of Solomon, who as king built the house of the Lord, the first temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:15–25). Later, in the period of the classical prophets, when the hope for the Davidic throne was endangered, the permanence of the Davidic throne and kingdom reappeared in the form of messianic prophecy (Jer. 23:5–8; Ezek. 37:24–28). This promise was ultimately fulfilled by the coming of Jesus Christ from the line of David (Matt. 1:1–17).

The history of Israel shows that although the nation repeatedly broke God’s covenants, he remained faithful to them. According to Num. 23:19, God’s promises are absolutely trustworthy: “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?” The trustworthiness of God’s promises results from his unchanging character (Ps. 110:4; Mal. 3:6–7). The almighty God has the power to fulfill his promises (Isa. 55:11). When Joshua finished conquering the land of Canaan, he confessed that God was faithful in keeping all his promises to his ancestors (Josh. 21:45; 23:14–15). Joshua himself witnessed that trusting God’s promises is a life-and-death issue. Those who had not trusted his promise to give them the land of Canaan perished in the wilderness, but those who had trusted his promise were allowed to enter it (Num. 14:1–35).

New Testament

The central message of the NT is that God’s promises in the OT are fulfilled with the coming of Jesus Christ. Matthew’s numerous citation formulas are evidence of this theme. In Luke 4:16–21 Jesus pronounces the fulfillment of Isaiah’s promise (about the Messiah’s ministry [Isa. 61:1–3]) in his own life. The book of Acts specifically states that Jesus’ suffering and resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit are the fulfillment of the OT promises (2:29–31; 13:32–34). Jesus’ identity both as the descendant of David (Acts 13:23) and as the prophet like Moses (Acts 3:21–26; cf. Deut. 18:15–18) is also regarded as the fulfillment of the OT.

Paul’s view of God’s promises is summarized in this statement: “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ” (2 Cor. 1:20). According to Rom. 1:2–3, Paul regards the gospel as the message that God “promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son.” In Rom. 4 Abraham’s faith is described in terms of his trust in God’s promises, which leads to his righteousness. He is presented as our model of faith in God’s promises. The famous phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Cor. 15:3–4 is, in a sense, understood by Paul as the fulfillment of God’s promises regarding Christ’s death and resurrection.

In the book of Hebrews, the concept of promise plays an important role. In Heb. 6 Abraham is presented as the exemplary man who trusted in God’s promise. The author exhorts the Hebrew Christians to follow Abraham’s model of trust in God’s promise (6:12–20). The author also asserts that Jesus’ new covenant is superior to the old one because his ministry “is established on better promises” (8:6). In Heb. 11 the faith of the great OT saints is acclaimed in terms of their faith in God’s promises.

In the NT, God makes new promises based on the work of Christ, including the final resurrection and the second coming of Christ (John 5:29; 11:25–26; 1 Cor. 15:48–57; 2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Thess. 4:13–18). Furthermore, the message of the gospel is presented as multiple promises, including eternal life, the fullness of life in Christ, the forgiveness of sins, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the peace of God, the knowledge of God, and the joy of God (Matt. 28:18–20; John 3:16; 10:10; 14:16, 27; 16:20–24; 17:25–26; Phil. 4:4–9; 1 John 1:9).

Human Promises

The Scriptures contain many cases of people making promises to other people. For example, Abraham made promises to the king of Sodom and to Abimelek (Gen. 14:22–24; 21:22–24). The Israelite spies made a promise to Rahab (Josh. 2:12–21). People also make promises to God: Jacob, Jephthah, Hannah, and the returning exiles (Gen. 28:20–21; Judg. 11:29–40; 1 Sam. 1:11–20; Neh. 10:28–29). Human promises usually are accompanied by the taking of an oath (Gen. 14:22; 21:24; Deut. 6:13; Josh. 2:12–14) or the declaration of a curse in case of its breach (Ruth 1:17; 1 Sam. 14:24; 2 Sam. 3:35; 1 Kings 2:23). It is imperative to keep the promise that one makes to a human being or to God (Num. 30:1–2; Ps. 50:14). In Mal. 2:14–16, divorce is regarded as a breaking of the oath between husband and wife. In OT times, people were afraid of curses falling upon them when they broke a promise. The Bible warns of the danger of making false promises, as doing so will bring about sin and judgment (Lev. 19:12; Deut. 23:21; Zech. 8:17). It is an axiom of the wisdom literature that one should not make promises rashly or lightly (Prov. 20:25; Eccles. 5:1–7), and Jesus prohibits the taking of any oath because of the possibility of its breach (Matt. 5:33–37).

The concepts of purity and purification are largely unfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms often appear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual, and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the process needed to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or she could participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7). These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrain actions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in their ancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene (e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medical advantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]). Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simple physical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for the range of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

Old Testament

The law of Moses. According to Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean” and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. God required that his people observe purification rites when they came into his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teach God’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification rituals functioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num. 8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaic law.

Two major sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws of purification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need for purification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one of a number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8), scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev. 15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47), and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration of impurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditions differ, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity: (1) the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural and more or less unavoidable; (2) it was not necessarily sinful to contract these impurities; (3) these conditions conveyed temporary loss of ritual purity.

Although sexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and the contraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they were unavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligated to reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests, were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore, many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged, not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed a temporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites of purification. These rites included washings (a man who had a discharge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed in order to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of a child, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certain offerings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood” [12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” man who had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to be declared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house went through a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance of cleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as the purifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the blood on [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

A final characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded; that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impurity was especially serious and highly contagious. One could contract corpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the same tent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone or the grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpse impurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Major impurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven days rather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lasted only until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals might contract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whether by touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someone defiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseased person or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or discharge from either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23, 26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“until evening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), and one was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

The Prophets and the Writings. Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and “purification” are much less common; however, at times they are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity is used figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical term for “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively to illustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands, but there is no one to comfort her. . . . Jerusalem has become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and in Ezek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

It was not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for the prophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered people pure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’s forgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing in key passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “they will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Although there are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are not cleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who can promise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin with Bathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. . . . Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean. . . . Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

New Testament

In the NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element in Jewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as in the prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived in wholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms of purity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping those in distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Father accepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

The concepts of purity and purification are largely unfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms often appear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual, and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the process needed to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or she could participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7). These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrain actions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in their ancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene (e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medical advantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]). Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simple physical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for the range of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

Old Testament

The law of Moses. According to Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean” and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. God required that his people observe purification rites when they came into his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teach God’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification rituals functioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num. 8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaic law.

Two major sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws of purification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need for purification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one of a number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8), scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev. 15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47), and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration of impurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditions differ, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity: (1) the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural and more or less unavoidable; (2) it was not necessarily sinful to contract these impurities; (3) these conditions conveyed temporary loss of ritual purity.

Although sexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and the contraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they were unavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligated to reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests, were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore, many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged, not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed a temporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites of purification. These rites included washings (a man who had a discharge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed in order to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of a child, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certain offerings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood” [12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” man who had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to be declared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house went through a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance of cleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as the purifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the blood on [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

A final characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded; that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impurity was especially serious and highly contagious. One could contract corpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the same tent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone or the grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpse impurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Major impurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven days rather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lasted only until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals might contract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whether by touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someone defiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseased person or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or discharge from either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23, 26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“until evening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), and one was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

The Prophets and the Writings. Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and “purification” are much less common; however, at times they are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity is used figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical term for “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively to illustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands, but there is no one to comfort her. . . . Jerusalem has become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and in Ezek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

It was not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for the prophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered people pure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’s forgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing in key passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “they will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Although there are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are not cleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who can promise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin with Bathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. . . . Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean. . . . Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

New Testament

In the NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element in Jewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as in the prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived in wholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms of purity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping those in distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Father accepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

The concepts of purity and purification are largely unfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms often appear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual, and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the process needed to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or she could participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7). These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrain actions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in their ancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene (e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medical advantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]). Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simple physical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for the range of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

Old Testament

The law of Moses. According to Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean” and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. God required that his people observe purification rites when they came into his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teach God’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification rituals functioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num. 8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaic law.

Two major sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws of purification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need for purification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one of a number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8), scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev. 15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47), and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration of impurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditions differ, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity: (1) the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural and more or less unavoidable; (2) it was not necessarily sinful to contract these impurities; (3) these conditions conveyed temporary loss of ritual purity.

Although sexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and the contraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they were unavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligated to reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests, were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore, many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged, not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed a temporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites of purification. These rites included washings (a man who had a discharge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed in order to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of a child, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certain offerings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood” [12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” man who had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to be declared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house went through a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance of cleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as the purifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the blood on [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

A final characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded; that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impurity was especially serious and highly contagious. One could contract corpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the same tent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone or the grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpse impurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Major impurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven days rather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lasted only until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals might contract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whether by touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someone defiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseased person or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or discharge from either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23, 26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“until evening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), and one was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

The Prophets and the Writings. Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and “purification” are much less common; however, at times they are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity is used figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical term for “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively to illustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands, but there is no one to comfort her. . . . Jerusalem has become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and in Ezek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

It was not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for the prophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered people pure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’s forgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing in key passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “they will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Although there are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are not cleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who can promise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin with Bathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. . . . Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean. . . . Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

New Testament

In the NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element in Jewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as in the prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived in wholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms of purity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping those in distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Father accepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

The concept of a remnant or a “remnant theology” runs throughout Scripture. Although appearing in a wide variety of texts and contexts, the central idea of the remnant concept or remnant theology is that in the midst of seemingly total apostasy and the consequential terrible judgment and/or destruction, God always has a small, faithful group that he delivers and works through to bring blessing.

Old Testament

Early allusions to the idea of a remnant are introduced in the book of Genesis. Noah and his family (Gen. 6–9) are the remnant that is saved during the flood, when all other people are destroyed in judgment. Likewise, in Gen. 45:6–7 Joseph declares to his brothers, “For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will be no plowing and reaping. But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.”

The remnant theme surfaces in several other places in the OT. For example, when Elijah complains to God that he is the only faithful one left, God corrects him by pointing out that he has maintained a remnant of seven thousand faithful ones in the midst of national apostasy (1 Kings 19:10–18).

However, it is in the OT prophets that the remnant theme flowers into full blossom. The Hebrew words for “remnant” (she’ar, she’erit) occur over one hundred times in the prophetic books. The prophets proclaim that since Israel/Judah has broken the covenant and refuses to repent and turn back to God, judgment is coming. This judgment takes the form of terrible foreign invasions and destruction, followed by exile from the land. Thus, the northern kingdom, Israel, is destroyed and exiled by the Assyrians in 722 BC, and the southern kingdom, Judah, is destroyed and exiled by the Babylonians in 587/586 BC. Yet the prophets also prophesy hope and restoration beyond the judgment. They declare that many will be destroyed in the judgment, but not all. They prophesy that a remnant will survive, and that God will work through the remnant to bring blessings and restoration. Usually the remnant is identified as those who go into exile but who likewise hope to return to the land. The reestablishment of the remnant is often connected with the inauguration of the messianic age.

New Testament

The remnant theme continues into the NT, but it is not nearly as prominent in the NT as it is in the OT prophets. The term “remnant” does not occur in the Gospels, although the idea is implied in several texts. Thus, in Matt. 7:13–14 Jesus states, “For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Likewise, in Matt. 22:14 Jesus summarizes his preceding parable by stating, “Many are invited, but few are chosen.”

In Rom. 11 Paul is much more explicit. Not only does he use the term “remnant,” but also in Rom. 11:2–5 he connects his argument specifically to the remnant idea in 1 Kings 19:18 (“I have reserved for myself seven thousand”). Paul is pointing out the similarities between the apostasy in Israel in 1 Kings 19 and the parallel rejection of the Messiah by Israel during Paul’s day. In both cases the nation had rejected God’s word and his salvation plan. But in both situations, even though the nation as a whole has rejected God, God maintains a faithful remnant. Paul also underscores that the remnant is established by God’s grace. Thus, in Rom. 11:5 Paul explains, “So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.” In the early church, that remnant consisted of Jewish Christians like Paul himself. And to the degree that the church as a whole inherited the promises to Israel, it too could be included in the category of remnant (see again Rom. 11:11–24; cf. 1 Pet. 2:5–10; Rev. 7; 14). Indeed, Paul hopes that the conversion of Gentiles to Christ might make his Jewish compatriots jealous so that they may “take back” their Messiah (in Rom. 11, cf. vv. 11–12 with vv. 25–36). In that case, national Israel would become the spiritual remnant for the very first time in Israel’s history, because “all Israel” would be saved. That is, national Israel and spiritual Israel would be one.

Another way to grasp the idea of the remnant as it unfolds throughout the Bible is to use an hourglass illustration (i.e., wide, narrow, wide). Thus, God had created the world to have fellowship with him, only to have his creation spurn that offer. To rectify this problem, God calls Abraham out from paganism in order that he might make of him a new people, Israel, to worship God and declare him to the nations. Alas, however, Israel in time disobeys God’s law just as the nations of the world had disobeyed God by worshiping other gods. But the purpose of God is not thereby thwarted, for he raises up a remnant, a faithful few who remain true to Yahweh (e.g., Elijah and the later returnees to Israel). However, by the end of the OT the hopes of Israel now rest upon one individual, the Messiah, who will turn the hearts of Jews back to God and who will convert the nations of the earth to the one true God. As it turns out, then, Israel’s rejection of God throughout the OT actually carries along the plan of God as it narrows its focus, culminating in the expectation of the one Messiah. But with the advent of Jesus Christ, the focus of God now widens, beginning with the apostles (the beginnings of the remnant in the NT), expanding to include the church (the replacement of Israel, however temporary that may be), and one day encompassing the world (which will bring the revelation of God full circle).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retribution refers to “giving what is due,” usually in response to evil. Retribution is an important theological doctrine whose significance is belied by scant use of the term in English translations (ESV 2×; NIV 6×; NRSV 9×). Retribution is driven by the theological conviction that moral order is built into the fabric of the world (Ps. 7:14–16; Prov. 26:27). This moral compass is guaranteed by God’s oversight, meting out justice in judgment and rewards to the righteous, not only on the human-human level, but also on the divine-human level (2 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 6:7). This biblical equation assures that (1) life is not overwhelmed by moral chaos, (2) human actions affect the future, (3) the world is morally uniform, and (4) human revenge is to be avoided (Lev. 19:17–18; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 12:19). With the human community in view, God’s commands are intended to instruct and guide. Not surprisingly, address of retribution is found throughout biblical literature: legal (Deut. 28), narrative (Num. 16), poetic (Pss. 18:20; 94:15), sapiential (Prov. 11:24–25), and prophetic (Hab. 2:2–20).

This poetic justice pervades the OT in the judgment and exile of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:8–24), Cain’s sentence and blood revenge (Gen. 4:15, 24), and the worldwide flood and annihilation (Gen. 6–9) (cf. Exod. 21:20–21; Deut. 30:15–20; Josh. 7; Amos 3:14–15; Mic. 2:1–3). Such stories reveal a sovereign God acting as an external agent who exacts punishment in light of his intentions for creation. For Israel, retribution is the exercise of Yahweh’s legal rights in an attempt to restore covenant fellowship (Lev. 26:40–45). Although serious tensions exist—sometimes the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer—this does not alter the grand scheme of Scripture (Job 33; Jer. 12:1–4). In some scenarios, only the next lifetime will fully bring justice and reward (Ps. 49:5–15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rev. 22:1–5). Deep wisdom, however, embraces mystery and understands the limits of human agency (Gen. 50:19–20; James 1:5).

While the notion of consequence may be too strong, the concept of correspondence is helpful for understanding the concept of retribution. God’s judgments reveal (1) a correspondence between act and effect, (2) accountability to known law, (3) a debt requiring resolve/restitution, and (4) punishment that reenacts elements of the sin itself. God’s roles as divine warrior, judge, and king proclaim his universal rule and preserve it from all who would mock or defy his royal authority (Gen. 3:14–19; Deut. 7:10; 1 Sam. 24:19; 2 Sam. 12:11–12; Ps. 149; Prov. 15:25; Mic. 5:15; 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9; 2 Thess. 1:5–10).

God’s reasons for retribution center on disobedience and injustice, while his purposes are essentially restorative and developmental. Retribution is an application of God’s holiness that purifies the world for his kingdom of peace. In this way, vengeance and deliverance work together (Nah. 1:2, 7). Paradoxically, retribution gives hope to fallen humanity for sin acknowledged and unacknowledged, anticipating the triumph of righteousness (Ps. 58:11). Retribution grants rationality and stability to humanity, promotes closure in crisis, and fosters hope—a forerunner of the ultimate judgment before the throne of God the King.

There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin; hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, or portrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of the driving forces of the entire Bible.

Sin in the Bible

Old Testament. Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete. They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves were inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with their attempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).

In the midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways that sin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blow upon the offspring of the woman, the offspring of the woman would defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adam and Eve, covering their sin.

In Gen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on full display. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able to eradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humans gathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make a name for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them to scatter across the earth (11:1–9).

In one sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holy God satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationship with human beings without compromising his justice? The short answer is: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), who eventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemed them from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought them to Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated on obedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant was the sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided as a means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrifices made for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year to atone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies and sprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took a second goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness. . . . The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinful people, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.

Despite these provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke its covenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under the reign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people, including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder (2 Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wives and concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods (1 Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israel and Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry became rampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judah in 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised to raise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as a guilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

After God’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that the great prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, were at hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remained under foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell of Solomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Before long, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning away from him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administration of the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failed to properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).

New Testament. During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it was revealed that he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to be the obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation (Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13; Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also the Suffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. With his justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify all who are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus Christ did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).

After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers began proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus did and calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness, they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned against them (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believers continue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal. 5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23). The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the new heaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse (Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).

As even this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesis to Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’s plot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative; it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved in order for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.

Definition and Terminology

Definition of sin. Although no definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of the concept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conform to God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action, orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered that God’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character, so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather is a personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited to actions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen. 4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature as human beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.

Terminology. The Bible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying them is not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and use of the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one of the following four categories.

1. Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator and ruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’s self-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankind foolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows to humans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31). Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodliness or impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa. 9:17; 1 Pet. 4:18).

2. Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from the lawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass” picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or the crossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42; Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’s law, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45; Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violating his statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result is guilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’s law is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectively feels guilt.

3. Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what is good. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what is good (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contrasts the upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could also include here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speak of perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequent mention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievous departure from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 5:1–11).

4. Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individual had to be in a state of purity before him. While a person could become impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating woman was impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity” clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek. 24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Although it is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, in other places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7; Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).

Metaphors

In addition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible uses several metaphors or images to describe it. The following four are among the more prominent.

Missing the mark. In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin” have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sin is reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that a person simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it is that he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9; Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional or not, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num. 15:30).

Departing from the way. Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in the wisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19). Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways, but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18). Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed by their own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).

Adultery. Since God’s relationship with his people is described as a marriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32), it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness as adultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous woman vividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3). When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them of spiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52). When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate in idolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1 Cor. 6:12–20; 10:1–22).

Slavery. Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clear that Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture of its far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7; 49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to those who do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything that pleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic power that is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare (Rom. 7:7–25).

Scope and Consequences

Sin does not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage along with it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.

Scope. The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As a result of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist human efforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under the weight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2 Chron. 36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation as well (Rom. 8:19–22).

Sin affects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions, motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “total depravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful as they could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is tainted by sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as a sinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societal structures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economic markets, to name but a few.

Consequences. Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sin has consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level. Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen. 2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty in God’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, and subjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20; 5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict between individuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breeds mistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closest relationships.

Conclusion

No subject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding of sin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As the Puritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ will not be sweet.”

Geography

Whereas the principal direction in the modern world is north, in the ancient world different cultures used a variety of orientations as they sought to describe their relationship to their geographical environment. In Israel the primary direction was determined by the sunrise: east. This is reflected in Hebrew, where the main word used to refer to east as a direction was qedem, which could also be used to simply refer to that which was directly ahead or in front of the speaker (e.g., Ps. 139:5). Elsewhere, east is designated by the terms mizrakh (“rising” [Josh. 11:3]) or mizrakh hashamesh (“rising of the sun” [Num. 21:11]), both of which derive from the direction of sunrise. By way of contrast, in Egypt the primary direction was south, in alignment with the source of the Nile River.

The ancient world employed the same notion of four cardinal directions, which persists to the present, and the terminology related to these was influenced by the choice of primary direction. Thus, in Israel north is often designated by “left”; south could be designated by “right,” and west by “behind.” In addition, directions could be specified by reference to geographical features found in those directions. North could be specified by the word tsapon, which was derived from the name of a northern Syrian mountain (Zaphon); south by negeb, a name for the region south of Israel (Negev); and west by yam (“sea”), since the Mediterranean Sea lay to the west.

Symbolism

Aside from their purely geographical significance, the directions also came to bear figurative significance. Some caution is warranted in assigning symbolic significance to language, for there is danger of reading invalid meanings into texts. Furthermore, given the ambiguity inherent in the use of terms to refer to directions, which also have alternate significances, there is danger of assigning a symbolic meaning to the direction that actually resides in the alternate. So, for example, while yam (“sea”) carries significant symbolic overtones in the Bible, this association does not appear to have been extended to encompass the term when used to designate a westerly direction.

East and west. Nonetheless, there is, for example, probably some significance in the expulsion from Eden and progressive movement eastward to the tower of Babel through Gen. 1–11, followed by a return to the promised land, which was approached by reversing the easterly migration and returning toward Eden. Eden itself was said to lie “in the east” (Heb. miqqedem; Gen. 2:8), although the same Hebrew expression in Pss. 74:12; 77:5, 11; 78:2; 143:5 means “in ancient times,” and there is perhaps a deliberate ambiguity in the use of the expression in Gen. 2:8. In Isa. 2:6 the east is the source of influences on the people that lead them astray. Following the exile, Ezekiel sees the glory of God returning to the temple from the east (Ezek. 43:1–2). Thus, when used symbolically, “east” is often viewed negatively or else may be used to mark a connection with distant antiquity (Gen. 2:8; Job 1:3). Any symbolic significance assigned to west appears primarily to be associated with it being the antithesis of east. The distance between east and west was used poetically to express vast distance (Ps. 103:12).

North and south. North is significant for two primary reasons. First, it is the direction from which invading armies most often descended upon Israel (Jer. 1:13) as well as from which Babylon’s destruction is said to come (Jer. 50:3). In light of this, Ezekiel’s vision of God approaching from the north strikes an ominous tone of impending judgment (Ezek. 1:1–4). Second, in Canaanite mythology the abode of the gods, and specifically Baal, lay to the north, on Mount Zaphon. Thus, the king of Babylon’s plans in Isa. 14:13 amount to a claim to establish himself as one of the gods. In contrast to this, Ps. 48:2 pre-sents Mount Zion as supplanting Mount Zaphon and thus implicitly presents Israel’s one God as supplanting the Canaanite pantheon.

As with west, there is little symbolic significance associated with the direction south in the Bible, aside from its use in combination with other directions.

The four directions. The four directions (or sometimes just pairs of directions) are used together to describe both the scattering of the Israelites as well as their being gathered by God back to the promised land (Ps. 107:3; Isa. 43:5–6; Luke 13:29). They are also used together to express the extent of the promised land (Gen. 13:14) or else to describe something that is all-encompassing (1 Chron. 9:24).

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).

A symbol is that which stands for something beyond itself. It is usually something material that represents something immaterial, either visually or conceptually. The implied comparison that a symbol presents is far more universal in association than that of a metaphor. The Bible is replete with symbols, using a person, place, number, action, event, object, or image to point beyond itself to reality. As such, symbol is a powerful vehicle of communication, and it is a common feature of all religions. But a symbol may not always reveal the significance to which it refers, since the reality that it represents may not always be apparent. A symbol is conditioned by the culture, history, and context in which it is situated and is capable of multiple meanings. Thus, to fully appreciate the significance that a symbol connotes, interpreters must pay careful attention to its linguistic and cultural-historical background.

Examples of the symbolic presence of God are plentiful in the Bible. In the OT, the rainbow was viewed as a symbol of God’s covenantal promise to preserve his created being (Gen. 9:13). The bronze serpent made by Moses symbolized God’s healing and wisdom (Num. 21:9). In Israelite worship the altar symbolized the meeting place of God; the ark, the presence of God; and the temple, the divine abode. Similarly, priestly vestments were symbolic, from the rope to the ephod to the turban, which made the priest himself the extension of God’s presence. In the NT, Christ’s incarnation made visible the presence of God. Christ is not a symbol, for he is the image of God. Many Christians understand the Lord’s Supper to symbolize Christ’s presence. The cross and the fish (ichthys, which in Greek is an anagram for “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior”) are two remarkable symbols, both representing the Christian faith in church history.

Symbolic actions are common in the Bible. Certain actions introduce new meaning beyond their immediate contexts. In the OT, for example, an Israelite slave allowed his owner to pierce his ear to symbolize his total and permanent slavery (Exod. 21:6). Also, the surrendering of a shoe symbolized the surrendering of all personal rights of inheritance (Ruth 4:7). In the OT, circumcision was a symbol of the covenant that God made with Abraham (Gen. 17:1–14) and of initiation into the covenant community (Ezek. 28:10; 31:18; 32:19). In the NT, this symbolic meaning is described by new actions. Water baptism had become a ritual symbol of the new covenant (Col. 2:11) and of incorporation into the Christian community (1 Cor. 12:13). Also, the prophetic messages were told in symbols. The prophets performed actions to reveal the will and message of God (Isa. 20:2; Jer. 13; Ezek. 4:1–3; Acts 21:10–11). In the NT, the miracles of Jesus were not simply deeds of sympathy; they demonstrated the coming of the kingdom of God (Luke 9:11).

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) A village in the territory of the descendants of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:32 [KJV: “Tochen”]). The location is unknown. (2) In the KJV, “token” is used to indicate what is, in most modern translations, a “sign” (e.g., Gen. 9:12–17; Ps. 86:17; Mark 14:44).

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

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).

Geography

Whereas the principal direction in the modern world is north, in the ancient world different cultures used a variety of orientations as they sought to describe their relationship to their geographical environment. In Israel the primary direction was determined by the sunrise: east. This is reflected in Hebrew, where the main word used to refer to east as a direction was qedem, which could also be used to simply refer to that which was directly ahead or in front of the speaker (e.g., Ps. 139:5). Elsewhere, east is designated by the terms mizrakh (“rising” [Josh. 11:3]) or mizrakh hashamesh (“rising of the sun” [Num. 21:11]), both of which derive from the direction of sunrise. By way of contrast, in Egypt the primary direction was south, in alignment with the source of the Nile River.

The ancient world employed the same notion of four cardinal directions, which persists to the present, and the terminology related to these was influenced by the choice of primary direction. Thus, in Israel north is often designated by “left”; south could be designated by “right,” and west by “behind.” In addition, directions could be specified by reference to geographical features found in those directions. North could be specified by the word tsapon, which was derived from the name of a northern Syrian mountain (Zaphon); south by negeb, a name for the region south of Israel (Negev); and west by yam (“sea”), since the Mediterranean Sea lay to the west.

Symbolism

Aside from their purely geographical significance, the directions also came to bear figurative significance. Some caution is warranted in assigning symbolic significance to language, for there is danger of reading invalid meanings into texts. Furthermore, given the ambiguity inherent in the use of terms to refer to directions, which also have alternate significances, there is danger of assigning a symbolic meaning to the direction that actually resides in the alternate. So, for example, while yam (“sea”) carries significant symbolic overtones in the Bible, this association does not appear to have been extended to encompass the term when used to designate a westerly direction.

East and west. Nonetheless, there is, for example, probably some significance in the expulsion from Eden and progressive movement eastward to the tower of Babel through Gen. 1–11, followed by a return to the promised land, which was approached by reversing the easterly migration and returning toward Eden. Eden itself was said to lie “in the east” (Heb. miqqedem; Gen. 2:8), although the same Hebrew expression in Pss. 74:12; 77:5, 11; 78:2; 143:5 means “in ancient times,” and there is perhaps a deliberate ambiguity in the use of the expression in Gen. 2:8. In Isa. 2:6 the east is the source of influences on the people that lead them astray. Following the exile, Ezekiel sees the glory of God returning to the temple from the east (Ezek. 43:1–2). Thus, when used symbolically, “east” is often viewed negatively or else may be used to mark a connection with distant antiquity (Gen. 2:8; Job 1:3). Any symbolic significance assigned to west appears primarily to be associated with it being the antithesis of east. The distance between east and west was used poetically to express vast distance (Ps. 103:12).

North and south. North is significant for two primary reasons. First, it is the direction from which invading armies most often descended upon Israel (Jer. 1:13) as well as from which Babylon’s destruction is said to come (Jer. 50:3). In light of this, Ezekiel’s vision of God approaching from the north strikes an ominous tone of impending judgment (Ezek. 1:1–4). Second, in Canaanite mythology the abode of the gods, and specifically Baal, lay to the north, on Mount Zaphon. Thus, the king of Babylon’s plans in Isa. 14:13 amount to a claim to establish himself as one of the gods. In contrast to this, Ps. 48:2 pre-sents Mount Zion as supplanting Mount Zaphon and thus implicitly presents Israel’s one God as supplanting the Canaanite pantheon.

As with west, there is little symbolic significance associated with the direction south in the Bible, aside from its use in combination with other directions.

The four directions. The four directions (or sometimes just pairs of directions) are used together to describe both the scattering of the Israelites as well as their being gathered by God back to the promised land (Ps. 107:3; Isa. 43:5–6; Luke 13:29). They are also used together to express the extent of the promised land (Gen. 13:14) or else to describe something that is all-encompassing (1 Chron. 9:24).

Because Scripture sees all things as providentially arranged and sustained by God’s sovereign power at all times (Heb. 1:3), miracles are not aberrations in an otherwise closed and mechanical universe. Nor are miracles raw demonstrations of divinity designed to overcome prejudice or unbelief and to convince people of the existence of God (Mark 8:11–12). Still less are they clever conjuring tricks involving some kind of deception that can be otherwise explained on a purely scientific basis. Rather, God in his infinite wisdom sometimes does unusual and extraordinary things to call attention to himself and his activity. Miracles are divinely ordained acts of God that dramatically alert us to the presence of his glory and power and advance his saving purposes in redemptive history.

Terminology

The biblical writers describe miracles with various terms, such as “signs,” “wonders,” and “miracles” (or “powers”), which can carry various connotations. As the word “sign” suggests, divine miracles are significant and should cause us to think more deeply about God in a way that goes beyond mere amazement or curiosity (Exod. 4:30–31; John 2:11). Not all of God’s signs are miraculous. Some are given as part of his ordering of the natural world (Gen. 1:14) or as an encouragement to faith that God will do as he has said (e.g., the rainbow in Gen. 9:8–17; the blood of the Passover lamb in Exod. 12:13). (See also Sign.)

Often coupled with signs are “wonders” (Jer. 32:21; John 4:48; 2 Cor. 12:12). If the depiction of miracles as “signs” indicates an appeal to the intellect, that of “wonders” points to the emotions. Miracles evoke astonishment and awe at the one who did them.

The NT word “miracle” carries the meaning of power and therefore points to the supernatural source of these events (Luke 10:13; Acts 8:13).

Miracles in the Bible

Old Testament. In the OT, miracles are not evenly distributed but rather are found in greater number during times of great redemptive significance, such as the exodus and the conquest of Canaan. Miracles were performed also during periods of apostasy, such as in the days of the ninth-century prophets Elijah and Elisha. Common to both of these eras is the powerful demonstration of the superiority of God over pagan deities (Exod. 7–12; 1 Kings 18:20–40).

New Testament. In the NT, miracles often are acts of compassion, but more significantly they attest the exalted status of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:22) and the saving power of his word (Heb. 2:3–4). In the Synoptic Gospels, they reveal the coming of God’s kingdom and the conquest of Satan’s dominion (Matt. 8:16–17; 12:22–30; Mark 3:27). They point to the person of Jesus as the promised Messiah of OT Scripture (Matt. 4:23; 11:4–6). John shows a preference for the word “signs,” and his Gospel is structured around them (John 20:30–31). According to John, the signs that Jesus performed were such that only the one who stood in a unique relationship to the Father as the Son of God could do them.

Miracles and faith. Just as entrenched skepticism is injurious to faith, so too is naive credulity, for although signs and wonders witness to God, false prophets also perform them “to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matt. 24:24). Christians are to exercise discernment and not be led astray by such impostors (Matt. 7:15–20).

The relationship between miracles and faith is not as straightforward as sometimes supposed. Miracles do not necessarily produce faith, nor does faith necessarily produce miracles. Miracles were intended to bring about the faith that leads to eternal life (John 20:31), but not all who witnessed them believed (John 10:32). Additionally, Jesus regarded a faith that rested only on the miracle itself as precarious (Mark 8:11–13; John 2:23–25; 4:48), though better than no faith at all (John 10:38). Faith that saves must ultimately find its grounding in the person of Jesus as the Son of God.

It is also clear that although Jesus always encouraged faith in those who came to him for help (Mark 9:23), and that he deliberately limited his miraculous powers in the presence of unbelief (Mark 6:5), many of his miracles were performed on those who did not or could not exercise faith (Matt. 12:22; Mark 1:23–28; 5:1–20; Luke 14:1–4).

The fact that Jesus performed miracles was never an issue; rather, his opponents disputed the source of his power (Mark 3:22). Arguments about his identity were to be settled by appeal not to miracles but to the word of God (Matt. 22:41–46).

The function of miracles. Miracle accounts function in a symbolic and prophetic manner. Hence, the cursing of the fig tree was prophetic of the coming judgment (Mark 11:12–21). The unusual two-stage healing of the blind man of Bethsaida symbolized Peter’s incomplete understanding of Jesus’ messiahship (Mark 8:22–33).

The miraculous element of Jesus’ ministry carries an eschatological significance, pointing to the order of things in the age to come. For example, the nature miracles (Mark 4:35–41) look forward to the redemption of creation itself, which is presently subject to frustration and decay (Rom. 8:20–21); the healing miracles point to a day when disease and deformity will be abolished (Rev. 21:4); and miracles in which the dead are raised to life anticipate a time when death itself will be no more (Rev. 20:14; 21:4). From this perspective, the miracles are a gracious foretaste of a far more glorious future.