The name of a person and a word for “humankind.” That the Hebrew word ’adam can be both a personal name and a reference to humankind provides the biblical writers with a valuable means of drawing theological conclusions important to the nature of humankind’s status before God. Unfortunately, in various places it is unclear whether it is a proper name or a more general noun. The origin of the word is usually understood to be related to “red” or “red soil,” and the writer of Genesis makes the link between “the man” and “the soil” more apparent in Gen. 2:7, where man is said to have been created from ’adamah (ground, earth).

The first man was named “Adam.” Because of the difficulties of the word ’adam serving as both a proper name and meaning simply “human,” there is disagreement concerning when the text of Gen. 1–3 is referring to humankind and when it is utilizing “Adam” as a reference to the first man’s name. This discussion often is driven by one’s explanation of origins; however, the general rule applied by many Bible translations is that the presence of the definite article (“the”) indicates that the author has humankind in mind, whereas its absence indicates the use of the proper name.

Humankind was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), who also uniquely breathed into human beings his own breath (2:7), indicating a distinct capacity for relationship between them and God. This emphasis is furthered in the text by God’s granting to humankind stewardship of the rest of his creation (1:28–30). The fall (Gen. 3) apparently arose out of the desire of human beings to usurp God’s position and determine for themselves what is beneficial and what is harmful (knowledge of good and evil). The step of disobedience taken in consuming fruit from the forbidden tree had dire consequences for the relationships between men and women, humankind and creation, and humankind and God. The fall, however, did not eliminate the reality that humankind is still in the image of God and capable of continued relationship with him (5:1–3).

Other OT passages rely on Adam for purposes of genealogy (Gen. 5:4; 1 Chron. 1:1) but also begin to highlight some theological conceptions of him that would become significant in his description elsewhere in Scripture. Job 31:33 may suggest a link between Adam’s attempt to cover his sin (Gen. 3:7, 10) and the propensity that human beings have to do the same (cf. Isa. 43:27). Psalm 8 expresses reflections concerning the creation of humankind, and the wonder of God’s interest and investment of himself in it. The writer of Ecclesiastes seemingly toils over the status of human beings in relation to the earth, since the former die but the latter continues (Eccles. 1:3–4). Such passages demonstrate the corporate responsibility that humankind bears for sin following Adam’s first sin and establish a framework through which the NT writers may be able to address the most significant human problems.

Adam is the center of several significant references in the NT. In particular, passages such as Rom. 5:12–21 and 1 Cor. 15:21–49 establish an Adam/Christ, or First Adam/Second Adam typology. In the Romans passage, Paul draws on the Jewish concept of corporate identity in order to identify the status of death as common throughout all humanity because of the first Adam, and the hope of salvation and grace as available to all humanity because of the second Adam. The 1 Corinthians passage makes its argument along similar lines; however, its interest is in the granting of the possibility of resurrection to humanity in the second Adam, who provides a permanent body, while the first Adam only granted a limited body of dust.

In other places in the NT the priority of Adam and his impact on humanity are the source of theological reflection as well. Luke seems to argue for the solidarity of Jesus with all of humanity by taking his genealogy back to Adam (Luke 3). Paul draws on the priority of Adam being created before Eve, as well as her deception by the serpent, as a rationale for not permitting women certain roles in the church (1 Tim. 2:13–14). The writer of Hebrews draws the connection between humankind and Christ in order to highlight Jesus’ unique capacity for dealing with the sinful human condition (Heb. 2). See also Adam, Town of; Adam and Eve.

The first human beings. According to Gen. 2, God created Adam (whose name means “humanity” and is related to the word for “ground”) from the dust of the ground and his own breath, showing that humankind is a part of creation but has a special relationship with God. This description contrasts with the Babylonian account of the creation of the first humans from the clay of the ground and the blood of a demon god (Qingu in the Enuma Elish). The Bible thus presents a more dignified understanding of the place of humankind in the world. God placed Adam in a garden in Eden (a name that means “delight” or “abundance”). Even so, God, noting that it was not good for Adam to be alone, created Eve (whose name means “living”), his female counterpart. She was created from Adam’s side (or rib), signifying their equality. She was to be his “helper,” a word that does not denote subordination, since elsewhere in the Bible God is said to be the psalmist’s helper (Pss. 30:10; 54:4). Eve was Adam’s wife, and God pronounced that future marriage will be characterized by leaving one’s parents, being joined as a couple, and consummating the relationship with sexual intercourse (Gen. 2:24).

Adam and Eve were to tend the garden of Eden. They were permitted to eat the fruit of all the trees of the garden except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eating the fruit of this tree, against God’s express prohibition, would be an assertion of moral independence that would meet with God’s punishment.

In Gen. 3 the serpent convinced Eve that it would be good to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. Adam was present with her as the serpent spoke, but he remained silent. After eating the fruit, Eve gave some to Adam, and he ate without protest. Both Adam and Eve were therefore guilty of the first sin. The results were immediate, including the alienation of Adam and Eve, signaled by the fact that they could no longer stand naked before each other without shame.

Adam and Eve were punished for their rebellion. Eve was punished in her most intimate relationships. She would now experience increased pain when giving birth, and her relationship with her husband would become a power struggle as her desire to control him would be met with his attempt to dominate her (Gen. 3:16). Adam felt the consequences of his action in his work, which now would be tinged with frustration (3:17–19). In addition, although they did not die immediately, they were removed from the garden and access to the tree of life, so death would be their ultimate end.

After Adam and Eve departed from the garden, they had children. We know of Cain and Abel, whose conflict is well known from Gen. 4. After the death of Abel, Eve gave birth to Seth. The genealogies of Cain (Gen. 4:17–24) and Seth suggest that humanity is divided into those who resist and those who follow God (5:1–32). Surprisingly, in the rest of the OT Adam is mentioned only in the first verse of the genealogy in 1 Chron. 1, and Eve not at all (cf. Hos. 6:7).

In the NT, Adam is mentioned in the Lukan genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:38) and in Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15; 1 Tim. 2:13–14; Jude 14. In Romans, Paul associates Adam with the entry of sin and death into the world. Paul contrasts Adam with Christ. Whereas Adam’s act introduced sin and death, Christ’s act brought reconciliation with God and life. Paul makes essentially the same point in 1 Cor. 15 (see esp. vv. 22, 45). Christians thus read Gen. 3 through the commentary supplied by Paul and believe that it supports the notion of original sin, that all humans are sinners from birth.

Eve is mentioned twice in the NT. In 1 Tim. 2:11–15 Paul argues that women should learn quietly and not teach or have authority over men because Eve was created after Adam and was the one deceived by the serpent. Debate surrounds the issue whether Paul here addresses a local situation or is citing a universal principle. Paul again mentions the deception of Eve in 2 Cor. 11:3, but here he applies it to men and women who are in danger of being deceived by false teachers.

The concept of authority in Scripture includes two distinct elements. First, a person has authority in various settings if he or she has the right to tell others what to do and decide how matters should be arranged. Second, a person has authority if he or she has not only the right to rule, as in the first case, but also the power to control, so that what this person decrees actually happens. When the angel of the Lord tells Hagar, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her,” he employs the first aspect of authority (Gen. 16:9). Hagar must do what Sarah tells her to do. The same sense of authority operates in Deut. 1:15, where Moses recalls, “So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, and appointed them to have authority over you” (cf. Exod. 18:13–27). On the other hand, when Yahweh says of his word, “It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it,” the second sense of authority also plays a role (Isa. 55:11; cf. Heb. 4:12). Likewise regarding the one who “overcomes” in the book of Revelation: the Son gives the church authority, and its people rule the nations “with an iron scepter” (2:26–27). Both ideas—forensic right and power to effect—arise in that context.

The authority of Christ is a prominent theme of the Gospels, being evidence of his deity and messianic status. In Matthew’s Gospel, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount concludes with the crowd’s wonder that Jesus teaches “as one who had authority,” unlike the teachers of the law (7:28–29). Jesus then displays his authority over diseases (8:1–10), natural forces (8:26–27), and demonic entities (8:28–32), culminating in his authority to forgive sins (9:6) and resuscitate the dead (9:18–26). Mark and Luke also include parallel passages that emphasize the authority of Christ over similar domains. John’s Gospel highlights the authority of Jesus to judge (5:27), to lay down his life and take it up again (10:18), and to grant eternal life to those who abide in him (17:2). The authority of Christ over all events, even the worst of them, is the grand theme of the book of Revelation. Jesus has the right and power to rule for the sake of his church, overcoming all powers that usurp authority in opposition to him (Rev. 4–5; 13; 20). Finally, even the Great Commission proclaims the supreme authority of Christ (Matt. 28:18; cf. Eph. 1:21; Col. 2:10). With God, we expect authority as right and as power always to coincide in the end.

On this same trajectory, the church must submit to authority, first to God and then to human rulers, in the latter case when it can be done in good conscience. Paul’s references to Jesus as “Lord” throughout the Corinthian letters highlight his authority over those whom he has “bought at a price” (1 Cor. 6:9–20). For his own part, Paul can implicitly “pull rank” on the Corinthians, citing his own God-given authority over them (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10; cf. 1 Tim. 4:2). No one should “lord it over” others (Luke 22:25–26), but even when they do, the servant must respect the master’s authority (1 Pet. 2:17–19). Wives must submit to the servant leadership of their husbands (Eph. 5:22), children must obey their parents (Eph. 6:1–3), slaves must yield to their masters (Eph. 6:5–8), and laypersons must obey the church’s elders (Heb. 13:17).

Respect for authority also extends to secular governments, whatever the character of their leaders. Even though Saul had intended to kill David (1 Sam. 20:33), David is outraged that anyone would kill Saul (2 Sam. 1:14). The apostle Paul has many reasons to distrust secular governments and defy their authority; yet when he is subjected to official abuse, he respects Rome’s laws (Acts 16:16–40; 21–28). In Rom. 13:1–6 Paul commands the church to be subject to governing authorities, assuming that God has established them, so that “whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted” (v. 2). In 1 Tim. 2:1–3 the church is called to prayer for secular rulers. These passages do not require obedience to human authority even when it conflicts with the will of God (Acts 5:29), but they do prevent the church from hindering the gospel with outbreaks of revolutionary enthusiasm.

Both Paul and Peter exhort Christian women to adorn themselves not with “braided hair,” expensive clothes, and fine jewels, but with an inner beauty expressed in good works and spiritual grace (1 Tim. 2:9–10; 1 Pet. 3:3–4 NASB, RSV). The terms used here refer not to simple hair weaves, but to the elaborate bejeweled coiffures of upper-class Greco-Roman women. The NIV uses the phrase “elaborate hairstyles,” since the point is not the braids themselves but rather the ostentatious behavior and emphasis on outward beauty.

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 first woman, formed from the side of Adam, was named “Eve” (“living one” or “life giver”) “because she would become the mother of all the living” (Gen. 3:20). Eve was associated with Adam in disobeying God (Gen. 3:1–6; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13–14). She bore Cain, Abel, and Seth, among other children. See also Adam and Eve.

A number of Hebrew and Greek words are used in the Bible to refer to hair and hairstyles. Most of the references are to human hair (e.g., Lev. 19:27), but occasionally animal hair is intended (Matt. 3:4; Rev. 6:12). God numbers the hairs of our head (Matt. 10:30); not one hair will perish if God is the protector (Isa. 46:4; Luke 21:18).

Hairstyles varied throughout the ancient Near East according to place and period. For example, the Egyptians shaved their heads, but Semitic men and women generally wore their hair long and admired black hair (2 Sam. 14:26; see also Song 5:11, where hair is described as wavy). Ancient Near Eastern tomb paintings and reliefs depict Semitic men with thick black hair and pointed beards and women with their long, black hair tied and hanging down the back. As a sign of age, white hair was regarded with great respect (Lev. 19:32; Prov. 16:31). Much later, at the time of the apostle Paul, long hair on men was considered shameful (1 Cor. 11:14), while for women long hair was the ideal (11:15).

Beards and hair were dressed, adorned, anointed with oil, perfumed, and curled (2 Kings 9:30; Eccles. 9:8; Isa. 3:18–24; Matt. 26:7). The NT, however, advises moderation in hairstyles (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3–6). Barbers used razors to cut hair and beards (Ezek. 5:1; cf. Isa. 7:20). To shave or pluck out another person’s hair was a grave insult (2 Sam. 10:4–5; Isa. 50:6). It was also uncommon to untie a woman’s hair in public (Num. 5:18; cf. Luke 7:38).

Cutting or shaving hair often had social or religious significance. During times of mourning and affliction, hair on the head and beard was shaved or plucked out (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 16:6). Sometimes the beard was left untrimmed (2 Sam. 19:24). A Nazirite was not to cut his hair during the days of his vow (Num. 6:5). At the conclusion of the vow, his hair was offered with a sacrifice (Num. 6:18). Offering hair for the dead and cutting the corners of the beard was prohibited in the law (Deut. 14:1; Lev. 19:27). Priests were not to shave their heads or allow their hair to grow long (Lev. 21:5; Ezek. 44:20). Prophets may have marked themselves by a partial shaving of the head (1 Kings 20:35–43; 2 Kings 2:23).

A messenger commissioned to deliver a proclamation on behalf of a royal personage or God. King Nebuchadnezzar’s herald announces that all subjects must worship a golden statue or else be thrown into a blazing furnace (Dan. 3:4). God instructs Habakkuk to record his oracle regarding the future destruction of Babylon on a tablet so that it might be delivered by a herald (Hab. 2:2). Paul was appointed as an apostle and a herald of the gospel to the Gentiles (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11).

The act of advocating before the powerful on someone’s behalf (Gen. 23:8–9), especially turning to God in prayer to seek God’s favor for others in crisis (2 Sam. 12:16). While it is a prerogative of prophets (Gen. 20:7; Num. 12; Amos 7:1–6), priests (Ezra 6:9–10), and kings (1 Chron. 21:17; 2 Chron. 30:18; Jer. 26:19), intercession is a ministry that belongs to all the people of God (Acts 12:5; Eph. 6:18; 1 Tim. 2:1; James 5:16).

Old Testament

Reflecting God’s own deliberative process (Gen. 1:26–27; 2:18), our creation in God’s image implies and makes possible our genuine conversation, participation, and even disputation with God. A biblical understanding of God’s rule accommodates this divine-human dialogue and the intertwined roles of both parties. People request intercession for themselves (1 Kings 13:6; Acts 8:24), but Scripture highlights God’s initiative.

In Gen. 18 God invites (even provokes) Abraham’s intercession by confiding in Abraham, reviewing the divine promises, and disclosing the guilt and impending doom of Sodom and Gomorrah. On behalf of righteous persons who may live there, Abraham appeals boldly to God’s own “justice” (mishpat) in distinguishing the innocent from the guilty, and he successfully negotiates God’s pledge to spare the city if even ten righteous persons can be found there. Without disputing the allegations of wickedness, Abraham puts God’s just response on the table as well.

Similarly, in Exod. 32 God informs Moses of the Israelites’ sin with the golden calf and his own intention to destroy them and start over with Moses. In response, Moses intercedes, arguing that God’s deliverance of Israel, and the likelihood of its being misconstrued by Egypt, should trump divine anger. Moses urges a different course of action: turn from anger, relent, and do not bring the announced disaster. The destruction of Israel would be inconsistent with God’s own commitment to multiply the people of Israel and give them the land as their inheritance (cf. Num. 14:13–29). The issue for Moses is not only Israel’s sin but also the rightness of God’s response in faithfulness to his purposes.

In Job’s intercession for his friends, God dictates the entire process, directing the friends to make offerings and assigning Job the task of interceding for them. God makes his own vindication the central issue: Eliphaz and friends have not said “the truth” (nekonah) of God, as Job had (Job 42:7–10).

These three narratives highlight God’s initiative and make God’s character the grounds for intercession. They also introduce the potential pain borne by the intercessor. For example, Moses dramatizes his passionate concern for God’s cause by falling down before God and lying prostrate forty days and nights (Deut. 9:13–29). He so identifies his own destiny with Israel’s as to offer himself as “atonement,” saying, “Please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written” (Exod. 32:32). This anticipates later prophets’ participation in the sorrow of God and the pain of the people’s separation from God (Jer. 15; cf. Luke 13:34–35; 19:41–44).

New Testament

In the Gospels, Jesus heals by command, without explicit reference to intercession, and in this way remarkably transcends the OT prophets (1 Kings 17:19–21). Although he does ask his Father to forgive his crucifiers (Luke 23:34), the Gospels emphasize Jesus’ intercession for his disciples, such as for Simon Peter to survive Satan’s assaults on his faith (22:31–32). John 17 comprises an extended intercession of Jesus for his disciples—significantly, that the Father will protect them in a hostile world. Moreover, Christ promises to acknowledge faithful disciples before the Father (Matt. 10:32), an action formally close to intercession, and that Christ performs as mediator of the Father’s kingdom and salvation.

Paul’s prayer for his fellow Israelites to be saved is fueled by anguish over their unbelief (Rom. 9:1–3; 10:1–4). Mirroring this is “the pressure of concern” he feels for all the churches and for the welfare of their members (2 Cor. 11:28–29), hence the prominent role of prayer in Paul’s ministry (see the thanksgivings that open his letters [e.g., Phil. 1:3–11]). Intercession per se, as prayer that others be spared or delivered from crisis, is seen in the churches’ prayers for Paul’s deliverance from prison and death (Phil. 1:19; 2 Thess. 3:2–3; cf. Rom. 15:31).

The NT extends the Gospel portrayals to reveal Christ as our heavenly intercessor, a role made possible by the cross and resurrection. In Rom. 8:34–39 Christ’s death, resurrection, and reign “at the right hand of God” ground Paul’s confidence that Christ’s intercession assures victory over condemnation and all opposition. The work of Christ our high priest (Heb. 7:25) may be summed up as intercession, echoing Isa. 53:12. Accordingly, “Jesus Christ the Righteous One” not only advocates before the Father for the forgiveness of our sins but also is their atoning sacrifice (1 John 2:1–2). In these texts, Christ’s heavenly intercession implements the saving purposes of God made real in the cross. Moreover, the work of Christ as prophet, priest, and king implies the central role of intercession, since intercession is a function of each of these offices.

Thus God’s initiative in intercession is intensified in the NT: God’s self-giving through Christ is the foundation of an ongoing heavenly intercession that in turn gives the church increased confidence to intercede boldly. Further, God’s Spirit helps us in our weakness by interceding for us in accord with God’s will, even if we experience that intercession as “wordless groans” (Rom. 8:26–28).

One who serves as a facilitator of reconciliation between two parties. The role of a mediator was taken by different individuals and offices in the OT, as seen in Abraham interceding for Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:22–32), Moses asking God to forgive Israel (Exod. 32:31–32), and the Israelites begging Moses to speak to God on their behalf (Exod. 20:19). In addition, judges, prophets, kings, and priests assumed intermediary functions at times. Mediation functions bidirectionally: from God to humans, and from humans to God. The prophets are quintessentially the first kind of mediators (God to humans), while the priests took, mostly, the second function (humans to God).

In the NT, the role of mediator is given to Christ, since he alone, as God incarnate, is qualified for it (the “one mediator between God and mankind” [1 Tim. 2:5]). This implies that insomuch as reconciliation between sinful humankind and a holy God is conceivable, Christ alone can facilitate that mediation.

Hebrews develops a theology of mediation by comparing Christ to angels, Moses, and the prophets, declaring that Christ is superior to each in every aspect. Hebrews says that Christ is the mediator of a new and better covenant (8:6; 9:15; 12:24). Many NT passages present Christ engaging in prophetic ministry as he proclaims and interprets God’s will for the lost world. His priestly work consists not only of giving himself as the ultimate sacrifice but also of interceding for humans before God and giving the “priestly blessing” from his heavenly abode.

Christ’s mediation is to be appreciated in terms of both who he is and what he has done. The eternal mystery surrounding Christ is his incarnate person (God-man) and his atoning death (cleansing all guilt). Through the patristic period and the following scholastic movement, theological reflection on Christ was channeled to the meaning of incarnation, emphasizing Christ’s unique status as both true God and true human that makes redemptive work possible.

By comparison, the Protestant Reformers brought Christ’s salvific and mediatory work into the forefront of their theology. The Reformed tradition developed the mediatory role of Christ in a threefold manner: prophet, priest, and king.

Avoidance of excess or extremes (Eccles. 5:10; Ezek. 16:47). The Bible generally condemns excessive wealth and extreme asceticism (Prov. 30:8; 1 Tim. 5:21). Paul appropriates one of the four cardinal virtues of the Stoics, “propriety,” which relates to moderation in eating, drinking, sex, and exercise, leading to soundness of mind (1 Tim. 2:9, 15).

A payment made to redeem a slave, release a captive, or free a criminal from punishment.

In the OT, slaves could be set free by ransom (Lev. 19:20), and certain kinds of criminals are excluded from ransom (Num. 35:31–32), implying that others could be ransomed to escape their punishment. Ransom is also used more broadly to include notions of atonement (Exod. 30:12) and as a near synonym for “redemption” (Jer. 31:11 NASB, NRSV, KJV). “Ransom” is frequently used metaphorically to describe God’s saving actions on behalf of the nation (Isa. 43:3; 50:2; Jer. 31:11; Hos. 13:14), saving them from their enemies, or of individuals (Job 5:20; Ps. 55:18), saving them from death. In these cases, the emphasis is on the rescue effected, not the price paid.

In the NT, “ransom” is used to describe the atoning work of Christ. Jesus describes his own purpose: “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45 // Matt. 20:28). Paul uses the same language: “Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Tim. 2:5–6). The author of Hebrews describes the effect of this ransom: “He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:15). All three references indicate that the price paid for the ransom is Jesus’ life, given up to death on the cross. Each of the literal meanings of “ransom” has its metaphorical equivalent: Christ’s death frees us from our slavery to sin and death (Rom. 6:6), releases us from our captivity to the law (7:4–6), and pays the price of the punishment that our sins deserved (3:25–26). The ransom was not paid to the devil, and it is best understood as the satisfaction of God’s own justice (Rom. 6:23).

The act of yielding or consenting to the authority of another, voluntarily or involuntarily; personal deference, compliance, or humility toward another; to become subject to. Submission incorporates obedience, and in certain usages the terms are synonymous. However, “obedience” indicates compliance with directions or guidance, while “submission” describes one’s subservient posture toward another. Submission within a formalized hierarchy is subordination—for example, Jesus’ relationship to the Father.

Scripture presents submission in two ways: as the translation of a number of specific Hebrew and Greek terms that convey an aspect of the concept, and as a general portrait of relationships—for example, patriarchs and prophets before the Lord, or demons toward Jesus. Sometimes, the presentation is negative, as in a refusal to submit.

In the OT, the use of the word “submission” (or its derivatives) in the major English versions is primarily a function of translator preference. In fact, Gen. 16:9, the angel’s instructions to Hagar, is the sole instance where “submit” is broadly agreed to be the best translation of the underlying Hebrew. Elsewhere, the NIV and at least one other version use forms of “submission” to interpretively translate Hebrew expressions meaning the following: “become a slave to” (Gen. 49:15); “serve” (2 Chron. 30:8); “have a relationship with” (Job 22:21); “quickly stretch out hands” (Ps. 68:31); “give over to” (Ps. 81:11); and “give the hand to” (Lam. 5:6).

In the NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and, often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and the epistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.

1. Dogmatizō appears once: “Why . . . do you submit to rules?” (Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something that has been decreed.

2. Hypeikō appears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience is specifically distinguished from submission.

3. Hypotagē appears four times as “submission.” In Gal. 2:5; 1 Tim. 2:11; 3:4 it indicates the main understanding: subordinate posturing toward superiors; in 2 Cor. 9:13, however, it refers to obedience to a decree, in this case confession of the gospel.

4. Hypotassō is by far the most significant root. It appears almost forty times in the NT; about half of these occurrences can be translated using a form of “submission” (or “to be subject to”). It is used to convey the subordination of children to parents (Luke 2:51); demons to the seventy-two missionaries (Luke 10:17, 20); sinners to God’s law or righteousness (Rom. 8:7; 10:3); people to governing authorities (Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13); believers to one another (1 Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21); wives to husbands (1 Cor. 14:34; Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1, 5); slaves to masters (Titus 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18); angels, authorities, and powers to Jesus (1 Pet. 3:22); believers to God (Heb. 12:9; James 4:7); younger men to elders (1 Pet. 5:5).

A few additional uses of “submission” in some translations have other primary meanings: “turn in for inspection” (Gal. 2:2 NASB); “reverence” (Heb. 5:7 NIV, NRSV); and “open-mindedness” (James 3:17 NIV).

Vivid portraits of submission conveying the concept without invoking the specific vocabulary include Abraham’s submission to God (Gen. 12:1–4; 17:1–27; 21:4; 22:1–19); Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17); Joshua toward God (Josh. 24:29); prophets toward God (1 Sam. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Hos. 1:1–3); Jesus’ submission to the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; Mark 14:35–36, 39; Luke 2:49; 22:42); Paul’s submission to Jesus (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1); believers doing the will of the Father (Matt. 12:50; 21:28–32); the prodigal son toward his father (Luke 15:18, 21); believers toward Jesus (John 12:26; 14:21, 23–24; 15:10); husbands and wives toward each other (1 Cor. 7:3–5; 11:11); believers humble before one another (Rom. 12:10; Phil. 2:3–4); and the bowing of every knee to Jesus (Phil. 2:10–13).

Ancient Near East

The ancient Near East was a male-dominated culture in which, therefore, women were marginalized and treated more or less as property. Note, for example, Boaz’s question “Who does that young woman belong to?” (Ruth 2:5). Women, of course, produce children, and this power was prized. Women were also fit to engage in various mundane tasks, but they were not trained for war or educated for service in the royal court. Their role in society was subordinate and secondary.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the wild and powerful Enkidu met a “wise woman” who seduced him. Thereafter, Enkidu was tamed and weakened. She made a civilized man of him. In the Ugaritic legend of Danil, Danil was unhappy because he had no sons. With the blessing of the gods, he married Hurriya, and had sons and daughters. Thus, sons fulfilled Danil as much as they fulfilled the woman.

But the power to reproduce, which resides in the woman’s womb, also was mysterious and seemed to belong in the same category as other forces of nature, such as the rebirth of life in the spring following sterile winter. Thus, the ancient world was filled with goddesses of great power. These goddesses at times also took on masculine characteristics, such as displaying great prowess in war; this is especially true of Anat of Canaanite mythology.

Throughout Israel’s sojourn in the Promised Land, there was an undercurrent of Canaanite-style goddess worship. In the period of the judges, the Israelites worshiped the goddess Asherah (Judg. 6:25). Led astray by his wives, Solomon also worshiped the goddess (1 Kings 11:1–8). The “fertility cult” included ritual sex in places of worship. This eventually took place in the temple of Yahweh. Much of this seems to have been homosexual sex (2 Kings 23:7).

Creation of Woman

In the Bible, woman is first encountered along with man in Gen. 1:26–28. God created “man” in the plural, male and female, and commanded them to reproduce and to fill the earth and subdue it. Being created male and female is set in parallel to being created in the image of God. In the ancient Near East, perhaps the king would be thought of as the image of God. But in Genesis, not only is the first man the image of God, but the first woman participates in the image as well. This is all but unthinkable in the ancient world, and it suggests an unparalleled dignity and worth in womankind.

Genesis records that the human race fell through the instrumentality of a man, a woman, and the serpent. The serpent approached the woman, not the man. The woman was convinced by the serpent and ate the forbidden fruit. She gave some to her husband, who also ate it without saying a word. Thus, the woman can be blamed in part for the fall of the race. Adam was condemned because he “listened to [his] wife” (Gen. 3:17). Her judgment, for heeding the serpent, was pain in childbirth and a desire for her husband, who would rule over her (Gen. 3:16). The exact parameters of this judgment are unclear, but it appears that her desire will be for his position of leadership and will be perpetually frustrated.

Throughout the remainder of Genesis, this judgment does not seem to unfold as expected. Instead, men are shown to desire women. Jacob was willing to work seven years to get the beautiful Rachel as his wife, and when he was fooled into marrying her sister, Leah, he was willing to work another seven years for her (Gen. 29:16–30). And women exploit men and their desire in order to get what they want, in effect mastering them. Lot’s daughters contrived to get what they wanted from him (19:30–38), and Tamar manipulated Judah’s desire (38:13–26).

Reproduction

Often in the Bible, women are motivated by their desire to have children. Rachel demanded of Jacob, “Give me children, or I’ll die!” (Gen. 30:1). She saw herself in competition with her sister, Leah, in this respect (30:8). The “fruit of the womb” is a reward, and like arrows, the blessed man’s quiver is full of them (Ps. 127:1–5). Note also the beatitude of Ps. 128:3: “Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table.”

In Genesis, the reproductive capability of slave girls is at the disposal of their owners. Thus, Rachel and Leah’s maidservants became surrogate mothers for a number of their sons (Gen. 30:3–10). Sarah also became frustrated at her inability to conceive, so she gave Hagar to Abraham. The result was great familial turmoil, finally resulting in the banishment of both Hagar and Ishmael, whom she bore to Abraham.

In the beginning, God joined one man and one woman together as husband and wife. But soon this idea was corrupted, and Lamech, a man from Cain’s lineage, is credited with the first polygamous marriage (Gen. 4:19). Although the patriarchs (such as Jacob) did have more than one wife, the household discontent and strife are what is highlighted in those stories, such as with Hagar. In the NT, an elder is to be, literally, a “one-woman man” (1 Tim. 3:2; ESV, KJV: “the husband of one wife”), meaning monogamous.

In the Bible, women are described as having a number of different sexual relationships with men. There were wives, who enjoyed the closest relationship and had the greatest privileges. There were concubines, who were not wives but were bound to a single man. The greatest deviation from the norm of creation was the institution of the harem, whereby a king took to himself any number of consorts. The law of Moses restricted this practice (Deut. 17:17).

Legislation

The Torah contains significant legislation regarding women. The daughters of Zelophehad argued that their father died without sons, so in Canaan they were disinherited. God agreed and decreed that in Israel daughters would inherit land in the absence of sons. Only if there were no children at all would the land pass to other kin (Num. 27:1–11).

When a man made a vow, he must fulfill it, but a young woman’s vow was subject to her father. If he remained silent, the vow stood, but if he expressed disapproval, then she was freed from it. If she was married, her husband governed her vows, but if she was divorced, then there was no responsible male over her, and her vow was treated as a man’s (Num. 30:1–16).

Sexual intercourse was also regulated in the law of Moses, insofar as the act rendered both parties ritually impure (Lev. 15:18). Both must bathe and were unclean until evening. A woman’s menstrual discharge also made her unclean for a week. Everything she sat or lay upon was unclean, as was anyone who touched these things. She must wash and offer sacrifice to become clean again (15:18–31).

If a man discovered on his wedding night that his bride was not a virgin, he could accuse her publicly. If her parents provided evidence that she had in fact been a virgin, then the man was severely punished for lying and not allowed to divorce her (otherwise, it was simply a matter of writing a letter to divorce her [Deut. 24:1]). If her virginity could not be proved, she was to be put to death by stoning (Deut. 22:13–21).

In the case of a rape of a betrothed virgin, if it occurred in the city, both the rapist and the victim were stoned, since apparently she had failed to cry out for help and thus, the law assumed, consented to sexual intercourse. If she was raped in the countryside, only the man was killed. But if he raped a woman who was not spoken for, his punishment was that he must marry her without possibility of divorce (Deut. 22:23–29).

Numbers 5:11–31 treats cases where a husband was suspicious that his wife had been unfaithful—that is, a matter of covenantal jealousy. The unprovable was left to God to punish.

The Status of Women

In the Bible, women sometimes are afforded dignity beyond what is expected in an ancient Near Eastern provenance. Hagar is the only woman in all ancient Near Eastern literature who gave a name to a deity (Gen. 16:13). In Judg. 4:4, Deborah “judged” Israel (despite the NIV’s “leading,” the underlying Hebrew verb indicates “judging,” as in the NRSV). Even as judge, however, she did not lead the army against the enemy general Sisera; Barak did so. But Barak was unwilling to undertake this mission unless Deborah went with him (4:8). Thus, God ensured that the prestige of killing Sisera went to a woman, Jael (4:9, 21). Another prominent woman was Huldah, to whom the priests turned for guidance when the law was rediscovered (2 Kings 22:14).

Many biblical stories feature heroines. Mighty Pharaoh was undermined by two midwives in his attempt to destroy Israel (Exod. 1:15–21). Ruth the Moabite woman gave her name to the book that recounts her trek from Moab to Israel, including her famous oath of loyalty (Ruth 1:16–17). Esther too was a courageous woman whose book bears her name. Heroines are especially prominent in the Gospels, and the women there have the distinction of being the first to witness the risen Lord. Luke’s birth narrative is largely organized around Mary. Priscilla (with her husband) taught and helped to shape the early church (Acts 18:26). Paul lists many women in Rom. 16, calling them “deaconess,” “fellow worker,” and possibly even “apostle.”

Scripture also at times portrays various women as being temptations to men. Eve handed the fruit to Adam (Gen. 3:6). In the wilderness Israel worshiped Moabite gods in conjunction with sexual activity (Num. 25:1–9). Later, Israelites intermarried with Canaanite women, directly leading to worship of their idols (Judg. 3:6). Bathsheba was a temptation to David, and this began a series of events that marred his career as a man after God’s own heart. Solomon loved many foreign women, who turned him to worship their gods. After the exile, the Israelites were admonished by Nehemiah to put away their foreign wives lest history repeat itself (Neh. 13:26).

Song of Songs

Song of Songs, while acknowledging the great power of sexuality to move people to act against their own best interests, nevertheless portrays love in a very positive light. The love between a man and a woman is shown in Song of Songs to be not primarily about generating children. Offspring are not at issue in the Bible’s great love song. Rather, relations between man and wife rest on a deeper foundation, that of sexual enjoyment and desire. In the words of Hannah’s husband, Elkanah, “Don’t I mean more to you than ten sons?” (1 Sam. 1:8).

In Gen. 3:16, God pronounces judgment on the woman that her “desire” will be for her husband, but that he will master her. The Hebrew word for “desire” occurs only once outside Genesis, in Song 7:10, where the woman says that her lover’s “desire” is for her. This seems to be a direct reference to Gen. 3:16. Thus, in Song of Songs the judgment on the woman is rolled back and reversed in love. In Song of Songs it is the king who is enthralled in love and thus subdued (7:5). He would not have it any other way!

Thus, sexuality is celebrated in Song of Songs. What proves to be such a grave temptation to men elsewhere is shown to be an essential part of God’s good creation, albeit a potent and dangerous facet of life. Women do not exist simply to produce children; they partner and revel with their lovers, together enjoying that particular part of God’s creation that requires two sexes to explore.

Imagery

Women and marriage are used in the Bible as images for spiritual things. Paul writes that marital love mirrors the church’s relationship with Christ (Eph. 5:32–33). A man should love his wife as Christ loved the church. Revelation portrays the climax to human history in the figure of two women: the bride of Christ, adorned with righteous deeds for her husband (19:7–8), and the whore Babylon, drunk on the blood of the saints (17:5–6). The consummation of the age is when one is judged and the other enters her eternal marital bliss.

The book of Proverbs also separates humankind into two groups, symbolized by two women. Along the path of life, the youth hears the voices of Woman Folly (9:13–18) and of Woman Wisdom (1:20–33) calling out to him. Folly is incarnated in the flesh-and-blood temptation of the immoral woman (7:6–27), whereas Woman Wisdom has her counterpart at the end of the book in the detailed description of the woman of virtue (31:10–31). There, the woman who fears God is set as a prize far above earthly wealth—the highest blessing of the wise.

Paul uses two women from sacred history to help explain his gospel of law versus grace. Hagar the slave woman represents the Mosaic covenant given at Sinai, and the earthly Jerusalem—that is, a mind-set of slavery that futilely attempts to earn God’s favor by works of the law. Sarah was the free woman, and her son was the promised son, who represents the heavenly Jerusalem, the new covenant, and freedom from the requirements of the law (Gal. 4:21–31). Again, two women symbolize two paths and two peoples—one being slaves, the other being God’s free people.

Church Government

Throughout most of Christian history, women’s roles in the church have been comparable to their role in the general culture. Women participated little in the institutional life of society, and the church was no different. A number of Bible texts can be used in support of women’s marginalization as leaders. For example, in the OT, the cult was managed by the priestly caste, and no woman was ever a priest of Yahweh. In the NT, the local churches were overseen by a company of elders. Elders are described by Paul as men, the husband of one wife, who were apt to teach and who managed their own families well (1 Tim. 3:1–7). Immediately before this description, Paul notes that women were not to teach or have authority over men (1 Tim. 2:9–15). Women were the “weaker partner” (1 Pet. 3:7). Thus, women’s subordinate role throughout most of church history has some biblical justification.

However, as women participate more and more in the institutional life of society, the normative value of the aforementioned texts has been questioned, and other texts have been put forward to provide an alternative biblical conception of women’s roles in the church. Perhaps 1 Tim. 2:12 is only against teaching a specific heresy, and the Greek verb translated “to assume authority over” (authenteō) may refer to a specific kind of authoritarian or domineering behavior. As noted above, in Rom. 16 Paul considers women to be leaders in the church. Since it is true that in Christ there is no male or female (Gal. 3:28), how far does this extend? Today’s challenge for churches is to decide these matters in light of the whole of Scripture rather than a few proof texts.

One who serves as a facilitator of reconciliation between two parties. The role of a mediator was taken by different individuals and offices in the OT, as seen in Abraham interceding for Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:22–32), Moses asking God to forgive Israel (Exod. 32:31–32), and the Israelites begging Moses to speak to God on their behalf (Exod. 20:19). In addition, judges, prophets, kings, and priests assumed intermediary functions at times. Mediation functions bidirectionally: from God to humans, and from humans to God. The prophets are quintessentially the first kind of mediators (God to humans), while the priests took, mostly, the second function (humans to God).

In the NT, the role of mediator is given to Christ, since he alone, as God incarnate, is qualified for it (the “one mediator between God and mankind” [1 Tim. 2:5]). This implies that insomuch as reconciliation between sinful humankind and a holy God is conceivable, Christ alone can facilitate that mediation.

Hebrews develops a theology of mediation by comparing Christ to angels, Moses, and the prophets, declaring that Christ is superior to each in every aspect. Hebrews says that Christ is the mediator of a new and better covenant (8:6; 9:15; 12:24). Many NT passages present Christ engaging in prophetic ministry as he proclaims and interprets God’s will for the lost world. His priestly work consists not only of giving himself as the ultimate sacrifice but also of interceding for humans before God and giving the “priestly blessing” from his heavenly abode.

Christ’s mediation is to be appreciated in terms of both who he is and what he has done. The eternal mystery surrounding Christ is his incarnate person (God-man) and his atoning death (cleansing all guilt). Through the patristic period and the following scholastic movement, theological reflection on Christ was channeled to the meaning of incarnation, emphasizing Christ’s unique status as both true God and true human that makes redemptive work possible.

By comparison, the Protestant Reformers brought Christ’s salvific and mediatory work into the forefront of their theology. The Reformed tradition developed the mediatory role of Christ in a threefold manner: prophet, priest, and king.

The English word “atonement” comes from an Anglo-Saxon word, “onement,” with the preposition “at”; thus “at-onement,” or “at unity.” In some ways this word has more in common with the idea of reconciliation than our modern concept of atonement, which, while having “oneness” as its result, emphasizes rather the idea of how that unity is achieved, by someone “atone-ing” for a wrong or wrongs done. Atonement, in Christian theology, concerns how Christ achieved this “onement” between God and sinful humanity.

The need for atonement comes from the separation that has come about between God and humanity because of sin. In both Testaments there is the understanding that God has distanced himself from his creatures on account of their rebellion. Isaiah tells the people of Judah, “Your iniquities have separated you from your God” (59:2). And Paul talks about how we were “God’s enemies” (Rom. 5:10). So atonement is the means provided by God to effect reconciliation. The atonement is required on account of God’s holiness and justice.

Old Testament

In the OT, the sacrificial system was the means by which sins were atoned for, ritual purity was restored, iniquities were forgiven, and an amicable relationship between God and the offerer of the sacrifice was reestablished. Moses tells the Israelites that God has given them the blood of the sacrificial animals “to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life” (Lev. 17:11). In essence, this is the basic operating principle for atonement in the OT—the offering of the blood of a slaughtered animal in place of the life of the offerer. However, there have been significant scholarly debates regarding whether this accurately portrays the ancient Israelite understanding of atonement.

The meaning of “to atone.” First, there is disagreement over the precise meaning of the Hebrew word kapar (“to atone”). Among the more popular suggestions are these: to cover, to remove, to wipe out, to appease, to make amends, to redeem or ransom, to forgive, and to avert/divert. Of late, one very influential theory is that atonement has little or nothing to do with the individual offerer, but serves only to purify the tabernacle or temple and the furniture within from the impurities that attach to them on account of the community’s sin. This theory, though most probably correct in what it affirms, unnecessarily restricts the effects of atonement to the tabernacle and furniture. There are, to be sure, texts that specifically mention atonement being made for the altar (e.g., Exod. 29:36–37; Lev. 8:15). But the repeated affirmation for most of the texts in Leviticus and Numbers is that the atonement is made for the offerer (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 4:20, 26); atonement results in forgiveness of sin for the one bringing the offering. As far as the precise meaning of kapar is concerned, it may be that some of the suggested meanings overlap and that a particular concept is more prevalent in some passages, and another one in others.

There has also been debate over the significance of the offerer laying a hand on the head of the sacrificial animal (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 3:2). This has traditionally been understood as an identification of the offerer with the sacrifice and a transference of the offerer’s sins to the sacrifice. Recently this has been disputed and the argument made instead that it only signifies that the animal does indeed belong to the offerer, who therefore has the right to offer it. But again, this is unduly restrictive; it should rather be seen as complementary to what has traditionally been understood by this gesture. Indeed, in the rite for the Day of Atonement, when the priest lays his hands on the one goat, confesses Israel’s sin and wickedness, and in doing so is said to be putting them on the goat’s head (Lev. 16:21), this would seem to affirm the correctness of the traditional understanding. The sacrifice is thus best seen as substitutionary: it takes the place of the offerer; it dies in his stead.

The relationship between God and the offerer. Second, granted that the word kapar has to do with the forgiveness of sins, the question arises as to the exact effect that it has on the relationship between God and the offerer. The question here is whether the effect is expiation or propitiation. Does the offering expiate the sin—wipe it out, erase it, remove it? Or does it propitiate the one to whom the sacrifice is offered? That is, does it appease and placate God, so that the threat of God’s wrath is removed? In one respect, the distinction seems artificial; it seems logical that expiation naturally results in propitiation. On the other hand, the modern-day tendency to deny that God could possibly be a God of wrath makes the question relevant. In any case, there are certainly, in both religious and nonreligious contexts, passages where something like “appease” or “pacify” appears to be a proper rendering of kapar (Gen. 32:20; Exod. 32:30; Num. 16:46–47; 25:1–13; 1 Sam. 3:14). The effect of atonement is that sins are removed and forgiven, and God is appeased.

In conjunction with this last point, it is also important to note that there are a number of places where it is said that God does the kapar, that God is the one who makes atonement. Deuteronomy 21:8 calls upon God, literally, to “atone [NIV: “accept this atonement”] for your people, Israel.” In Deut. 32:43 God will “make atonement for his land and people.” Psalm 65:3 (ESV) states that God “atone[s] for our transgressions” (ESV). Hezekiah prays in 2 Chron. 30:18, “May the Lord, who is good, pardon [atone for] everyone.” In Ps. 78:38 (ESV), God is said to have “atoned” for Israel’s iniquity. Psalm 79:9 (ESV) asks God to “atone for our sins for your name’s sake.” In Isa. 43:3 kapar is translated as “ransom,” and God says to Israel that he gave “Egypt for your ransom.” In Ezek. 16:63 God declares that he will “make atonement” for all the sins that Israel has committed. It may be that in most of these passages “atone” is to be understood as a synonym of “forgive.” However, as many commentators have noted, in at least some of these passages, the thought is that God is either being called upon to take or is taking upon himself the role of high priest, atoning for the sins of the people. It is important to remember God’s declaration in Lev. 17:11 that he has given to the Israelites the blood of the sacrificial animals to make atonement for their sins. Atonement, no matter how it is conceived of or carried out, is a gift that God graciously grants to his covenant people.

That leads to a consideration of one particularly relevant passage, Isa. 52:13–53:12. In this text a figure referred to as “my [the Lord’s] servant” (52:13) is described as one who “took up our pain and bore our suffering” (53:4). He was “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities” (53:5). “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (53:6). And then we are told, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,” and that “the Lord makes his life an offering for sin [NASB: “guilt offering”]” (53:10). There are many issues with regard to the proper interpretation of this “Servant Song” (as it is often called), one of them being whether the term translated “guilt offering” should really be thought of along the lines of the guilt offering described in the book of Leviticus (5:14–6:7; 7:1–10). But if the traditional Christian understanding of this passage is correct, we have here a picture of God himself assuming the role of priest and atoning for the sins of his people by placing their iniquities and sins on his servant, a figure regarded by Jesus and the apostles in the NT to be God’s very own son, Christ Jesus.

New Testament

The relationship between the Testaments. When we come to the NT, four very important initial points should be made.

First, God’s wrath against sin and sinners is just as much a NT consideration as an OT one. God still considers those who are sinful and unrighteous to be his “enemies” (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21). Wrath and punishment await those who do not confess Jesus Christ as Lord (John 3:36; Rom. 2:5; Eph. 2:3). Atonement is the means of averting this wrath.

Second, salvation is promised to those who come to God by faith in Christ Jesus, but there is still the problem of how God can, at the same time, be “just” himself and yet also be the one who “justifies” sinners and declares them righteous (Rom. 3:26). God will not simply declare sinners to be justified unless his own justness is also upheld. Atonement is the way by which God is both just and justifier.

Third, as we saw in the OT that, ultimately, God is the one who atones, so also in the NT God is the one who provides the means for atonement. It is by his gracious initiative that atonement becomes possible. If Jesus’ death is the means by which atonement is achieved, it is God himself who “presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement” (Rom. 3:25). It was God himself who “so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son” (John 3:16). God himself “sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10). God “did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32). Additionally, Christ himself was not an unwilling victim; he was actively involved in the accomplishing of atonement by his death (Luke 9:31; John 10:15–18; Heb. 9:14).

Fourth, the atoning sacrifice of the Son was necessary because, ultimately, the OT sacrifices could not really have provided the necessary atonement: “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4).

Portrayals of Christ’s work of atonement. It has become common of late to refer to the different “images” or “metaphors” of atonement that appear in the NT. This is understandable on one level, but on another level there is something misleading about it. So, for example, when the NT authors speak of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, it is not at all clear that they intend for the reader to take this as imagery. Rather, Christ really is a sacrifice, offered by God the Father, to take away sins, and to bear in his own body the penalty that should have been placed on the sinner. Christ’s sacrifice has an organic connection to the OT sacrificial system, as the “full, final sacrifice.” The author of Hebrews would not have considered this to be imagery. In fact, a better case could be made that, from his perspective, Christ was the real sacrifice, and all the instances of sacrifice in the OT were the imagery (Heb. 10:1). So as we look at the different portrayals of Christ in his work of atonement in the NT, some of these may best be categorized as imagery or metaphor, while others perhaps are better described as a “facet” of, or a “window” on, the atonement. It should also be noted that the individual portrayals do not exclude the others, and in some cases they overlap.

• Ransom. Some passages in the NT speak of Christ’s death as a ransom paid to set us free (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 9:15). The same Greek word translated “ransom” in these passages is rendered as “redeem” or “redemption” in other passages (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Other forms of the same word are also translated “redeem” or “redemption” in Gal. 3:13–14; 4:5; Titus 2:14; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet. 1:18–19; Rev. 14:3. A near synonym of these words is used in Rev. 5:9; 14:4, referring to how Christ “purchased” people by his blood. In most of these cases the picture is that of slaves who have been ransomed, redeemed, or purchased from the slave market. Sometimes this is referred to as an “economic” view of atonement, though this label seems a bit crass, for the purchase is not of a commodity but of human lives at the expense of Christ’s own life and blood. To ask the question as to whom the ransom was paid is probably taking the picture too far. But those who are ransomed are redeemed from a life of slavery to sin and to the law.

• Curse bearer. In Gal. 3:13–14, noted above, there is also the picture of Christ as one who bore the curse of the law in our place. The language is especially striking because rather than saying that Christ bore the curse, Paul says that Christ became “a curse.” This is an especially forceful way of saying that Christ fully took into his own person the curse that was meant for us.

• Penalty bearer. Closely related to “curse bearer,” this portrayal depicts Christ as one who has borne the legal consequences of our sins, consequences that we should have suffered; rather, because Christ has borne the penalty, we are now declared to be righteous and no longer subject to condemnation. This idea stands behind much of the argumentation that Paul uses in Romans and Galatians, and it also intersects with the other portrayals. Passages representative of this picture are Rom. 3:24–26; 4:25; 5:8–21; 8:32–34; Gal. 3:13–14; Eph. 2:15. It is also what should be understood by Peter’s description of Christ’s death as “the just for the unjust” in 1 Pet. 3:18 (NASB, NET), as well as in 2 Cor. 5:21, where Paul states that Christ has become “sin for us” so that we might become the “righteousness of God.”

• Propitiation. There are four passages where the NIV uses “atonement” or “atoning” in the translation to reflect either the Greek verb hilaskomai or related nouns hilastērion or hilasmos. This is the word group that the LXX regularly uses to translate the Hebrew verb kapar and related nouns. There has been much debate about the precise meaning of the word in these four NT texts, in particular, as to whether it means to “expiate” (“remove guilt”) or to “propitiate” (“appease” or “avert wrath”). The better arguments have been advanced in favor of “propitiate”; at the very least, propitiation is implied in expiation. The wrath that we should have suffered on account of our sins has been suffered by Jesus Christ instead. Although the specific word is not used, this is the understanding as well in those passages where it is said either that Christ died “for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3), “gave himself for our sins” (Gal. 1:4), “bore our sins” (1 Pet. 2:24), or that his blood was poured out “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28; cf. Eph. 1:7).

• Passover. In 1 Cor. 5:7 Paul states that “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” Although the Passover has not traditionally been thought of as a sacrifice for sin (though many scholars would argue that it was), at the very least we should recognize a substitutionary concept at play in Paul’s use of the Passover idea. A lamb died so that the firstborn would not. The Gospel of John seems to have the same understanding. Early in the Gospel, Jesus is proclaimed as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). And then in his account of Jesus’ passion, John narrates that his crucifixion was precisely at the same time as the slaying of the Passover lambs (John 19:14).

• Sacrifice. This theme has already been touched on in the other portraits above, but it is important to recognize the significance of this concept in the NT and especially in the book of Hebrews. There, Christ is portrayed as both sacrifice and the high priest who offers the sacrifice (2:17; 7:27; 9:11–28; 10:10–21; 12:24). He came, not as some have argued, to show the uselessness of the sacrificial system, but rather to be the “full, final sacrifice” within that system, “that he might make atonement for the sins of the people” (2:17).

Of course, it is not just the death of Christ that secures our redemption. His entire earthly life, as well as his resurrection and heavenly intercessory work, must also be recognized. But with regard to the work of atonement per se, Christ’s earthly life, his sinless “active obedience,” is what qualifies him to be the perfect sacrifice. His resurrection is the demonstration of God’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice (he “was raised to life for our justification” [Rom. 4:25]). But it was particularly his death that provided atonement for our sins.

The idea that the church and state should remain independent entities in order to preserve religious and civil freedom. While this idea has taken most of its shape from discussions in the United States, the Bible often speaks about the attitudes of God’s people toward their government.

After Israel was freed from Egypt, God made it a “holy nation” (Exod. 19:5–6). All ancient Near Eastern nations were theocracies, and Israel was no different. As a theocracy, “church and state” were united under God’s rule, but this union was imperfect. Prophets frequently challenged wicked leaders (1 Sam. 2:27–36; 1 Kings 18:2). Then Israel was divided (1 Kings 12). Finally the exile obliterated any “church-state” unity that Israelite society had left. Daniel and his friends had to experience the difficulty of living faithfully in foreign societies.

But the exiles helped Israel to understand that God’s kingdom was eternal (Dan. 2:44–45). In the face of Roman rule, Jesus announced its appearing (Mark 1:15), but he did not advocate military revolt as did the Zealots of his day (John 18:36). Following Jesus, Paul taught of a citizenship in heaven (Phil. 3:20) while affirming some loyalty to Rome (Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Tim. 2:1–2). Peter concurred (1 Pet. 2:11–17), though he also emphasized the theme of God’s judgment (2 Pet. 3:7), a theme continued against imperial Rome in Revelation. In sum, the church finds itself as a kingdom among kingdoms. While warfare occurs in the spiritual realm (Eph. 6:12), God’s people are to conduct themselves as peaceful pilgrims as they look for a better country (Heb. 11:16).

The KJV translation of the Hebrew word mokiakh in Job 9:33, referring to one who arbitrates (NIV: “someone to mediate”; ESV, NET: “arbiter”; NRSV: “umpire”). The daysman was so called because legal proceedings are set for certain days. In the only biblical use of “daysman” (Job 9:33), Job laments that there is no arbiter to go between him and God, enabling him to “speak up without fear of” God. Ironically, Job proceeds to complain directly to God in the following passage (Job 10). Some note here the role of Christ as mediator between God and humans (1 Tim. 2:5).

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).

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.

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).

In the Bible, gestures are made with either parts of the body or items, such as clothing and rings, directly connected to the body. For this reason, it makes sense to classify biblical gestures in relation to the different body parts that are identified with the gestures. It is, however, challenging to know where to draw a line on classifying a gesture. For example, a devious person is described in Prov. 6:13 as one “who winks maliciously with his eye, signals with his feet and motions with his fingers.” It is unclear whether this is a single gesture or multiple ones, and whether all signify different things or the same thing.

Head

Gestures that relate to the head range from simple head motions to semiviolent acts such as hair pulling. Simple head motions include lifting of one’s head in honor (Gen. 40:13), bowing one’s head in mourning (Ps. 35:14), tossing one’s head in mockery and derision (2 Kings 19:21), and shaking one’s head as insult (Ps. 22:7; Mark 15:29).

A common action is the shaving of the head, which can be for purification (Lev. 14:8–9; Num. 6:9; 8:7 [includes all body hair]), mourning (Deut. 21:11–13; Job 1:20; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 16:6; 47:5; 48:37; Ezek. 27:31; Amos 8:10; Mic. 1:16), remorse (Jer. 41:5), or shaming (Jer. 2:16). However, priests are forbidden from shaving their heads even in mourning (Lev. 21:5; Ezek. 44:20), while the high priest is to wear a turban on his head during sacrificial duties (Exod. 29:6).

Anointing of the head is done when a priest or king is installed (Exod. 29:7; Ps. 23:5) or simply as a sign of God’s goodness and blessing on a person (Eccles. 9:8). Blessing may also involve placing a hand on the head of the person being blessed (Gen. 48:14–18; Exod. 29:19), while the same gesture on the head of sacrificial animals is a symbolic means of transferring sin (Lev. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33; 8:18, 22).

In the OT, a woman’s head can be shaved in mourning (Deut. 21:12–13; cf. Jer. 47:5), but in the NT, a shaved head can be a cause for disgrace (1 Cor. 11:5–6).

Face. Facial gestures range from expressions to actions such as touching or covering the face. A face can be downcast in anger (Gen. 4:5–6) or bowed to the ground in honor (Gen. 48:12), in dejection (Josh. 7:6), in humility (Ruth 2:10), in worship (2 Chron. 20:18; Ps. 138:2), in subjection, supplication, reverence (1 Sam. 20:41; 25:41; 28:14; 2 Sam. 14:4, 22; 18:28; 24:20; 1 Kings 1:23; 1 Chron. 21:20), or in dread (e.g., Moses before Yahweh [Exod. 3:6]).

The face can be covered or veiled as an indication of uncleanness (Lev. 13:45), in grief/mourning (2 Sam. 19:4; Ezek. 24:17), in resignation (1 Kings 19:13), with intent to deceive in adultery (Job 24:15), or in horror of judgment (Esther 7:8; Ezek. 12:6, 12). It can also be buried in the dust in remorse (Lam. 3:29).

God can be described as hiding or turning away his face against wickedness and evil (Deut. 31:18; 32:20; Ps. 34:16; Isa. 8:17; Jer. 33:5; Ezek. 7:22; 15:7; 20:46; 21:2) or in an act of withholding blessings (Job 13:15; Pss. 10:1; 13:1; 27:9; 30:7; 34:16; Isa. 54:8; 59:2; 64:7). God can also turn his face toward a place in judgment (Ezek. 4:3, 7; 6:2). In 1 Sam. 5:3–4 the idol of the Philistine god Dagon falls facedown before the ark of the covenant, apparently overpowered by Yahweh.

Acts of humiliation or dishonor can involve spitting in the face (Num. 12:14; Deut. 25:9; Job 17:6; 30:10; Isa. 50:6), slapping the face (1 Kings 22:24; 2 Chron. 18:23; Job 16:10; Lam. 3:30; Mic. 5:1), pulling a skirt up over someone’s face in shaming judgment (Jer. 13:26; Nah. 3:5), and hooking and dragging someone by the nose (2 Kings 19:28). Although being struck on the cheek is humiliating, Jesus instructs his disciples to “turn the other cheek” as a sign of resistance to violence (Matt. 5:39; Luke 6:29).

One can lift one’s face in worship (2 Kings 20:2; Job 22:26; Isa. 38:2) or in confidence (Job 11:15) and can fail to lift it in shame and disgrace (Ezra 9:6). Although the shaving of beards in mourning is common practice (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5; 48:37), the forced shaving of beards is an act of shaming and insulting (2 Sam. 10:4; 1 Chron. 19:4–5; Isa. 7:20; 50:6).

Eyes. Winking the eye is perceived as an evil, deceptive, or malicious act (Ps. 35:19; Prov. 6:13; 16:30). Eyes can be lifted up in worship and expectation (Pss. 121:1; 123:1).

Mouth. Pursed lips can characterize an evil person (Prov. 16:30), while a hand can be clapped over the mouth in awe and submission (Job 21:5; 40:4). Psalm 72:9 looks to the righteous king before whom the desert tribes will bow and whose “enemies lick the dust” in defeat.

Ears. An Israelite slave for life is to have a hole punched through his or her earlobe, held against a doorpost, with an awl (Exod. 21:6; Deut. 15:17). Blood is sprinkled on the lobe of the right ear for purification (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17), while supplication can be described as asking for the turning of an ear (2 Kings 19:16; Ps. 31:2). Turning one’s ear signifies paying attention or taking something to heart (Ps. 49:4; Prov. 4:20; 5:13).

Neck. The neck can be adorned (Song 1:10) as a sign of pride and honor (Gen. 41:42; Judg. 5:30; Prov. 1:9; Ezek. 16:11) or outstretched in arrogance (Ps. 75:5 TNIV: “Do not lift your horns against heaven; do not speak with outstretched neck”). Jeremiah put a yoke on his neck as a prophetic sign of the approaching Babylonian conquest (Jer. 27–28). While putting someone’s neck in a yoke is an act of triumphal conquest (Ps. 105:18), stepping on the neck of a subdued enemy is an act of subjugation and humiliation (Josh. 10:24).

Body

Nakedness in public is considered shameful (Gen. 9:22–23; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18), so that it is sometimes pictured as part of divine judgment (Deut. 28:48; Isa. 47:2–3; Lam. 1:8; Mic. 1:11) or as a sign of promiscuity (Isa. 57:8; Ezek. 16:36). An unkempt body can be a sign of mourning, as it is for Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 19:24). A certain kind of body covering is a sign of marriage proposal or protection (Ezek. 16:8; 23:18; Hos. 2:9). Body dismembering, even in war, is an act of humiliation (2 Sam. 4:12).

Chest. In self-mortification, one can pound one’s chest in mourning (Ezek. 21:12) or in remorse (Jer. 31:19; Luke 18:13). The breasts of sacrificial animals are waved before God as a “wave offering” before being eaten (Exod. 29:26; Lev. 7:30; Num. 6:20).

Hand, arm. Hand gestures include motions such as lifting hands in worship, clapping hands in joy, and clapping a hand over one’s mouth in awe. The expression “outstretched arm” (Exod. 6:6; Deut. 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 26:8; 1 Kings 8:42; 2 Kings 17:36; 2 Chron. 6:32; Ps. 136:12; Jer. 21:5; 27:5; 32:17, 21; Ezek. 20:33–34) indicates power, might, strength. It is often used of God to indicate his ability to defeat powerful armies and enemies. God is implored by the psalmist to lift his hand and act for the sake of the righteous (Ps. 10:12).

Since the right hand is the hand of power, the act of sitting at the right hand indicates being favored (1 Kings 2:19; Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22). When taking an oath, one places a hand under the thigh/crotch (Gen. 24:2; 47:29), most likely the right hand (see Gen. 48:14, 17–18; Lev. 8:23; 14:14).

Clapping the hands can be a sign of awe (Ezek. 6:11), malice, or remorse (25:6), while a bared arm can be a sign of judgment (4:7). Job claps his hand over his mouth in awe of God and in submission and repentance (Job 40:4–5).

Hands can be lifted in worship (1 Kings 8:22; 1 Tim. 2:8), to beseech (Ps. 28:2), to protect and bless (Ps. 10:12), in an oath (Deut. 32:40), or to harm (Exod. 24:11; 1 Sam. 24:6, 10; 2 Sam.1:14; 18:12).

Pilate washes his hands to proclaim his innocence over the death of Jesus (Matt. 27:24), while 1 Pet. 5:6 urges believers to humble themselves “under God’s mighty hand,” so that in due time they will be lifted up.

Buttocks. Exposure of the buttocks can serve as a humiliating insult and provocation, as happens to David’s men (2 Sam. 10:4; 1 Chron. 19:4) and Egyptian and Cushite captives (Isa. 20:4).

Leg. The leg or thigh is often a euphemism for the male reproductive organs, so that putting one’s hand under a thigh in oath (Gen. 24:2; 47:29) may involve actually grabbing the genitalia. Animal thighs are waved to God in offering before being consumed (Lev. 9:21; 10:14; Num. 6:20), while oaths administered to uncover adultery cause a guilty woman’s thighs to waste (Num. 5:2–27).

The most common gesture involving the knee is bowing, in worship or reverence (Deut. 33:3; Isa. 45:23; Rom. 11:4; 14:11; Phil. 2:10), in defeat (2 Sam. 22:40; Ps. 18:38; Isa. 60:14), in distress (Ps. 57:6), or in respect (1 Kings 1:31). In what seems to be a somewhat awkward position, Elijah puts his face between his knees in prayer (1 Kings 18:42).

Feet. Gestures involving the feet are probably the most common gestures in the Bible. Feet can be washed in hospitality (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; 1 Sam. 25:41), in ablution (Exod. 30:19, 21; 40:31), or in supplication (1 Sam. 25:41). Feet can be bathed in oil as a blessing (Deut. 33:24), uncovered in marriage proposals (Ezek. 16:8; cf. Ruth 3:4, 7), and stamped in remorse (Ezek. 25:6), and sandals can be removed from them in honor (Exod. 3:1–10) or disgrace (Deut. 25:9). The heavenly seraphs cover their feet in supplication before the throne of God (Isa. 6:2), while the feet of humans can signal deception (Prov. 6:13).

Enemies can be placed under one’s feet in subjugation (1 Kings 5:3; Pss. 8:6; 18:39; 45:5; 47:3; 110:1; Mal. 4:3; Rom. 16:20), have their feet shackled or ensnared (Job 13:27; 33:11; Pss. 25:15; 105:18), and be forced to lick the feet of victors in humiliation and defeat (Isa. 49:23). The righteous will bathe their feet in the blood of their enemies in revenge (Pss. 58:10; 68:23).

Those overwhelmed can grovel at the feet of the powerful (2 Kings 4:27, 37; Esther 8:3; Matt. 28:9; Mark 5:33; 7:25; Acts 10:25), while those emboldened can rise to their feet in confidence (Ezek. 2:1–2; 3:24; Dan. 8:18).

In the NT, dust can be shaken off one’s feet as an indication of divine judgment (Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5), even as lying at a person’s feet is a recognition of authority/submission (Matt. 15:30; Mark 5:33; Luke 8:28, 35, 41, 47; 10:39; 17:16; Acts 4:37; 5:2). A woman publicly washes Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipes them with her hair, and kisses and perfumes them in what seems an act of love and repentance; but Jesus indicates that she has prepared his body for burial (Luke 7:38–46; John 11:2; 12:3). Jesus washes his disciples’ feet as instruction on servanthood and discipleship (John 13:5–14).

Fingers, Toes. Different fingers seem to have different roles assigned them. A finger sprinkles blood in cleansing (Lev. 4:6, 17, 25, 30, 34; 8:15; 9:9; 14:16; 16:14, 19; Num. 19:4), while blood on the tip of the right thumb and on the right big toe is for cleansing (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17, 25, 28).

One wears a signet ring as a sign of power (Esther 3:10) or a gesture of restoration and forgiveness (Luke 15:22). But fingers can also motion in deception (Prov. 6:13) or point in blame (Isa. 58:9). Jesus writes with his finger on the ground, apparently as a gesture of indifference to those pointing accusing fingers (John 8:6).

Clothes and Shoes

Garments. Garments attain significance as they are related to specific emotions. Wearing sackcloth and ashes in mourning is common (Gen. 37:34; Ezek. 7:18; 2 Sam. 3:31), while ripping garments in mourning is also frequently attested (Gen. 37:34; 44:13; Lev. 10:6; 21:10; Josh. 7:6; 2 Sam. 1:11; 3:31; 13:31; 1 Kings 21:27; 2 Kings 2:12; 19:1; Esther 4:1; Isa. 32:11; 37:1; Jer. 41:5).

Ripping someone’s clothing to expose nakedness (Ezek. 16:39; 2 Sam. 10:4) or pulling a person’s skirts up over the face (Jer. 13:26) is an act of shaming or insulting. But tearing one’s clothes off can be a sign of fury (Matt. 26:65). Persons with defiling diseases are expected to warn off others by wearing torn clothes and shouting, “Unclean! Unclean!” (Lev. 13:45).

By laying their clothes at Saul’s feet, the crowd may be acknowledging his authority in the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58).

Sandals. A woman can remove a man’s sandal in contempt (Deut. 25:5–10), while a sandal can be removed by a kinsman-redeemer to indicate giving up a right or as a transfer of property (Ruth 4:7–8). A sandal can also be removed in mourning (Ezek. 24:17) or be cast over a piece of land to claim ownership (Pss. 60:8; 108:9).

Prophetic Gestures

Prophetic gestures in the OT are mostly concerned with the call to repentance and approaching judgments upon failure to heed the warning. Jeremiah puts a yoke on his neck (Jer. 27–28; cf. Deut. 28:48), Ezekiel cooks with dung (Ezek. 4:12) and sleeps on his left side for 390 days and then on his right side for 40 days (4:5–6), Isaiah strips off his clothing (Isa. 20:2–3; 32:11), and Hosea marries an unfaithful wife (Hos. 1:1–3).

In the NT, Jesus cleanses the temple as an act of symbolic judgment (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15). He also breaks bread and drinks wine (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30, 35; Acts 2:46; 20:11; 27:35; 1 Cor. 11:24–25) and washes his disciples’ feet (John 13:1–13), thereby establishing symbolic Christian practices.

Old Testament

The English word “governor” is used to translate a number of Hebrew words. The term indicates one who has been designated with authority over a certain region, especially under the rule of a king or emperor. The position of governor is found throughout the Pentateuch, the Writings, and the Prophets. Notable in the OT are the governors appointed by the foreign kings both at home and in occupied territories.

There are several notable governors in the OT. After being sold into slavery in Egypt, Joseph was exalted to governor of Egypt, second only to the king. Thus, his brothers bowed before him (Gen. 42:6). Solomon, during his reign, established twelve governors, each one responsible for supplying provisions to the king one month out of the year (1 Kings 4:7), and Solomon received tribute from them (1 Kings 10:15; 2 Chron. 9:14).

One notable governor was Gedaliah, ruler of the Jewish remnant left in Judah during the deportation, who reported to the king of Babylon (Jer. 40:11). Later, he was assassinated by Ishmael (Jer. 41:2). This provoked great fear, causing some to flee to Egypt (Jer. 41:17–18).

Another notable individual who governed the Jewish people upon their return to Jerusalem after the captivity was Sheshbazzar, governor under Cyrus (Ezra 5:14). He had been entrusted with the vessels for the house of God in Jerusalem that had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar (1:7–8). This same Sheshbazzar had begun building the foundation of the temple by the legal decree of Cyrus the king (5:14–6:6). Subsequently, Zerubbabel (under Darius I) became governor and completed the foundation and the rest of the temple (Ezra 3–6; see also Hag. 1:1–15). He and the other workers are said to have had their spirits stirred to do the work (Hag. 1:14).

Nehemiah, who led the people in restoring the wall of Jerusalem for the safety and restoration of the city, was governor over his people (under Artaxerxes I) and had a true heart of compassion toward the poor. His sympathy for them was so deep that he did not take the regular allotment of food and other goods that the other governors took by right (Neh. 5:14–15). The governors who had gone before ruled and taxed heavily. Nehemiah deemed this an illegitimate way to live among God’s people. At the reading of the law along with Ezra the priest and the other Levites, Nehemiah directed the attention of the people to the proper response to the word of God (Neh. 8:9–10).

New Testament

In the NT, the most common word for governor is hēgemōn. As in the OT, governors were appointed by higher authorities who delegated to them the authority to rule.

The office of governor was very important in Israel during the NT period. Herod the Great had ruled Israel during the years 37–4 BC. At his death in 4 BC, three of his sons took over the kingdom with the approval of Caesar Augustus. Archelaus ruled Judea and Samaria, Herod Antipas (Herod the Tetrarch) was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitus (see Luke 3:1; Josephus, J.W. 2.93–97). The Jewish people revolted against Archelaus in the ninth year, and he was stripped of his rulership and banished in AD 6 (Josephus, J.W. 2.111). His kingdom was turned into a Roman province, with Coponius ruling as governor. From this time until the reign of Herod Agrippa I, Judea was ruled by a line of governors (called “prefects” or “procurators”). In AD 41 Herod Agrippa I began to rule and eventually governed roughly the same territory as did Herod the Great, his grandfather. His rule, however, lasted only three years. In the period AD 44–66 governors again ruled in Judea, among them Felix and Festus, with whom the apostle Paul had audience.

Of note among these governors was Pontius Pilate, appointed in AD 26 by Tiberius. Pilate’s fortunes seemed to wax and wane with those of General Sejanus, with whom he shared many political and social views. When he first arrived in Palestine, Pilate provoked protests by secretly bringing army standards bearing the images of Roman emperors—idols in Jewish eyes—into Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 18.55–59). On another occasion demonstrations broke out when Pilate used money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct for Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 18.60–62). Pilate sent soldiers to surround and attack the protestors, many of whom were killed. Luke 13:1 refers to a similar episode near the temple mount in which Pilate massacred some Galileans, “whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.” Typical of the Romans, Pilate met protest with ruthless and overwhelming force. At Jesus’ trial, though Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent (John 18:38), he condemned Jesus to crucifixion to avoid antagonizing the religious leaders. This kind of action was characteristic of Pilate. He was an unscrupulous and self-seeking leader who loathed the Jewish leadership but feared antagonizing them. Josephus notes that during the tumult of the Samaritans (to assemble at Mount Gerizim), Pilate put them to flight, killing some of them. The Samaritans complained about Pilate’s murderous ways to Vitellius, who was friendly to them, and he recalled Pilate to Rome to answer before Tiberius, but Pilate took so long getting there that Tiberius was dead when he finally arrived (Josephus, Ant. 18.85–89). Pilate was eventually removed from office, and we hear nothing else from him.

Two other Judean governors who appear in the NT are Felix and Festus, who played a role in the apostle Paul’s trial (Acts 24–26). Felix’s wife, Drusilla, was a Jewess, and she was with him at Paul’s second hearing. On this second occasion Paul reasoned powerfully with Felix, so much so that Felix became frightened about the future and sent Paul away. His fear notwithstanding, Felix sought to exploit the situation for monetary gain (no doubt, bribes were common), but Paul made no response. Two years later Felix was replaced by the next governor, Porcius Festus. Festus heard the defense of Paul (Acts 26) and sent him to Rome after his appeal, though both Festus and Herod agreed that Paul could have been set free had he not appealed to Caesar (Acts 26:30–32).

On one occasion in the NT, the word “governor” is translated from the word ethnarchēs. Aretas of the Nabateans was the ethnarch in Damascus and laid siege to capture the apostle Paul, but Paul escaped through a window in the wall, probably at night (2 Cor. 11:32–33).

As opposed to a governor, a “proconsul” (anthypatos) was a ruler of a senatorial province and so was appointed by the Roman senate rather than the emperor. These provinces were usually more loyal and peaceful and thus had little need of a strong military presence. Such was the case with the proconsul on Cyprus who lived in Paphos, Sergius Paulus. This man is noted by Luke as intelligent and ready to hear the message of Paul and Barnabas. The sorcerer Elymas (Bar-Jesus) sought to turn the proconsul from the faith and so was struck blind at Paul’s command. This Roman proconsul, a man of political stature on Cyprus, then became a believer (Acts 13:4–12). Another proconsul, Gallio, ruled in Achaia during Paul’s sojourn there on his second missionary journey. From information gained from ancient written sources, chiefly the Gallio Inscription, the beginning of his tenure as proconsul in Achaia occurred between AD 50 and 52. When Paul was brought to trial before Gallio, Gallio tossed the case out as a religious squabble (Acts 18:12–16). In another reference to the proconsulate, Paul’s detractors in Ephesus were told by the town secretary to take their complaints against Paul to the proconsuls of that area, lest they be accused of provoking a riot and an illegal assembly (19:38–41).

Jesus himself had previously prophesied that the disciples would testify before kings and governors (Matt. 10:18), something that was fulfilled by Paul as he spoke before Herod, Felix, Festus, and Nero. Additionally, Luke noted Quirinius as the governor of Syria when the first census was taken, around the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:2).

The apostles note that the community of faith is to submit to rulers such as governors as they execute their God-ordained task, since the praise of good and punishment of evil is also the interest of the divine creator and ordainer of such persons (1 Pet. 2:14; cf. Rom. 13:1–5). The community of faith is also to pray for all in authority (including governors, though not mentioned specifically), so that the church will be able to lead a quiet existence in godliness (1 Tim. 2:1–2).

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 act of advocating before the powerful on someone’s behalf (Gen. 23:8–9), especially turning to God in prayer to seek God’s favor for others in crisis (2 Sam. 12:16). While it is a prerogative of prophets (Gen. 20:7; Num. 12; Amos 7:1–6), priests (Ezra 6:9–10), and kings (1 Chron. 21:17; 2 Chron. 30:18; Jer. 26:19), intercession is a ministry that belongs to all the people of God (Acts 12:5; Eph. 6:18; 1 Tim. 2:1; James 5:16).

Old Testament

Reflecting God’s own deliberative process (Gen. 1:26–27; 2:18), our creation in God’s image implies and makes possible our genuine conversation, participation, and even disputation with God. A biblical understanding of God’s rule accommodates this divine-human dialogue and the intertwined roles of both parties. People request intercession for themselves (1 Kings 13:6; Acts 8:24), but Scripture highlights God’s initiative.

In Gen. 18 God invites (even provokes) Abraham’s intercession by confiding in Abraham, reviewing the divine promises, and disclosing the guilt and impending doom of Sodom and Gomorrah. On behalf of righteous persons who may live there, Abraham appeals boldly to God’s own “justice” (mishpat) in distinguishing the innocent from the guilty, and he successfully negotiates God’s pledge to spare the city if even ten righteous persons can be found there. Without disputing the allegations of wickedness, Abraham puts God’s just response on the table as well.

Similarly, in Exod. 32 God informs Moses of the Israelites’ sin with the golden calf and his own intention to destroy them and start over with Moses. In response, Moses intercedes, arguing that God’s deliverance of Israel, and the likelihood of its being misconstrued by Egypt, should trump divine anger. Moses urges a different course of action: turn from anger, relent, and do not bring the announced disaster. The destruction of Israel would be inconsistent with God’s own commitment to multiply the people of Israel and give them the land as their inheritance (cf. Num. 14:13–29). The issue for Moses is not only Israel’s sin but also the rightness of God’s response in faithfulness to his purposes.

In Job’s intercession for his friends, God dictates the entire process, directing the friends to make offerings and assigning Job the task of interceding for them. God makes his own vindication the central issue: Eliphaz and friends have not said “the truth” (nekonah) of God, as Job had (Job 42:7–10).

These three narratives highlight God’s initiative and make God’s character the grounds for intercession. They also introduce the potential pain borne by the intercessor. For example, Moses dramatizes his passionate concern for God’s cause by falling down before God and lying prostrate forty days and nights (Deut. 9:13–29). He so identifies his own destiny with Israel’s as to offer himself as “atonement,” saying, “Please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written” (Exod. 32:32). This anticipates later prophets’ participation in the sorrow of God and the pain of the people’s separation from God (Jer. 15; cf. Luke 13:34–35; 19:41–44).

New Testament

In the Gospels, Jesus heals by command, without explicit reference to intercession, and in this way remarkably transcends the OT prophets (1 Kings 17:19–21). Although he does ask his Father to forgive his crucifiers (Luke 23:34), the Gospels emphasize Jesus’ intercession for his disciples, such as for Simon Peter to survive Satan’s assaults on his faith (22:31–32). John 17 comprises an extended intercession of Jesus for his disciples—significantly, that the Father will protect them in a hostile world. Moreover, Christ promises to acknowledge faithful disciples before the Father (Matt. 10:32), an action formally close to intercession, and that Christ performs as mediator of the Father’s kingdom and salvation.

Paul’s prayer for his fellow Israelites to be saved is fueled by anguish over their unbelief (Rom. 9:1–3; 10:1–4). Mirroring this is “the pressure of concern” he feels for all the churches and for the welfare of their members (2 Cor. 11:28–29), hence the prominent role of prayer in Paul’s ministry (see the thanksgivings that open his letters [e.g., Phil. 1:3–11]). Intercession per se, as prayer that others be spared or delivered from crisis, is seen in the churches’ prayers for Paul’s deliverance from prison and death (Phil. 1:19; 2 Thess. 3:2–3; cf. Rom. 15:31).

The NT extends the Gospel portrayals to reveal Christ as our heavenly intercessor, a role made possible by the cross and resurrection. In Rom. 8:34–39 Christ’s death, resurrection, and reign “at the right hand of God” ground Paul’s confidence that Christ’s intercession assures victory over condemnation and all opposition. The work of Christ our high priest (Heb. 7:25) may be summed up as intercession, echoing Isa. 53:12. Accordingly, “Jesus Christ the Righteous One” not only advocates before the Father for the forgiveness of our sins but also is their atoning sacrifice (1 John 2:1–2). In these texts, Christ’s heavenly intercession implements the saving purposes of God made real in the cross. Moreover, the work of Christ as prophet, priest, and king implies the central role of intercession, since intercession is a function of each of these offices.

Thus God’s initiative in intercession is intensified in the NT: God’s self-giving through Christ is the foundation of an ongoing heavenly intercession that in turn gives the church increased confidence to intercede boldly. Further, God’s Spirit helps us in our weakness by interceding for us in accord with God’s will, even if we experience that intercession as “wordless groans” (Rom. 8:26–28).

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

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

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

Jewelry in Antiquity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewelry in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewelry in Antiquity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewelry in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Performing the necessary duties for the divine (Lat. pietas), “godliness” (1 Tim. 2:2, 10; 3:16; 4:7–8; 6:3, 5–6, 11; 2 Tim. 3:12; Titus 2:12; 2 Pet. 1:3; 3:11; cf. 1 Tim. 1:9; 3:4, 8, 11; 5:4; 2 Tim. 2:16; Titus 2:2, 7). Piety overlaps with fearing God in Job (4:6; 15:4; 22:4). In the Greco-Roman world, the term signifies either personal devotion in response to awe of the divine or, in broader practice, showing cultural respect for the deities. There is also an intellectual component to piety, having “right opinions” or knowledge about the gods, as Epictetus claims (Ench. 31). Luke equates piety with the biblical concepts of fear and righteousness (Acts 10:2, 22).

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 idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More than a simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the grace of the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classical texts use the Greek word apolytrōsis (“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given to release a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. The group of words based on the Greek term lytron (“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. The corresponding Hebrew word padah is a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.

Old Testament

The experience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religious significance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included the dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13). Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), was redeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up to describe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continued to broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance from all Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included the whole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or the new age to come).

Another Hebrew term, ga’al, generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a person who had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to pay a debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property (Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery (25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing the relationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply this understanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps. 19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone (Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power (45:13).

The awaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’s ultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’s continued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant, God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon. Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was if God would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. This longing for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As the persecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamental period (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT and the NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianic hope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people from Greek and Roman oppression.

New Testament

The NT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). When Jesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slavery of sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28 // Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the cross accentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christian idea of ransom followed the accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death (Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with a ransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis in the NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period, underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.

Without reflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made an issue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlight Jesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12; cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need of the redeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of the redemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from one sphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another. Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted of monetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1 Pet. 3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of those he redeemed (antilytron hyper [1 Tim. 2:6]). God still did not pay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.

The OT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in the present, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills the NT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’s theological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’ redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from the slavery of sin (1 Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matter of ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already but not yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption is evidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).

Although redemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future (Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1 Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions of redemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expects redemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption is universal; it restores the relationship between creation and the Creator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).

The idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More than a simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the grace of the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classical texts use the Greek word apolytrōsis (“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given to release a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. The group of words based on the Greek term lytron (“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. The corresponding Hebrew word padah is a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.

Old Testament

The experience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religious significance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included the dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13). Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), was redeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up to describe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continued to broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance from all Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included the whole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or the new age to come).

Another Hebrew term, ga’al, generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a person who had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to pay a debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property (Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery (25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing the relationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply this understanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps. 19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone (Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power (45:13).

The awaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’s ultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’s continued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant, God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon. Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was if God would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. This longing for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As the persecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamental period (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT and the NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianic hope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people from Greek and Roman oppression.

New Testament

The NT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). When Jesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slavery of sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28 // Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the cross accentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christian idea of ransom followed the accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death (Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with a ransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis in the NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period, underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.

Without reflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made an issue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlight Jesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12; cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need of the redeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of the redemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from one sphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another. Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted of monetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1 Pet. 3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of those he redeemed (antilytron hyper [1 Tim. 2:6]). God still did not pay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.

The OT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in the present, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills the NT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’s theological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’ redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from the slavery of sin (1 Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matter of ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already but not yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption is evidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).

Although redemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future (Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1 Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions of redemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expects redemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption is universal; it restores the relationship between creation and the Creator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).

The idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More than a simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the grace of the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classical texts use the Greek word apolytrōsis (“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given to release a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. The group of words based on the Greek term lytron (“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. The corresponding Hebrew word padah is a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.

Old Testament

The experience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religious significance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included the dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13). Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), was redeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up to describe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continued to broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance from all Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included the whole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or the new age to come).

Another Hebrew term, ga’al, generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a person who had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to pay a debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property (Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery (25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing the relationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply this understanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps. 19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone (Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power (45:13).

The awaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’s ultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’s continued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant, God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon. Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was if God would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. This longing for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As the persecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamental period (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT and the NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianic hope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people from Greek and Roman oppression.

New Testament

The NT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). When Jesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slavery of sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28 // Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the cross accentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christian idea of ransom followed the accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death (Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with a ransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis in the NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period, underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.

Without reflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made an issue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlight Jesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12; cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need of the redeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of the redemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from one sphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another. Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted of monetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1 Pet. 3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of those he redeemed (antilytron hyper [1 Tim. 2:6]). God still did not pay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.

The OT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in the present, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills the NT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’s theological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’ redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from the slavery of sin (1 Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matter of ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already but not yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption is evidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).

Although redemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future (Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1 Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions of redemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expects redemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption is universal; it restores the relationship between creation and the Creator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).

The idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More than a simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the grace of the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classical texts use the Greek word apolytrōsis (“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given to release a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. The group of words based on the Greek term lytron (“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. The corresponding Hebrew word padah is a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.

Old Testament

The experience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religious significance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included the dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13). Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), was redeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up to describe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continued to broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance from all Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included the whole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or the new age to come).

Another Hebrew term, ga’al, generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a person who had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to pay a debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property (Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery (25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing the relationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply this understanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps. 19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone (Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power (45:13).

The awaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’s ultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’s continued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant, God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon. Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was if God would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. This longing for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As the persecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamental period (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT and the NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianic hope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people from Greek and Roman oppression.

New Testament

The NT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). When Jesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slavery of sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28 // Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the cross accentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christian idea of ransom followed the accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death (Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with a ransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis in the NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period, underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.

Without reflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made an issue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlight Jesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12; cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need of the redeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of the redemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from one sphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another. Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted of monetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1 Pet. 3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of those he redeemed (antilytron hyper [1 Tim. 2:6]). God still did not pay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.

The OT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in the present, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills the NT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’s theological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’ redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from the slavery of sin (1 Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matter of ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already but not yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption is evidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).

Although redemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future (Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1 Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions of redemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expects redemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption is universal; it restores the relationship between creation and the Creator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).

Used as a reference for God’s people in the OT and NT, the Hebrew word qadosh (e.g., Ps. 16:3) and the Greek word hagios (e.g., Acts 9:13; 2 Cor. 1:1) emphasize being singled out or consecrated. The Hebrew root was also used to designate cult prostitutes (qadeshah) as “consecrated,” though in Scripture this use is relatively infrequent (e.g., Gen. 38:21; Deut. 23:17). Another Hebrew word sometimes translated “saint” is khasid (e.g., 1 Sam. 2:9; Pss. 30:4; 31:23 KJV), which emphasizes faithfulness and devotion to God. In biblical terms, then, the saints of God are those whom he has designated as belonging to him and who live in faithfulness to him. They are not necessarily noted for exceptional holiness or meritorious acts. Thus, Paul places “his saints” in parallel with “all who have believed” (2 Thess. 1:10 NRSV).

The Bible speaks of saints as sometimes being in need (Rom. 16:2; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1, 12) and persecuted (Rev. 13:7), but also as called to endure (Rev. 13:10) and offer help, especially to other saints (Rom. 12:13; Gal. 6:10; 1 Tim. 5:10). The saints are the recipients of the faith (Jude 1:3), of grace (Rev. 22:21), and of special equipping for ministry in the church (Eph. 4:12) and prayer (Rev. 5:8; 8:3–4). As those who belong to the Lord, the saints will be raised to eternal life (John 6:39; 1 Cor. 15:22–23).

“Saint,” however, has come to function as a title given to Christians of exceptional merit, beatified or canonized by the Roman Catholic Church. The need for canonization and beatification arose from the Catholic doctrine of the veneration, invocation, and intercession of the saints (see Augustine, Quaest. Hept. 2.94; Faust. 20.21) and is connected to the Catholic doctrine of the “communion of the saints” (a phrase drawn from the Apostles’ Creed), which includes believers in heaven, on earth, and in purgatory, recognizing them as saints in the general sense by virtue of their being redeemed and set apart for fellowship with God. These doctrines suggest that just as Paul, for example, sought the prayers of the church on earth (Rom. 15:30; 2 Cor. 1:11), so also prayer by members of the church in heaven might be sought. Canonization, then, publicly establishes which persons can be surely known to be in heaven and may be properly asked to intercede on behalf of the church on earth.

Protestants, on the basis of the unique intercession of Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5), exclude invocation of heavenly saints as unnecessary and unwarranted. They further find no basis in the Scriptures for a doctrine of purgatory. Thus, Protestant understandings of the communion of the saints focus on the believers on earth, who, “being united to one another in love, have communion in each other’s gifts and graces and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as to conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man” (Westminster Confession of Faith 28.1).

The idea that the church and state should remain independent entities in order to preserve religious and civil freedom. While this idea has taken most of its shape from discussions in the United States, the Bible often speaks about the attitudes of God’s people toward their government.

After Israel was freed from Egypt, God made it a “holy nation” (Exod. 19:5–6). All ancient Near Eastern nations were theocracies, and Israel was no different. As a theocracy, “church and state” were united under God’s rule, but this union was imperfect. Prophets frequently challenged wicked leaders (1 Sam. 2:27–36; 1 Kings 18:2). Then Israel was divided (1 Kings 12). Finally the exile obliterated any “church-state” unity that Israelite society had left. Daniel and his friends had to experience the difficulty of living faithfully in foreign societies.

But the exiles helped Israel to understand that God’s kingdom was eternal (Dan. 2:44–45). In the face of Roman rule, Jesus announced its appearing (Mark 1:15), but he did not advocate military revolt as did the Zealots of his day (John 18:36). Following Jesus, Paul taught of a citizenship in heaven (Phil. 3:20) while affirming some loyalty to Rome (Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Tim. 2:1–2). Peter concurred (1 Pet. 2:11–17), though he also emphasized the theme of God’s judgment (2 Pet. 3:7), a theme continued against imperial Rome in Revelation. In sum, the church finds itself as a kingdom among kingdoms. While warfare occurs in the spiritual realm (Eph. 6:12), God’s people are to conduct themselves as peaceful pilgrims as they look for a better country (Heb. 11:16).

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

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

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

Nakedness

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

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

Marriage and Adultery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-Control and Purity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nakedness

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

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

Marriage and Adultery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-Control and Purity

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

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

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

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

The act of yielding or consenting to the authority of another, voluntarily or involuntarily; personal deference, compliance, or humility toward another; to become subject to. Submission incorporates obedience, and in certain usages the terms are synonymous. However, “obedience” indicates compliance with directions or guidance, while “submission” describes one’s subservient posture toward another. Submission within a formalized hierarchy is subordination—for example, Jesus’ relationship to the Father.

Scripture presents submission in two ways: as the translation of a number of specific Hebrew and Greek terms that convey an aspect of the concept, and as a general portrait of relationships—for example, patriarchs and prophets before the Lord, or demons toward Jesus. Sometimes, the presentation is negative, as in a refusal to submit.

In the OT, the use of the word “submission” (or its derivatives) in the major English versions is primarily a function of translator preference. In fact, Gen. 16:9, the angel’s instructions to Hagar, is the sole instance where “submit” is broadly agreed to be the best translation of the underlying Hebrew. Elsewhere, the NIV and at least one other version use forms of “submission” to interpretively translate Hebrew expressions meaning the following: “become a slave to” (Gen. 49:15); “serve” (2 Chron. 30:8); “have a relationship with” (Job 22:21); “quickly stretch out hands” (Ps. 68:31); “give over to” (Ps. 81:11); and “give the hand to” (Lam. 5:6).

In the NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and, often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and the epistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.

1. Dogmatizō appears once: “Why . . . do you submit to rules?” (Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something that has been decreed.

2. Hypeikō appears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience is specifically distinguished from submission.

3. Hypotagē appears four times as “submission.” In Gal. 2:5; 1 Tim. 2:11; 3:4 it indicates the main understanding: subordinate posturing toward superiors; in 2 Cor. 9:13, however, it refers to obedience to a decree, in this case confession of the gospel.

4. Hypotassō is by far the most significant root. It appears almost forty times in the NT; about half of these occurrences can be translated using a form of “submission” (or “to be subject to”). It is used to convey the subordination of children to parents (Luke 2:51); demons to the seventy-two missionaries (Luke 10:17, 20); sinners to God’s law or righteousness (Rom. 8:7; 10:3); people to governing authorities (Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13); believers to one another (1 Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21); wives to husbands (1 Cor. 14:34; Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1, 5); slaves to masters (Titus 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18); angels, authorities, and powers to Jesus (1 Pet. 3:22); believers to God (Heb. 12:9; James 4:7); younger men to elders (1 Pet. 5:5).

A few additional uses of “submission” in some translations have other primary meanings: “turn in for inspection” (Gal. 2:2 NASB); “reverence” (Heb. 5:7 NIV, NRSV); and “open-mindedness” (James 3:17 NIV).

Vivid portraits of submission conveying the concept without invoking the specific vocabulary include Abraham’s submission to God (Gen. 12:1–4; 17:1–27; 21:4; 22:1–19); Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17); Joshua toward God (Josh. 24:29); prophets toward God (1 Sam. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Hos. 1:1–3); Jesus’ submission to the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; Mark 14:35–36, 39; Luke 2:49; 22:42); Paul’s submission to Jesus (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1); believers doing the will of the Father (Matt. 12:50; 21:28–32); the prodigal son toward his father (Luke 15:18, 21); believers toward Jesus (John 12:26; 14:21, 23–24; 15:10); husbands and wives toward each other (1 Cor. 7:3–5; 11:11); believers humble before one another (Rom. 12:10; Phil. 2:3–4); and the bowing of every knee to Jesus (Phil. 2:10–13).

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.