. A person from whom a person or group has descended in either a physical or a spiritual sense. For Israel, the concept of one’s ancestors and their God was of great significance in determining both identity and religious practice. Biblical concepts such as covenant and promise primarily found expression in the OT in terms of the ancestral agreements established with God (Deut. 6:10; 9:5; 29:13; 30:20; cf. Gen. 12:1–7). The effect of ancestors on one’s spiritual condition could have either positive or negative implications (Exod. 3:13; Josh. 24:14–15; 2 Tim. 1:5; Heb. 11). The people of Israel are portrayed as suffering judgment both for their sins and for those of their ancestors, but also they could find repentance and hope because of the same relationships (Zech. 1:4–6; Mal. 1:1–5).

There are thirteen primary genealogical lists in the OT and two in the NT, although there are numerous passages that include more limited lineages to identify an individual. Genealogical lists could also function to engender a notion of commonality of relationship outside single family lines, such as when extended family genealogies are given (Gen. 10; 25:12–18; 36:1–30). For priests and kings, it was of utmost importance to be able to establish ancestral identity. This necessity may have played a role in at least two discussions of Jesus. His genealogical lists in both Matt. 1 and Luke 3 established his claim to the line of David, and his spiritual ancestry in the person of Melchizedek in Heb. 7 granted him superior status to the priesthood of Levi.

Worship of ancestors, or the related but distinct cult of the dead, was common in nearly every culture with which Israel interacted and may have even found expression in popular practice among Israelites, as evidenced by the apparent leaving of gifts at several tomb locations throughout Palestine (cf. Ezek. 43:7–9). However, the biblical record is consistent throughout that such practices were prohibited. Among laws centered on the topic of ancestral worship were restrictions on consulting the dead at all (Deut. 18:11), giving offerings to the dead (Deut. 26:14), self-laceration for the dead (Deut. 14:1; Jer. 16:6), and seeking ancestors to foretell the future (Isa. 8:19; 65:4–8).

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).

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

Several texts pertaining to the diagnosis of leprosy refer to the forehead (Lev. 13:41–43; 2 Chron. 26:19–20), possibly because it is an area of skin not covered by hair or clothing. Perhaps for the same reason, the forehead is often the location of an identifying mark, either of faithfulness (Ezek. 9:4–6; Rev. 7:3–4; 9:4; 14:1; 22:4) or apostasy (Rev. 13:16; 14:9; 20:4). These texts may be akin to passages in the Pentateuch instructing the Israelites to bind phylacteries on their foreheads—literally, “between your eyes” (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18). Aaron the priest is instructed to attach to his turban (i.e., on his forehead) a golden plaque inscribed with the words “Holy to Yahweh” (Exod. 28:36–38), intended to counteract any possible impurities of the people’s sacrifices.

In the writings of the OT prophets, the forehead is a symbol of obstinacy (Ezek. 3:7–9; Isa. 48:4). Jeremiah’s reference to the “brazen look of a prostitute” who refuses “to blush with shame” can be literally rendered “You have the forehead of a whore” (Jer. 3:3). This figure of speech may be an extension of the symbolism of stubbornness to the adulterous woman, or it may refer to the identification of prostitutes by some distinctive adornment of the forehead. Interestingly, Revelation describes a woman on a beast with a title written on her forehead, including the phrase “The Mother of Prostitutes” (Rev. 17:5).

In Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18 the KJV renders the Hebrew word totapot as “frontlets” (NIV: “symbol”; NRSV: “emblem”), referring to the binding of God’s commandments on one’s forehead. The literal reading of this led to the custom of tefillin (a word found in Targum Onqelos, the Peshitta, and rabbinic literature), a pair of small leather boxes worn by Jews during prayer. Specific Scripture verses (Exod. 13:1–16; Deut. 6:4–9; 11:13–21) were written on small scrolls and placed in each box. One box was bound to the left arm and the other across the forehead, serving as a sign and a remembrance that God had brought the children of Israel out of Egypt. Exactly when the custom of wearing tefillin began is uncertain, but they have been found at Qumran and Murabba’at. The NT refers to tefillin as “phylacteries” (from the Gk. verb for “guard, keep”). In Matt. 23:5 Jesus condemned individuals who called attention to themselves by making their phylacteries “wide.” Certain tefillin found at Qumran and Murabba’at may shed light on the meaning of this statement. The tefillin placed on the head were not cubical but rectangular, with the breadth across the forehead greater in length.

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

Imagery of God

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

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

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

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

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

Names and Attributes of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God of the Trinity

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

Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and in the Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors. The NT uses the Greek term kardia similarly to the OT Hebrew terms leb and lebab and in some cases depends on OT usage.

Mind and Emotions

Metaphorically, the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or even the whole person. It also refers to the center of something or its inner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importance and location.

Mind. The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these cases does not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while the neurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, it has no bearing on this use of language. We also should not confuse some modern English idioms or distinctions as being related to the biblical viewpoint. The Bible does not make a distinction between “head knowledge” and “heart knowledge,” nor does it employ language making the “heart” good or superior and the “head/mind” bad, inferior, or merely intellectual. It does not prize the emotional over the thoughtful; it has a more integrated viewpoint.

Deuteronomy 6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occurs in three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common to all three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospel writers want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,” but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrew word for “heart” includes the mind.

The mental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heart is where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1 Chron. 29:18; Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1 Kings 3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makes plans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1 Chron. 29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, and skill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1 Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is the place of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role of conscience (2 Sam. 24:10; 1 John 3:20–21).

It is often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for “heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp the mental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to love God with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6). Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes our perspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” is clearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents to talk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. In order for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds need to be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him. Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation on and determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is not merely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview in which the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truth requires careful, reflective thought.

Emotions and attitude. The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number of feelings and sentiments, such as gladness (Exod. 4:14; Acts 2:26), hatred (Lev. 19:17), pride (Deut. 8:14), resentment (Deut. 15:10), dread (Deut. 28:67), sympathy (Judg. 5:9), love (Judg. 16:15), sadness (1 Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition (James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudes such as willingness, courage, and desire.

Idioms

The word “heart” also appears in several idioms.

Hardness of heart. A hard heart is obstinate or averse (Mark 3:5), while a tender heart is humble (2 Kings 22:19). In the book of Exodus the translations typically say that God or Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh’s/his heart. These passages in Exodus use not the Hebrew words for hardness but rather those for being heavy or for strengthening. The neutral sense of strengthening the heart takes on nuances in context for being bold or obstinate. Pharaoh was strengthened in his opposition to God, and this obstinacy fits the idiom of having a hard heart.

Uncircumcised/circumcised heart. An uncircumcised heart is a metaphor for an obstinate and rebellious heart, while a circumcised heart is linked to being humble and faithful (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Acts 7:51). Perhaps the metaphor is based on the role of circumcision in the covenant.

“A man after his [God’s] own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14). This description of David may mean either “according to his [God’s] choice” (cf. 2 Sam. 7:21), stressing God’s choice over the people’s choice, or it may mean “in accordance with his [God’s] desire” (1 Sam. 14:7; 1 Kings 15:3), referring to how David showed conformity with God’s agenda.

All the heart. The phrase “with all [one’s] heart” in some cases means “wholeheartedly” or “single-mindedly,” which emphasizes unity of purpose and focus. In other cases it seems to mean, more broadly, “with all of one’s thinking or perspective” and implies the work of adjusting our worldview away from common cultural assumptions and toward God’s teaching.

Say in one’s heart. This expression denotes talking to oneself (i.e., thinking) rather than out loud or indicates reflection or deliberation. There are several warnings not to lie to oneself—that is, not to deliberate, believe, and act on the stated false premise.

Take [a matter] to heart. To take something to heart is to take it very seriously or to give it high priority.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

In the OT, increase at times refers to a harvest’s yield (Ps. 67:7) but more commonly to numerical growth. In Gen. 1 God’s creation blessing is expressed in the imperative “be fruitful and increase in number” (1:22, 28). Even after the fall in Genesis, God reiterated his intention to bless and increase Noah (9:1, 7), Abraham (17:2), Ishmael (17:20), Isaac (26:24), and Jacob (35:11). This blessing was fulfilled initially when Israel increased greatly in Egypt (47:27).

Moses stressed God’s intention to further increase his people if they would obey God (Deut. 6:3; 8:1), and he warned that disobedience would bring about ruin and destruction (28:63). According to Hosea, when Israel prospered, it increased in sin and idolatry (Hos. 4:7; 10:1). Yet God restated his intention to increase the remnant of his people following exile (Jer. 23:3; Ezek. 37:26).

The NT records prayer for increased faith (Luke 17:5) and love (1 Thess. 3:12) and stresses the increase of God’s grace (Rom. 5:20) and the advancement of the word of God (Acts 6:7; 12:24).

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).

Old Testament

The Hebrew word for “Lord,” yhwh (usually pronounced “Yahweh”), occurs more than 6,800 times in the OT and is in every book except Ecclesiastes and Esther. “Yahweh” is God’s personal name and is revealed as such in Exod. 3:13–14. God tells Moses to declare to the Israelites in Egypt, “I am has sent me to you” (3:14). The Hebrew behind “I am” connotes active being; the Lord is the one who is there for his people and, in the book of Exodus, does so through miraculous events (14:13–14). This demonstrates the close association between one’s name and one’s character in the ancient world. Yahweh is one who is with his people (Exod. 3:12; 6:2, 4; Isa. 26:4). Although the divine name is used before the exodus (Gen. 12:1; 15:1), it is not until the time of Moses that God reveals its redemptive significance. Nonetheless, the divine name is used in Genesis in contexts where the immanence of God is evident. In Gen. 3:8 “the Lord God . . . was walking in the garden in the cool of the day.” Further, the Lord makes a covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12; 15; 17), and the Lord will remain faithful to his covenants for a thousand generations (Deut. 7:9). Later in Israel’s history, Micah, in the face of those who worship other gods, reassures the people of Israel that Yahweh is distinct from all others, and that they will walk in his name because he will one day act to effect justice for all (Mic. 4:3–5).

The divine name also occurs as a form of address in various prayers throughout the OT (Gen. 15:2, 8; Exod. 5:22; 2 Sam. 7:18; 2 Kings 6:17), most notably in the psalms, where it occurs over two hundred times. In the psalms an abbreviated form of the name is often seen in an exclamation of praise, hallelu yah, “praise Yah[weh]” (e.g., Pss. 149:1; 150:1).

It is interesting to note the origin of the pronunciation of yhwh as “Jehovah.” To avoid breaking the third commandment, against misusing the name of God, pious Jews did not pronounce the divine name yhwh, substituting the word ’adonay (“my master”) in its place. In medieval times Jewish scholars added vowels to the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible to aid in correct pronunciation. For yhwh, they used the vowels of ’adonay, which, when pronounced, creates a name unknown to the biblical authors, “Jehovah.”

In the postexilic period the appellation “Yahweh” occurs far less frequently, being replaced by adonay (Hebrew) or kyrios (Greek). The latter is used for Yahweh over six thousand times in the LXX. In Hellenistic literature kyrios is used to describe various gods and goddesses. The Roman emperors were also called kyrios, often with implications of deity. Some argue that the early Christians employed the title polemically to refer to Christ, the true kyrios. A clear example is found in Phil. 2:11, where it is said that every tongue will confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord” (cf. 1 Cor. 8:5–8). Kyrios was also used nonreligiously to refer to a “master” of a slave and as a term of respect to address someone of superior status (“sir”). Peter addresses Jesus as “lord” when he washes Peter’s feet (John 13:6).

New Testament

In the NT, the majority of occurrences of “Lord” (kyrios) appear in Luke-Acts and the writings of Paul, perhaps due to the predominantly Hellenistic audiences of these texts, who would know well its Greco-Roman connotations. As for Paul, the use of “Lord” by Luke may point to the deity of Jesus. In the Lukan birth narrative, Elizabeth wonders why “the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43; cf. 7:19; 10:1). In Acts 1:21 the name “Jesus” is preceded by the definite form of “Lord,” reflecting an oft-repeated confessional title in Acts and Paul (Acts 15:11; 20:35; 2 Cor. 1:2). According to some, if Matthew intends a divine connotation by his use of the term “Lord,” it is more oblique. For instance, in Matt. 4:7 Jesus quotes Deut. 6:16, where “the Lord” is Yahweh and not Jesus (cf. Matt. 9:38). There are occasions in Mark where “lord,” although appearing to function in a nonreligious sense, does seem to point to Yahweh. In Mark 2:28 Jesus claims that “the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath” (NRSV). Since the Sabbath belongs to Yahweh and falls under his sovereign authority (Exod. 20:8–11), it is quite probable that Mark’s readers would now ascribe that dominion to the Son of Man. This is not unlike his authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:10), which, as the scribes rightfully point out, is something that only Yahweh can do. In light of these usages, one cannot help but think that the use of the term in Mark 11:3, at the triumphal entry, also carries divine significance. In John, there are examples of both the nonreligious use of “lord,” as a reverent form of address (5:7; 9:36), and the religious, divine sense, particularly after the resurrection (20:28; 21:7).

It is quite likely that Jewish Christians, even before Paul, regarded Jesus as one who shares in Yahweh’s divinity. In his letter to the Corinthians, a Greek-speaking congregation, Paul uses the expression marana tha (1 Cor. 16:22), a Greek transliteration of an Aramaic phrase that means “Our Lord, come!” This term likely was a part of an early Jewish Christian liturgy. Further, there are places where Paul refers to Jesus simply as “the Lord,” suggesting a common understanding of the appellation among the early Christians (Rom. 14:6; 1 Cor. 3:5). In addition to Phil. 2:11, Paul expresses the divinity of Jesus by alluding to Deut. 6:4, the Shema, in 1 Cor. 8:6: “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” In the book of Revelation divine status is ascribed to Jesus. While in the vision of God in Rev. 4 the title is used of God (4:8, 11), at the conclusion of the book appears the invocation “Come, Lord Jesus” (22:20; cf. 22:21).

For Paul, a particularly important component of the lordship of Jesus is his resurrection, through which he becomes “the Lord of both the dead and the living” (Rom. 14:9; cf. 1:4), and his return marks the “day of the Lord,” which in the OT was the day of Yahweh (1 Thess. 5:2; cf. 5:23). Exactly how Jewish Christians could attribute such a status to Jesus and yet maintain a strict monotheism remains a matter of considerable debate. Is Christ included in the identity of the Godhead, or is he an intermediary figure (of which Second Temple Judaism had many), possessing a quasi-divine status? If Jesus is an intermediary figure, then his authority to do that which only Yahweh can (such as forgiving sins and fulfilling roles originally referring to God) suggests a very close identification between Yahweh and Jesus himself. See also Names of God; YHWH.

A location on the journey toward Mount Horeb (Sinai) where the Israelites grumbled against God because they had no water. Moses called the place Massah (“testing”) and Meribah (“quarreling”) because of their complaining (Exod. 17:7). Still, at God’s direction, Moses struck the rock at Horeb, and water flowed out. All subsequent references to Massah in the biblical text are about this incident (Deut. 6:16; 9:22; 33:8; Ps. 95:8). Subsequent references to Meribah, however, concern another incident (e.g., Num. 20:13, 24; Deut. 32:51; 33:8). See also Meribah.

A staple of the Hebrew diet, milk is one of the things considered essential for life by Jesus ben Sira, a Jewish writer of the Second Temple period (Sir. 39:26). In the ancient Near East humans consumed the milk not just from cows but also from goats, sheep, and even camels (Gen. 32:15; Deut. 32:14; Isa. 7:21–22). Since there was no process of pasteurization or refrigeration, milk often was processed to create curds, cheese, butter, or slightly soured and fermented milk. The souring process was done inside an animal skin used to hold the liquid until it was needed (Judg. 4:19).

With the prominent place that milk held in the life of the people of Israel, it is no surprise that it appears in the Bible in many contexts. The land of Canaan is frequently described as a land “flowing with milk and honey,” a metaphor for prosperity and a promise of abundant pasturelands (Exod. 3:8; Lev. 20:24; Num. 13:27; Deut. 6:3). Milk sometimes is associated with honey or wine, and it may have been consumed in such combinations (Gen. 49:12; Isa. 55:1; Joel 3:18). Milk (like wine and honey) is a heavy liquid that leaves a pleasant aftertaste, and it may suggest the pleasures of kissing in Song of Songs (see, e.g., Song 4:11). The OT law proclaims, “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk” (Exod. 23:19; Deut. 14:21). This mysterious prohibition probably refers to a Canaanite custom in which a young goat was cooked in its mother’s milk as part of a pagan religious ritual. This prohibition was later interpreted by Jewish scholars to indicate a total prohibition on eating meat and dairy products together in the same meal, which is a major aspect of kosher regulations. In the NT, milk is used metaphorically for nourishing spiritual teaching (1 Pet. 2:2). Paul reworks this image to indicate that believers, like growing infants, must move beyond the mere milk of basic principles to mature spiritual instruction (1 Cor. 3:2; cf. Heb. 5:12–13).

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

A 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).

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding many aspects of education in Israel during OT times and, to a lesser extent, into the NT period is extraordinarily difficult. Many studies draw quite specific conclusions based on very slender evidence and inferences drawn from supposed parallels with neighboring societies, inferences themselves beset by uncertainties. Therefore, conclusions are necessarily tentative at many points. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that things did not remain constant through history, and that what can be reliably discerned for one period may not accurately reflect the situation in other times.

Education encompasses several areas of life in the biblical world. Aside from academic education (relating to literacy and numeracy), there was moral and religious education, military education, and vocational training. These are not all distinct; those whose vocation lay in diplomatic circles or within the royal court as scribes would have received academic education, while those living in the country and working a farm would have had little opportunity to access such knowledge.

Old Testament

Settings for education. There were three primary arenas of education in OT times: home, school, and temple.

Home. The most important setting for education in OT times was the home (Deut. 4:9; 6:7; 11:19). Both parents were expected to play a role in a child’s education (Prov. 1:8; 6:20; 23:22; 31:1). Sons generally were trained in their father’s vocation, and such training took the form of an apprenticeship (1 Sam. 16:11; 2 Kings 4:18); girls learned from their mothers as they undertook their work on a daily basis (Exod. 35:25–26; 2 Sam. 13:8).

In part, the extent of home education is tied to the question of the extent of formal schooling in ancient Israel. As noted below, the nature and extent of schools is unclear, and if (as the evidence seems to suggest) schools were virtually nonexistent outside the royal court, then the home ultimately would have been the locus of any academic education received by children and the source of any widespread literacy and numeracy in the community. The frequent use of father/son language in Proverbs, however, need not imply an exclusively familial context for the instruction contained therein, as there is evidence from Egypt that such language was used between teacher and student.

School. The existence, nature, and extent of schools in OT times is extensively debated and ultimately uncertain. The first explicit reference to a school is found in the second century BC in Sir. 51:23. The virtual silence of the OT on the topic may reflect either that schools were absent in ancient Israel or that their existence was somehow of little interest and so warranted little reflection by biblical authors. In any case, it is likely that some form of school for scribes and those training to work in government existed in the vicinity of the royal court, as they did in Mesopotamia and Egypt. These did not form a comprehensive national schooling system for young children but were more specifically targeted to the few individuals who aimed to become scribes or advisers.

Outside the Bible there exist a number of inscriptions that could suggest the existence of schools in Israel prior to the exile. These include abecedaries (lists of the letters of the alphabet written out, usually as practice exercises or as examples), words written out several times, lists of month names, and possible exercises in reading foreign languages, among others.

There is also extensive evidence of schools in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and probably also Ugarit from an early date (cf. Acts 7:22). Whether their existence supports the existence of schools in Israel is unclear. Egypt and Mesopotamia had large and complex bureaucracies necessary to administer their kingdoms, and they employed writing systems far more difficult to master than Hebrew. In addition, mathematical texts reflect a concern with numeracy within the schools of these kingdoms, for which there is no clear evidence in ancient Israel.

The sages and scribes appear to be the primary source for the material supposedly employed in schools. Ecclesiastes 12:9 identifies one of the tasks of the sages as teaching the people, and some claim that Proverbs functioned as a textbook within a school setting. Indeed, Prov. 4:5; 17:16 speak of the “buying” (Heb. qanah) of knowledge, interpreted by some as a reference to teachers paid for providing tuition. Again, the context in which such tuition may have taken place is uncertain.

Temple. Priests were also involved in some teaching (1 Sam. 2:21, 26). According to 2 Chron. 17:7–9, King Jehoshaphat sent five officials, nine Levites, and two priests to teach the people of Judah from the Book of the Law, a point that stresses both the importance of the task and the probable failure of the home setting to adequately convey this instruction, at least by the late fifth century BC.

Types of education. In OT times four types of education can be discerned: moral and religious, academic, vocational, and military.

Moral and religious education. The Bible stresses the importance of moral and religious education above all other forms (Exod. 10:2; 12:26; 13:8; Deut. 4:9; 6:7, 20–21; 32:7, 46).

Academic education. The extent of literacy and numeracy in ancient Israel is difficult to ascertain. Rudimentary numeracy almost certainly was widespread and learned within the home and in the course of vocational training when necessary. Many among the population also appear to have been at least capable of reading and writing names or other simple texts (Deut. 6:9; 11:20; Judg. 8:14).

Vocational training. Most commonly, boys followed in their father’s vocation and thus learned through observation and participation. Under some circumstances, however, children served apprenticeships under the tutelage of others, such as was apparently the case for prophetic schools (2 Kings 2:7; 4:38; 6:1–2; Amos 7:14–15).

Military training. There are clear indications that kings recruited mercenaries to form the most important part of their army (e.g., 1 Sam. 22:2; 25:13). These mercenaries were paid and likely had received some formal training, but the nature of that training is nowhere explained. In addition to these elite forces, all able-bodied men apparently were considered eligible for military service when the need arose (2 Chron. 25:5). So, for example, the elite troops were responsible for staging the attack (2 Sam. 11:14–17; 12:26), while the remainder of the army served as reinforcements where necessary (2 Sam. 12:29). The use of chariots (under David and Solomon) would have required some training, as would the wielding of various weapons (swords, spears, bows, and slings). Ultimately, however, there are only allusions to such training (e.g., Judg. 3:2; 2 Sam. 22:35).

Educational methods. Throughout the ancient Near East there is evidence that corporal punishment played a significant role in education. There is a somewhat comical text from Mesopotamia that relates a day in the life of a student who receives physical punishment for virtually everything he does. Similarly, the book of Proverbs highlights the importance of discipline in raising and training children (e.g., 13:24; 22:15; 29:15, 17). Nonetheless, Proverbs uses “the rod” as a means to signify discipline as a whole without necessarily endorsing corporal punishment as the only or even the primary means of discipline. This is apparent because Proverbs contrasts the rod not with other, lesser forms of discipline but rather with no discipline at all. Thus, although there is evidence that corporal punishment was used extensively (and probably excessively [see Sir. 30]), Proverbs endorses a more nuanced approach to disciplining children.

Academic, religious, and moral education also involved the use of various techniques that facilitated learning. These included the use of poetry or poetic couplets (common in wisdom literature and in psalms), numerical sayings (e.g., Ps. 62:11; Prov. 6:16), and acrostics, as well as the celebration of feasts and memorials at various times throughout the year.

New Testament

Greco-Roman education. Greek education developed from about the fourth century BC and spread throughout the Mediterranean region, adopted with minor modification by the Romans. The curriculum was dominated by sports and a focus on literacy, with little place given to religious education (although philosophy was taught and did bear some religious traits). Education in the Greco-Roman world was expensive, and its provision was a parental responsibility, which tended to restrict formal education to the elite.

At about the age of fifteen, boys could move from elementary schooling to the gymnasium, where they received intellectual and physical training. Some in the Corinthian church may have received such an education, a possibility raised by Paul’s terminology in 1 Corinthians that reflects educational language: his claim to be father of the Corinthian household (4:14–21); sporting imagery (esp. 9:24–27); language of nursing and nature (3:1–4); agricultural imagery (3:5–9); his threat to come with a rod (4:21), which could be related to the rod of correction; the term grammateus (1:20), which may refer to the gymnasium instructor; reference to writing (4:6); and talk of removing the marks of circumcision (7:18).

Education in Israel. One Jewish tradition states that in AD 63 the high priest Joshua ben Gamla decreed that every town should appoint a schoolteacher for the education of children of six or seven years of age. This, together with the existence of Sirach’s school more than two centuries earlier, indicates that some form of schooling existed within Israel in the first century AD.

Although some Jews throughout the ancient world received a standard Hellenistic education, others reacted against the influence of Hellenism and sought to educate their children within the Scriptures and Jewish tradition. The DSS refer to the importance placed on study of the Torah (1QS 6:6–7). There were also rabbinic schools that focused on such teaching.

By NT times, synagogues were well established. Although determining precisely what took place within the synagogues is difficult, indications are that the focus on Scripture and its exposition played an important role in teaching both its importance and the appropriate way to interpret it. Teaching, however, was not confined to synagogues or the temple, as is amply demonstrated by the frequency with which Jesus is described as teaching in a variety of settings. Nonetheless, the temple itself did appear to serve as a center for religious education, as is reflected in the account of the twelve-year-old Jesus’ interactions with the teachers at the temple (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus’ own teaching was remarkable, however, in that it was delivered with authority (Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32).

Education in the church. Paul highlights one of the prerequisites for being an overseer of a church as the ability to teach, stressing the importance of the NT church as a place of learning (1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:2, 24). This teaching involved a familiarity with right doctrine in order to avoid being led astray, an exemplary life that modeled godly behavior for all to see, and the maturity required to apply discipline when necessary.

In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,” “test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”) seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmos and verb peirazō translate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context alone to determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture, temptation relates directly to test and trial.

Negatively, English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt” as the fitting translation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil, or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin and devastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies this purpose as the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).

Positively, the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests his people to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, it results in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God tests his own people, it may look like judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). The NT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō (“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain the other (2 Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).

Neutrally, “trial” (or “tribulation”) translates the meaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6) that may or may not lead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4) presupposes the understanding that God is sovereign over all human circumstances and therefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead to temptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows the same supposition (Mark 14:38).

This interconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation, test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts. There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test; God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith, while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin. A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that describe David as both tested by God (2 Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1 Chron. 21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.

When humans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod. 17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’s firm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as a violation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; 15:10).

In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,” “test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”) seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmos and verb peirazō translate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context alone to determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture, temptation relates directly to test and trial.

Negatively, English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt” as the fitting translation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil, or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin and devastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies this purpose as the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).

Positively, the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests his people to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, it results in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God tests his own people, it may look like judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). The NT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō (“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain the other (2 Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).

Neutrally, “trial” (or “tribulation”) translates the meaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6) that may or may not lead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4) presupposes the understanding that God is sovereign over all human circumstances and therefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead to temptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows the same supposition (Mark 14:38).

This interconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation, test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts. There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test; God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith, while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin. A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that describe David as both tested by God (2 Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1 Chron. 21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.

When humans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod. 17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’s firm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as a violation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; 15:10).

In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,” “test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”) seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmos and verb peirazō translate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context alone to determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture, temptation relates directly to test and trial.

Negatively, English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt” as the fitting translation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil, or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin and devastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies this purpose as the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).

Positively, the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests his people to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, it results in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God tests his own people, it may look like judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). The NT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō (“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain the other (2 Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).

Neutrally, “trial” (or “tribulation”) translates the meaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6) that may or may not lead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4) presupposes the understanding that God is sovereign over all human circumstances and therefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead to temptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows the same supposition (Mark 14:38).

This interconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation, test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts. There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test; God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith, while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin. A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that describe David as both tested by God (2 Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1 Chron. 21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.

When humans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod. 17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’s firm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as a violation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; 15:10).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worship of God is a critical dimension of both Testaments. One might argue that it is the very goal for which Israel and the church were formed.

Terminology

Our understanding of worship is informed by the terms, practices, exhortations, and warnings of Scripture. The worship vocabulary in both Testaments provides insight into the personal dispositions and posture associated with worship focused on the person of God. The first set of biblical terms concerns the posture of the worshiper. The Hebrew terminology communicates the idea of bowing down and falling prostrate before the sovereign and worthy God (Ps. 95:6; 1 Chron. 29:20). NT words bear a similar idea of humble acknowledgment of God’s authority with a reverent prostrate position (Matt. 28:9; Rev. 5:14).

The second set of worship terms concerns service. In the OT, the worship of God includes the idea of serving with a view to bringing honor to him (Exod. 3:12; Mal. 3:14, 18). In the NT, worship bears the nuance of serving in the sense of carrying out religious duties (Heb. 12:28). This set of terminology has a priestly connotation to it. The OT priests and the NT believers (1 Pet. 2:5) serve God with their individual lives and their routines of life as acceptable offerings.

The final set of terms describes the attitude or disposition of worship. This word group includes terms such as “fear,” “awe,” and “dread,” which initially seem out of place in the context of worship. However, the terminology serves to inculcate an attitude of genuine respect. Yahweh is the awesome God, who is to be feared (Exod. 3:6; 15:11). Israel is to love and trust who God is and what God says in promise or in warning. The fear that one is to have for God involves a respect for him, a reverence for his divine worth (Col. 3:22; Rev. 11:18).

God as the Object of Worship

The worship terminology sets the focus of worship. The living God is the sole object of worship. He delights in the satisfying joy that his children find in him. The nature of worship is not about servant entertainment or passive observation; it is an active acknowledgment of God’s worth in a variety of humble ways.

A genuine selfless focus on the person and work of God brings about a humble response that affects one’s posture, generates works of service, and stirs up a healthy attitude of fear and respect. Knowledge of God is the foundational element in worship. God is worshiped for who he is and what he does. He is the Eternal One (Ps. 90:1; 1 Tim. 1:17), unique in every way (Isa. 44:8); he is God alone (Deut. 6:4). He is distinguished by his self-existence, the self-reliant quality of his life (Exod. 3:14; Deut. 32:30). The psalmist calls God’s people to shout joyfully to their good, loving, eternal, and faithful Creator (Ps. 100).

God is worshiped as the Creator of all life. This magnificent creative work of God, declared in the opening of Genesis, is a critical focus in worship (Ps. 95:6; Rom. 1:25; Rev. 4:11). Along with this is the companion declaration that God is the redeemer. The redemptive work of God is celebrated in the Song of Moses (Exod. 15:1–18) and in the Song of the Redeemed (Rev. 14:3).

Worship is also associated with the royal aspects of God’s character. It was the desire of the magi to find Jesus the king and worship him (Matt. 2:1–2). The final scenes of history will be characterized by humble submission to and worship of the King of kings (1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16; cf. Rev. 15:3–4). The psalms often draw the reader’s attention to God’s royal character as a basis for worship (Pss. 45:11; 98:6).

Finally, God is worshiped as the Lord of his covenant relationship with the nation of Israel. This covenant theme and metaphor summarize the varied aspects of God’s character and his relationship with Israel. The God who brought Israel into a covenant relationship is to be sincerely and exclusively worshiped (2 Kings 17:35, 38; cf. Deut. 31:20). These confessional statements about the character of God are a glorious weight that moves believers to prostrate themselves, to have an attitude of awe and respect, and to obediently serve.

The Form of Worship

Although the form of worship looks different in each Testament, the essential elements of worship are constant. In the OT, the priests primarily led the worship of God. In addition, the duties of the king (Deut. 17:18–20) and of the prophet (18:14–22) had worship implications and responsibilities. Ideally, these three administrators were to work together to ensure a healthy quality of covenant life for the nation. Worship in both Testaments has both corporate and individual aspects.

OT worship was organized around sacred places such as designated locations (Gen. 3:8; 12:7), the tabernacle (Exod. 29:42), and the temple (1 Kings 8; cf. Rev. 21–22). In addition, there were sacred times in the calendar of Israel for celebration of the appointed feasts (Lev. 23). The three main feasts in Israel’s calendar are Unleavened Bread, Weeks, and Tabernacles (Deut. 16:16; cf. Exod. 34:23). The sacred actions of worship for the nation involved burnt offerings, meal or tribute offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings (Lev. 1–5).

The regulation and routine of OT worship never were intended to be merely dutiful. The routine of worship was to manifest a love for God and for the covenant community (Deut. 6:1–5; Mal. 2:10). The prophets often challenged Israel to have a heart for God and at times called upon them to consider the emptiness of their worship routine (Isa. 1:11). The heart of worship was nurtured in psalms of praise and lament and in the call to remember God (Pss. 42; 77:11).

The form of NT worship is not distinguished with the same externals as in the OT. However, similar core beliefs underlie the form and practice of NT worship. The distinguishing feature in this new era is the final and sufficient work of Christ (Heb. 9–10). As with previous revelation, worship is not anthropocentric; it is joyfully Christocentric, based on the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1–5). Christ and his work replace the OT temple. Jesus is the greater temple that has come (Matt. 12:6). Sacrifice is no longer limited to any particular geographic location, but instead involves the offering of oneself (Rom. 12:1–2) along with the presentation of spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God (1 Pet. 2:4–5). NT worship is regulated by the Spirit and truth (John 4:20–24). This type of worship is distinguished by the word of God, the Spirit, preaching, prayer, Spirit-filled service, and mutual edification. NT worship also includes the regular celebration of the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42–47) within the context of the local church.

(1) Son of Jotham, king of Judah, and father of Hezekiah. His reign is described in 2 Kings 16 and 2 Chron. 28, and his confrontation by the prophet Isaiah in Isa. 7:1–17. Isaiah’s oracle against the Philistines is dated the year of Ahaz’s death (Isa. 14:28). Hosea and Micah prophesied during his reign (Hos. 1:1; Mic. 1:1). Ahaz reigned for sixteen years (743–727 BC). He followed the syncretistic pagan practices of the Israelite kings. When besieged by the Syrian and Israelite kings, with the aim of replacing him with a puppet ruler (734 BC), he sent a massive tribute to elicit Assyrian protection (2 Kings 16:5–9). This resulted in pro-Assyrian religious compromise (16:10–18). The goal of Isaiah’s embassy to the fearful Ahaz was to encourage a response of faith (Isa. 7:9). Though Isaiah offered him any sign of his choosing, Ahaz masked his refusal in a facade of piety about not testing God (Isa.7:10–12; cf. Deut. 6:16). The hypocritical Ahaz did not want a sign because he had no intention of trusting God in this national crisis. The exasperated prophet responded by announcing the sign of Immanuel.

(2) A Benjamite, a descendant of Saul (1 Chron. 8:35–36; 9:41–42).

(1) Son of Jotham, king of Judah, and father of Hezekiah. His reign is described in 2 Kings 16 and 2 Chron. 28, and his confrontation by the prophet Isaiah in Isa. 7:1–17. Isaiah’s oracle against the Philistines is dated the year of Ahaz’s death (Isa. 14:28). Hosea and Micah prophesied during his reign (Hos. 1:1; Mic. 1:1). Ahaz reigned for sixteen years (743–727 BC). He followed the syncretistic pagan practices of the Israelite kings. When besieged by the Syrian and Israelite kings, with the aim of replacing him with a puppet ruler (734 BC), he sent a massive tribute to elicit Assyrian protection (2 Kings 16:5–9). This resulted in pro-Assyrian religious compromise (16:10–18). The goal of Isaiah’s embassy to the fearful Ahaz was to encourage a response of faith (Isa. 7:9). Though Isaiah offered him any sign of his choosing, Ahaz masked his refusal in a facade of piety about not testing God (Isa.7:10–12; cf. Deut. 6:16). The hypocritical Ahaz did not want a sign because he had no intention of trusting God in this national crisis. The exasperated prophet responded by announcing the sign of Immanuel.

(2) A Benjamite, a descendant of Saul (1 Chron. 8:35–36; 9:41–42).

Archaeology is the scientific study of the material remains of past human life and activities. It can also be described as the procedure by which ancient artifacts are recovered, identified, and interpreted. Archaeology deals with both the prehistorical and historical periods and encompasses both written (epigraphical) and unwritten (artifactual) discoveries. Even though literary remains (inscriptions, ostraca [potsherds], seals) are typically the subject of other disciplines, archaeological investigation usually is responsible for their discovery. Without archaeology much of the available written evidence would have remained buried forever in the ground. Unwritten materials include everything made by humans, such as fortifications, pottery, tools, jewelry, and weapons.

Biblical archaeology more narrowly focuses on the material remains of Israel and its neighboring countries that relate to the biblical period and narrative. For example, ancient texts recovered from sites such as Mari, Ugarit, Ebla, and Amarna shed valuable light on the biblical record and on the history and religion of the ancient Near East. Biblical archaeology may be understood as the process of correlating archaeological evidence with the biblical record. Archaeology and the Bible are closely related because they inform each other. Thus, even though archaeology and biblical studies are independent disciplines, they are certainly interrelated.

The History of Biblical Archaeology

To understand better the meaning of biblical archaeology, it is necessary to briefly trace its history. Before the 1800s little was known about the Bible’s background, despite its central role in the religion and culture of the world, because the Bible was the primary source for access to the history of ancient Israel and its neighbors. There were few sources to which the Scripture historians could appeal besides the apocryphal writings and the works of Josephus, because the early Greek historians (Herodotus and Thucydides) were of limited value, given their interest in the “major players” of history.

The discovery of the Rosetta Stone (dated 196 BC) in 1799 and its decipherment in 1822 by J. F. Champollion opened wide the doors to ancient Egypt’s history. Within twenty-five years, by the decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform by Henry Rawlinson (1846), the world had the key to reading and interpreting thousands of tablets and monumental texts from ancient Babylonia, Assyria, and even the land of the Hittites. These two major developments allowed the voices from the ancient world of the Bible to speak once more and encouraged historians to look at the Bible as supported by the background data coming from the rest of the ancient Near East. As a result of these developments, a new interest was kindled in ancient Near Eastern cultures and the material remains (realia) that they left behind, coupled with a renewed interest in the setting of the biblical text.

Initial excavations of biblical sites. The beginnings of scientific exploration of Palestine can be traced to 1838 when American Edward Robinson (geographer and explorer) aided by the Arabist Eli Smith undertook a historic trip to the Holy Land and succeeded in identifying over one hundred biblical sites, effectively laying the foundations for biblical archaeology and geography. This led to the establishment of the British Palestine Exploration Fund in 1865 for the purpose of exploring Palestine systematically and scientifically, and to several of the geographic surveys of western Palestine and Transjordan.

The beginning of major excavations of biblical sites was not far behind, and in 1890 William M. F. Petrie (a renowned Egyptologist then) initiated what is widely regarded as the first modern archaeological excavation in the Holy Land. He excavated Tell el-Hesi (identification still uncertain) in the northern Negev, and his work underlies archaeological inquiry in the Holy Land to this day. More specifically, Petrie laid the foundations of modern archaeology by his application of stratigraphy and ceramic typology.

Stratigraphy is the technique of digging a tell (a cone-shaped mound that contains the remains of successive human occupation over a long period of time) layer by layer while carefully separating and recording the contents of each occupational layer. This technique tries to untangle these layers in the reverse order (the older layers of occupation are always below the newer layers) of their deposition and to reconstruct the history of a site period by period.

Typology is the technique of classifying artifacts based on their external characteristics (shape, ware, and decoration). Pottery is considered an accurate tool for dating the occupational layers of a tell, and ceramic typology is the art of charting changes in local pottery styles. By analyzing the pottery lying within successive layers at Hesi, Petrie was able to construct a relative chronological framework for Palestine. To arrive at a more absolute chronology, the researchers from Palestine usually need (especially in the earlier periods) to correlate their findings with similar styles from neighboring areas, such as Egypt and Mesopotamia, where there are available written records and astronomically fixed dates.

Before World War I, the first and only American excavation in Palestine that deserves mention is that of George A. Reisner and architect Clarence S. Fisher between 1908 and 1910 at Sebastiyeh (biblical Samaria). The rest are usually considered to have resembled “treasure hunts.” By the use of systematic digging and recording in Palestine, the Reisner-Fisher method, which was far more comprehensive and meticulous than Petrie’s, greatly improved Palestinian archaeology.

The first golden age. The “golden age” of American excavation in Palestine followed a few decades later, after World War I in the 1920s and 1930s. Numerous and well-financed archaeological digs started at the following biblical sites: Ai, Bethel, Beth-shean, Beth-shemesh, Beth-zur, Debir, Gibeah, Jericho, Mizpah, Samaria, Shechem, and others. All of these excavations, however, were overshadowed by the work of Orientalist W. F. Albright at Tell Beit Mirsim (identity still disputed, but perhaps Debir).

It was Albright and those of the American school in Jerusalem (now the Albright Institute of Archaeology) who dominated the scene in these formative years. Albright refined Petrie’s methodology and integrated very well archaeology, biblical research, and ancient Near Eastern studies, thus establishing biblical (and Palestinian) archaeology as a discipline in its own right. He also envisioned an “archaeological revolution” that would open up the lands, peoples, and lost sites of the ancient Near East so that the Bible would be better understood and also gain new credibility. He certainly was reacting against the spirit of his time, when sterile debates of textual and literary criticism (especially of the skeptical variety) were prevalent in both European and American liberalism, and this seems to have led some to believe that archaeology’s primary function was to “prove the Bible true.”

The second golden age. A second “golden age” of biblical archaeology is usually considered to have arrived after World War II when various foreign teams worked throughout the Middle East in cooperation with local archaeologists, a trend that continues today. The archaeology of Palestine advanced rapidly, with significant improvements in the techniques of digging and recording. The greatest influence on archaeological method at this time belongs to Kathleen Kenyon (English excavator of Jericho [Tell es-Sultan]), whose stratigraphical method (known as the Wheeler-Kenyon method) is used even today by excavators, with modifications. Other important archaeologists who contributed significantly to the biblical archaeology movement are Yigael Yadin of Israel and G. E. Wright of the United States.

During the height of its prominence and promise, biblical archaeology became an important component for the biblical theology movement and also for Christian apologetics (especially as represented by Joseph Free of Wheaton College). In fact, one of the greatest theologians in the biblical theology movement, G. E. Wright, was also Albright’s student. He conducted a major excavation at Tell Balath (biblical Shechem), following the Wheeler-Kenyon method and emphasizing pottery chronology in the tradition of the Albright school. More important, Shechem was a training ground for many American archaeologists where Wright created a new school of field archaeology.

The new archaeology. In the 1960s, under the influence of the social and natural sciences, the “new archaeology” that developed tended to focus on the comprehensive study of humans as species (and not on historical issues). William G. Dever (a student and follower of G. E. Wright at the important Tel Gezer project) argued forcefully and successfully for the “liberation” of Near Eastern archaeology from biblical studies and preferred the term (prevalent today in most American schools) “Syro-Palestinian archaeology.” Today, with very few exceptions (e.g., Harvard University), most American universities offer classes in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine (this was apparently Albright’s old alternate term for biblical archaeology), not in biblical archaeology. The name of the popular magazine Biblical Archaeologist was also changed to Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology, despite protests from many of its readers.

The new archaeology began with the realization in the 1960s that much data of potential significance has been overlooked, and perhaps even vital evidence has been discarded. New questions and methods developed from the frustration that old questions have not been answered satisfactorily. The temporal and geographical horizons of the new archaeology broadened to include the Paleolithic period (c. 100,000 BC) through the Ottoman era (AD 1922), and attention is now paid to the neglected periods of Judaism and early Christianity.

More important, the composition of the dig staff broadened considerably to include a much larger body of scientists to assist in answering the new questions posed. Today, the field archaeologists (besides historians, linguists, and ceramic experts) are supported by geologists, anthropologists, paleoethnobotanists, zoologists, climatologists, hydrologists, ethnographers, and, more recently, statisticians and computer experts. It is clear that the new archaeology is done in a very interdisciplinary way. The Tell Hesban and Khirbat en-Nahas excavations (both in Jordan) are good models of this type of interdisciplinary research. Bones, seeds, and other organic materials are now saved and carefully recorded to address questions related to economic strategies, social differentiation, diet, disease, and the like. Soil and pollen samples are taken, extensive regional and environmental surveys are carried out, and material culture samples and artifacts are submitted for sophisticated analysis. It is ironic (according to Dever) that this new and “secular” archaeology, while demanding more autonomy from the Bible, promises to contribute even more to biblical studies as it grows in precision and sophistication.

The new archaeology and Syro-Palestinian archaeology of today have advantages and disadvantages. They have the advantages of staff who are better equipped and trained, as well as educated volunteers who usually have genuine interest in their work. More important, their conclusions have the advantage of being based on data that is more scientifically obtained and analyzed. Many of the digs run field schools modeled on the ones from the Gezer project (1964–1973), which trained hundreds of student volunteers. These are all good and useful for both participants and their projects, but they have led to significant rises in the costs of an excavation. Thus, a typical six-week season is estimated now to cost in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. Since the new archaeology has led to a “secularization” of biblical archaeology and churches and seminaries have gradually stopped sponsoring these projects, the funds have had to come increasingly from federal and public sources of support. The National Endowment for the Humanities (and private donors later) became the major source of funds in the 1970s.

Approaches to the Bible in Modern Archaeology

There is no doubt that the new archaeology has introduced many useful scientific improvements in the field. (Of course, these scientific improvements were embraced by both biblical and Syro-Palestinian archaeologists in the 1970s, and the distinction between these two groups has become largely imaginary.) At the same time, however, it has brought new biases against the biblical text. The Bible, in Dever’s view, was never intended as a historical document and should be viewed with “considerable suspicion” for reconstructing the history of the ancient Near East. Other archaeologists in the field (and also historians) have an even more negative attitude toward the Bible. However, it must be emphasized that all (or at least most) agree that the Bible has its role in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine. The question has to do with how the Bible should be used.

Maximalist and minimalist approaches. The two schools of thought that seem the loudest in the debate among biblical and/or Syro-Palestinian archaeologists are usually labeled “maximalist” and “minimalist.” (To these Kenneth A. Kitchen adds the label “factualist.” According to Kitchen, the agenda of a “factualist” is neither to prove nor to disprove any theory concerning the early history of Israel, but simply to examine the facts and let the data speak for itself.)

The maximalist school has a strong view of the historical reliability of Scripture and emphasizes synergy between archaeology and biblical studies. Others consider this to be a naive approach to Scripture and an uncritical acceptance of the information that it tries to communicate. The maximalists follow the scholarship of W. F. Albright and his student John Bright, and they assume that the OT speaks of historical realities. When seeking to reconstruct the history of ancient Israel, they readily and confidently refer to the biblical record as a valid and significant source for their research. They are also confident that when all the data is in, a biblical history of Israel (aided by archaeology) will exhibit a close correspondence with the real history of Israel.

The minimalist school is generally skeptical concerning the historical reliability of the biblical text. Many advocates of this approach argue that the OT was written primarily during the Hellenistic period (it certainly is postexilic), centuries after the events that it claims to describe. A community around Jerusalem created the traditions found in the Bible in order to give account for themselves and their distinctive religious notions and practices. According to this approach, any correlation between the Bible and the archaeological record is suspect a priori. When there are tensions between biblical and extrabiblical records (including archaeology), the extrabiblical records are to be preferred as evidence, and the contradictions are usually emphasized to undermine the reliability of the Bible as a historical source.

The minimalist movement has developed gradually. Although a century ago there were many who questioned the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis, most accepted the essential historicity of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt under Moses, the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, the historicity of David and Solomon, and the rest of the OT narrative. During the past forty years, however, serious doubt has been cast on all of these events.

The stance of the minimalists led to peculiar (and rarely settled) controversies over issues such as the legitimacy of reading “the house of David” in the Tel Dan inscription (discovered in 1993), the Siloam Tunnel inscription (which overlaps with 2 Chron. 32 and is traditionally ascribed to Hezekiah), the very existence of Jerusalem during the days of David and Solomon, and even the existence of these two kings.

A fresh approach. Is there a way to move beyond the current state of the debate? Some believe that there is hope by using a fresh approach to biblical archaeology, one that follows in the footsteps of Lawrence Stager and Philip King (see their book, Life in Biblical Israel  ). This approach does not try to reconstruct history or simply illuminate the Bible; rather, it seeks to enter into the world of the ancients to acquire a fuller understanding of Israelite society and its literary record through the combined use of artifacts, sociology, and ethnography. Textual and archaeological data are brought into a historical discourse by “selecting and interpreting them through the problematics of social history.” Thus, biblical archaeology in the older sense is making a comeback by hearkening back to the integrative works of the nineteenth century, but with vast amounts of new data. This “new biblical archaeology” should not be driven by apologetic purposes and should not aim to “prove the truth of the Bible.” It should have more modest and realistic goals, considering the limitations of archaeology (see below).

Evangelical archaeologists, confident in the truth of the Bible (which can stand by itself despite its many attacks from within and without), should have as their goal the understanding of the biblical world in its geographical, cultural, and historical setting. They should use archaeology and linguistics to correlate biblical texts and ancient artifacts against the background of the historical and geographical setting. When historical questions are posed, the cumulative evidence should lead to probability and plausibility rather than a defensive quest for final proof. This attempt to follow historical probability vis-à-vis the Bible is different from setting out a priori with a defensive Bible-proving agenda.

This new approach will not make the Scriptures say more than judicious assessment of the evidence will allow (a problem that plagues some conservative interpreters), but neither will it cast undue skepticism on the Scriptures’ historical value (the problem of the minimalists). It endeavors to pay close attention both to the literary nature and intentions of the biblical text and to the fragmentary nature of the archaeological record.

These new biblical archaeologists do not set out again “to prove the Bible.” Instead, they seek to situate the texts of the OT in their historical and cultural contexts and to demonstrate how awareness of the extrabiblical world can open new doors into the Bible. Their goals are more modest, not because of a lower view of Scripture, but rather because of a clearer understanding of the limitations and fragmentary nature of archaeology despite its considerable refinement in the recent decades.

The Limitations of Archaeology

Archaeology has limitations because of the vast amount of time and area to be covered and because of the hazards of preservation. Objects of wood, leatherwork, basketry, papyrus, and cloth rarely survive, and metals (especially precious metals) were frequently recycled. It is also important to realize that no biblical site has ever been completely excavated, and most of the excavations tend to pay greater attention to the major buildings (citadels, temples, palaces) rather than the homes of the general population.

Only in recent years have accurate methods of stratification and recording enabled comparisons to be made between sites, and the reliability of some foundational excavations in the Holy Land is rightly questioned by the finds from newer excavations (e.g., Megiddo, Gezer, and Hazor are being reexcavated in part to clarify and answer questions raised by previous excavations and debates). This is understandable because most of the foundational excavations in the Holy Land did not have access to the accurate methods of stratification, recording, and scientific analysis available today. Many useful artifacts and especially organic objects were routinely discarded in the earlier excavations.

In general, earlier levels of a site are more likely to have been disturbed by the activities of later periods, and it was very common for older buildings (and sometimes even monumental inscriptions) to be dismantled and the (stone) blocks reused for later buildings or even roads. The objects that archaeologists discover survive and are most often found by accident. Consequently, given the limitations and pitfalls of archaeology (especially the way it was done in the earliest part of the twentieth century), one must have realistic and more modest expectations about what archaeology can recover, and realize that the further one goes in time, the less archaeological information may be available for comparison and useful analysis. Add to this that some of the central characters of the Bible (e.g., Abraham, Moses, most of the judges, Ezra) were not major players in the world of their time, and that some important sites have never been excavated (e.g., Damascus, Hebron), and it becomes clear that there are considerable reasons to have more realistic and modest expectations about what archaeology can accomplish.

The role and possibility of accurately interpreting archaeological remains should also be taken into consideration, especially since there are well-documented cases in which the interpretation of the excavator has turned out to be false (e.g., the “Degenerated Ashtoreth Plaque” of R. A. S. Macalister from Gezer). Anyone who has ever participated in an archaeological excavation led by a group of experts in the field can remember debates that took place among these experts, not only about the dating of various pieces of pottery, but even about the role and dating of well-defined and visible monumental architecture. While this is understandable and desirable, and many times leads to the refinement and corrections of unwarranted early assumptions, the process shows the difficulty inherent in interpreting the fragmentary remains of a dead civilization far removed from our times and settings.

Material Remains and Written Sources

It is a sobering fact that archaeology cannot provide the basis for history. Material remains can reveal climate changes and their impact, sequences of human cultures and their products, traces of destruction and desertion, changes in building techniques and art. Nevertheless, the persons involved remain anonymous, their thoughts, motives and faith a mystery, and the specific events of their times largely unknown (e.g., the destruction by fire of Lachish II could not have been accurately dated and related without the biblical report in Jer. 34:7). It is the written documents (many times recovered through archaeology) that can reveal the names of kings and kingdoms, their dates and deeds, and the fruits of their thinking in literature. It is the testimony of these texts, rightly evaluated, that can add the “flesh and features” to the “bones” archaeology discovers (Allan Millard).

On the other hand, the material remains of life (pottery, jewelry, tools, weapons, cultic objects, architecture, etc.) as recovered through archaeology can bring color to the textual references. Nevertheless, the written sources are essential and provide the most valuable information for recovering the history and faith of any ancient nation. It is the duty of the biblical scholar and archaeologist to interpret correctly the available data from Syria-Palestine and to arrive at plausible explanations concerning the biblical world. The combination of texts (biblical and extrabiblical), material culture (archaeology), geography, and history holds considerable promise to help scholars better define the context of Scripture.

There is no doubt that this approach to archaeology holds considerable potential as it is generating more material than is possible for any person (or even school) to encompass. As one of the most quickly changing social sciences today, both in theoretical advances and new data, archaeology is and will be the source of new insights into biblical life and times. It seems that the “archaeological revolution” predicted by W. F. Albright is far from over; it probably has only begun.

The evidence for this revolution from the evangelical field is visible in various ways. The rest of this entry briefly presents some selective archaeological data that helps define the context and that complements (since the writers of the Bible were selective in their reporting), challenges, or confirms the narrative of the Bible. The data should help the interpreter of the Bible bridge the geographical, temporal, and cultural gap that leads to the ancient writer.

The Cannanite (Bronze) Age (3300–1200 BC)

Early Bronze Age. Towns with mud-brick walls begin to appear in Canaan in the Early Bronze Age I (before 3000 BC). Evidence of occupation in the third millennium is found at Beth-yerah, Beth-shan, Gezer, Jerusalem, Jericho, Arad, Megiddo, and Ai, among others. There was a difference between the pottery of the north (Beth-yerah) and that of the south, while the most striking development was that of the fine “Khirbet Kerak” ware.

Middle Bronze Age. About 2200 BC (Middle Bronze Age I) there arrived a distinctive nomadic people identified with the Amorites of the Bible (Num. 13:29; Josh. 5:1; 10:6). They had distinctive burial customs, pottery, and weapons that show connection with the city-states of Syria. It is most likely that their kings included the Asiatic “Foreign Rulers” (Hyksos) who conquered Egypt in the eighteenth century BC. This was a time of wealth and frequent warfare between cities. It seems that the Middle Bronze Age was a time when seminomadic groups (including a group called “Habiru,” who are also found in the Late Bronze Age) infiltrated the land between defended towns. It is possible that the patriarchs were among these Habiru, who infiltrated mostly the hill country and the Negev. In fact, it is demonstrable from a comparison with the eighteenth-century BC texts from Mari (on the Euphrates River) that the pastoral traditions of Genesis fit the early second-millennium BC context much better than later periods.

The towns and houses of the Middle Bronze Age were violently destroyed in the fifteenth century BC, most likely by the Egyptians, who expelled the Hyksos. Despite the trade that seems to have continued with the eastern Mediterranean (Mycenaean pottery), the hill towns of Palestine were now poorer and fewer than the coastal cities. This situation is clearly reflected in the Amarna letters between the kings of Canaan and Egypt. The major cities were reoccupied, but many of them were destroyed later in the thirteenth century.

Late Bronze Age. It is in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC) that the biblical account is usually challenged by the archaeological discoveries. Even if one accepts the reasonable interpretation that Joshua burned only three cities (Jericho, Ai, Hazor) in his campaign (see Josh. 6:24; 8:28; 11:13), the evidence of destruction from both Jericho and Ai is highly questionable. Thus, while it is widely believed that Jericho was abandoned around 1325 BC, the fallen walls once thought to belong to this period were dated much earlier by Kathleen Kenyon (Early Bronze). The evidence from Ai (et-Tell) is even less promising, unless Bryan Wood is correct in his identification of Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir.

Based on the apparent lack of change in material culture during the Late Bronze Age, mainstream archaeologists commonly classify the Israelites as dissident Canaanites who moved into the hill country.

Although it cannot be conclusively demonstrated from archaeology that the Israelites were not Canaanites but rather came to Canaan from the outside, the mainstream interpretation has serious problems of its own. There was clearly a new pattern of simple farming in the hills, characterized by four-room houses whose inhabitants used many collared-rim jars, and there is an almost complete absence of pig bones (which usually are found in the Canaanite cities) in the hill-country sites. More important, there is strong evidence that the Israelites were worshiping their own national God (YHWH) by the ninth century BC, in sharp contrast to the polytheistic religion of Canaan (as illuminated by the culture in neighboring Ugarit). The personal names of individuals in the eighth and seventh centuries BC are almost exclusively Yahwistic.

Another very significant change is the abandonment of the shrines in towns of the Late Bronze Age. Not a single site can be identified in which worship continued from the Late Bronze Age well into the Iron Age (it seems that by 1000 BC the Canaanites disappeared as an entity in the area occupied by Israel). It is highly unlikely that the Canaanites who moved from towns into the hill-country sites would have abandoned their divinities (whose need they must have felt greatly while facing the uncertainties of the wilderness), and it is even more unlikely that people who had come from different towns with different deities would have accepted almost universally a new patron deity of obscure provenance. The continuity in material culture of a nation that was to take over the homes and all the equipment of the Canaanites should not be surprising in light of the commands of the Bible (Deut. 6:10–11). The almost universal rise of the worship of the God of Israel, and the mention of Israel as a group of people in the Stela of Merneptah (c. 1208 BC), argue forcefully that the Israelites were not really Canaanites.

The Israelite (Iron) Age (1200–586 BC)

By the twelfth century, the Philistine settlement of southwest Canaan is attested by a new type of pottery with Late Mycenaean affinities. This new type of pottery was found throughout Philistia, the Shephelah, and as far north as Joppa. Wealthy and well-constructed Canaanite cities held out for at least another century (Beth-Shean, Gezer, and Megiddo?). The evidence for Israelites comes from the small villages throughout the hill country and Galilee. Traditionally, as mentioned above, they are recognized by their four-room houses, large number of storage pits for grain, large storage jars with thick-collared rims, and preference for terracing hillsides for farming.

Archaeologically, it is very difficult to at­trib­ute the construction of cities to any king of the united monarchy (but see the recent discovery below). Saul had a citadel at Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl), and the first fortification there has been attributed to him. It shows the adoption of a new fortification system of casemate wall, characteristic of this period. Similar casemate walls have been found at Shechem, Beth-shemesh, and Beit Mirsim (and later even in Moab). A small town at Megiddo, whose houses form a defensive ring around the perimeter of the mound, has been attributed to David.

Though 1 Kings 9:15 reports how Solomon built up Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, the dating of the six-chambered gates found in all of these sites and the related walls is still being debated. A much more recent excavation from Khirbat en-Nahas in Jordan has found industrial-scale production of copper in a region and at a time that correlates well with the narrative about Solomon (see 1 Kings 7:46).

Another very recent and impressive find comes from Khirbet Qeiyafa (most likely Shaaraim [Josh. 15:36; 1 Sam. 17:52; 1 Chron. 4:31–32]). This site, located in the western part of the high Shephelah (near Azekah), was recently excavated by Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor of Hebrew University, Jerusalem. On the basis of four burnt olive pits tested at Oxford University, the excavators dated this fortified city to the time of David. They concluded that the massive construction of the city wall (which required two hundred thousand tons of stone) supports the existence of a centralized political organization, a state—a conclusion that has far-reaching implications for the disputed chronology of Iron Age IIA (1000–900 BC). They also found a five-line inscription, indicating that writing was practiced in the region. This inscription is important because it seems to be the longest proto-Canaanite inscription ever found, and the earliest Hebrew inscription known to date.

The Hellenistic-Roman Period (332 BC and Following)

Herod the Great (37–4 BC) was the ambitious ruler who carried through most of the grand building projects that still dot the Holy Land today. At Jerusalem, which is still being excavated, the massive walls that he built for the platform of the temple are still visible today both above and below the ground. Other ruins associated with Herod have been found at Caesarea, Jericho, Herodium (near Bethlehem), Masada, and also in Jordan.

One of the most important inscriptions for NT studies (especially the Gospels) was found by the Italian excavators of Caesarea. These excavators found that the inscription refers to Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea. Other inscriptions from Greece and Turkey are connected with the events described in Acts and Paul’s letters. Thus, in Corinth a door inscription (“Synagogue of the Hebrews”) may indicate the place where Paul preached (Acts 18:4). Excavations there revealed a text naming Erastus as a benefactor. This may be the city treasurer of Rom. 16:23. Near Lystra inscriptions record the dedication to Zeus of a statue of Hermes by some Lycaonians, and nearby was a stone altar for Zeus and Hermes. This explains the identification of Barnabas with Zeus (Jupiter) and Paul with Hermes (Mercury) in Acts 14:11–12.

It is clear from the selective sample of data presented here that the field of archaeology has contributed considerably to the context and understanding of the biblical world. All the signs and recent excavations suggest that there are continuing and exciting prospects to be found in the newer (biblical) archaeology.

Archaeology is the scientific study of the material remains of past human life and activities. It can also be described as the procedure by which ancient artifacts are recovered, identified, and interpreted. Archaeology deals with both the prehistorical and historical periods and encompasses both written (epigraphical) and unwritten (artifactual) discoveries. Even though literary remains (inscriptions, ostraca [potsherds], seals) are typically the subject of other disciplines, archaeological investigation usually is responsible for their discovery. Without archaeology much of the available written evidence would have remained buried forever in the ground. Unwritten materials include everything made by humans, such as fortifications, pottery, tools, jewelry, and weapons.

Biblical archaeology more narrowly focuses on the material remains of Israel and its neighboring countries that relate to the biblical period and narrative. For example, ancient texts recovered from sites such as Mari, Ugarit, Ebla, and Amarna shed valuable light on the biblical record and on the history and religion of the ancient Near East. Biblical archaeology may be understood as the process of correlating archaeological evidence with the biblical record. Archaeology and the Bible are closely related because they inform each other. Thus, even though archaeology and biblical studies are independent disciplines, they are certainly interrelated.

The History of Biblical Archaeology

To understand better the meaning of biblical archaeology, it is necessary to briefly trace its history. Before the 1800s little was known about the Bible’s background, despite its central role in the religion and culture of the world, because the Bible was the primary source for access to the history of ancient Israel and its neighbors. There were few sources to which the Scripture historians could appeal besides the apocryphal writings and the works of Josephus, because the early Greek historians (Herodotus and Thucydides) were of limited value, given their interest in the “major players” of history.

The discovery of the Rosetta Stone (dated 196 BC) in 1799 and its decipherment in 1822 by J. F. Champollion opened wide the doors to ancient Egypt’s history. Within twenty-five years, by the decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform by Henry Rawlinson (1846), the world had the key to reading and interpreting thousands of tablets and monumental texts from ancient Babylonia, Assyria, and even the land of the Hittites. These two major developments allowed the voices from the ancient world of the Bible to speak once more and encouraged historians to look at the Bible as supported by the background data coming from the rest of the ancient Near East. As a result of these developments, a new interest was kindled in ancient Near Eastern cultures and the material remains (realia) that they left behind, coupled with a renewed interest in the setting of the biblical text.

Initial excavations of biblical sites. The beginnings of scientific exploration of Palestine can be traced to 1838 when American Edward Robinson (geographer and explorer) aided by the Arabist Eli Smith undertook a historic trip to the Holy Land and succeeded in identifying over one hundred biblical sites, effectively laying the foundations for biblical archaeology and geography. This led to the establishment of the British Palestine Exploration Fund in 1865 for the purpose of exploring Palestine systematically and scientifically, and to several of the geographic surveys of western Palestine and Transjordan.

The beginning of major excavations of biblical sites was not far behind, and in 1890 William M. F. Petrie (a renowned Egyptologist then) initiated what is widely regarded as the first modern archaeological excavation in the Holy Land. He excavated Tell el-Hesi (identification still uncertain) in the northern Negev, and his work underlies archaeological inquiry in the Holy Land to this day. More specifically, Petrie laid the foundations of modern archaeology by his application of stratigraphy and ceramic typology.

Stratigraphy is the technique of digging a tell (a cone-shaped mound that contains the remains of successive human occupation over a long period of time) layer by layer while carefully separating and recording the contents of each occupational layer. This technique tries to untangle these layers in the reverse order (the older layers of occupation are always below the newer layers) of their deposition and to reconstruct the history of a site period by period.

Typology is the technique of classifying artifacts based on their external characteristics (shape, ware, and decoration). Pottery is considered an accurate tool for dating the occupational layers of a tell, and ceramic typology is the art of charting changes in local pottery styles. By analyzing the pottery lying within successive layers at Hesi, Petrie was able to construct a relative chronological framework for Palestine. To arrive at a more absolute chronology, the researchers from Palestine usually need (especially in the earlier periods) to correlate their findings with similar styles from neighboring areas, such as Egypt and Mesopotamia, where there are available written records and astronomically fixed dates.

Before World War I, the first and only American excavation in Palestine that deserves mention is that of George A. Reisner and architect Clarence S. Fisher between 1908 and 1910 at Sebastiyeh (biblical Samaria). The rest are usually considered to have resembled “treasure hunts.” By the use of systematic digging and recording in Palestine, the Reisner-Fisher method, which was far more comprehensive and meticulous than Petrie’s, greatly improved Palestinian archaeology.

The first golden age. The “golden age” of American excavation in Palestine followed a few decades later, after World War I in the 1920s and 1930s. Numerous and well-financed archaeological digs started at the following biblical sites: Ai, Bethel, Beth-shean, Beth-shemesh, Beth-zur, Debir, Gibeah, Jericho, Mizpah, Samaria, Shechem, and others. All of these excavations, however, were overshadowed by the work of Orientalist W. F. Albright at Tell Beit Mirsim (identity still disputed, but perhaps Debir).

It was Albright and those of the American school in Jerusalem (now the Albright Institute of Archaeology) who dominated the scene in these formative years. Albright refined Petrie’s methodology and integrated very well archaeology, biblical research, and ancient Near Eastern studies, thus establishing biblical (and Palestinian) archaeology as a discipline in its own right. He also envisioned an “archaeological revolution” that would open up the lands, peoples, and lost sites of the ancient Near East so that the Bible would be better understood and also gain new credibility. He certainly was reacting against the spirit of his time, when sterile debates of textual and literary criticism (especially of the skeptical variety) were prevalent in both European and American liberalism, and this seems to have led some to believe that archaeology’s primary function was to “prove the Bible true.”

The second golden age. A second “golden age” of biblical archaeology is usually considered to have arrived after World War II when various foreign teams worked throughout the Middle East in cooperation with local archaeologists, a trend that continues today. The archaeology of Palestine advanced rapidly, with significant improvements in the techniques of digging and recording. The greatest influence on archaeological method at this time belongs to Kathleen Kenyon (English excavator of Jericho [Tell es-Sultan]), whose stratigraphical method (known as the Wheeler-Kenyon method) is used even today by excavators, with modifications. Other important archaeologists who contributed significantly to the biblical archaeology movement are Yigael Yadin of Israel and G. E. Wright of the United States.

During the height of its prominence and promise, biblical archaeology became an important component for the biblical theology movement and also for Christian apologetics (especially as represented by Joseph Free of Wheaton College). In fact, one of the greatest theologians in the biblical theology movement, G. E. Wright, was also Albright’s student. He conducted a major excavation at Tell Balath (biblical Shechem), following the Wheeler-Kenyon method and emphasizing pottery chronology in the tradition of the Albright school. More important, Shechem was a training ground for many American archaeologists where Wright created a new school of field archaeology.

The new archaeology. In the 1960s, under the influence of the social and natural sciences, the “new archaeology” that developed tended to focus on the comprehensive study of humans as species (and not on historical issues). William G. Dever (a student and follower of G. E. Wright at the important Tel Gezer project) argued forcefully and successfully for the “liberation” of Near Eastern archaeology from biblical studies and preferred the term (prevalent today in most American schools) “Syro-Palestinian archaeology.” Today, with very few exceptions (e.g., Harvard University), most American universities offer classes in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine (this was apparently Albright’s old alternate term for biblical archaeology), not in biblical archaeology. The name of the popular magazine Biblical Archaeologist was also changed to Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology, despite protests from many of its readers.

The new archaeology began with the realization in the 1960s that much data of potential significance has been overlooked, and perhaps even vital evidence has been discarded. New questions and methods developed from the frustration that old questions have not been answered satisfactorily. The temporal and geographical horizons of the new archaeology broadened to include the Paleolithic period (c. 100,000 BC) through the Ottoman era (AD 1922), and attention is now paid to the neglected periods of Judaism and early Christianity.

More important, the composition of the dig staff broadened considerably to include a much larger body of scientists to assist in answering the new questions posed. Today, the field archaeologists (besides historians, linguists, and ceramic experts) are supported by geologists, anthropologists, paleoethnobotanists, zoologists, climatologists, hydrologists, ethnographers, and, more recently, statisticians and computer experts. It is clear that the new archaeology is done in a very interdisciplinary way. The Tell Hesban and Khirbat en-Nahas excavations (both in Jordan) are good models of this type of interdisciplinary research. Bones, seeds, and other organic materials are now saved and carefully recorded to address questions related to economic strategies, social differentiation, diet, disease, and the like. Soil and pollen samples are taken, extensive regional and environmental surveys are carried out, and material culture samples and artifacts are submitted for sophisticated analysis. It is ironic (according to Dever) that this new and “secular” archaeology, while demanding more autonomy from the Bible, promises to contribute even more to biblical studies as it grows in precision and sophistication.

The new archaeology and Syro-Palestinian archaeology of today have advantages and disadvantages. They have the advantages of staff who are better equipped and trained, as well as educated volunteers who usually have genuine interest in their work. More important, their conclusions have the advantage of being based on data that is more scientifically obtained and analyzed. Many of the digs run field schools modeled on the ones from the Gezer project (1964–1973), which trained hundreds of student volunteers. These are all good and useful for both participants and their projects, but they have led to significant rises in the costs of an excavation. Thus, a typical six-week season is estimated now to cost in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. Since the new archaeology has led to a “secularization” of biblical archaeology and churches and seminaries have gradually stopped sponsoring these projects, the funds have had to come increasingly from federal and public sources of support. The National Endowment for the Humanities (and private donors later) became the major source of funds in the 1970s.

Approaches to the Bible in Modern Archaeology

There is no doubt that the new archaeology has introduced many useful scientific improvements in the field. (Of course, these scientific improvements were embraced by both biblical and Syro-Palestinian archaeologists in the 1970s, and the distinction between these two groups has become largely imaginary.) At the same time, however, it has brought new biases against the biblical text. The Bible, in Dever’s view, was never intended as a historical document and should be viewed with “considerable suspicion” for reconstructing the history of the ancient Near East. Other archaeologists in the field (and also historians) have an even more negative attitude toward the Bible. However, it must be emphasized that all (or at least most) agree that the Bible has its role in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine. The question has to do with how the Bible should be used.

Maximalist and minimalist approaches. The two schools of thought that seem the loudest in the debate among biblical and/or Syro-Palestinian archaeologists are usually labeled “maximalist” and “minimalist.” (To these Kenneth A. Kitchen adds the label “factualist.” According to Kitchen, the agenda of a “factualist” is neither to prove nor to disprove any theory concerning the early history of Israel, but simply to examine the facts and let the data speak for itself.)

The maximalist school has a strong view of the historical reliability of Scripture and emphasizes synergy between archaeology and biblical studies. Others consider this to be a naive approach to Scripture and an uncritical acceptance of the information that it tries to communicate. The maximalists follow the scholarship of W. F. Albright and his student John Bright, and they assume that the OT speaks of historical realities. When seeking to reconstruct the history of ancient Israel, they readily and confidently refer to the biblical record as a valid and significant source for their research. They are also confident that when all the data is in, a biblical history of Israel (aided by archaeology) will exhibit a close correspondence with the real history of Israel.

The minimalist school is generally skeptical concerning the historical reliability of the biblical text. Many advocates of this approach argue that the OT was written primarily during the Hellenistic period (it certainly is postexilic), centuries after the events that it claims to describe. A community around Jerusalem created the traditions found in the Bible in order to give account for themselves and their distinctive religious notions and practices. According to this approach, any correlation between the Bible and the archaeological record is suspect a priori. When there are tensions between biblical and extrabiblical records (including archaeology), the extrabiblical records are to be preferred as evidence, and the contradictions are usually emphasized to undermine the reliability of the Bible as a historical source.

The minimalist movement has developed gradually. Although a century ago there were many who questioned the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis, most accepted the essential historicity of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt under Moses, the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, the historicity of David and Solomon, and the rest of the OT narrative. During the past forty years, however, serious doubt has been cast on all of these events.

The stance of the minimalists led to peculiar (and rarely settled) controversies over issues such as the legitimacy of reading “the house of David” in the Tel Dan inscription (discovered in 1993), the Siloam Tunnel inscription (which overlaps with 2 Chron. 32 and is traditionally ascribed to Hezekiah), the very existence of Jerusalem during the days of David and Solomon, and even the existence of these two kings.

A fresh approach. Is there a way to move beyond the current state of the debate? Some believe that there is hope by using a fresh approach to biblical archaeology, one that follows in the footsteps of Lawrence Stager and Philip King (see their book, Life in Biblical Israel  ). This approach does not try to reconstruct history or simply illuminate the Bible; rather, it seeks to enter into the world of the ancients to acquire a fuller understanding of Israelite society and its literary record through the combined use of artifacts, sociology, and ethnography. Textual and archaeological data are brought into a historical discourse by “selecting and interpreting them through the problematics of social history.” Thus, biblical archaeology in the older sense is making a comeback by hearkening back to the integrative works of the nineteenth century, but with vast amounts of new data. This “new biblical archaeology” should not be driven by apologetic purposes and should not aim to “prove the truth of the Bible.” It should have more modest and realistic goals, considering the limitations of archaeology (see below).

Evangelical archaeologists, confident in the truth of the Bible (which can stand by itself despite its many attacks from within and without), should have as their goal the understanding of the biblical world in its geographical, cultural, and historical setting. They should use archaeology and linguistics to correlate biblical texts and ancient artifacts against the background of the historical and geographical setting. When historical questions are posed, the cumulative evidence should lead to probability and plausibility rather than a defensive quest for final proof. This attempt to follow historical probability vis-à-vis the Bible is different from setting out a priori with a defensive Bible-proving agenda.

This new approach will not make the Scriptures say more than judicious assessment of the evidence will allow (a problem that plagues some conservative interpreters), but neither will it cast undue skepticism on the Scriptures’ historical value (the problem of the minimalists). It endeavors to pay close attention both to the literary nature and intentions of the biblical text and to the fragmentary nature of the archaeological record.

These new biblical archaeologists do not set out again “to prove the Bible.” Instead, they seek to situate the texts of the OT in their historical and cultural contexts and to demonstrate how awareness of the extrabiblical world can open new doors into the Bible. Their goals are more modest, not because of a lower view of Scripture, but rather because of a clearer understanding of the limitations and fragmentary nature of archaeology despite its considerable refinement in the recent decades.

The Limitations of Archaeology

Archaeology has limitations because of the vast amount of time and area to be covered and because of the hazards of preservation. Objects of wood, leatherwork, basketry, papyrus, and cloth rarely survive, and metals (especially precious metals) were frequently recycled. It is also important to realize that no biblical site has ever been completely excavated, and most of the excavations tend to pay greater attention to the major buildings (citadels, temples, palaces) rather than the homes of the general population.

Only in recent years have accurate methods of stratification and recording enabled comparisons to be made between sites, and the reliability of some foundational excavations in the Holy Land is rightly questioned by the finds from newer excavations (e.g., Megiddo, Gezer, and Hazor are being reexcavated in part to clarify and answer questions raised by previous excavations and debates). This is understandable because most of the foundational excavations in the Holy Land did not have access to the accurate methods of stratification, recording, and scientific analysis available today. Many useful artifacts and especially organic objects were routinely discarded in the earlier excavations.

In general, earlier levels of a site are more likely to have been disturbed by the activities of later periods, and it was very common for older buildings (and sometimes even monumental inscriptions) to be dismantled and the (stone) blocks reused for later buildings or even roads. The objects that archaeologists discover survive and are most often found by accident. Consequently, given the limitations and pitfalls of archaeology (especially the way it was done in the earliest part of the twentieth century), one must have realistic and more modest expectations about what archaeology can recover, and realize that the further one goes in time, the less archaeological information may be available for comparison and useful analysis. Add to this that some of the central characters of the Bible (e.g., Abraham, Moses, most of the judges, Ezra) were not major players in the world of their time, and that some important sites have never been excavated (e.g., Damascus, Hebron), and it becomes clear that there are considerable reasons to have more realistic and modest expectations about what archaeology can accomplish.

The role and possibility of accurately interpreting archaeological remains should also be taken into consideration, especially since there are well-documented cases in which the interpretation of the excavator has turned out to be false (e.g., the “Degenerated Ashtoreth Plaque” of R. A. S. Macalister from Gezer). Anyone who has ever participated in an archaeological excavation led by a group of experts in the field can remember debates that took place among these experts, not only about the dating of various pieces of pottery, but even about the role and dating of well-defined and visible monumental architecture. While this is understandable and desirable, and many times leads to the refinement and corrections of unwarranted early assumptions, the process shows the difficulty inherent in interpreting the fragmentary remains of a dead civilization far removed from our times and settings.

Material Remains and Written Sources

It is a sobering fact that archaeology cannot provide the basis for history. Material remains can reveal climate changes and their impact, sequences of human cultures and their products, traces of destruction and desertion, changes in building techniques and art. Nevertheless, the persons involved remain anonymous, their thoughts, motives and faith a mystery, and the specific events of their times largely unknown (e.g., the destruction by fire of Lachish II could not have been accurately dated and related without the biblical report in Jer. 34:7). It is the written documents (many times recovered through archaeology) that can reveal the names of kings and kingdoms, their dates and deeds, and the fruits of their thinking in literature. It is the testimony of these texts, rightly evaluated, that can add the “flesh and features” to the “bones” archaeology discovers (Allan Millard).

On the other hand, the material remains of life (pottery, jewelry, tools, weapons, cultic objects, architecture, etc.) as recovered through archaeology can bring color to the textual references. Nevertheless, the written sources are essential and provide the most valuable information for recovering the history and faith of any ancient nation. It is the duty of the biblical scholar and archaeologist to interpret correctly the available data from Syria-Palestine and to arrive at plausible explanations concerning the biblical world. The combination of texts (biblical and extrabiblical), material culture (archaeology), geography, and history holds considerable promise to help scholars better define the context of Scripture.

There is no doubt that this approach to archaeology holds considerable potential as it is generating more material than is possible for any person (or even school) to encompass. As one of the most quickly changing social sciences today, both in theoretical advances and new data, archaeology is and will be the source of new insights into biblical life and times. It seems that the “archaeological revolution” predicted by W. F. Albright is far from over; it probably has only begun.

The evidence for this revolution from the evangelical field is visible in various ways. The rest of this entry briefly presents some selective archaeological data that helps define the context and that complements (since the writers of the Bible were selective in their reporting), challenges, or confirms the narrative of the Bible. The data should help the interpreter of the Bible bridge the geographical, temporal, and cultural gap that leads to the ancient writer.

The Cannanite (Bronze) Age (3300–1200 BC)

Early Bronze Age. Towns with mud-brick walls begin to appear in Canaan in the Early Bronze Age I (before 3000 BC). Evidence of occupation in the third millennium is found at Beth-yerah, Beth-shan, Gezer, Jerusalem, Jericho, Arad, Megiddo, and Ai, among others. There was a difference between the pottery of the north (Beth-yerah) and that of the south, while the most striking development was that of the fine “Khirbet Kerak” ware.

Middle Bronze Age. About 2200 BC (Middle Bronze Age I) there arrived a distinctive nomadic people identified with the Amorites of the Bible (Num. 13:29; Josh. 5:1; 10:6). They had distinctive burial customs, pottery, and weapons that show connection with the city-states of Syria. It is most likely that their kings included the Asiatic “Foreign Rulers” (Hyksos) who conquered Egypt in the eighteenth century BC. This was a time of wealth and frequent warfare between cities. It seems that the Middle Bronze Age was a time when seminomadic groups (including a group called “Habiru,” who are also found in the Late Bronze Age) infiltrated the land between defended towns. It is possible that the patriarchs were among these Habiru, who infiltrated mostly the hill country and the Negev. In fact, it is demonstrable from a comparison with the eighteenth-century BC texts from Mari (on the Euphrates River) that the pastoral traditions of Genesis fit the early second-millennium BC context much better than later periods.

The towns and houses of the Middle Bronze Age were violently destroyed in the fifteenth century BC, most likely by the Egyptians, who expelled the Hyksos. Despite the trade that seems to have continued with the eastern Mediterranean (Mycenaean pottery), the hill towns of Palestine were now poorer and fewer than the coastal cities. This situation is clearly reflected in the Amarna letters between the kings of Canaan and Egypt. The major cities were reoccupied, but many of them were destroyed later in the thirteenth century.

Late Bronze Age. It is in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC) that the biblical account is usually challenged by the archaeological discoveries. Even if one accepts the reasonable interpretation that Joshua burned only three cities (Jericho, Ai, Hazor) in his campaign (see Josh. 6:24; 8:28; 11:13), the evidence of destruction from both Jericho and Ai is highly questionable. Thus, while it is widely believed that Jericho was abandoned around 1325 BC, the fallen walls once thought to belong to this period were dated much earlier by Kathleen Kenyon (Early Bronze). The evidence from Ai (et-Tell) is even less promising, unless Bryan Wood is correct in his identification of Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir.

Based on the apparent lack of change in material culture during the Late Bronze Age, mainstream archaeologists commonly classify the Israelites as dissident Canaanites who moved into the hill country.

Although it cannot be conclusively demonstrated from archaeology that the Israelites were not Canaanites but rather came to Canaan from the outside, the mainstream interpretation has serious problems of its own. There was clearly a new pattern of simple farming in the hills, characterized by four-room houses whose inhabitants used many collared-rim jars, and there is an almost complete absence of pig bones (which usually are found in the Canaanite cities) in the hill-country sites. More important, there is strong evidence that the Israelites were worshiping their own national God (YHWH) by the ninth century BC, in sharp contrast to the polytheistic religion of Canaan (as illuminated by the culture in neighboring Ugarit). The personal names of individuals in the eighth and seventh centuries BC are almost exclusively Yahwistic.

Another very significant change is the abandonment of the shrines in towns of the Late Bronze Age. Not a single site can be identified in which worship continued from the Late Bronze Age well into the Iron Age (it seems that by 1000 BC the Canaanites disappeared as an entity in the area occupied by Israel). It is highly unlikely that the Canaanites who moved from towns into the hill-country sites would have abandoned their divinities (whose need they must have felt greatly while facing the uncertainties of the wilderness), and it is even more unlikely that people who had come from different towns with different deities would have accepted almost universally a new patron deity of obscure provenance. The continuity in material culture of a nation that was to take over the homes and all the equipment of the Canaanites should not be surprising in light of the commands of the Bible (Deut. 6:10–11). The almost universal rise of the worship of the God of Israel, and the mention of Israel as a group of people in the Stela of Merneptah (c. 1208 BC), argue forcefully that the Israelites were not really Canaanites.

The Israelite (Iron) Age (1200–586 BC)

By the twelfth century, the Philistine settlement of southwest Canaan is attested by a new type of pottery with Late Mycenaean affinities. This new type of pottery was found throughout Philistia, the Shephelah, and as far north as Joppa. Wealthy and well-constructed Canaanite cities held out for at least another century (Beth-Shean, Gezer, and Megiddo?). The evidence for Israelites comes from the small villages throughout the hill country and Galilee. Traditionally, as mentioned above, they are recognized by their four-room houses, large number of storage pits for grain, large storage jars with thick-collared rims, and preference for terracing hillsides for farming.

Archaeologically, it is very difficult to at­trib­ute the construction of cities to any king of the united monarchy (but see the recent discovery below). Saul had a citadel at Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl), and the first fortification there has been attributed to him. It shows the adoption of a new fortification system of casemate wall, characteristic of this period. Similar casemate walls have been found at Shechem, Beth-shemesh, and Beit Mirsim (and later even in Moab). A small town at Megiddo, whose houses form a defensive ring around the perimeter of the mound, has been attributed to David.

Though 1 Kings 9:15 reports how Solomon built up Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, the dating of the six-chambered gates found in all of these sites and the related walls is still being debated. A much more recent excavation from Khirbat en-Nahas in Jordan has found industrial-scale production of copper in a region and at a time that correlates well with the narrative about Solomon (see 1 Kings 7:46).

Another very recent and impressive find comes from Khirbet Qeiyafa (most likely Shaaraim [Josh. 15:36; 1 Sam. 17:52; 1 Chron. 4:31–32]). This site, located in the western part of the high Shephelah (near Azekah), was recently excavated by Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor of Hebrew University, Jerusalem. On the basis of four burnt olive pits tested at Oxford University, the excavators dated this fortified city to the time of David. They concluded that the massive construction of the city wall (which required two hundred thousand tons of stone) supports the existence of a centralized political organization, a state—a conclusion that has far-reaching implications for the disputed chronology of Iron Age IIA (1000–900 BC). They also found a five-line inscription, indicating that writing was practiced in the region. This inscription is important because it seems to be the longest proto-Canaanite inscription ever found, and the earliest Hebrew inscription known to date.

The Hellenistic-Roman Period (332 BC and Following)

Herod the Great (37–4 BC) was the ambitious ruler who carried through most of the grand building projects that still dot the Holy Land today. At Jerusalem, which is still being excavated, the massive walls that he built for the platform of the temple are still visible today both above and below the ground. Other ruins associated with Herod have been found at Caesarea, Jericho, Herodium (near Bethlehem), Masada, and also in Jordan.

One of the most important inscriptions for NT studies (especially the Gospels) was found by the Italian excavators of Caesarea. These excavators found that the inscription refers to Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea. Other inscriptions from Greece and Turkey are connected with the events described in Acts and Paul’s letters. Thus, in Corinth a door inscription (“Synagogue of the Hebrews”) may indicate the place where Paul preached (Acts 18:4). Excavations there revealed a text naming Erastus as a benefactor. This may be the city treasurer of Rom. 16:23. Near Lystra inscriptions record the dedication to Zeus of a statue of Hermes by some Lycaonians, and nearby was a stone altar for Zeus and Hermes. This explains the identification of Barnabas with Zeus (Jupiter) and Paul with Hermes (Mercury) in Acts 14:11–12.

It is clear from the selective sample of data presented here that the field of archaeology has contributed considerably to the context and understanding of the biblical world. All the signs and recent excavations suggest that there are continuing and exciting prospects to be found in the newer (biblical) archaeology.

Archaeology is the scientific study of the material remains of past human life and activities. It can also be described as the procedure by which ancient artifacts are recovered, identified, and interpreted. Archaeology deals with both the prehistorical and historical periods and encompasses both written (epigraphical) and unwritten (artifactual) discoveries. Even though literary remains (inscriptions, ostraca [potsherds], seals) are typically the subject of other disciplines, archaeological investigation usually is responsible for their discovery. Without archaeology much of the available written evidence would have remained buried forever in the ground. Unwritten materials include everything made by humans, such as fortifications, pottery, tools, jewelry, and weapons.

Biblical archaeology more narrowly focuses on the material remains of Israel and its neighboring countries that relate to the biblical period and narrative. For example, ancient texts recovered from sites such as Mari, Ugarit, Ebla, and Amarna shed valuable light on the biblical record and on the history and religion of the ancient Near East. Biblical archaeology may be understood as the process of correlating archaeological evidence with the biblical record. Archaeology and the Bible are closely related because they inform each other. Thus, even though archaeology and biblical studies are independent disciplines, they are certainly interrelated.

The History of Biblical Archaeology

To understand better the meaning of biblical archaeology, it is necessary to briefly trace its history. Before the 1800s little was known about the Bible’s background, despite its central role in the religion and culture of the world, because the Bible was the primary source for access to the history of ancient Israel and its neighbors. There were few sources to which the Scripture historians could appeal besides the apocryphal writings and the works of Josephus, because the early Greek historians (Herodotus and Thucydides) were of limited value, given their interest in the “major players” of history.

The discovery of the Rosetta Stone (dated 196 BC) in 1799 and its decipherment in 1822 by J. F. Champollion opened wide the doors to ancient Egypt’s history. Within twenty-five years, by the decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform by Henry Rawlinson (1846), the world had the key to reading and interpreting thousands of tablets and monumental texts from ancient Babylonia, Assyria, and even the land of the Hittites. These two major developments allowed the voices from the ancient world of the Bible to speak once more and encouraged historians to look at the Bible as supported by the background data coming from the rest of the ancient Near East. As a result of these developments, a new interest was kindled in ancient Near Eastern cultures and the material remains (realia) that they left behind, coupled with a renewed interest in the setting of the biblical text.

Initial excavations of biblical sites. The beginnings of scientific exploration of Palestine can be traced to 1838 when American Edward Robinson (geographer and explorer) aided by the Arabist Eli Smith undertook a historic trip to the Holy Land and succeeded in identifying over one hundred biblical sites, effectively laying the foundations for biblical archaeology and geography. This led to the establishment of the British Palestine Exploration Fund in 1865 for the purpose of exploring Palestine systematically and scientifically, and to several of the geographic surveys of western Palestine and Transjordan.

The beginning of major excavations of biblical sites was not far behind, and in 1890 William M. F. Petrie (a renowned Egyptologist then) initiated what is widely regarded as the first modern archaeological excavation in the Holy Land. He excavated Tell el-Hesi (identification still uncertain) in the northern Negev, and his work underlies archaeological inquiry in the Holy Land to this day. More specifically, Petrie laid the foundations of modern archaeology by his application of stratigraphy and ceramic typology.

Stratigraphy is the technique of digging a tell (a cone-shaped mound that contains the remains of successive human occupation over a long period of time) layer by layer while carefully separating and recording the contents of each occupational layer. This technique tries to untangle these layers in the reverse order (the older layers of occupation are always below the newer layers) of their deposition and to reconstruct the history of a site period by period.

Typology is the technique of classifying artifacts based on their external characteristics (shape, ware, and decoration). Pottery is considered an accurate tool for dating the occupational layers of a tell, and ceramic typology is the art of charting changes in local pottery styles. By analyzing the pottery lying within successive layers at Hesi, Petrie was able to construct a relative chronological framework for Palestine. To arrive at a more absolute chronology, the researchers from Palestine usually need (especially in the earlier periods) to correlate their findings with similar styles from neighboring areas, such as Egypt and Mesopotamia, where there are available written records and astronomically fixed dates.

Before World War I, the first and only American excavation in Palestine that deserves mention is that of George A. Reisner and architect Clarence S. Fisher between 1908 and 1910 at Sebastiyeh (biblical Samaria). The rest are usually considered to have resembled “treasure hunts.” By the use of systematic digging and recording in Palestine, the Reisner-Fisher method, which was far more comprehensive and meticulous than Petrie’s, greatly improved Palestinian archaeology.

The first golden age. The “golden age” of American excavation in Palestine followed a few decades later, after World War I in the 1920s and 1930s. Numerous and well-financed archaeological digs started at the following biblical sites: Ai, Bethel, Beth-shean, Beth-shemesh, Beth-zur, Debir, Gibeah, Jericho, Mizpah, Samaria, Shechem, and others. All of these excavations, however, were overshadowed by the work of Orientalist W. F. Albright at Tell Beit Mirsim (identity still disputed, but perhaps Debir).

It was Albright and those of the American school in Jerusalem (now the Albright Institute of Archaeology) who dominated the scene in these formative years. Albright refined Petrie’s methodology and integrated very well archaeology, biblical research, and ancient Near Eastern studies, thus establishing biblical (and Palestinian) archaeology as a discipline in its own right. He also envisioned an “archaeological revolution” that would open up the lands, peoples, and lost sites of the ancient Near East so that the Bible would be better understood and also gain new credibility. He certainly was reacting against the spirit of his time, when sterile debates of textual and literary criticism (especially of the skeptical variety) were prevalent in both European and American liberalism, and this seems to have led some to believe that archaeology’s primary function was to “prove the Bible true.”

The second golden age. A second “golden age” of biblical archaeology is usually considered to have arrived after World War II when various foreign teams worked throughout the Middle East in cooperation with local archaeologists, a trend that continues today. The archaeology of Palestine advanced rapidly, with significant improvements in the techniques of digging and recording. The greatest influence on archaeological method at this time belongs to Kathleen Kenyon (English excavator of Jericho [Tell es-Sultan]), whose stratigraphical method (known as the Wheeler-Kenyon method) is used even today by excavators, with modifications. Other important archaeologists who contributed significantly to the biblical archaeology movement are Yigael Yadin of Israel and G. E. Wright of the United States.

During the height of its prominence and promise, biblical archaeology became an important component for the biblical theology movement and also for Christian apologetics (especially as represented by Joseph Free of Wheaton College). In fact, one of the greatest theologians in the biblical theology movement, G. E. Wright, was also Albright’s student. He conducted a major excavation at Tell Balath (biblical Shechem), following the Wheeler-Kenyon method and emphasizing pottery chronology in the tradition of the Albright school. More important, Shechem was a training ground for many American archaeologists where Wright created a new school of field archaeology.

The new archaeology. In the 1960s, under the influence of the social and natural sciences, the “new archaeology” that developed tended to focus on the comprehensive study of humans as species (and not on historical issues). William G. Dever (a student and follower of G. E. Wright at the important Tel Gezer project) argued forcefully and successfully for the “liberation” of Near Eastern archaeology from biblical studies and preferred the term (prevalent today in most American schools) “Syro-Palestinian archaeology.” Today, with very few exceptions (e.g., Harvard University), most American universities offer classes in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine (this was apparently Albright’s old alternate term for biblical archaeology), not in biblical archaeology. The name of the popular magazine Biblical Archaeologist was also changed to Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology, despite protests from many of its readers.

The new archaeology began with the realization in the 1960s that much data of potential significance has been overlooked, and perhaps even vital evidence has been discarded. New questions and methods developed from the frustration that old questions have not been answered satisfactorily. The temporal and geographical horizons of the new archaeology broadened to include the Paleolithic period (c. 100,000 BC) through the Ottoman era (AD 1922), and attention is now paid to the neglected periods of Judaism and early Christianity.

More important, the composition of the dig staff broadened considerably to include a much larger body of scientists to assist in answering the new questions posed. Today, the field archaeologists (besides historians, linguists, and ceramic experts) are supported by geologists, anthropologists, paleoethnobotanists, zoologists, climatologists, hydrologists, ethnographers, and, more recently, statisticians and computer experts. It is clear that the new archaeology is done in a very interdisciplinary way. The Tell Hesban and Khirbat en-Nahas excavations (both in Jordan) are good models of this type of interdisciplinary research. Bones, seeds, and other organic materials are now saved and carefully recorded to address questions related to economic strategies, social differentiation, diet, disease, and the like. Soil and pollen samples are taken, extensive regional and environmental surveys are carried out, and material culture samples and artifacts are submitted for sophisticated analysis. It is ironic (according to Dever) that this new and “secular” archaeology, while demanding more autonomy from the Bible, promises to contribute even more to biblical studies as it grows in precision and sophistication.

The new archaeology and Syro-Palestinian archaeology of today have advantages and disadvantages. They have the advantages of staff who are better equipped and trained, as well as educated volunteers who usually have genuine interest in their work. More important, their conclusions have the advantage of being based on data that is more scientifically obtained and analyzed. Many of the digs run field schools modeled on the ones from the Gezer project (1964–1973), which trained hundreds of student volunteers. These are all good and useful for both participants and their projects, but they have led to significant rises in the costs of an excavation. Thus, a typical six-week season is estimated now to cost in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. Since the new archaeology has led to a “secularization” of biblical archaeology and churches and seminaries have gradually stopped sponsoring these projects, the funds have had to come increasingly from federal and public sources of support. The National Endowment for the Humanities (and private donors later) became the major source of funds in the 1970s.

Approaches to the Bible in Modern Archaeology

There is no doubt that the new archaeology has introduced many useful scientific improvements in the field. (Of course, these scientific improvements were embraced by both biblical and Syro-Palestinian archaeologists in the 1970s, and the distinction between these two groups has become largely imaginary.) At the same time, however, it has brought new biases against the biblical text. The Bible, in Dever’s view, was never intended as a historical document and should be viewed with “considerable suspicion” for reconstructing the history of the ancient Near East. Other archaeologists in the field (and also historians) have an even more negative attitude toward the Bible. However, it must be emphasized that all (or at least most) agree that the Bible has its role in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine. The question has to do with how the Bible should be used.

Maximalist and minimalist approaches. The two schools of thought that seem the loudest in the debate among biblical and/or Syro-Palestinian archaeologists are usually labeled “maximalist” and “minimalist.” (To these Kenneth A. Kitchen adds the label “factualist.” According to Kitchen, the agenda of a “factualist” is neither to prove nor to disprove any theory concerning the early history of Israel, but simply to examine the facts and let the data speak for itself.)

The maximalist school has a strong view of the historical reliability of Scripture and emphasizes synergy between archaeology and biblical studies. Others consider this to be a naive approach to Scripture and an uncritical acceptance of the information that it tries to communicate. The maximalists follow the scholarship of W. F. Albright and his student John Bright, and they assume that the OT speaks of historical realities. When seeking to reconstruct the history of ancient Israel, they readily and confidently refer to the biblical record as a valid and significant source for their research. They are also confident that when all the data is in, a biblical history of Israel (aided by archaeology) will exhibit a close correspondence with the real history of Israel.

The minimalist school is generally skeptical concerning the historical reliability of the biblical text. Many advocates of this approach argue that the OT was written primarily during the Hellenistic period (it certainly is postexilic), centuries after the events that it claims to describe. A community around Jerusalem created the traditions found in the Bible in order to give account for themselves and their distinctive religious notions and practices. According to this approach, any correlation between the Bible and the archaeological record is suspect a priori. When there are tensions between biblical and extrabiblical records (including archaeology), the extrabiblical records are to be preferred as evidence, and the contradictions are usually emphasized to undermine the reliability of the Bible as a historical source.

The minimalist movement has developed gradually. Although a century ago there were many who questioned the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis, most accepted the essential historicity of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt under Moses, the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, the historicity of David and Solomon, and the rest of the OT narrative. During the past forty years, however, serious doubt has been cast on all of these events.

The stance of the minimalists led to peculiar (and rarely settled) controversies over issues such as the legitimacy of reading “the house of David” in the Tel Dan inscription (discovered in 1993), the Siloam Tunnel inscription (which overlaps with 2 Chron. 32 and is traditionally ascribed to Hezekiah), the very existence of Jerusalem during the days of David and Solomon, and even the existence of these two kings.

A fresh approach. Is there a way to move beyond the current state of the debate? Some believe that there is hope by using a fresh approach to biblical archaeology, one that follows in the footsteps of Lawrence Stager and Philip King (see their book, Life in Biblical Israel  ). This approach does not try to reconstruct history or simply illuminate the Bible; rather, it seeks to enter into the world of the ancients to acquire a fuller understanding of Israelite society and its literary record through the combined use of artifacts, sociology, and ethnography. Textual and archaeological data are brought into a historical discourse by “selecting and interpreting them through the problematics of social history.” Thus, biblical archaeology in the older sense is making a comeback by hearkening back to the integrative works of the nineteenth century, but with vast amounts of new data. This “new biblical archaeology” should not be driven by apologetic purposes and should not aim to “prove the truth of the Bible.” It should have more modest and realistic goals, considering the limitations of archaeology (see below).

Evangelical archaeologists, confident in the truth of the Bible (which can stand by itself despite its many attacks from within and without), should have as their goal the understanding of the biblical world in its geographical, cultural, and historical setting. They should use archaeology and linguistics to correlate biblical texts and ancient artifacts against the background of the historical and geographical setting. When historical questions are posed, the cumulative evidence should lead to probability and plausibility rather than a defensive quest for final proof. This attempt to follow historical probability vis-à-vis the Bible is different from setting out a priori with a defensive Bible-proving agenda.

This new approach will not make the Scriptures say more than judicious assessment of the evidence will allow (a problem that plagues some conservative interpreters), but neither will it cast undue skepticism on the Scriptures’ historical value (the problem of the minimalists). It endeavors to pay close attention both to the literary nature and intentions of the biblical text and to the fragmentary nature of the archaeological record.

These new biblical archaeologists do not set out again “to prove the Bible.” Instead, they seek to situate the texts of the OT in their historical and cultural contexts and to demonstrate how awareness of the extrabiblical world can open new doors into the Bible. Their goals are more modest, not because of a lower view of Scripture, but rather because of a clearer understanding of the limitations and fragmentary nature of archaeology despite its considerable refinement in the recent decades.

The Limitations of Archaeology

Archaeology has limitations because of the vast amount of time and area to be covered and because of the hazards of preservation. Objects of wood, leatherwork, basketry, papyrus, and cloth rarely survive, and metals (especially precious metals) were frequently recycled. It is also important to realize that no biblical site has ever been completely excavated, and most of the excavations tend to pay greater attention to the major buildings (citadels, temples, palaces) rather than the homes of the general population.

Only in recent years have accurate methods of stratification and recording enabled comparisons to be made between sites, and the reliability of some foundational excavations in the Holy Land is rightly questioned by the finds from newer excavations (e.g., Megiddo, Gezer, and Hazor are being reexcavated in part to clarify and answer questions raised by previous excavations and debates). This is understandable because most of the foundational excavations in the Holy Land did not have access to the accurate methods of stratification, recording, and scientific analysis available today. Many useful artifacts and especially organic objects were routinely discarded in the earlier excavations.

In general, earlier levels of a site are more likely to have been disturbed by the activities of later periods, and it was very common for older buildings (and sometimes even monumental inscriptions) to be dismantled and the (stone) blocks reused for later buildings or even roads. The objects that archaeologists discover survive and are most often found by accident. Consequently, given the limitations and pitfalls of archaeology (especially the way it was done in the earliest part of the twentieth century), one must have realistic and more modest expectations about what archaeology can recover, and realize that the further one goes in time, the less archaeological information may be available for comparison and useful analysis. Add to this that some of the central characters of the Bible (e.g., Abraham, Moses, most of the judges, Ezra) were not major players in the world of their time, and that some important sites have never been excavated (e.g., Damascus, Hebron), and it becomes clear that there are considerable reasons to have more realistic and modest expectations about what archaeology can accomplish.

The role and possibility of accurately interpreting archaeological remains should also be taken into consideration, especially since there are well-documented cases in which the interpretation of the excavator has turned out to be false (e.g., the “Degenerated Ashtoreth Plaque” of R. A. S. Macalister from Gezer). Anyone who has ever participated in an archaeological excavation led by a group of experts in the field can remember debates that took place among these experts, not only about the dating of various pieces of pottery, but even about the role and dating of well-defined and visible monumental architecture. While this is understandable and desirable, and many times leads to the refinement and corrections of unwarranted early assumptions, the process shows the difficulty inherent in interpreting the fragmentary remains of a dead civilization far removed from our times and settings.

Material Remains and Written Sources

It is a sobering fact that archaeology cannot provide the basis for history. Material remains can reveal climate changes and their impact, sequences of human cultures and their products, traces of destruction and desertion, changes in building techniques and art. Nevertheless, the persons involved remain anonymous, their thoughts, motives and faith a mystery, and the specific events of their times largely unknown (e.g., the destruction by fire of Lachish II could not have been accurately dated and related without the biblical report in Jer. 34:7). It is the written documents (many times recovered through archaeology) that can reveal the names of kings and kingdoms, their dates and deeds, and the fruits of their thinking in literature. It is the testimony of these texts, rightly evaluated, that can add the “flesh and features” to the “bones” archaeology discovers (Allan Millard).

On the other hand, the material remains of life (pottery, jewelry, tools, weapons, cultic objects, architecture, etc.) as recovered through archaeology can bring color to the textual references. Nevertheless, the written sources are essential and provide the most valuable information for recovering the history and faith of any ancient nation. It is the duty of the biblical scholar and archaeologist to interpret correctly the available data from Syria-Palestine and to arrive at plausible explanations concerning the biblical world. The combination of texts (biblical and extrabiblical), material culture (archaeology), geography, and history holds considerable promise to help scholars better define the context of Scripture.

There is no doubt that this approach to archaeology holds considerable potential as it is generating more material than is possible for any person (or even school) to encompass. As one of the most quickly changing social sciences today, both in theoretical advances and new data, archaeology is and will be the source of new insights into biblical life and times. It seems that the “archaeological revolution” predicted by W. F. Albright is far from over; it probably has only begun.

The evidence for this revolution from the evangelical field is visible in various ways. The rest of this entry briefly presents some selective archaeological data that helps define the context and that complements (since the writers of the Bible were selective in their reporting), challenges, or confirms the narrative of the Bible. The data should help the interpreter of the Bible bridge the geographical, temporal, and cultural gap that leads to the ancient writer.

The Cannanite (Bronze) Age (3300–1200 BC)

Early Bronze Age. Towns with mud-brick walls begin to appear in Canaan in the Early Bronze Age I (before 3000 BC). Evidence of occupation in the third millennium is found at Beth-yerah, Beth-shan, Gezer, Jerusalem, Jericho, Arad, Megiddo, and Ai, among others. There was a difference between the pottery of the north (Beth-yerah) and that of the south, while the most striking development was that of the fine “Khirbet Kerak” ware.

Middle Bronze Age. About 2200 BC (Middle Bronze Age I) there arrived a distinctive nomadic people identified with the Amorites of the Bible (Num. 13:29; Josh. 5:1; 10:6). They had distinctive burial customs, pottery, and weapons that show connection with the city-states of Syria. It is most likely that their kings included the Asiatic “Foreign Rulers” (Hyksos) who conquered Egypt in the eighteenth century BC. This was a time of wealth and frequent warfare between cities. It seems that the Middle Bronze Age was a time when seminomadic groups (including a group called “Habiru,” who are also found in the Late Bronze Age) infiltrated the land between defended towns. It is possible that the patriarchs were among these Habiru, who infiltrated mostly the hill country and the Negev. In fact, it is demonstrable from a comparison with the eighteenth-century BC texts from Mari (on the Euphrates River) that the pastoral traditions of Genesis fit the early second-millennium BC context much better than later periods.

The towns and houses of the Middle Bronze Age were violently destroyed in the fifteenth century BC, most likely by the Egyptians, who expelled the Hyksos. Despite the trade that seems to have continued with the eastern Mediterranean (Mycenaean pottery), the hill towns of Palestine were now poorer and fewer than the coastal cities. This situation is clearly reflected in the Amarna letters between the kings of Canaan and Egypt. The major cities were reoccupied, but many of them were destroyed later in the thirteenth century.

Late Bronze Age. It is in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC) that the biblical account is usually challenged by the archaeological discoveries. Even if one accepts the reasonable interpretation that Joshua burned only three cities (Jericho, Ai, Hazor) in his campaign (see Josh. 6:24; 8:28; 11:13), the evidence of destruction from both Jericho and Ai is highly questionable. Thus, while it is widely believed that Jericho was abandoned around 1325 BC, the fallen walls once thought to belong to this period were dated much earlier by Kathleen Kenyon (Early Bronze). The evidence from Ai (et-Tell) is even less promising, unless Bryan Wood is correct in his identification of Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir.

Based on the apparent lack of change in material culture during the Late Bronze Age, mainstream archaeologists commonly classify the Israelites as dissident Canaanites who moved into the hill country.

Although it cannot be conclusively demonstrated from archaeology that the Israelites were not Canaanites but rather came to Canaan from the outside, the mainstream interpretation has serious problems of its own. There was clearly a new pattern of simple farming in the hills, characterized by four-room houses whose inhabitants used many collared-rim jars, and there is an almost complete absence of pig bones (which usually are found in the Canaanite cities) in the hill-country sites. More important, there is strong evidence that the Israelites were worshiping their own national God (YHWH) by the ninth century BC, in sharp contrast to the polytheistic religion of Canaan (as illuminated by the culture in neighboring Ugarit). The personal names of individuals in the eighth and seventh centuries BC are almost exclusively Yahwistic.

Another very significant change is the abandonment of the shrines in towns of the Late Bronze Age. Not a single site can be identified in which worship continued from the Late Bronze Age well into the Iron Age (it seems that by 1000 BC the Canaanites disappeared as an entity in the area occupied by Israel). It is highly unlikely that the Canaanites who moved from towns into the hill-country sites would have abandoned their divinities (whose need they must have felt greatly while facing the uncertainties of the wilderness), and it is even more unlikely that people who had come from different towns with different deities would have accepted almost universally a new patron deity of obscure provenance. The continuity in material culture of a nation that was to take over the homes and all the equipment of the Canaanites should not be surprising in light of the commands of the Bible (Deut. 6:10–11). The almost universal rise of the worship of the God of Israel, and the mention of Israel as a group of people in the Stela of Merneptah (c. 1208 BC), argue forcefully that the Israelites were not really Canaanites.

The Israelite (Iron) Age (1200–586 BC)

By the twelfth century, the Philistine settlement of southwest Canaan is attested by a new type of pottery with Late Mycenaean affinities. This new type of pottery was found throughout Philistia, the Shephelah, and as far north as Joppa. Wealthy and well-constructed Canaanite cities held out for at least another century (Beth-Shean, Gezer, and Megiddo?). The evidence for Israelites comes from the small villages throughout the hill country and Galilee. Traditionally, as mentioned above, they are recognized by their four-room houses, large number of storage pits for grain, large storage jars with thick-collared rims, and preference for terracing hillsides for farming.

Archaeologically, it is very difficult to at­trib­ute the construction of cities to any king of the united monarchy (but see the recent discovery below). Saul had a citadel at Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl), and the first fortification there has been attributed to him. It shows the adoption of a new fortification system of casemate wall, characteristic of this period. Similar casemate walls have been found at Shechem, Beth-shemesh, and Beit Mirsim (and later even in Moab). A small town at Megiddo, whose houses form a defensive ring around the perimeter of the mound, has been attributed to David.

Though 1 Kings 9:15 reports how Solomon built up Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, the dating of the six-chambered gates found in all of these sites and the related walls is still being debated. A much more recent excavation from Khirbat en-Nahas in Jordan has found industrial-scale production of copper in a region and at a time that correlates well with the narrative about Solomon (see 1 Kings 7:46).

Another very recent and impressive find comes from Khirbet Qeiyafa (most likely Shaaraim [Josh. 15:36; 1 Sam. 17:52; 1 Chron. 4:31–32]). This site, located in the western part of the high Shephelah (near Azekah), was recently excavated by Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor of Hebrew University, Jerusalem. On the basis of four burnt olive pits tested at Oxford University, the excavators dated this fortified city to the time of David. They concluded that the massive construction of the city wall (which required two hundred thousand tons of stone) supports the existence of a centralized political organization, a state—a conclusion that has far-reaching implications for the disputed chronology of Iron Age IIA (1000–900 BC). They also found a five-line inscription, indicating that writing was practiced in the region. This inscription is important because it seems to be the longest proto-Canaanite inscription ever found, and the earliest Hebrew inscription known to date.

The Hellenistic-Roman Period (332 BC and Following)

Herod the Great (37–4 BC) was the ambitious ruler who carried through most of the grand building projects that still dot the Holy Land today. At Jerusalem, which is still being excavated, the massive walls that he built for the platform of the temple are still visible today both above and below the ground. Other ruins associated with Herod have been found at Caesarea, Jericho, Herodium (near Bethlehem), Masada, and also in Jordan.

One of the most important inscriptions for NT studies (especially the Gospels) was found by the Italian excavators of Caesarea. These excavators found that the inscription refers to Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea. Other inscriptions from Greece and Turkey are connected with the events described in Acts and Paul’s letters. Thus, in Corinth a door inscription (“Synagogue of the Hebrews”) may indicate the place where Paul preached (Acts 18:4). Excavations there revealed a text naming Erastus as a benefactor. This may be the city treasurer of Rom. 16:23. Near Lystra inscriptions record the dedication to Zeus of a statue of Hermes by some Lycaonians, and nearby was a stone altar for Zeus and Hermes. This explains the identification of Barnabas with Zeus (Jupiter) and Paul with Hermes (Mercury) in Acts 14:11–12.

It is clear from the selective sample of data presented here that the field of archaeology has contributed considerably to the context and understanding of the biblical world. All the signs and recent excavations suggest that there are continuing and exciting prospects to be found in the newer (biblical) archaeology.

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

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.

Binding can mean physically restraining a person or people (Judg. 15:13; 2 Kings 25:7; Job 16:8; Pss. 119:61; 149:8), mending, as with a wound (Isa. 61:1; Ezek. 34:16; Hos. 6:1), or taking a legally constraining oath (1 Sam. 14:27–30; Neh. 10:29; Jer. 50:5). The opposite of binding is loosing or setting free, which can describe literally being freed from bonds (e.g., Acts 16:26) or the release from something that is binding.

The law, a binding covenant between Israel and God, is to be literally bound on one’s forehead as a reminder (Deut. 6:8; 11:18). Non-Israelites who wish to identify with the God of Israel can bind themselves to his laws (Isa. 56:6). In Num. 30:6, 9, 13, an oath taken by a young woman still in her father’s house will be binding only if the father is not against it. If he is against it, it is not binding and she is loosed from it (30:5). This is the same in the case of a married woman, whose approval has to come from the husband. However, for widows or divorced women, all pledges they make are binding since there are no men in their lives to void the pledges (30:9).

While contracts were binding, some had time limits. For example, the seventh year and the fiftieth year (Jubilee) allowed for cancellation of such binding contracts as slavery or land ownership (Lev. 25:10–54; 27:24).

The binding of Isaac (Gen. 22), traditionally known as the Akedah, has theological significance for both Christians and Jews. It is interpreted as a form of resurrection, a coming from the dead for Isaac after Yahweh had instructed his father, Abraham, to sacrifice him (Heb. 11:17–19). God inquires of Job whether he can “bind the chains of the Pleiades” or “loosen Orion’s belt” (Job 38:31).

The book of Proverbs encourages the wise to metaphorically bind love and faithfulness around their necks (3:3) and their parents’ commands and teachings to the heart (6:21) and the finger (7:3); it also talks of folly being bound up in the heart of a child (22:15), perhaps alluded to by Paul in Rom. 11:32 when he says that God has bound all people to disobedience that he may have mercy on them.

Introducing his ministry in Luke 4:18, Jesus quotes Isa. 61:1, which talks of binding up the brokenhearted, a reference to his healing ministry. Further, binding and loosing are found in Jesus’ commissioning of his disciples (Matt. 16:19; 18:18; cf. John 20:23), where it may be referring to the binding of demons and loosing of demoniacs bound or oppressed by demons (cf. Mark 3:14–16; 6:7; Luke 13:6). Since Jesus has the power to bind and loose (John 8:36), he chooses to empower his followers to do the same. Binding Satan is the subject of the ultimate eschatological battle in Jewish lore (T. Levi 18:11–12) and becomes central in Christianity. Jesus encounters satanic forces embodied in humans and looses such people from the chains of Satan (Mark 5:3; Luke 13:12, 16). Ultimately, Satan is to be bound for a millennium and loosed only for eternal damnation (Rev. 20:1–3).

Paul invokes Jewish law about marriage by claiming that one is bound in marriage only as long as one’s partner is alive (Rom. 7:2). In this way, Paul explains how Christians are dead to the law, because Jesus has died on their behalf, thus setting them free from the law (Rom. 7:4–6; cf. Heb. 9:15). To the Corinthians also he talks of the binding nature of marriage but with a caveat: if the marriage is between a believer and a nonbeliever, and if the nonbeliever leaves, then the believer is not bound (1 Cor. 7). But for Paul, being set free from sin (Rom. 8:2) means being bound to God (6:22).

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.

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.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

A confession or creed is a summary of doctrine (and sometimes practice) that has several uses. First, it allows like-minded believers to cooperate by identifying their like-mindedness. Everyone promises to advance the same doctrines and practices by subscribing to a common confession. Quality control and accountability then follow, and resources collected are used for agreed-upon purposes. Second, confessions make the doctrinal positions of individual churches transparent to outside observers and seekers. Third, confessions establish the “core curriculum” of the church. They keep both clergy and laity on track theologically and practically, knowing where the outer boundaries lie and which doctrines should receive special emphasis. Indeed, one can hardly imagine a ministry partnership functioning well without a confessional platform of some kind, even a minimalist one.

Nevertheless, some Christians decline to use confessions or creeds, concerned that these might dilute the Bible’s unique authority. Evangelicals who do not want their church leaders and laypersons to dwell more on confessions than on Scripture are concerned that biblical exegesis might lose its priority over creedal affirmations. But no Christian subgroup can define itself without some resort to doctrinal affirmations. One has to go beyond “We favor Jesus Christ, the Bible, and evangelism” to define how Jesus will be preached, Scripture interpreted, and missions conducted. Some boundaries must be established to keep the church “on message,” “on mission,” and therefore intact.

Confessions in the Bible. Both the OT and the NT contain statements that function as confessions, or doctrinal summaries, even if these are not comprehensive. The Decalogue serves this purpose: it defines who Yahweh is and sets forth the absolutes of Israel’s conduct, but without doing so exhaustively (Exod. 20:2–17; Deut. 5:6–21). The Shema is another OT example (Deut. 6:4–5). In the NT, 1 Cor. 15:3–8 contains a confessional statement regarding the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, perhaps the earliest surviving one. The same conclusion follows regarding Phil. 2:6–11; 1 Tim. 3:16, both of which have a recognizably formulaic structure and capture some of the faith “entrusted to God’s holy people” (cf. Jude 3). As Jude 4 indicates, summaries of this kind prove especially useful in confronting the rise of error.

The ecumenical confessions. The pressure of doctrinal confusion and the need to safeguard orthodoxy gave rise to the four great ecumenical (i.e., universally binding) confessions.

The first of these statements, the Apostles’ (or Old Roman) Creed, was composed sometime around AD 150, primarily to refute the heresies of Marcion and the gnostics, both of whom despised the material world. Its reference to belief in “God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” rules out the idea of a material world falling outside God’s rule. God made everything and rules over all of it. Likewise, its statements regarding Jesus tie him directly to the Father and also underscore his materiality. He was born in this world, and he suffered under a historical figure, Pontius Pilate.

The Nicene Creed (AD 325) answers the heresy of Arius, who argued that God the Father created Jesus, his Son, so that the Son is merely of “like” substance with the Father, but not the “same.” This creed declares the Son to be “very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”

The Chalcedonian Creed (AD 451) addresses the more complex issue of Christology, outlining the sense in which God could become incarnate in the person of Jesus; in doing so, it rejects three additional heresies. Apollinarius (c. AD 315–393) suggested that Jesus was essentially half human, with the Spirit of God indwelling a human body. Nestorius (c. AD 381–451) espoused a Christology that left the church with two persons, God and Jesus, occupying the one Savior, so to speak, with the result that he ceases to be the God-man. Eutyches (c. AD 378–454) fell into the contrary error, called “Monophysitism,” which asserts that when God became incarnate in Christ, his humanity almost disappeared into his deity. The two natures mingled, and a third sort of person resulted, being neither God nor human, but something different, though mostly like God. The Chalcedonian Creed incorporates language that rules out each of these substandard views, insisting that Jesus Christ is “to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unalterably, indivisibly, inseparably in two natures; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved.”

The Athanasian Creed, from the fourth or fifth century AD, reiterates the Christology of Chalcedon and offers a succinct statement of the Trinity: “So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.” In these ways and others down through the ages, the church has summarized what it has taken God to reveal in his uniquely authoritative word.

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 confession or creed is a summary of doctrine (and sometimes practice) that has several uses. First, it allows like-minded believers to cooperate by identifying their like-mindedness. Everyone promises to advance the same doctrines and practices by subscribing to a common confession. Quality control and accountability then follow, and resources collected are used for agreed-upon purposes. Second, confessions make the doctrinal positions of individual churches transparent to outside observers and seekers. Third, confessions establish the “core curriculum” of the church. They keep both clergy and laity on track theologically and practically, knowing where the outer boundaries lie and which doctrines should receive special emphasis. Indeed, one can hardly imagine a ministry partnership functioning well without a confessional platform of some kind, even a minimalist one.

Nevertheless, some Christians decline to use confessions or creeds, concerned that these might dilute the Bible’s unique authority. Evangelicals who do not want their church leaders and laypersons to dwell more on confessions than on Scripture are concerned that biblical exegesis might lose its priority over creedal affirmations. But no Christian subgroup can define itself without some resort to doctrinal affirmations. One has to go beyond “We favor Jesus Christ, the Bible, and evangelism” to define how Jesus will be preached, Scripture interpreted, and missions conducted. Some boundaries must be established to keep the church “on message,” “on mission,” and therefore intact.

Confessions in the Bible. Both the OT and the NT contain statements that function as confessions, or doctrinal summaries, even if these are not comprehensive. The Decalogue serves this purpose: it defines who Yahweh is and sets forth the absolutes of Israel’s conduct, but without doing so exhaustively (Exod. 20:2–17; Deut. 5:6–21). The Shema is another OT example (Deut. 6:4–5). In the NT, 1 Cor. 15:3–8 contains a confessional statement regarding the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, perhaps the earliest surviving one. The same conclusion follows regarding Phil. 2:6–11; 1 Tim. 3:16, both of which have a recognizably formulaic structure and capture some of the faith “entrusted to God’s holy people” (cf. Jude 3). As Jude 4 indicates, summaries of this kind prove especially useful in confronting the rise of error.

The ecumenical confessions. The pressure of doctrinal confusion and the need to safeguard orthodoxy gave rise to the four great ecumenical (i.e., universally binding) confessions.

The first of these statements, the Apostles’ (or Old Roman) Creed, was composed sometime around AD 150, primarily to refute the heresies of Marcion and the gnostics, both of whom despised the material world. Its reference to belief in “God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” rules out the idea of a material world falling outside God’s rule. God made everything and rules over all of it. Likewise, its statements regarding Jesus tie him directly to the Father and also underscore his materiality. He was born in this world, and he suffered under a historical figure, Pontius Pilate.

The Nicene Creed (AD 325) answers the heresy of Arius, who argued that God the Father created Jesus, his Son, so that the Son is merely of “like” substance with the Father, but not the “same.” This creed declares the Son to be “very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”

The Chalcedonian Creed (AD 451) addresses the more complex issue of Christology, outlining the sense in which God could become incarnate in the person of Jesus; in doing so, it rejects three additional heresies. Apollinarius (c. AD 315–393) suggested that Jesus was essentially half human, with the Spirit of God indwelling a human body. Nestorius (c. AD 381–451) espoused a Christology that left the church with two persons, God and Jesus, occupying the one Savior, so to speak, with the result that he ceases to be the God-man. Eutyches (c. AD 378–454) fell into the contrary error, called “Monophysitism,” which asserts that when God became incarnate in Christ, his humanity almost disappeared into his deity. The two natures mingled, and a third sort of person resulted, being neither God nor human, but something different, though mostly like God. The Chalcedonian Creed incorporates language that rules out each of these substandard views, insisting that Jesus Christ is “to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unalterably, indivisibly, inseparably in two natures; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved.”

The Athanasian Creed, from the fourth or fifth century AD, reiterates the Christology of Chalcedon and offers a succinct statement of the Trinity: “So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.” In these ways and others down through the ages, the church has summarized what it has taken God to reveal in his uniquely authoritative word.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

/a> Deliverance provides relief or escape from a detrimental situation or the prospect of adverse circumstances. There are many terms in the Bible that express this thought, such as “save,” “rescue,” “redeem,” “set free,” “bring out,” “escape,” “avenge,” “vindicate,” “preserve,” “give legal protection,” as well as “deliver.” Deliverance may come from God or humans and may be from physical temporal distress or spiritual in nature.

 

The principal example of deliverance in the OT is the exodus, God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt. The greatness of this deliverance comes from several factors: (1) the extremity of Israel’s circumstance, which was long-term slavery to one of the world’s superpowers; (2) the extent of God’s power displayed in the ten plagues upon Egypt and in Israel’s safe passage through the Red Sea; (3) its fulfillment of a promise to Abraham, beginning the process of giving his descendants the land; (4) its foundational place in Israel’s tradition and holy days (Passover). This event becomes the main component of the historical background clause of the covenant and a reminder to covenant faithfulness (e.g., Exod. 20:2; Lev. 22:33; 23:43; Num. 15:41; Deut. 4:20; 6:12; 20:1; Josh. 24:5–7, 17; Judg. 6:8; 1 Kings 9:9; Jer. 34:13; Ezek. 20:10; Dan. 9:15). When Jeremiah prophesies of the Babylonian exile and the later return from exile, he portrays it in the manner of or as surpassing the exodus (Jer. 16:14–15).

The NT continues the exodus theme in that Jesus’ death and resurrection, the foundation for salvation, coincide with the celebration of Passover. This constitutes deliverance in that all humanity is in slavery to the power of sin and subject to the penalty of death. Jesus’ death and resurrection provide the possibility of deliverance, usually called “salvation,” from the power of sin and death (1 Cor. 15:51–57; Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13; 1 Thess. 1:10).

Throughout the Bible, God provides deliverers and is a deliverer (Judg. 3:15; 2 Sam. 22:2; 2 Kings 13:5; Ps. 40:17). The NT prefers the term “Savior,” applying it to God the Father and to Jesus Christ.

/a> Deliverance provides relief or escape from a detrimental situation or the prospect of adverse circumstances. There are many terms in the Bible that express this thought, such as “save,” “rescue,” “redeem,” “set free,” “bring out,” “escape,” “avenge,” “vindicate,” “preserve,” “give legal protection,” as well as “deliver.” Deliverance may come from God or humans and may be from physical temporal distress or spiritual in nature.

 

The principal example of deliverance in the OT is the exodus, God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt. The greatness of this deliverance comes from several factors: (1) the extremity of Israel’s circumstance, which was long-term slavery to one of the world’s superpowers; (2) the extent of God’s power displayed in the ten plagues upon Egypt and in Israel’s safe passage through the Red Sea; (3) its fulfillment of a promise to Abraham, beginning the process of giving his descendants the land; (4) its foundational place in Israel’s tradition and holy days (Passover). This event becomes the main component of the historical background clause of the covenant and a reminder to covenant faithfulness (e.g., Exod. 20:2; Lev. 22:33; 23:43; Num. 15:41; Deut. 4:20; 6:12; 20:1; Josh. 24:5–7, 17; Judg. 6:8; 1 Kings 9:9; Jer. 34:13; Ezek. 20:10; Dan. 9:15). When Jeremiah prophesies of the Babylonian exile and the later return from exile, he portrays it in the manner of or as surpassing the exodus (Jer. 16:14–15).

The NT continues the exodus theme in that Jesus’ death and resurrection, the foundation for salvation, coincide with the celebration of Passover. This constitutes deliverance in that all humanity is in slavery to the power of sin and subject to the penalty of death. Jesus’ death and resurrection provide the possibility of deliverance, usually called “salvation,” from the power of sin and death (1 Cor. 15:51–57; Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13; 1 Thess. 1:10).

Throughout the Bible, God provides deliverers and is a deliverer (Judg. 3:15; 2 Sam. 22:2; 2 Kings 13:5; Ps. 40:17). The NT prefers the term “Savior,” applying it to God the Father and to Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

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

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

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

Jewelry in Antiquity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewelry in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding many aspects of education in Israel during OT times and, to a lesser extent, into the NT period is extraordinarily difficult. Many studies draw quite specific conclusions based on very slender evidence and inferences drawn from supposed parallels with neighboring societies, inferences themselves beset by uncertainties. Therefore, conclusions are necessarily tentative at many points. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that things did not remain constant through history, and that what can be reliably discerned for one period may not accurately reflect the situation in other times.

Education encompasses several areas of life in the biblical world. Aside from academic education (relating to literacy and numeracy), there was moral and religious education, military education, and vocational training. These are not all distinct; those whose vocation lay in diplomatic circles or within the royal court as scribes would have received academic education, while those living in the country and working a farm would have had little opportunity to access such knowledge.

Old Testament

Settings for education. There were three primary arenas of education in OT times: home, school, and temple.

Home. The most important setting for education in OT times was the home (Deut. 4:9; 6:7; 11:19). Both parents were expected to play a role in a child’s education (Prov. 1:8; 6:20; 23:22; 31:1). Sons generally were trained in their father’s vocation, and such training took the form of an apprenticeship (1 Sam. 16:11; 2 Kings 4:18); girls learned from their mothers as they undertook their work on a daily basis (Exod. 35:25–26; 2 Sam. 13:8).

In part, the extent of home education is tied to the question of the extent of formal schooling in ancient Israel. As noted below, the nature and extent of schools is unclear, and if (as the evidence seems to suggest) schools were virtually nonexistent outside the royal court, then the home ultimately would have been the locus of any academic education received by children and the source of any widespread literacy and numeracy in the community. The frequent use of father/son language in Proverbs, however, need not imply an exclusively familial context for the instruction contained therein, as there is evidence from Egypt that such language was used between teacher and student.

School. The existence, nature, and extent of schools in OT times is extensively debated and ultimately uncertain. The first explicit reference to a school is found in the second century BC in Sir. 51:23. The virtual silence of the OT on the topic may reflect either that schools were absent in ancient Israel or that their existence was somehow of little interest and so warranted little reflection by biblical authors. In any case, it is likely that some form of school for scribes and those training to work in government existed in the vicinity of the royal court, as they did in Mesopotamia and Egypt. These did not form a comprehensive national schooling system for young children but were more specifically targeted to the few individuals who aimed to become scribes or advisers.

Outside the Bible there exist a number of inscriptions that could suggest the existence of schools in Israel prior to the exile. These include abecedaries (lists of the letters of the alphabet written out, usually as practice exercises or as examples), words written out several times, lists of month names, and possible exercises in reading foreign languages, among others.

There is also extensive evidence of schools in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and probably also Ugarit from an early date (cf. Acts 7:22). Whether their existence supports the existence of schools in Israel is unclear. Egypt and Mesopotamia had large and complex bureaucracies necessary to administer their kingdoms, and they employed writing systems far more difficult to master than Hebrew. In addition, mathematical texts reflect a concern with numeracy within the schools of these kingdoms, for which there is no clear evidence in ancient Israel.

The sages and scribes appear to be the primary source for the material supposedly employed in schools. Ecclesiastes 12:9 identifies one of the tasks of the sages as teaching the people, and some claim that Proverbs functioned as a textbook within a school setting. Indeed, Prov. 4:5; 17:16 speak of the “buying” (Heb. qanah) of knowledge, interpreted by some as a reference to teachers paid for providing tuition. Again, the context in which such tuition may have taken place is uncertain.

Temple. Priests were also involved in some teaching (1 Sam. 2:21, 26). According to 2 Chron. 17:7–9, King Jehoshaphat sent five officials, nine Levites, and two priests to teach the people of Judah from the Book of the Law, a point that stresses both the importance of the task and the probable failure of the home setting to adequately convey this instruction, at least by the late fifth century BC.

Types of education. In OT times four types of education can be discerned: moral and religious, academic, vocational, and military.

Moral and religious education. The Bible stresses the importance of moral and religious education above all other forms (Exod. 10:2; 12:26; 13:8; Deut. 4:9; 6:7, 20–21; 32:7, 46).

Academic education. The extent of literacy and numeracy in ancient Israel is difficult to ascertain. Rudimentary numeracy almost certainly was widespread and learned within the home and in the course of vocational training when necessary. Many among the population also appear to have been at least capable of reading and writing names or other simple texts (Deut. 6:9; 11:20; Judg. 8:14).

Vocational training. Most commonly, boys followed in their father’s vocation and thus learned through observation and participation. Under some circumstances, however, children served apprenticeships under the tutelage of others, such as was apparently the case for prophetic schools (2 Kings 2:7; 4:38; 6:1–2; Amos 7:14–15).

Military training. There are clear indications that kings recruited mercenaries to form the most important part of their army (e.g., 1 Sam. 22:2; 25:13). These mercenaries were paid and likely had received some formal training, but the nature of that training is nowhere explained. In addition to these elite forces, all able-bodied men apparently were considered eligible for military service when the need arose (2 Chron. 25:5). So, for example, the elite troops were responsible for staging the attack (2 Sam. 11:14–17; 12:26), while the remainder of the army served as reinforcements where necessary (2 Sam. 12:29). The use of chariots (under David and Solomon) would have required some training, as would the wielding of various weapons (swords, spears, bows, and slings). Ultimately, however, there are only allusions to such training (e.g., Judg. 3:2; 2 Sam. 22:35).

Educational methods. Throughout the ancient Near East there is evidence that corporal punishment played a significant role in education. There is a somewhat comical text from Mesopotamia that relates a day in the life of a student who receives physical punishment for virtually everything he does. Similarly, the book of Proverbs highlights the importance of discipline in raising and training children (e.g., 13:24; 22:15; 29:15, 17). Nonetheless, Proverbs uses “the rod” as a means to signify discipline as a whole without necessarily endorsing corporal punishment as the only or even the primary means of discipline. This is apparent because Proverbs contrasts the rod not with other, lesser forms of discipline but rather with no discipline at all. Thus, although there is evidence that corporal punishment was used extensively (and probably excessively [see Sir. 30]), Proverbs endorses a more nuanced approach to disciplining children.

Academic, religious, and moral education also involved the use of various techniques that facilitated learning. These included the use of poetry or poetic couplets (common in wisdom literature and in psalms), numerical sayings (e.g., Ps. 62:11; Prov. 6:16), and acrostics, as well as the celebration of feasts and memorials at various times throughout the year.

New Testament

Greco-Roman education. Greek education developed from about the fourth century BC and spread throughout the Mediterranean region, adopted with minor modification by the Romans. The curriculum was dominated by sports and a focus on literacy, with little place given to religious education (although philosophy was taught and did bear some religious traits). Education in the Greco-Roman world was expensive, and its provision was a parental responsibility, which tended to restrict formal education to the elite.

At about the age of fifteen, boys could move from elementary schooling to the gymnasium, where they received intellectual and physical training. Some in the Corinthian church may have received such an education, a possibility raised by Paul’s terminology in 1 Corinthians that reflects educational language: his claim to be father of the Corinthian household (4:14–21); sporting imagery (esp. 9:24–27); language of nursing and nature (3:1–4); agricultural imagery (3:5–9); his threat to come with a rod (4:21), which could be related to the rod of correction; the term grammateus (1:20), which may refer to the gymnasium instructor; reference to writing (4:6); and talk of removing the marks of circumcision (7:18).

Education in Israel. One Jewish tradition states that in AD 63 the high priest Joshua ben Gamla decreed that every town should appoint a schoolteacher for the education of children of six or seven years of age. This, together with the existence of Sirach’s school more than two centuries earlier, indicates that some form of schooling existed within Israel in the first century AD.

Although some Jews throughout the ancient world received a standard Hellenistic education, others reacted against the influence of Hellenism and sought to educate their children within the Scriptures and Jewish tradition. The DSS refer to the importance placed on study of the Torah (1QS 6:6–7). There were also rabbinic schools that focused on such teaching.

By NT times, synagogues were well established. Although determining precisely what took place within the synagogues is difficult, indications are that the focus on Scripture and its exposition played an important role in teaching both its importance and the appropriate way to interpret it. Teaching, however, was not confined to synagogues or the temple, as is amply demonstrated by the frequency with which Jesus is described as teaching in a variety of settings. Nonetheless, the temple itself did appear to serve as a center for religious education, as is reflected in the account of the twelve-year-old Jesus’ interactions with the teachers at the temple (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus’ own teaching was remarkable, however, in that it was delivered with authority (Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32).

Education in the church. Paul highlights one of the prerequisites for being an overseer of a church as the ability to teach, stressing the importance of the NT church as a place of learning (1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:2, 24). This teaching involved a familiarity with right doctrine in order to avoid being led astray, an exemplary life that modeled godly behavior for all to see, and the maturity required to apply discipline when necessary.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

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

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

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

Jewelry in Antiquity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewelry in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It has a Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family” and, eventually, “race” or “people.” The Greek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship. In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other than Israel. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,” “peoples,” or “races.”

Old Testament

In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

The Servant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect this law/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. The servant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14), serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6; 49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separate from Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who have harmed Israel.

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Second Temple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, their nature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end. Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’s people defined by the law, variously understood and contested among Second Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’s ultimate blessing activities.

Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18).

However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.

A feeling of animosity, a disposition toward hostility, rejection, or negative favoritism.

Hate is as old as the conflict between Cain and Abel or as the rebellion of Satan. Many stories involve hatred and animosity between people (e.g., Gen. 37:4; 2 Sam. 13:22). Beside humans hating each other, people hate God and that which is morally upright (Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9; 7:10; 32:41; Pss. 68:1; 81:15; 120:6). It is correct, however, to hate sin (Pss. 97:10; 101:3; Prov. 8:13), as God does (Ps. 5:6; Prov. 6:16–19; Isa. 61:8; Rev. 2:6), though he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11). The two great commandments oppose the tendency to hate by calling us to love God wholly and love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5; 10:12; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:33; Luke 10:27). The reverse is also commanded: we should not hate our neighbor (Lev. 19:17) nor even hate our enemy, but rather do good and pray for our enemy (Exod. 23:4–5; Prov. 25:21; Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27; cf. Deut. 10:19). Hateful actions are not necessarily motivated by hateful feelings, as a father who does not give needed punishment to his son is said to treat him with hatred (Prov. 13:24).

With regard to a hate crime, the main issue was intent—that is, whether an accident had occurred or whether a murder had been committed deliberately, “with malice aforethought” (Num. 35:20). Hate was a criterion of intent and had to be established by multiple witnesses for the two parties involved. Having hate did not garner greater punishment or make it a worse crime; hatred signified that it was a crime because it was intentional (Deut. 4:42; 19:4, 6, 11; Josh. 20:5).

With regard to marriage, in a polygamous marriage there was a danger of preferential treatment: a loved wife and a hated wife. The law forbids reducing the care of one wife in favor of another (Exod. 21:10) and protects the rights of the firstborn son even if he is born to the hated wife (Deut. 21:15–17). Hatred may be expressed by either party withholding conjugal relations. This probably lies behind the description in Gen. 29:31 of Jacob hating Leah (some translations say “unloved”).

Rejection, favoritism, or preference may be called “hate,” as in the case of a nonpreferred wife in a polygamous marriage, in not choosing Esau to continue the covenant line (Mal. 1:2–3; Rom. 9:13), or in not having a greater love for Christ than anything else (Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25).

A feeling of animosity, a disposition toward hostility, rejection, or negative favoritism.

Hate is as old as the conflict between Cain and Abel or as the rebellion of Satan. Many stories involve hatred and animosity between people (e.g., Gen. 37:4; 2 Sam. 13:22). Beside humans hating each other, people hate God and that which is morally upright (Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9; 7:10; 32:41; Pss. 68:1; 81:15; 120:6). It is correct, however, to hate sin (Pss. 97:10; 101:3; Prov. 8:13), as God does (Ps. 5:6; Prov. 6:16–19; Isa. 61:8; Rev. 2:6), though he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11). The two great commandments oppose the tendency to hate by calling us to love God wholly and love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5; 10:12; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:33; Luke 10:27). The reverse is also commanded: we should not hate our neighbor (Lev. 19:17) nor even hate our enemy, but rather do good and pray for our enemy (Exod. 23:4–5; Prov. 25:21; Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27; cf. Deut. 10:19). Hateful actions are not necessarily motivated by hateful feelings, as a father who does not give needed punishment to his son is said to treat him with hatred (Prov. 13:24).

With regard to a hate crime, the main issue was intent—that is, whether an accident had occurred or whether a murder had been committed deliberately, “with malice aforethought” (Num. 35:20). Hate was a criterion of intent and had to be established by multiple witnesses for the two parties involved. Having hate did not garner greater punishment or make it a worse crime; hatred signified that it was a crime because it was intentional (Deut. 4:42; 19:4, 6, 11; Josh. 20:5).

With regard to marriage, in a polygamous marriage there was a danger of preferential treatment: a loved wife and a hated wife. The law forbids reducing the care of one wife in favor of another (Exod. 21:10) and protects the rights of the firstborn son even if he is born to the hated wife (Deut. 21:15–17). Hatred may be expressed by either party withholding conjugal relations. This probably lies behind the description in Gen. 29:31 of Jacob hating Leah (some translations say “unloved”).

Rejection, favoritism, or preference may be called “hate,” as in the case of a nonpreferred wife in a polygamous marriage, in not choosing Esau to continue the covenant line (Mal. 1:2–3; Rom. 9:13), or in not having a greater love for Christ than anything else (Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25).

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It has a Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family” and, eventually, “race” or “people.” The Greek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship. In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other than Israel. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,” “peoples,” or “races.”

Old Testament

In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

The Servant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect this law/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. The servant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14), serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6; 49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separate from Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who have harmed Israel.

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Second Temple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, their nature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end. Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’s people defined by the law, variously understood and contested among Second Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’s ultimate blessing activities.

Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18).

However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

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

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

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

Jewelry in Antiquity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewelry in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewelry in Antiquity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewelry in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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.

Galatians is often understood as the great letter teaching justification by faith in Christ alone. Paul inveighs against false teachers who teach Christians to supplement the work of Christ with their own keeping of the law as part of earning salvation.

This traditional reading has been powerful and edifying. However, setting Galatians within a plausible ancient social setting reveals further powerful functions of the letter. Galatians turns out to be more than a container delivering the timeless and vital doctrine of salvation by believing and not by doing. The approach to Galatians in this article seeks to establish plausible ancient social settings primarily through exploring a constellation of ancient Mediterranean cultural codes. This contextual orienting helps modern readers appreciate how issues that seem to us bizarre or insignificant might have been issues of life and death to people in different contexts.

Setting and Message

Cultural context. By the time of Galatians (mid-first century AD), a relatively common moral sensitivity existed among the diverse spectrum of Greco-Roman (pagan, Jewish, and Christian) intellectuals: self-mastery (enkrateia). The ideal person led a life of virtue by mastering powerful irrational passions, which led to excessive, weak, irrational, and evil behavior. Although people differed on the means to self-mastery, this general ideal defined broader notions about the successful life. Elites represented the ideal leader as one defined by self-mastery. This qualified such a person to rule others whose capacity for and attainment of self-mastery were inferior, to rule those who cannot even rule themselves. Authority figures projected this characteristic and perpetuated social worlds in which prestige and authority were bound up with the ideal of self-mastery. Many average people also made self-mastery an ideal, whether striving for it in their own lives or allocating authority and prestige to those perceived to have attained it. Various Jewish teachers presented Judaism, especially keeping its laws and studying its sacred writings, as the premier path to self-mastery and thus a happy life. Some pagans also conceived of Judaism, especially some of its laws, along these lines.

Certain Jewish views of Gentiles constitute another important cultural code. Many Jews read the OT as depicting the following concerning Gentiles: They were separated from Israel’s God and his promises for his people, the Jews (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were idolaters controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18). Jews, on the other hand, were by definition God’s special people, whom he had chosen over other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). He had watched over them and would ultimately rescue them. Gentiles would experience covenant blessing in and through Israel if they functionally became Jews by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law was that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God had revealed to Israel, which defined Jews as Jews (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21). Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God had planned to restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God would bless the nations in Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). Various passages depict this happening as the nations were subjected to Israel, came to Israel, served Israel, presented Israel with their own wealth and possessions, and/or feared Israel’s God (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 54:3; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Gen. 17:9–14; Exod. 12:48; Isa. 2:2–5; 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Mic. 4:1–5; Zech. 14:16–21). God would condemn Gentiles who remain separate from Israel, especially Gentiles who harm Israel. For many Jews around the time of Galatians, salvation for Gentiles thus remained Israel-centered.

Many ancient Jews also construed the world through apocalyptic views of reality. This understanding conceived of the present visible world as characterized by the influence of evil supernatural beings (demons), suffering, and evil. One day God and his angels would completely triumph in the invisible heavenly reality; the events in this reality determine life in the lower visible world. Then the evil age of the present world of suffering would be over. Evil and suffering would be vanquished, God’s people would be rescued, the agents of suffering in the old age would be judged, the Spirit would be poured out, the nations would come to Israel’s God, and the heavenly reality would fully break in and renew the visible world. God’s people, Israel, would experience ultimate salvation, having been rescued from the evil age. The law remained a defining reality in God’s plans to rescue the world in most Jewish apocalyptic scenarios. Experiencing this salvation remained a matter of being part of God’s righteous people, Israel.

Situation of the letter. With these cultural codes in view, the following situation for the letter of Galatians seems plausible. Paul proclaimed to some of the predominantly Gentile population of Galatia the good news (“gospel”) of the God of Israel’s salvation through Jesus the Messiah (Gal. 1:8–9, 11; 4:13). Some accepted this message of faith and devoted themselves to Jesus and the God of Israel (1:2, 9; 3:1–6; 4:14–20). After Paul left, other Christian teachers came to Galatia. They possibly claimed association with the Jerusalem church and, perhaps, with Peter and James. In line with some of the Jewish views of Gentiles discussed above, they taught that the Gentile Christians in Galatia must functionally become Jews and keep the law (for other examples of such early Christian teachers, see Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5). These other teachers probably drew on Scriptures and traditions about Abraham to make their arguments. The God of Israel would save his people, “the righteous,” and through them the rest of the world, through the relationship that he had initially established with Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). The teachers could easily show from the Scriptures that circumcision and the law defined God’s relationship with Abraham and were always intended to do so (17:9–14; 26:5). They, like most contemporary Jewish writers, thought that obedience to the law (26:5) defined Abraham’s faith toward God (15:6). If the Galatians were to be Abraham’s descendants, they too must keep the law and be circumcised like their new father, Abraham. The teachers could also deploy passages from the Scriptures to the effect that everyone who did not keep the law was cursed (Deut. 27:26; cf. Gal. 3:10), but that everyone who kept the law would live (Lev. 18:5; cf. Gal. 3:12). For these teachers, Jesus the Messiah was part of the final stage in the God of Israel’s law-shaped apocalyptic plan to rescue his people (the Jews) and, through them, the nations.

It seems that the teachers also capitalized on the moral sensitivity of self-mastery and the not uncommon understanding of the Jewish law as an ideal means for attaining it. Thus, they also urged the Galatians to keep the law through representing it as a means to attaining the prestigious moral and social ideal of self-mastery. Furthermore, the Galatians may have thought that the law offered them a concrete guide to life because of its numerous detailed prescriptions. It also provided substantive ways for the Galatians to reinforce their identity in the midst of their villages, especially because it commanded practices that could set them apart. As a result, at least some of the Galatian Christians decided to keep the law, perhaps seeking circumcision. They were persuaded that the God of Israel and Jesus only save those within the Jewish space defined by the law. These Galatians sought to keep the law, looking to its power for self-mastery.

Outline

I. Greeting (1:1–5)

II. The Law-Defined Gospel Is a Different Gospel (1:6–10)

III. Paul’s Gospel Is Straight from God (1:11–24)

IV. The Jerusalem Apostles Recognize Paul’s Law-Free Gospel (2:1–10)

V. Paul and Peter on Whether Gentiles Should Live Like Jews (2:11–21)

VI. Works of the Law or Christ’s Faithfulness? (3:1–5)

VII. Paul Addresses the Situation in Galatia (3:6–4:31)

A. Scriptural arguments to answer Paul’s question (3:6–14)

B. Incorporation into Christ means incorporation into Abraham (3:15–29)

C. Heirs versus slaves (4:1–11)

D. The Galatians’ past experience with Paul and the gospel (4:12–20)

E. Heirs versus slaves: Sarah and Hagar (4:21–31)

VIII. Summary and Restatement of Paul’s Argument (5:1–12)

IX. The Faithfulness of Christ and Communal Living (5:13–6:10)

A. Freedom in Christ (5:13–15)

B. Self-mastery (5:16–24)

C. The way of the Spirit and Christ’s cruciform faithfulness (5:25–6:10)

X. Conclusion and Summary (6:11–18)

Structure and Contents

I. Greeting (1:1–5). When Paul hears of this situation among the Galatian churches, he writes them a frustrated letter. He commences by stressing how Jesus, through giving himself for our sins, is God’s means for delivering us from the present evil age (1:3–4). As Paul will make clear, Jesus and the law represent mutually exclusive means of deliverance (3:21–22). In contrast to most Jews, Paul will thus shockingly dissociate the law from the God of Israel’s apocalyptic deliverance.

II. The law-defined gospel is a different gospel (1:6–10). Paul continues by making clear his point of view: despite what the other teachers say, their law-defined gospel is in fact a damnable “different gospel” (1:6–10).

III. Paul’s gospel is straight from God (1:11–24). While the other teachers may claim that their gospel comes from the authoritative Jerusalem church, Paul explains that his gospel comes straight from God and not from other men (1:11–24).

IV. The Jerusalem apostles recognize Paul’s law-free gospel (2:1–10). However, when he had met with the Jerusalem apostles, they had recognized his law-free gospel (1:18–2:10). Indeed, they had not forced Titus to be circumcised (2:3). Also, 1:18–2:10 represents Paul as an embodiment of the radical transforming power of the gospel. Whereas Paul previously had advanced far and zealously “in Judaism,” persecuting the church, now he steadfastly serves the church and boldly stands against Jews who zealously seek to impose the law (“Judaism”) on Gentile Christians.

V. Paul and Peter on whether Gentiles should live like Jews (2:11–21). Paul then narrates an account of an incident that speaks directly to the Galatian situation (2:11–21). Previously in Antioch Peter had acted so as to imply that Gentiles would have to live like Jews (e.g., keep the law) in order to truly be unified with God’s people (2:11–14). Paul, however, has rebuked Peter (2:14). Paul continues with a speech about how Gentiles are made righteous (“justified”) not within the space demarcated by the “works of the law,” but rather within the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah (2:15–16). The works of the law, or the duties commanded by the law, do not define those who are “righteous”—that is, God’s true people who will be saved. Rather, the faithfulness of Christ defines God’s true people, the ones who believe in Jesus. Here Paul for the first time explicitly dissociates the law from the God of Israel’s apocalyptic salvation in Jesus (the) Christ. The law, which defines Gentiles as “sinners,” has been torn down in Christ’s crucifixion (2:17–18). Paul then presents himself as an embodiment of God’s saving work in Christ. In being crucified with Christ, he has died to the law. Paul no longer lives, but now Christ lives in him. The faithfulness of Christ, who loves him and has given himself for him, now defines Paul’s life, not the law (2:19–20). From a more traditional Jewish perspective, Paul has undermined God’s grace because he has marginalized the law, the premier means of grace and life that God has given to his people. In fact, however, the law is utterly opposed to Christ’s faithful saving death, which is the true means of God’s ultimate saving and gracious actions toward his people (2:21).

This understanding of 2:11–21 revolves around how Paul considers his entire discussion of justification, the faithfulness of Christ, and the words of the law to be dealing with the issue of whether Gentiles should be forced to live like Jews (2:14). This might seem surprising to us. Does this not reduce Paul’s discussion of the great doctrine of justification to dealing merely with social and identity issues? Within the logic of Jewish apocalyptic thought, however, issues of the identity of God’s people and what defines them are by definition ultimate salvation issues, not merely social issues. The God of Israel will rescue only his true people. Thus questions of who really constitutes his true people and how they are defined are paramount, life-and-death, salvation issues. Paul never abandons Jewish apocalyptic salvation logic; he simply redefines it around Christ and not the law.

This reading understands the phrase pistis Christou as “the faithfulness of Christ,” a shorthand reference to Jesus’ faithful saving death on the cross. Traditionally people translate the phrase as “faith in Christ.” In line with much recent scholarship, however, this discussion understands the phrase differently, while still recognizing that Paul considers belief in Christ to be of paramount importance: “so we also have believed in Christ Jesus in order to be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law” (2:16 [all translations are the author’s]).

VI. Works of the law or Christ’s faithfulness? (3:1–5). So far, Paul has not addressed the powerful scriptural arguments and appeals to the law as a means to self-mastery through which the opposing teachers have gained influence. As becomes clear from the rest of the letter, Paul does not anchor his counterarguments ultimately in interpretations of the Jewish Scriptures, possibly because the scriptural arguments of the opposing teachers would have more cogency. Again, they draw on understandings about Gentiles that they can easily ground in the God of Israel’s sacred writings. Paul instead appeals directly to how the Galatians have experienced salvation initially. Have they received and experienced the workings of the Spirit “out of/from the works of the law, or from the message of (Christ’s) faithfulness” (3:1–5)? Paul, of course, knows that the answer is “from the message of Christ’s faithfulness” (often translated as “hearing with faith”) apart from the works of the law. Paul thus plays a trump card that undercuts the opposing teachers. The Galatians have received the Spirit, a classic end-time blessing for the God of Israel’s people, apart from the law. Thus, in Christ, God’s people clearly cannot be defined by the law (see also Acts 10:44–11:18; 15:6–11). The law-defined gospel of the opposing teachers simply cannot be right, since the Galatians have received the Spirit and experienced salvation apart from the law. One cannot overstate the importance of this obvious argument from the Galatians’ experience for Paul. This settles the entire issue within the logic of his letter. All of Paul’s following arguments using the Jewish Scriptures presuppose that his readings of them, depicting Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s people apart from the law, must be correct, and that the opposing teachers’ arguments from Scripture also must be wrong.

VII. Paul addresses the situation in Galatia (3:6–4:31). For the rest of 3:6–4:31, Paul continues to address the situation in Galatia within the cultural codes and kinds of concerns sketched above. In 3:6–13 Paul launches into a densely packed excursus of scriptural arguments to set up an answer to his rhetorical question “Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so out of/from the works of the law, or from the message of (Christ’s) faithfulness?” (3:5). He sets up the answer to his question, which comes in 3:14, by focusing on the nature of the Galatians’ Abra-hamic sonship—that is, the nature of their identity as the God of Israel’s special people. Paul argues that Christ’s faithfulness, and not the law, defines their Abrahamic sonship. Within this excursus it seems plausible that Paul draws upon and undercuts texts that the opposing teachers have used (Lev. 18:5; Deut. 27:26). In 3:15–29 Paul elucidates how the Galatians’ incorporation into Christ through his faithfulness can actually mean that they are incorporated into Abraham, become his descendants, and thus become “heirs according to promise” (3:29).

In 4:1–7 Paul restates parts of his preceding discussion in a different way, introducing the language of slavery. In 4:12–20 Paul returns to reminding the Galatians of their past experience with himself and the gospel. Paul has embodied Christ to them, and they to him. He has brought them Christ in his weakness, and they have accepted him as such. Their turn to the opposing teachers marks a departure from how they first received Paul.

VIII. Summary and restatement of Paul’s argument (5:1–12). In 5:2–6 Paul quickly summarizes the substance of his arguments thus far, while in 5:7–12 he resummarizes the situation.

IX. The faithfulness of Christ and communal living (5:13–6:10). In 5:13–6:10 Paul finally depicts the positive content of the faithfulness of Christ for the Galatians. This section, in which Paul focuses on how the Galatians live communally, has been his driving focus all along. Not only must he offer something in place of the law for self-mastery in order to wrench the Galatians from the influence of the opposing teachers, but also Paul considers it absolutely necessary for the Galatians to live together in ways embodying Christ’s other-oriented, cross-shaped faithfulness (2:19–20; 4:19; 5:13–6:10). Paul does not view the law simply as a neutral, ineffectual means to self-mastery; rather, he thinks that the law will positively work death, slavery, and irrational passions, the things that would bar the Galatians from inheriting the kingdom of God (5:22). Thus, 5:13–6:10 is the most important part of the letter for Paul. All his earlier arguments serve his purposes here.

Paul begins his positive sketch of the faithfulness of Christ in 5:13–15 by talking about their freedom in Christ (5:1). This freedom from the law by no means implies freedom from the obligation to live faithfully. In fact, this freedom paradoxically means freedom for the Galatians to become slaves to one another through love (5:13). This is what Paul means by the cross-shaped faithfulness of Christ defining God’s people. This is what Paul means when he writes that he longs for Christ to be formed in them (4:19). Christ’s faithfulness redefines the law itself, such that becoming slaves to one another through love by loving your neighbor fulfills the whole law (5:14; 6:2). In 5:13–14 Paul thus surprisingly informs the Galatians that freedom in Christ means other-oriented, love-driven (cf. 5:6), cross-shaped freedom. Cross-shaped faithfulness leading them to become slaves to one another through love is the only antidote to their biting and devouring one another (5:15), classic Greco-Roman language for describing the control of irrational passions.

Paul gets more specific in 5:16–25, explicitly moving his discussion within the discourse of self-mastery. His earlier arguments dissociating the Spirit and Christ’s faithfulness from the law inform this passage, as does Paul’s implicit association of the law and the opposing teachers with “flesh” in 4:29. Only by the Spirit can the Galatians overcome the desires of the flesh (5:16–17). In 5:18–19 Paul makes clear his association of the law with the desires of the flesh, especially in 5:19, where he speaks of the “works of the flesh,” an obvious play on his frequent phrase “works of the law.” The works of the flesh in 5:19–21 read like a catalog of the vices with which broader Greco-Roman moral discourse characterizes people who lack self-mastery. People who engage in such vices, who lack the struggle to self-mastery empowered by the Spirit, “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (5:21). Paul then spells out the positive content of the faithfulness of Christ for the Galatians in terms of the fruit of the Spirit. He concludes this list of virtues, which characterize people who have the Spirit, with enkrateia, “self-mastery” (5:22–23). He continues, “And the ones who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh, with its passions and desires” (5:24). Paul’s language here seems reminiscent of his earlier self-representation as one who has been crucified with Christ (2:19–20; see also 6:14–15). The Spirit, who belongs exclusively to those who are God’s children through Christ’s faithfulness and not the law (3:14; 4:4–6), empowers the Galatians to attain self-mastery. Not only does the law fail to help them attain self-mastery, but also, as part of the old “evil” age, it works with the desires of the flesh to produce everything contrary to self-mastery, everything that disqualifies people from inheriting the kingdom of God.

Paul continues in 5:25–6:10, stressing the way of the Spirit and Christ’s cruciform faithfulness. In 6:6–10 Paul underlines the ultimate importance of the Galatians living in accordance with the Spirit and not the flesh. For Paul, this does not imply that salvation and self-mastery result from the Galatians’ own autonomous effort. That would miss the point entirely. Only Christ’s faithfulness and the Spirit can bring about the cross-shaped lives and self-mastery of which Paul speaks. Apart from Christ’s faithfulness and the Spirit, the Galatians would remain people mastered by their passions and desires and cut off from God’s salvation and blessings, since they would not be Abraham’s descendants in Christ. At the same time, Paul writes the letter with such passion because he is convinced that where Christ’s other-oriented, cross-shaped faithfulness and self-mastery do not characterize people, God’s saving blessings are absent as well. Thus Paul “is again in the anguish of childbirth” until Christ is formed in them (4:19).

X. Conclusion and summary (6:11–18). Paul concludes in 6:11–18, summarizing most of his main points. The law and circumcision now count for nothing; only faithfulness working through love and new creation in Christ count for anything (5:6; 6:15).

For Paul in Galatians, the other-oriented, cross-shaped faithfulness of Christ offers a more concrete communal identity and practical way to life than the law ever could. The faithfulness of Christ and Spirit define the Galatians as a people of the new creation. Justification in Galatians involves more than the traditional doctrine. It involves the unification associated with the fruit of the Spirit, not the division and strife of the works of the flesh/law. It relates to and establishes the conditions for the radical and tangible other-oriented and cross-shaped communal faithfulness (of Christ) that must define God’s people.

In the OT, meditation is primarily focusing on the will of God, verbally repeating God’s commandments: one “meditates on his law day and night” (Ps. 1:2). To Joshua, God says, “keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful” (Josh. 1:8). The command presupposes that transformative knowledge must be brought into the horizon of consciousness and remain there. The fruit of mastering a meditative technique is not revelation of the deeper mysteries of reality, as it is in other religious systems, but rather is God’s graceful response to open-hearted obedience. Being a prophet was not a self-designation but a calling. By the first century, meditation had become a part of prayer. The Essenes remained silent for an hour before reciting their prayers (Josephus, J.W. 2.128, 130, 133). To maintain focus (what the later rabbis call kavanah), Jewish men wore phylacteries and tassels. Phylacteries are small leather boxes strapped to the left forearm and the forehead during prayer (see Let. Aris. 158–159). Inside the boxes were copies of the Shema (Deut. 6:4–9; 11:13–21; Exod. 13:1–10, 11–16) written on parchment. Tassels were blue and were attached to the four corners of a cloak (Num. 15:37–39; Deut. 22:12). Jesus wore tassels (Matt. 9:20; 14:36). Paul exhorts his readers to meditate upon the humility of Jesus’ historical ministry but also to reflect upon the exalted Christ (Phil. 2:5; 3:15, 19; 4:2; Col. 3:2).

Hebrew term for the side posts of a city gate or doorposts of a building (Judg. 16:3; 1 Sam. 1:9; 1 Kings 6:33). Blood from the Passover lamb was applied to the doorposts of each Israelite residence in Egypt (Exod. 12:7). The Israelites were commanded to write God’s commands on their hearts and their doorposts (Deut. 6:1–9). Later, this command was taken literally, and God’s commandments were attached to the doorposts. In later Jewish tradition the term refers to a small glass or metal box, affixed to the right-hand doorpost, that contains small parchment scrolls with the words of the Shema (Deut. 6:4–9; cf. 11:13–21) written on them. A mezuzah parchment was found at Qumran.

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

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It has a Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family” and, eventually, “race” or “people.” The Greek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship. In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other than Israel. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,” “peoples,” or “races.”

Old Testament

In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

The Servant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect this law/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. The servant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14), serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6; 49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separate from Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who have harmed Israel.

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Second Temple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, their nature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end. Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’s people defined by the law, variously understood and contested among Second Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’s ultimate blessing activities.

Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18).

However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.

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).

Terminology

The word “Palestine” is derived from the name of one of the Sea Peoples (Heb. pelishtim) who migrated to the southern coastal region of the Fertile Crescent from one or more of the coastal regions of the Mediterranean (see Philistines).

The word “Palestine” has at times been used to refer to an area as small as this southwestern coastal region (functioning at times as a synonym for “Philistia”) and as large as the land on both sides of the Jordan River, including the Negev in the south.

Most English versions of the Bible do not mention “Palestine,” although in the KJV the Hebrew word peleshet (usually rendered “Philistia” or “Philistines”) is translated as “Palestina” in Exod. 15:14; Isa. 14:29, 31 and as “Palestine” in Joel 3:4.

Other designations of this region within the Scripture include “Canaan” (Gen. 10:19; Josh. 22:9), “the land” (Gen. 13:17; Josh. 2:1), “the land of Canaan” (Gen. 17:8; Num. 13:2), “the land of the Hebrews” (Gen. 40:15), “the land . . . promised on oath” (Gen. 50:24; Deut. 6:23), in various combinations and order “the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites, Periz-zites, Jebusites, and Girgashites” (Exod. 3:17; 13:5; 23:23), “the Lord’s land” (Josh. 22:19), “the land of Israel” (1 Sam. 13:19; Ezek. 47:18), and “Trans-Euphrates,” which was “beyond the river” from the perspective of those in Persia (Ezra 4:10; Neh. 2:7). Compare also “the tribes of Israel” (2 Sam. 24:2; Ezek. 47:13), “Israel and Judah” (2 Sam. 5:5; 2 Chron. 30:6), and “from Dan to Beersheba” (Judg. 20:1; 1 Kings 4:25).

In the NT, this territory is usually designated by reference to the provinces of Judea and Galilee (Matt. 2:22; John 7:1), which sometimes are mentioned with the Decapolis (Matt. 4:25) and Samaria (Acts 9:31; cf. Luke 3:1).

Boundaries and Size

Boundaries. Palestine is in the southwestern portion of the Fertile Crescent (i.e., western Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel). It is located northeast of the Nile River basin and west-southwest of the basins of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Generally speaking, it is bounded by Lebanon to the north, the Mediterranean Sea (= the Sea, the Great Sea, or the western sea) on the west, Wadi el-Arish (= the river of Egypt, the Wadi of Egypt) in the southwest, the Sinai Peninsula in the south, and the Transjordan in the east (Gen. 15:18; Num. 34:3–7, 11–12; Deut. 1:7; 11:24; 34:2; Josh. 1:4; 11:16; 2 Kings 24:7). When the Transjordan is considered part of Palestine (cf. Deut. 34:1), the eastern boundary is the Syrian (Syro-Arabian) Desert. In several biblical texts the northeast boundary of this region is “the great river, the Euphrates” (Gen. 15:18; Deut. 1:7; 11:24; Josh. 1:4; 1 Chron. 5:9; cf. 2 Sam. 8:3).

Size. Because of fluidity in the use of the term “Palestine,” it is difficult to speak precisely of the land area designated by it. Palestine west of the Jordan River is about six thousand square miles, similar to the land area of the state of Hawaii.

A description of “the whole land” viewed by Moses included both the Negev and Gilead, part of the Transjordan (Deut. 34:1–3). In the OT, the Negev is regularly included as one of the regions of the land on the west side of the Jordan (Deut. 1:7; Josh. 10:40; 11:16; Jer. 17:26). The unity of the land on both sides of the Jordan is reflected in texts that focus on Israel’s inheritance of land (Deut. 3:12–17), cities of refuge (Num. 35:14; Josh. 20:7–8), and military victories (Josh. 12:1–8; 24:8–13).

The land area of Palestine increases considerably if one includes these areas, for the Transjordan region is about 4,000 square miles, while the Negev is about 4,600 square miles.

Topographical Regions

Frequent seismic activity, the rising and falling of the landmass, and deposits from the inundation and withdrawal of seas produced seven topographical regions current in Palestine.

Coastal plain. The coastal plain is the fertile terrain bordering the Mediterranean, though the coastline itself consists of beaches, sand dunes, wetlands, and rock cliffs.

The southern portion of the coastal plain was once inhabited by the Philistines (with the coastal cities of Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod). Moving north of the Yarkon River, we pass through the marshy Plain of Sharon and the Dor Plain. In the north, hills rise near Carmel and extend west to the central highlands. North of the Carmel range lie the Acco Plain, the Asher Plain, and the coastlands of Phoenicia (including Tyre and Sidon).

Hill country. The hill country is located between, and runs parallel to, the coastal plain on the west and the Jordan Valley on the east. The hills, ridges, plateaus, and valleys of the hill country are the setting for most of the OT narratives.

The hill country is bisected by the Jezreel Valley, which runs east-west from the Jordan Valley to the Bay of Acco (Haifa Bay), north of Carmel.

The hill country south of the Jezreel Valley is called “the central highlands,” which consist of the rough and rocky hills of Samaria in the north (such as Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal) and the more arid (and, historically, less populated) Judean hill country in the south. The highest hills of this area exceed three thousand feet.

In Scripture the southern hill country (or portions of it) is called “the hill country of Judah/Judea” (Josh. 11:21; Luke 1:39) and “the hill country of Bethel” (Josh. 16:1; 1 Sam. 13:2), while the northern (Samarian) hill country (or portions of it) is called “the hill country of Israel” (Josh. 11:21), “the hill country of Naphtali” (Josh. 20:7), and, most frequently, “the hill country of Ephraim” (Josh. 17:15; Judg. 2:9; 1 Kings 4:8).

The hill country north of the Jezreel Valley consists of two parts, Lower and Upper Galilee, divided by the fault through which runs Wadi esh-Shaghur. Lower Galilee has fertile basins and hills about two thousand feet above sea level. Farther north is Upper Galilee, with hills averaging about three thousand feet. It forms a transition to the mountains of Lebanon, which lie to the north.

The Shephelah (“lowland” or “piedmont”) is the region of gentle and rolling hills between five hundred and one thousand feet above sea level between the Judean hill country and the coastal plain. These hills formerly were covered with sycamore trees and provided Judeans with protection against an attack from the west.

Jezreel Valley. The Jezreel Valley is often equated with the Plain of Esdraelon, though some distinguish the fault basin (Esdraelon) from the rift valley (Jezreel).

On its west side, this fertile plain begins north of Carmel at the coast, moving east to the Jordan Valley. The central highlands lie to the north (Galilee) and south (Samaria) of this plain.

The fertile soil of this low-lying basin was valued for farming. Traders and armies regularly passed through this great plain, and it was often the place of military conflict (cf. Judg. 6:33; 1 Sam. 29:1, 11; Hos. 1:5).

Jordan Valley. The Jordan Valley (also known as the Jordan Rift Valley or the Dead Sea Rift) begins near the base of Mount Hermon in the north (9,232 feet). Moving south, the rift continues to the Hula Valley, through which the Jordan River flows to the Sea of Galilee (Sea of Gennesaret, Lake Kinnereth). The Sea of Galilee is about twelve miles long and five miles wide, located within an area of hills and valleys.

The Jordan River meanders south, flowing through a deep gorge and falling three thousand feet before coming to the Dead Sea (also called “the Sea of the Arabah” [Deut. 4:49; Josh. 3:16] and “the Salt Sea” [Num. 34:3, 12; Josh. 15:2, 5 ESV, NASB]), the lowest place on earth. At its lowest point, the Dead Sea is more than 2,600 feet below sea level.

The Jordan Valley rises as one continues south from the Dead Sea (forty-eight miles long and eight miles wide) through the arid Arabah (cf. Isa. 33:9; Zech. 14:10) to the Gulf of Aqaba.

The term “Arabah” is generally used to refer to the extension of the rift south of the Dead Sea, though at one time in the history of ancient Israel it referred to a region that included the Jordan Valley between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea, on both the east (Deut. 3:17; Josh. 12:1–3) and the west (Deut. 11:30; Josh. 11:2; Ezek. 47:8) sides of the Jordan River.

Transjordan. The Transjordan region is located east of the Jordan Valley and west of the Syrian (Syro-Arabian) Desert. Three major rivers run across this region, each moving from east to west. The Yarmouk (Yarmuk) and the Jabbok (Zarqa) rivers empty into the Jordan River, while the Arnon River (Wadi el-Mujib) flows into the Dead Sea.

In ancient Israel, regions of the Transjordan, from north to south, included Bashan (Karnaim), north of the Yarmuk River; Gilead, south of the Yarmuk; Ammon, the region of modern-day Amman, southeast of Gilead; Moab, south of the Arnon River; and Edom, south of Wadi el-Hesa (Zered River [cf. Num. 21:12; Deut. 2:13–14]).

The capture of the territory belonging to Sihon between the Jabbok and the Arnon rivers was a significant event in the history of ancient Israel (Num. 21:24; Josh. 12:1–2).

Although the Transjordan is often excluded from “Palestine,” there were times in biblical history when the land on both sides of the Jordan was considered a unit. For example, “the other half of Manasseh, the Reubenites and the Gadites” received their tribal inheritance east of the Jordan (cf. Josh. 13:8–32). They inhabited Bashan, Gilead, and the land of the Amorites (cf. Deut. 3:12–17; 34:1; Judg. 20:1).

According to 2 Sam. 8, David established control over Moab (vv. 2, 12), the Beqaa Valley (“along the Euphrates River” [v. 3 GW]), Aram (v. 6; vv. 12–13 MT), Ammon and Amalek (v. 12), and Edom (v. 14; vv. 12–13 LXX, Syriac; cf. 1 Chron. 18:2–13).

In Scripture, the central Transjordan hill country is sometimes called “the hill country of Gilead” (Gen. 31:21, 23, 25; Deut. 3:12). The southern elevated region in Edom is called “the hill country of Seir” (Gen. 36:8–9; Deut. 2:5).

Negev. The Negev (Negeb) is shaped like an inverted triangle with its peak at the southern city of Eilat (Elath) near the biblical Ezion Geber (cf. 1 Kings 9:26). It is bounded on the north by the Judean hill country, on the west by Sinai, and on the east by the Arabah Valley (which lies along the rift south of the Dead Sea).

The Negev is an extremely dry area, with the most rain found in the northern (twelve inches annually) and western (ten inches annually) sections, and the least in the Arabah Valley (two inches annually). It is a place of sand dunes, rocky desert, and brown hills that increase in height as one moves toward Sinai.

Although the Negev is described as “a land of hardship and distress, of lions and lionesses, of adders and darting snakes” (Isa. 30:6), it was also a place of wells and springs, in addition to cities and towns such as Beersheba (Josh. 15:21–32; 2 Sam. 24:7).

Sinai peninsula. The Sinai peninsula is about twenty-three thousand square miles. It consists primarily of plains, plateaus, and hills (the highest of which is Jebel Yiallaq, at 3,656 feet), with a coastline along the Mediterranean of 145 miles.

The longest river in the region is the Wadi el-Arish, which runs 155 miles northward from central Sinai to the Mediterranean.

Israel’s activities in the Desert of Sinai are often mentioned in the Pentateuch (e.g., Exod. 19:1–2; Num. 1:1; 9:5).

The Desert of Sinai is distinguished from the Desert of Sin (Exod. 16:1) and the Desert of Paran (Num. 10:12). Other arid areas within the Sinai Peninsula include the Desert of Zin (Num. 34:3), the Desert of Shur (Exod. 15:22), and the Desert of Etham (Num. 33:8).

Climate

The climate of Palestine consists of a dry and hot season from June to August and a wet season from mid-October to mid-April. It is common for the wet season to consist of two distinct periods of heavy rain, one at the beginning and one toward the end of this period (cf. “spring and autumn rains” [Deut. 11:14; Joel 2:23; James 5:7]).

Two transitional seasons of about six weeks each bridge the wet and the dry seasons. One occurs between early September and the end of October, the other between early April and the middle of June.

Average temperatures throughout the region range from 46.5–55 degrees (Fahrenheit) in January (both the coldest and the wettest month in Palestine) to 71.5–93 degrees in August.

Most rainfall in Palestine occurs as cyclonic storm systems (about twenty-five each year) bring warm air from North Africa eastward over the Mediterranean, clashing with cooler air from Europe and Asia. As clouds move over the land, precipitation falls heaviest on the west side of the hills, leaving the east side of the hills with less rain.

Typically, rainfall is heaviest in the northern areas of Palestine, the regions closest to the Mediterranean, and in the Transjordan. The area around the Dead Sea is extremely dry, with evaporation exceeding precipitation. In contrast, the northern highlands have forty inches of annual rainfall.

In Palestine, precipitation can also take the form of both snow (cf. 2 Sam. 23:20; Prov. 25:13) and, in a significant way, dew (cf. Judg. 6:37–40; Song 5:2). Dew provides moisture for agriculture especially in the coastal plain, the central highlands, and the Jezreel Valley.

During the transitional seasons, desiccating winds (sometimes called sirocco winds) bring warm desert air from the east (and at times from the south), raising the temperature and lowering the relative humidity throughout Palestine. These winds often bring fine dust from the desert. The effects are most onerous in the Jordan Valley. References to an east wind in Scripture are common (Gen. 41:6; Hos. 13:15; Jon. 4:8; see also “south wind” in Job 37:17; Luke 12:55).

Roads

Two major highways passed through Palestine: “the Way of the Sea,” or Via Maris (cf. Isa. 9:1; Matt. 4:15), and “the King’s Highway” (cf. Num. 20:17; 21:22).

The Way of the Sea moved north from Egypt through the coastal plain, heading east through the Jezreel Valley. From this point it branched out in three directions: northwest through Phoenicia, north toward Damascus, and east to join with the King’s Highway.

The King’s Highway was a Transjordanian route passing from the Gulf of Aqaba in the south (cf. Deut. 2:8) through Edom, Moab, Gilead, and Bashan to Damascus in the north.

Merchants and armies used these highways to pass through Palestine, while local traffic often used east-west roads to move throughout the area.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

The male head of a family. The OT describes the Israelite nation as an extended family descended from a line of common ancestors, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (also called “Israel” [see Gen. 32:28]). Each of Jacob’s sons (or his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh) traditionally gave his name to one of the tribes that made up the Israelite people. The NT applies the term “patriarch” to individuals of the generations from Abraham (Heb. 7:4) to his twelve great-grandsons (Acts 7:8) and, in one case, to the tenth-century king David (Acts 2:29). In the OT the term “patriarch” is not used, though the concept of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as national fathers is frequently expressed, as in Exod. 3:15, which refers to Israel’s God as “the Lord, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”

The Bible regards the patriarchs as the original recipients of God’s promises, as in Deut. 6:10, which speaks of “the land [God] swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you.” Similarly, Rom. 15:8 speaks of the patriarchs as the recipients of God’s promises. The reference to David as a patriarch in Acts 2:29 also has in view his role as the recipient of a divine promise. The terminology of national fatherhood is applied particularly to the unnamed ancestors of the generation of the exodus (Josh. 24:6; 1 Kings 8:21) and to the line of Judahite and Israelite kings, as in 2 Chron. 25:28, where Amaziah is said to have been buried “with his fathers” (ESV, NASB) (i.e., his royal predecessors) in Jerusalem. In fact, the deaths of several kings are described as going to rest “with his fathers” (cf. Luke 16:22, where Lazarus is taken to Abraham when he dies).

The patriarchs are most significant in the Bible for explaining Israelite national origins (descent from the patriarchs), the Israelite position in the land of Canaan (the land promised to the patriarchs), the origins of Israelite religion (“the God of the fathers”), and the nature of death (going to be with the fathers).

The Patriarchs and History

The implied chronology of the Bible places Abraham in the mid-second millennium BC, in the Middle Bronze Age. A more precise date depends on the controversial matter of dating the exodus from Egypt. The traditional date of the exodus in the fifteenth century BC places the patriarchs in the final centuries of the third millennium BC, based on the tabulation of life spans reported in the Bible and anchored to the date of Solomon’s temple given in 1 Kings 6:1. One recent calculation dates the birth of Abraham to 2166 BC. A low date for the exodus (in the thirteenth century BC) in turn lowers the date of Abraham. Because they pertain to the story of a single family, it is difficult to date the patriarchal stories based on extrabiblical historical records and archaeological findings. When Abraham and his descendants interact with figures of international prominence, they are either unnamed (the unnamed pharaohs of Egypt), have generic royal names (Abimelek), or are otherwise unknown in extrabiblical historical records (the many kings named in Gen. 14:1–2). In contrast, the biblical history of the monarchic period of Israel and Judah names several Mesopotamian and Egyptian kings known from securely dated inscriptions.

In light of this methodological difficulty, some have examined the cultural world of the patriarchal narratives and attempted to correlate customs attested in the stories to those known from datable external sources. In particular, proponents of this approach have sought connections between the customs pertaining to marriage and family depicted in the Nuzi tablets (fifteenth century BC), thought to reflect earlier customs on the basis of their similarities to texts found at Mari (eighteenth century BC). Certain behaviors of the patriarchs, including their use of cultic practices known to have been condemned in first-millennium BC biblical texts, suggest that the patriarchal narratives are an authentic reflection of the early second millennium BC. On the other hand, the patriarchal narratives contain some information inconsistent with an early-second-millennium date, notably the presence of Philistines (Gen. 21:22–34), who did not appear in the region until the twelfth century BC. The cultural history of the patriarchal narratives remains disputed.

The Importance of the Patriarchs

Apart from the historical questions treated above, one thing is clear: for Israelites of the first millennium BC who wrote, edited, and read the book of Genesis, the patriarchs held great interest and importance.

For the biblical authors, the God of Israel was the “God of the fathers,” and the Israelite religion was understood as a special relationship between God and the nation that began with the famous ancestors. The patriarchal stories explained other social “facts” observable in Iron Age Israel. The relationship between the Israelites and the Edomites alternated between peace and hostility. Linguistically, culturally, and geographically, the two peoples were closely connected, so it is not surprising that the biblical stories about Jacob (or Israel) and Esau (or Edom) show a brotherly relationship that mirrored the later regional rivalry of their descendants. Similar observations can be made regarding the Ishmaelites (descended from the brother of Isaac), the Moabites and the Ammonites (both descended from Abraham’s nephew Lot), and the Midianites (from Abraham through his wife Keturah). Other local groups, such as the Philistines, are not incorporated into the patriarchal extended family, accurately reflecting the origin of this population and its culture outside the land of Palestine. The patriarchal stories account for the founding of several important cultic sites. Thus, the patriarchal stories served to organize the social and geographical world of the Israelites, who cherished them as their national history.

Within Israel itself, the status and relationships of various tribes corresponded to the depiction of the eponymous patriarchal ancestors. The special prominence of the Levites, the Ju-dah-ites, and the Ephraimites is explained by stories focusing on the exploits of Levi, Judah, and Joseph (the father of Ephraim). The presentation of the tribes as coming from twelve brothers of four different mothers reflects the complex political parity and disparity of the “twelve tribes.” Apart from the twelve-tribe structure, other, less prominent Israelite groups are known from the Bible. “Makir” is a prominent group in Judg. 5:14 (one of the earliest biblical texts), where it is listed on an equal footing among the other tribes. In the usual twelve-tribe “patriarchal” depiction of Israel, however, Makir recedes in importance and is named as a son of Manasseh (a tribe not mentioned in the list of Judg. 5) in Gen. 50:23. Presumably, the two texts represent varying conceptions of which groups were most important in the Israelite society of their respective times. For the author of Judg. 5, Makir was one of the principal groups in Israel; for the author of Gen. 50:23, Makir was less important than Manasseh.

Outside Genesis, the names of Abraham and Isaac usually appear only in the formula “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” The name of Jacob or Israel, in contrast, is regularly used to denote the people of Israel, as are the names of Jacob’s son Judah (for the southern part of the country) and his grandson Ephraim (for the northern part). The name of Isaac is used twice in Amos 7:9, 16 to refer to an apparently northern entity, the “high places of Isaac.”

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

In Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18 the KJV renders the Hebrew word totapot as “frontlets” (NIV: “symbol”; NRSV: “emblem”), referring to the binding of God’s commandments on one’s forehead. The literal reading of this led to the custom of tefillin (a word found in Targum Onqelos, the Peshitta, and rabbinic literature), a pair of small leather boxes worn by Jews during prayer. Specific Scripture verses (Exod. 13:1–16; Deut. 6:4–9; 11:13–21) were written on small scrolls and placed in each box. One box was bound to the left arm and the other across the forehead, serving as a sign and a remembrance that God had brought the children of Israel out of Egypt. Exactly when the custom of wearing tefillin began is uncertain, but they have been found at Qumran and Murabba’at. The NT refers to tefillin as “phylacteries” (from the Gk. verb for “guard, keep”). In Matt. 23:5 Jesus condemned individuals who called attention to themselves by making their phylacteries “wide.” Certain tefillin found at Qumran and Murabba’at may shed light on the meaning of this statement. The tefillin placed on the head were not cubical but rectangular, with the breadth across the forehead greater in length.

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

Pits were used in ancient Israel for storing water or grain (e.g., Lev. 11:36; Deut. 6:11). Such structures are known to modern archaeologists. In some cases, they are lined with stones (Isa. 14:19). Pits were also used to press wine (Mark 12:1), to trap animals (1 Chron. 11:22), as hiding places (1 Sam. 13:6; 2 Sam. 17:9), or as prisons (Gen. 37:20; 41:14; Isa. 24:22), especially waterless cisterns (Jer. 38:6; Zech. 9:11). In biblical poetry the pit is a prominent metaphor for death (Ps. 28:1; Prov. 28:17; Isa. 14:15) and calamity (Isa. 24:17–18; Lam. 3:47). Exodus 21:33 warns against leaving a pit uncovered, lest a person or animal fall into it. Jesus also used this image in his teaching (Matt. 12:11; 15:14).

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

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

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

Jewelry in Antiquity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewelry in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The modern concept of “self-esteem” may have roots in individualism, but Scripture conceives of it in relation to God and community. Creation grounds positive self-regard in dignity, blessing, and authority bestowed by God (Gen. 1:26–28; Pss. 8; 139:13–16), hence the concern that God preserve one from oppression, illness, and shame (Ps. 71). Self-esteem is not absolute, unlimited self-regard, but rather a healthy valuing of oneself and others as beloved, gifted by, and responsible to God (Rom. 12:3–8; contrast Ps. 14).

Self-esteem draws strength from the community’s defining story. The people of Israel are commanded to teach their children their narrative of promise, oppression, and deliverance (Deut. 6), and prophetic words of divine assurance help restore the exiles’ corporate identity, preparing them for return to the land (e.g., Isa. 54). Similarly, Jesus pledges the Father’s care for the disciples as persons, forming them as a community and freeing them for lives of trust and contentment as God’s beloved children (Luke 12:32–34; Phil. 4:10–20).

The Sermon on the Mount is the inaugural sermon of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel (5:1–7:29), which sets out Jesus’ kingdom program for the people of God. Whether this was a single sermon delivered on one occasion or Matthew’s compilation of Jesus’ teaching is uncertain. Luke’s Gospel has a similar sermon (6:17–49), which may or may not be the same event (sometimes called the “Sermon on the Plain” because of v. 17, although this may simply be a “level place” on the same hill that Matthew describes).

Luke’s account is similar to Matthew’s on several points: same beatitudes regarding the poor, the hungry, and the persecuted; same teaching of loving enemies, turning the other cheek, not judging, the Golden Rule; same illustrations of removing a speck from the eye, good trees producing good fruit, wise man building a house on the rock. Of course, there are many differences in Luke’s version: woes pronounced upon the rich, the satiated, and the honored; the importance of giving; warning the blind who lead the blind; how students become teachers. In Luke, Jesus delivers his sermon to the twelve disciples just chosen as well as directly to a larger crowd (Luke 6:12–20), “Blessed are you . . .” In Matthew, Jesus addresses the crowd (including the disciples) gathered around him because of the miracles he has performed (Matt. 4:24–5:1)—note the third person, “Blessed are the poor in spirit . . .” Finally, Matthew’s account has more unique material than Luke’s: beatitudes regarding the pure in heart, peacemakers, and mourners; questions about the righteousness of scribes and Pharisees; the importance of obeying the Law and the Prophets; teachings regarding murder, adultery, divorce, revenge, swearing oaths, giving alms, prayer, fasting, worry; illustrations of salt and light, dogs and pigs, fish and stones, narrow and wide gates, wolves in sheep’s clothing. That Matthew begins the story of Jesus’ earthly ministry with this sermon is significant: he wants his readers to see Jesus as the rabbi who knows more about the kingdom of heaven than any scribe or Pharisee.

The Beatitudes

With the first words of the sermon, commonly known as the Beatitudes, Jesus challenges the conventional wisdom that the poor, the hungry, and the meek are cursed. Instead, Jesus claims that his hearers are blessed (these poor, hungry, and meek Galileans) because the kingdom of heaven comes to those who need God. Not surprisingly, these subversive ideas are couched in paradoxes: the poor are kingdom rich; the hungry are satisfied with righteousness; the meek inherit the land of promise; the bereaved are comforted; the persecuted find joy in their tribulations. They are pure-hearted; they are peacemakers. These are the kind of people Jesus calls “the salt of the earth” (Matt. 5:13). They are “the light of the world” (v. 14) because they reveal the glorious work of God in their lives. They are what the kingdom of heaven looks like on earth.

All of this may sound like the opposite of what was taught in the Torah, where it was said that material blessings are a sign of divine favor for the obedient, and sickness and death come to those who disobey God (Deut. 30:1–20). But Jesus claims that he is not ignoring the Law and the Prophets. Instead, he intends to keep the Law and the Prophets better than anyone, especially the scribes and the Pharisees, whom Jesus accuses of abrogating the law because they have missed the heart of the commandments (Matt. 5:17–20; cf. 23:23–24).

Love God and Neighbor

The Sermon on the Mount appears to be an exposition of two great commandments emphasized by Jesus: love God (6:1–34; Deut. 6:5) and love your neighbor (5:21–48; Lev. 19:18). In particular, Jesus challenges the experts of the law—the scribes and the Pharisees—in regard to their righteousness.

Do the experts keep the law when it comes to loving your neighbor? They say, “You shall not murder” (quoting the Decalogue) and “Anyone who murders will be subject to judgment” (quoting their tradition). But according to Jesus, they break the commandment and their tradition when they call someone a “fool.” Their indignation is not righteous; in fact, it condemns them to hell and prevents them from worshiping God (5:21–26). They say, “You shall not commit adultery” (again quoting the Decalogue) and “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of dismissal” (quoting Deut. 24). But Jesus believes that the commandment is broken when a man lusts for a woman; so he advises men to take drastic measures in dealing with eyes and hands, the instruments of lust (5:27–30). He even accuses husbands of practicing and promoting serial adultery when they abuse women by treating them as objects, trying to justify their selfish behavior by appealing to the provision of divorce in the law of Moses (5:31–32). The scribes and Pharisees also swear oaths to cover false vows (5:33–37). They hate their neighbors when they seek revenge against their enemies, desiring only to help their friends (5:38–47). Instead, Jesus teaches that when it comes to the kingdom of heaven, children of God must replicate the qualities of their heavenly Father (5:48): defying injustice (unrighteousness) through love, self-sacrifice, and mercy (turning the other cheek, giving away clothing, helping enemies, praying for persecutors). When it comes to loving your neighbor, this righteousness is picture perfect.

Certainly the scribes and the Pharisees cannot be accused of not loving God, for their standards of holiness are considered the highest of all. Yet according to Jesus, their acts of holiness are not for God’s benefit but for their own (6:1). When they give to the poor, it is an ostentatious display designed for social approval (6:2–4). When they pray, it is for human eyes, not God’s ears (6:5). When they fast, they want everyone to know about it (6:16). Jesus, on the other hand, believes that acts of holiness are for God’s eyes only. Give in secret; pray in private; fast in disguise (6:3–4, 6–13, 17–18). In this way, a person is storing up treasures in heaven. Those who seek human approval get their rewards on earth, where treasures are temporal (6:1–2, 5, 16, 19–21). Indeed, slaves of mammon worry about things that do not last (money, food, clothing). Those who seek the kingdom of heaven, on the other hand, are anxious for nothing. They serve the master who feeds sparrows and clothes fields of grass with flowers (6:24–34). God knows what kingdom seekers need before they ask, which is why they pray for the kingdom to come, for the will of God to be done on earth as it is in heaven (6:8–13). Rather than judging others, kingdom seekers forgive their debtors (7:1–5). They are delivered from the evil one because they make requests to a Father who gives only good gifts (7:7–11). Kingdom seekers treat others as they themselves want to be treated because they know that the Law and the Prophets are summed up in these two commandments: love God and love your neighbor (7:12).

The Narrow Gate

The sermon ends with an invitation. Two gates stand before Jesus’ listeners. One is wide, and many enter this way—a broad path that leads to destruction. It is the way of the Pharisees and the scribes. The other gate is narrow, and few enter this way, even though it leads to life—the way of righteousness, according to Jesus (7:13–14). There are two kinds of prophets, two kinds of trees, two kinds of builders (7:15–27). False prophets make bad trees; those who listen to them are fools. True prophets produce good fruit; those who listen to them are wise persons who build their lives on the rock of Jesus’ words—a Sermon on the Mount.

Since the early apologists’ first attempts to defend the Christian faith against contemporary Greco-Roman philosophers, explanations of God’s sovereignty have found support from Platonic, Neoplatonic, and Aristotelian categories. This unfortunate “marriage” pushed theologians to identify God’s power in static and absolute categories that explained God as unmoved and impassible. God’s sovereign will must be perfect and cannot be affected by the world or by human suffering. In his perfection, God is necessarily apatheia (Aristotle), beyond joy or sorrow (Plato). This notion led medieval and Reformation theologians to assert that Jesus suffered in his human nature, but not in his divine nature. To protect God’s integrity (incapability of corruption), the biblical emphasis on God’s passionate involvement with his creation and people (e.g., Isa. 34:2; Zeph. 3:17) was squelched.

Christian speculation on God’s sovereignty followed the Neoplatonic principle of plenitude, in which the created universe is little more than the divine being’s necessary overflow of temporal diversity. God’s perfection requires the unlimited actualization of all possibilities. For Augustine, this meant that all human experience is foreclosed in God’s eternity; for Anselm, it gave an ontological argument for God’s existence; for Abelard, it meant that God cannot do or leave undone anything other than what he has done; for Beza (Calvinism), double predestination was a given; for Schleiermacher, human self-consciousness had its roots in the divine being; for Tillich, a “God above God” was the ground of all being; and we could add many others. “Sovereignty,” in these delineations, expresses the necessary manifestation of God’s perfection and absolute power.

The biblical language of sovereignty does not parallel such logic. Broadly speaking, the Bible describes sovereignty as God’s divine authority to rule his creation in general and Israel in particular. He is the Lord of all creation and the King of Israel. He is almighty (sovereign) to accomplish his purpose, which is to restore his kingdom on earth through Christ (1 Tim. 6:14–15), to whom he now has given all authority (Matt. 28:18). Rather than an aloof divinity of perfection, God is presented in the Bible as intensely personal and superbly engaged in the affairs of his creation. He remains outside his creation as its supreme, infinite Creator (transcendence), while allowing his love to instruct both his justice and his power (immanence). He creates not because the necessity of his perfection requires it but rather out of sovereign freedom and love. He is both protective of his position as Lord of creation and concerned for his people’s welfare (Deut. 6:13–19). His sovereignty displays his moral character (Exod. 15:11–18) while demanding reciprocal love and relational obedience from his people.

As sovereign, God has power and rule that are above all other powers and rulers (Pss. 22:28; 103:19; Dan. 5:21). His providential care for all creation exhibits his loving kingship and confirms his essential goodness. God’s sovereignty affirms that human life has meaning and purpose; he does not leave us alone to create our own happiness, nor are we subject to whatever misery presses upon us (1 Chron. 29:11). Rather than an indivisible attribute, God’s power is subject to his control and expresses itself relationally. This same relationality lies behind the biblical understanding of God’s will and unchangeable character (James 1:17; cf. Ps. 102:25–27; Isa. 40:8). As a comparison of 1 Sam. 15:11 with 15:29 shows, God’s sovereignty does not militate against his freedom to change his mind. Rather, God remains unchangeably faithful and true to his character even when humans prove faithless and false (2 Tim. 2:13).

This relational quality of God’s sovereignty is rooted in his triunity. His existence is coexistence as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This makes love the distinctive mark of his sovereignty. The doctrine of the Trinity safeguards against metaphysical understandings of God that make light of his self-revelation in Christ. Opposite the self-expanding god of philosophical speculations, the biblical God manifests his sovereignty through the self-limiting and self-denying Christ (Phil. 2:5–11), who reveals God’s absolute power as the servant of his absolute love.

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).

In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,” “test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”) seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmos and verb peirazō translate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context alone to determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture, temptation relates directly to test and trial.

Negatively, English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt” as the fitting translation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil, or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin and devastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies this purpose as the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).

Positively, the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests his people to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, it results in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God tests his own people, it may look like judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). The NT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō (“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain the other (2 Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).

Neutrally, “trial” (or “tribulation”) translates the meaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6) that may or may not lead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4) presupposes the understanding that God is sovereign over all human circumstances and therefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead to temptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows the same supposition (Mark 14:38).

This interconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation, test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts. There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test; God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith, while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin. A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that describe David as both tested by God (2 Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1 Chron. 21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.

When humans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod. 17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’s firm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as a violation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; 15:10).

The most focused narrative of Jesus’ temptation follows his baptism, but the Gospels have not isolated Jesus’ temptations to this one event. Rather, as Mark 8:33; Luke 22:28, and other texts indicate, Jesus knew temptations throughout his ministry (cf. Heb. 2:18; 4:15). References in John’s Gospel, which has no account of Jesus’ temptation in the desert, suggest the same (John 6:15; 7:1–4).

All three Synoptic Gospels place the temptation narrative immediately following Jesus’ baptism. Discussions of whether this event was actual or merely visual, one that Jesus described to his disciples or one that they created from miscellaneous sayings after Jesus’ death to parallel Deut. 8:2, will undoubtedly continue. As the Synoptics recount the event, Mark reduces it to one verse (Mark 1:13), whereas Matthew and Luke give full accounts, delineating in three acts the struggle between Jesus and Satan. Matthew and Luke recount these acts in a different sequence, possibly due to Luke’s interest in Jerusalem and the temple or to his desire to use Ps. 106 as his outline (manna, golden calf, testing God [cf. Luke 4:1–13]). Matthew portrays a progression climaxing in a display of Satan’s true character, after which Jesus ends Satan’s attack and sends him away with a clarifying quote from Deut. 6:13: “Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only” (Matt. 4:1–11). Opposite the first Adam, who gave in to the temptation to stop trusting God, the second Adam, Jesus, conquered his temptation with an affirmation that worship of God should remain undivided.

The placement of Jesus’ temptation at the outset of his ministry, immediately following his baptism, speaks to the significance of the event. All three Synoptics emphasize that God’s Spirit led Jesus to the desert to be tempted by the devil. There is no sharp distinction between testing and temptation; God uses Satan’s temptation to test Jesus. The desert setting as the preparatory proving ground for extraordinary usability in God’s kingdom follows the general wilderness motif that runs through Scripture (e.g., Abraham, Moses, Israel) and places Jesus squarely in the center of God’s salvation history. Jesus fulfills God’s messianic promise.

Introducing two of the three temptations by an affirmation of Jesus’ divine sonship gives the event a strong messianic character (Satan’s statements are better understood as affirmations [“Since you are the Son of God . . .”] than as questions [“If you are the Son of God . . .”]). Since Jesus knows that he is the Son of God, he is tempted to disobey for his own benefit (cf. Gen. 3:4–6).

No reader familiar with the stories of the OT can miss the way Jesus’ temptations parallel major OT events. Not only does the devil try to lure Jesus to satisfy his personal needs by a misuse of his power, as becomes obvious from Jesus’ answer quoting Deut. 8:3, but also he entices Jesus to display a power that replicates God’s manna miracle in the desert. Furthermore, the connection between this first temptation to eat what he is not supposed to eat and the original temptation to eat the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3) seems too obvious to miss.

Jesus’ second temptation in Matthew (Luke’s third) portrays Satan bringing Jesus to the highest point of the temple to overlook Kidron Valley, where a fall meant certain death. From here, the devil quotes Ps. 91:11–12, giving scriptural basis for his trap. The symbolic character of this setting proves powerful. Satan challenges Jesus to test God’s faithfulness to his word in the context of the temple. If Jesus cannot trust God’s promise to protect his people even in the temple, then his very mission proves void. Again, the reference to the original temptation, Satan (mis)quoting God in God’s own setting, sets the stage for the portrayal of Jesus’ answer. Unlike the first Adam, Jesus unravels Satan’s scheme by exposing the mistake of confusing God’s promise to protect those who stumble and fall with a deliberate act designed to force God’s hand. Such would be to test (tempt) God, which Scripture explicitly forbids (Deut. 6:16). Whether Jesus quoting Deut. 6:16 speaks directly to his own self-understanding is uncertain but unlikely.

Matthew ends his temptation account with Jesus on a high mountain, overlooking the kingdoms of the world, where Satan offers world authority in exchange for Jesus’ worship. There is no reflection on whether these kingdoms were Satan’s to give, and no explicit naming of Jesus as God’s Son (although a subtle reference to Ps. 2 is likely to echo in the reader’s mind [see Matt. 3:17]). Matthew’s reference to a mountain (Matt. 4:8), which Luke does not mention (Luke 4:5), corresponds to his mountain motif and functions here to parallel the location of Jesus’ discipleship commission to bring God’s kingdom to all nations (Matt. 28:16–20), causing them to transfer their worship to God. Rather than worshiping Satan, Jesus conquers Satan’s temptations and, as the second Adam, brings the nations back to the worship of God (Matt. 4:10).

The Ten Commandments are also identified as the Decalogue, meaning the “Ten Words.” These commands are part of the Bible’s legal literature revealed by God to his people Israel. They are the words of the covenant (Exod. 34:28) and define Yahweh’s covenant relationship with Israel. Some biblical laws are conditional and written in the style of case law, which employs an “if . . . then” personalized format (most of Exod. 21:2–22:17; Deut. 21:18–19; 22:6–9; 23:21–25; 24:10–12). Other laws are stated in absolute terms: “you shall . . .” or “you shall not . . .” (Exod. 22:18–23:19). The latter, second-person format characterizes the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21).

The Ten Commandments were revealed at Mount Sinai after the exodus from Egypt and prior to the conquest of the land (Exod. 20:1–17). These laws were restated with some variation to a second generation of Israelites approximately thirty-eight years later in Moab, east of the Jordan River (Deut. 5:1–5). Because the postexodus generation refused to believe God and enter the land, they experienced the wrath of God, which brought their demise over a thirty-eight-year period. God then renewed his covenant with the succeeding generation and made preparations for them to enter the promised land (Deut. 2).

The Ten Commandments are prefaced with a staggering manifestation of God (Exod. 19) that accentuates his awesome character. This theophany revealed the transcendent God, who speaks his word to his people from heaven as the Great King. At this point in redemptive history, Israel was established as an independent nation, and the mediatorial role of Moses was confirmed (Exod. 19:9). The declaration of divine law does not mean the absence of grace. The grace of redemption in the exodus preceded the statement of law at Sinai. In both Exodus and Deuteronomy, the Decalogue is prefaced by God’s statement: “I am the Lord your God” (Exod. 20:2; Deut. 5:6) to underscore the importance of relationship.

In Deuteronomy, the Ten Commandments function within the overall suzerainty treaty structure used by Moses to organize the book. This structure is common in the ancient Near East, and the biblical material bears some similarity to Hittite treaties. In suzerain treaties, the servants (vassals) are obligated to fulfill the will of the king (suzerain), which is reflected in Deut. 4:44–11:32. As in Exodus, the Decalogue of Deuteronomy (5:6–21) is a summary of the will of God.

The Decalogue contains mainly negative commands. There are two positive commands, those enjoining remembrance of the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8; Deut. 5:12) and honor for parents (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16). The commands vary in length, style, and content. Some commands include motivational or explanatory statements. The first four commands of the Decalogue refer to humans’ relationship with God, and the remaining six refer to humans’ relationships with one another, especially with fellow covenant partners.

The Decalogue is the basis for understanding all other OT laws. The prophets used the Ten Commandments as a basis of appeal to the nation. Often, the prophetic message of the Major Prophets and the Minor Prophets is an exposition of Israel’s failure to conform to the will of its Great King declared in the law along with an appeal to return to his gracious ways.

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).

Shema is the transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning “hear” (shema’ ), the first word of Deut. 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” The text that begins with this verse is therefore referred to as the Shema. The Shema emphasizes the oneness of God and the obligation to love him and is the most important prayer in Judaism. It is recited twice daily and begins a weekly liturgical reading that includes Deut. 6:4–9; 11:13–21; Num. 15:37–41. These Torah passages emphasize monotheism and the centrality of the commandments.

Jesus called the Shema the greatest commandment (Mark 12:29–30; Matt. 22:37–38; Luke 10:27) and invoked it in teaching his oneness with the Father (John 10:30). Paul later expanded the Shema to include Jesus (1 Cor. 8:6).

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.