The second king of Israel (r. 1010–970 BC), founder of a dynasty that continued with his son Solomon (r. 970–931 BC), who ruled all of Israel; subsequently the remaining “sons of David” ruled the southern kingdom, Judah, until 586 BC.

David’s importance can be measured by the vast space devoted to the account of his life (1 Sam. 16:1–1 Kings 2:12; 1 Chron. 11:1–29:30). The titles of many psalms identify him as their author. Although there are no contemporary extrabiblical references to David due to the rarity of inscriptions in Palestine at this time, the “house of David” (or Tel Dan) inscription, dated to the eighth century BC, provides an extraordinarily early reference to his dynasty.

David and Saul

Human kingship is a late development in Israel, but a number of ancient texts anticipate the establishment of the institution (Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:14–20) and specifically the rise of a king from Judah (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:17). Thus, it is surprising that the first king of Israel is not from Judah, but from Benjamin. When the people ask Samuel for a king, he anoints Saul (1 Sam. 8–12), who proves to be a tremendous disappointment. He forfeits the establishment of his dynasty when he shows a lack of confidence in God by rashly offering prebattle sacrifices (13:13–14). God then rejects Saul as king because he does not execute God’s full judgment against the Amalekites as he knows he should (15:23).

At this point the biblical history turns its attention to David. God commands Samuel to go to Bethlehem, specifically to the household of Jesse, to anoint one of his sons as the next king (1 Sam. 16). In contrast to Saul, who is notable because of his tall, imposing physical stature (10:23), David is the youngest and smallest of all the children of Jesse, a simple shepherd. Nonetheless, he is the chosen one because God “looks at the heart” (16:7). However, David does not immediately assume the kingship. Indeed, his anointing is kept secret.

The first two accounts of David’s initial public appearance appear in 1 Sam. 16:14–17:58. Some doubt attends the question of whether these two stories are chronologically or thematically organized, but in either case they anticipate David’s later role as psalm singer and warrior. The narrative describes David’s work in Saul’s court as a harpist whose music soothes Saul’s tormented mind (16:14–23) and tells the heroic story of David’s courageous stand against Goliath, a gigantic Philistine mercenary (1 Sam. 17).

Although David never shows any signs of subversion or disloyalty, his growing popularity increases the paranoia of Saul. However, Saul cannot simply kill off such a popular figure, even though in a fit of madness he throws a spear at him (1 Sam. 18:10–11). Saul instead settles on a plan that would lead to David’s death on the battlefield. Saul offers his daughter to David in marriage. After an abortive first attempt involving his daughter Merab, Saul invites him to marry Michal, though as a bride-price he asks through his attendants for one hundred Philistine foreskins (1 Sam. 18:25). Saul assumes that David will surely die in the attempt to obtain them, but instead David kills two hundred Philistines and marries Michal. The alliance to the royal house strengthens his later bid for the throne, but for the moment it serves the purpose of making Saul even more suspicious.

While Saul’s hostility increases toward David, Saul’s son Jonathan develops an intense personal friendship with David (1 Sam. 18:1–4). Jonathan recognizes his father’s weaknesses and understands that he will not be the next king. He helps David escape his father’s wrath, and forever afterward David is kind to the descendants of Jonathan (1 Sam. 19–20).

Eventually, Saul’s murderous intentions toward David become so intense that he must leave the court and live in the hinterlands, moving from place to place, staying one step ahead of Saul and his men. He is not alone, however. With him is an army of six hundred men, a prophet (Gad), and the high priest (Abiathar). In essence, he functions as a kingdom in exile. He saves the Judean city of Keilah from the Philistines (1 Sam. 23:1–6) and protects the flocks of Judean landowners such as the aptly named Nabal (“fool”) (1 Sam. 25). The latter is not properly grateful for the help, and David is ready to avenge himself against him. Fortunately, Nabal’s wife, Abigail, wisely intercedes with David. Nabal dies of other causes, and David marries Abigail.

David is to be the next king, but he is no usurper. Two times during this period (1 Sam. 24; 26) David’s men are in a position to dispatch the king. It may even be possible to justify such a move because Saul is pursuing David to kill him. David knows, however, that it is wrong to harm the anointed of the Lord. He is not going to manipulate the situation and grasp the kingship; he will wait on the Lord’s own timing. David continues to keep out of Saul’s way, even seeking refuge with the Philistines for a period of time.

Eventually, however, Saul’s moment of judgment comes. Saul’s final battle is against the Philistines, the major foreign force still inside the borders of the promised land. Both Saul and Jonathan meet their end on Mount Gilboa, and David sings songs that express his sadness over their deaths (1 Sam. 31–2 Sam. 1).

David’s Kingship

Even with Saul out of the way, David’s rise to kingship is not easy. He is immediately crowned king of Judah (2 Sam. 2:1–7), but the northern tribes choose to follow Ish-Bosheth, the son of Saul. War erupts between the two kingdoms. Eventually, though, the powerful general Abner abandons his support of Saul’s son, sealing the end of that dynasty. Ish-Bosheth is killed by his own men, and soon David becomes king over all Israel (5:1–5).

David’s kingship leads to significant victories that, in essence, complete the conquest of Canaan by finally subduing all the internal enemies. His men take the city of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, and he makes it his capital (2 Sam. 5:6–16). He also defeats the Philistines, who have been a thorn in the side of Israel for years (5:17–25; for other victories, see 8:1–14). In celebration, David brings the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6).

The David narrative reaches its apex when God enters into a covenant with him that establishes his dynasty (2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron. 17). After David dies, his son will succeed him, and indeed his dynasty lasts for many hundreds of years (see below).

David is a good king, but not a perfect king. A turning point in his reign comes in 2 Sam. 11. Up to this point, David has been content with what God has given him. He does not grasp for anything that does not belong to him. However, when he sees the beautiful Bathsheba bathing, he sends messengers to bring her to his house, where the two have sexual intercourse and she becomes pregnant. In an attempt to conceal this sin of adultery, he orders the death of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Thus, he adds the crime of murder to that of adultery.

David thinks that the sin is secret, but nothing is hidden from God, who sends his prophet Nathan to confront David (2 Sam. 12; cf. Ps. 51). The difference between Saul and David is not that the latter is perfect but rather that David, as opposed to Saul, repents when he sins. Thus, God allows his reign to continue. Even so, David feels the consequences of his sin. First, the son that Bathsheba bears from her illicit union with David is struck with illness and dies. And ever afterward, David’s family life is troubled, with great impact on the political life of Israel. Son is pitted against son (Amnon and Absalom [2 Sam. 13]), as well as son against father (Absalom and David [2 Sam. 15–18]). Absalom temporarily deposes his father from the throne, but David eventually regains the kingship, though at the cost of the heartbreaking loss of his son.

Even at the very end, there is conflict within David’s house. When David has grown old, another son, Adonijah, attempts to take the throne, with support from powerful people such as Joab and Abiathar. At the instigation of Bathsheba and Nathan, however, David places the son of his choosing, Solomon, on the throne (1 Kings 1). David then dies after a reign of forty-one years, seven in Hebron and the rest over all Israel (1 Kings 2:10–12).

David’s Legacy

The account in Chronicles emphasizes David’s role in the preparations for the building of the temple. He had wanted to build the structure, but God says that this task is not for the one who completes the conquest of Canaan (1 Chron. 22:8), but rather for his son Solomon, who will inherit a stable nation and whose very name means “peace.”

David’s greatest legacy is the dynasty that bears his name. Beginning with Solomon, however, his successors do not continue his spiritual legacy. Although a number of kings do some good, only Hezekiah (r. 727–698 BC) and Josiah (r. 639–609 BC) are given unqualified approval. Eventually, the Davidic rule comes to an end in Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians (586 BC). But God is not done with his redemptive purposes, and his promise to David is that he will have a ruler on the throne “forever” (2 Sam. 7:16). The NT recognizes that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of this promise. He is the greater son of David, the one who is the Christ or Messiah, the anointed king. Jesus is the one who reigns forever in heaven. The life and the rule of David foreshadow the messianic rule of Jesus Christ.

Dwelling can refer to a place (“building, residence” [e.g., Exod. 15:17; Acts 7:46]) or an action (“to reside” [e.g., 1 Sam. 2:29]). While dwelling characterizes people’s residence (Gen. 27:39; Num. 24:21; Prov. 24:15; Isa. 32:18; Hab. 1:6; Zeph. 3:6–7), God’s sanctuary, where the ark of the covenant resides (Exod. 25–26; Ps. 132:8), is described as his dwelling among his people (Exod. 15:13, 17; Lev. 15:31; 26:11; 1 Sam. 2:29, 32; 1 Chron. 9:19; Zech. 2:13). Both the tabernacle (2 Sam. 7:6; 15:25; 1 Chron. 16:1) and the temple (2 Chron. 31:2; 36:15; Pss. 84:1; 132:5; Ezek. 3:12; Mic. 1:2–3) are so described. A sanctuary for the needy and oppressed (Pss. 27:5; 31:20; 68:5), it is also a post from which God watches the earth (Pss. 33:14; 132:6–9). God himself can also be described as a “dwelling” in which people seek refuge (Pss. 90:1; 91:9; Ezek. 37:27).

Deuteronomy, perhaps in an effort to eliminate any misconception of God’s omnipresence or in reaction to the destruction of the first temple, describes the sanctuary as the “dwelling for his Name” (Deut. 12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2; cf. 1 Kings 8:29; Isa. 18:2–7; Jer. 7:12), while Kings and Chronicles (1 Kings 8:30, 39, 43, 49; cf. 1 Chron. 17:5; 2 Chron. 6:21, 30, 33, 39; 30:27) maintain that God’s dwelling is in heaven and not on earth. As Solomon confesses, not even the heavens can contain God, let alone a temple (1 Kings 8:27; cf. Ps.74:7; Jer. 25:30). Some prophets and writings refer to Jerusalem, the location of the now destroyed temple, as the “dwelling of God” (e.g., Ezra 7:15; Jer. 31:23; Lam. 2:6), while others prefer the “dwelling place of God’s Name” (e.g., Neh. 1:9; Isa. 18:7).

Job’s friend Bildad identifies the dwelling of an evil person as one characterized by calamities (Job 18:5–21), while Job, who wants to make his claim of innocence to God, laments his inability to locate God’s dwelling (23:3).

Jesus is described in John’s Gospel as the Word (logos) of God that dwelled or “tabernacled” (skēnoō) among humans (John 1:14). Paul describes believers as groaning in waiting to be clothed with their “heavenly dwelling,” by which they attain immortality (2 Cor. 5:2–4), and says that they are being built into a dwelling of God’s Spirit (Eph. 2:22). This latter sentiment is echoed in Revelation, which says that the new city of God will need no physical temple because God and the Lamb themselves are the temple, dwelling among the people (21:3, 22; cf. 1 Cor. 3:16–17).

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

Imagery of God

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

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

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

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

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

Names and Attributes of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God of the Trinity

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

A kingdom signifies the reality and extent of a king’s dominion or rule (Gen. 10:10; 20:9; Num. 32:33; 2 Kings 20:13; Esther 1:22). Some kingdoms were relatively small; others were concerted attempts to gain the whole world. For example, there were approximately fifty million people under the Pax Romana (“Roman peace”—the consolidated empire) during Augustus’s reign. Demographers estimate that the global population in the first century was about 250 million. Therefore, approximately one-fifth of the world’s population was under the authority of a single king (Caesar). The Roman Empire (kingdom) reached its greatest extent under Trajan (r. AD 98–117), about two million square miles.

Authority and power. A kingdom presupposes monarchy, rule by an individual, human authority. (The Bible has little to say about democracy; that form of government was developed by the Greeks, but a primarily empire mentality dominated the context of the biblical world.) Although kings only have as much authority as their armies and the general populace allow, they nevertheless exercise an almost absolute power, which invites either profound humility or hubris. Royal arrogance, unfortunately, is the primary motif characterizing kings in the Bible (e.g., Dan. 3). Gaius Octavius (later Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus), the grandnephew of Julius Caesar, ruled as emperor from 31 BC to AD 14. The Roman senate declared him “Augustus” (Lat. Augusta) on January 13, 27 BC. “Augustus” then became a title held by all reigning emperors except Vitellius. The title means “revered or august one,” connoting superhuman qualities. Egyptian, Greek, and Roman kings were routinely venerated as gods. By way of analogy, even the Bible presents God as a king (Pss. 5:2; 10:16; 44:4).

A kingdom may be visualized as a series of concentric circles, beginning with the throne, which is the seat of a king’s rule and judgment, then the court and “retainer class” of bureaucrats and aides (e.g., scribes, tax collectors), and then radiating out to the subjects, animals, and landholdings (see Deut. 17:18; Esther 1:14; Matt. 2:3). The king typically entered into a partnership with the upper classes: he provided peace and protection, and they in turn offered loyalty and a portion of their wealth. Latifundism, the dividing up of agricultural property into large estates, enabled kings to reward political supporters and punish their enemies (Matt. 14:1–12 pars.). The powerless and marginalized often found themselves outside this comfortable agreement, without property. When they threatened to change the political order, they were violently crushed (see Matt. 11:7–12).

Royalty and religion. Kingdom and religion were intertwined, so that the king was often high priest or had direct influence over the priesthood. Solomon made Zadok, a longtime loyal supporter of his father, David, high priest. His descendants dominated the office until the Seleucid crisis (1 Kings 2:26–27, 35; 4:4). Herod the Great and Pontius Pilate selected high priests from aristocratic families in Jerusalem. The primary capital of a kingdom was the ownership of land and revenues from taxation. Kings also took censuses of the people for taxation purposes. They were also generally free to tax anything in or passing through their realm. Herod Antipas taxed fishermen for using the Sea of Galilee (see Matt. 9:9–12 pars.).

God originally intended Israel to be governed as a theocracy, ruled by the one, true, living God (but see Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:14–20). Israel was to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6), but the people demanded a king (1 Sam. 8:1–22). However, even when God granted their request, God remained King over the king and even retained ownership of the land (Lev. 25:23, 42, 55). The Israelite king was nothing more than God’s viceroy, with delegated authority. With few exceptions, most of the kings of Israel and Judah were corrupted by authority and wealth and forgot God (1 Sam. 13:13–14; 15:28; Matt. 14:6–11). But God made a covenant with David, so that one of his descendants would become a coregent in a restored theocracy, the kingdom of God (2 Sam. 7:1–29; Pss. 89:3; 132:11). In contrast to David’s more immediate descendants, this coming king would return to Jerusalem humble and mounted on a donkey (Zech. 9:9; cf. Isa. 62:11). The Gospels present Jesus Christ as this king (Matt. 21:1–9 pars.). Those who are likewise humble will inherit the land with him (Matt. 5:5).

A kingdom signifies the reality and extent of a king’s dominion or rule (Gen. 10:10; 20:9; Num. 32:33; 2 Kings 20:13; Esther 1:22). Some kingdoms were relatively small; others were concerted attempts to gain the whole world. For example, there were approximately fifty million people under the Pax Romana (“Roman peace”—the consolidated empire) during Augustus’s reign. Demographers estimate that the global population in the first century was about 250 million. Therefore, approximately one-fifth of the world’s population was under the authority of a single king (Caesar). The Roman Empire (kingdom) reached its greatest extent under Trajan (r. AD 98–117), about two million square miles.

Authority and power. A kingdom presupposes monarchy, rule by an individual, human authority. (The Bible has little to say about democracy; that form of government was developed by the Greeks, but a primarily empire mentality dominated the context of the biblical world.) Although kings only have as much authority as their armies and the general populace allow, they nevertheless exercise an almost absolute power, which invites either profound humility or hubris. Royal arrogance, unfortunately, is the primary motif characterizing kings in the Bible (e.g., Dan. 3). Gaius Octavius (later Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus), the grandnephew of Julius Caesar, ruled as emperor from 31 BC to AD 14. The Roman senate declared him “Augustus” (Lat. Augusta) on January 13, 27 BC. “Augustus” then became a title held by all reigning emperors except Vitellius. The title means “revered or august one,” connoting superhuman qualities. Egyptian, Greek, and Roman kings were routinely venerated as gods. By way of analogy, even the Bible presents God as a king (Pss. 5:2; 10:16; 44:4).

A kingdom may be visualized as a series of concentric circles, beginning with the throne, which is the seat of a king’s rule and judgment, then the court and “retainer class” of bureaucrats and aides (e.g., scribes, tax collectors), and then radiating out to the subjects, animals, and landholdings (see Deut. 17:18; Esther 1:14; Matt. 2:3). The king typically entered into a partnership with the upper classes: he provided peace and protection, and they in turn offered loyalty and a portion of their wealth. Latifundism, the dividing up of agricultural property into large estates, enabled kings to reward political supporters and punish their enemies (Matt. 14:1–12 pars.). The powerless and marginalized often found themselves outside this comfortable agreement, without property. When they threatened to change the political order, they were violently crushed (see Matt. 11:7–12).

Royalty and religion. Kingdom and religion were intertwined, so that the king was often high priest or had direct influence over the priesthood. Solomon made Zadok, a longtime loyal supporter of his father, David, high priest. His descendants dominated the office until the Seleucid crisis (1 Kings 2:26–27, 35; 4:4). Herod the Great and Pontius Pilate selected high priests from aristocratic families in Jerusalem. The primary capital of a kingdom was the ownership of land and revenues from taxation. Kings also took censuses of the people for taxation purposes. They were also generally free to tax anything in or passing through their realm. Herod Antipas taxed fishermen for using the Sea of Galilee (see Matt. 9:9–12 pars.).

God originally intended Israel to be governed as a theocracy, ruled by the one, true, living God (but see Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:14–20). Israel was to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6), but the people demanded a king (1 Sam. 8:1–22). However, even when God granted their request, God remained King over the king and even retained ownership of the land (Lev. 25:23, 42, 55). The Israelite king was nothing more than God’s viceroy, with delegated authority. With few exceptions, most of the kings of Israel and Judah were corrupted by authority and wealth and forgot God (1 Sam. 13:13–14; 15:28; Matt. 14:6–11). But God made a covenant with David, so that one of his descendants would become a coregent in a restored theocracy, the kingdom of God (2 Sam. 7:1–29; Pss. 89:3; 132:11). In contrast to David’s more immediate descendants, this coming king would return to Jerusalem humble and mounted on a donkey (Zech. 9:9; cf. Isa. 62:11). The Gospels present Jesus Christ as this king (Matt. 21:1–9 pars.). Those who are likewise humble will inherit the land with him (Matt. 5:5).

(1) The prophet Nathan was consulted by David when he contemplated building a temple to house the ark (2 Sam. 7). Without consulting God, Nathan encouraged David in this laudable project, suggesting that in the prophet’s mind the project was so obviously right (acknowledging as it did God’s supreme kingship over the nation) that there was no need to ask God. However, an unexpected divine refusal came that same night. A divine speech, long by biblical narrative standards (twelve verses), was required to explain the baffling divine refusal. The problem with the project was that the time was not ripe (2 Sam. 7:11; cf. 7:1), for David still had battles to fight.

Nathan reappears in biblical narrative in 2 Sam. 12, sent by God to rebuke David for taking Bathsheba (this confrontation is alluded to in the superscription of Ps. 51). These interventions of Nathan came at David’s high point and low point. Nathan’s parable about the “little ewe lamb” caused David to incriminate himself and pronounce his own sentence. David, on his immediate repentance, was forgiven (v. 13), but the rest of his reign was the working out of the punishment pronounced by Nathan: “The sword will never depart from your house” (v. 10). Nathan predicted the death of the son born from the illicit union (v. 14). Later, God sent word through Nathan that a second son, Solomon, was to be named “Jedidiah” (“loved by the Lord”) (v. 25; see NIV footnote). Nathan, in collusion with Bathsheba, took Solomon’s part in the competition for the throne (1 Kings 1). Nathan and the priest Zadok anointed Solomon king at Gihon (1 Kings 1:45). He also had a role in David’s ordering of the Levites (2 Chron. 29:25). Nathan is the reputed author of a book of chronicles about David’s reign (1 Chron. 29:29) and a history about Solomon’s (2 Chron. 9:29).

Presumably, the Nathan of 1 Kings 4:5 is the prophet, whose son Azariah was in charge of Solomon’s district officers. Zabud, another son, was a priest (here this refers to a chief officer) and personal adviser (cf. Hushai’s role in 2 Sam. 15:37) under Solomon. There is mention of “the house of Nathan” as still prominent in the postexilic period (Zech. 12:12).

(2) A son of David, born in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:14; 1 Chron. 3:5; 14:4), he is in the genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:31). (3) The father of Igal, one of David’s thirty mighty warriors (2 Sam. 23:36). (4) A Judahite, the son of Attai and father of Zabad (1 Chron. 2:36). (5) The brother of Joel, one of David’s mighty warriors (1 Chron. 11:38). (6) One of the leaders enlisted by Ezra to seek Levites willing to return to Jerusalem (Ezra 8:16). (7) One of the men who were guilty of taking a foreign wife during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:39).

In the OT, many palaces are referenced, but the first of importance is that of Pharaoh as Abraham sojourned in Egypt (Gen. 12:15). When the children of Israel moved to Egypt because of the famine, they did not know that Joseph was in charge of the palace (Gen. 41:40; 45:16; Acts 7:10). Later, even the palace of Pharaoh was overrun by the plagues sent by God upon Egypt (Exod. 8:3, 24).

King Hiram of Tyre sent cedar logs and carpenters to David so that a house could be built for him (2 Sam. 5:11). It later vexed David that he himself lived in a palace while the ark of God was housed in a tent. This prompted David to prepare for building the temple after consulting with Nathan (2 Sam. 7:2–29).

Even more extensive discussion is given about the palace of Solomon. It took thirteen years to complete and was built with wood from the cedars of Lebanon. It was 150 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with foundations of high-quality hewn stone, cedar columns, and beam supports. From foundation to roof the sides were trimmed with high-grade chiseled stone. There was a throne room lined with cedar from floor to ceiling. There were similarly designed living quarters for Solomon and for the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kings 7:1–12). The account of the tremendous labor and cost for the palace and temple is given in 1 Kings 9:10–23. Later, Solomon decorated the inside of the palace extensively with gold (1 Kings 10:16–22). Eventually, the king of Babylon took these treasures from the royal palace and burned it down (2 Kings 24:13; 25:9).

In the NT, the Greek word basileios is used in reference to a palace once, when Jesus notes that in contrast to John the Baptist, those who wear soft clothing and have luxurious lifestyles live in royal palaces (Luke 7:25). The home of the Roman governor (praitōrion) is referred to as a palace in some translations (e.g., John 18:28, 33; 19:9 NIV). John explains that the Jews did not actually enter the praetorium, so as not to be defiled for the Passover feast (John 18:28). Other NT references note the palace of Herod where Paul was kept under guard (Acts 23:35) and that of Caesar where Paul may have been imprisoned in Rome (Phil. 1:13). The testimony of Paul was apparently well known there, and some of his guards became converts to Christianity (Phil. 1:13; 4:22).

In the KJV, a pasture or perhaps a sheepfold (1 Sam. 24:3; 2 Sam. 7:8; 1 Chron. 17:7). See also Sheepfold.

In the OT, heavenly beings or angels are sometimes referred to as “sons of God” (Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Pss. 82:6; 89:6). The more important background for the NT, however, is the use of the term with reference to the nation Israel and the messianic king from David’s line. Israel was God’s son by virtue of God’s unique calling, deliverance, and protection. Hosea 11:1 reads, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” Similar references to God as the father of his people appear throughout the OT (Exod. 4:22; Num. 11:12; Deut. 14:1; 32:5, 19; Isa. 43:6; 45:11; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9, 20; Hos. 2:1). The king from the line of David is referred to as the son of God by virtue of his special relationship to God and his representative role among the people. In the Davidic covenant, God promises David concerning his descendant, “I will be his father, and he will be my son” (2 Sam. 7:14; cf. Pss. 2:7; 89:26). Later Judaism appears to have taken up these passages and identified the coming Messiah as the “son of God.”

In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship. The angel Gabriel connects Jesus’ status as “Son of the Most High” with his reception of the throne of David (Luke 1:32). At Jesus’ baptism (which Luke identifies as Jesus’ messianic anointing [Luke 3:21; 4:1, 14, 18]), the Father declares Jesus to be “my Son, whom I love” (3:22), an allusion to Ps. 2:7. Satan tempts Jesus as the Son of God to abandon obedience to the Father and claim independent authority (Matt. 4:1–11; Luke 4:1–13). Peter confesses that Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16), and the high priest questions whether Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One” (Mark 14:61; Matt. 26:63). In these and other texts “Son of God” is almost synonymous with “Messiah” (cf. Mark 1:1; Luke 4:41; 22:70; John 11:27; 20:31; Acts 9:20, 22). In other contexts, Jesus’ divine sonship appears to exceed messianic categories. Jesus prays to God as his Father (“Abba” [Mark 14:36]) and refers to himself as the Son, who uniquely knows and reveals the Father. The Father has committed all things to him. No one knows the Father but the Son and those to whom the Son reveals him (Matt. 11:25–27; Luke 10:21–22). It is by virtue of Jesus’ unique sonship that he invites his disciples to pray to God as their Father (Matt. 6:9).

In the Fourth Gospel, the status of Jesus as the Son of God is especially important, indicating both Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father and his essential deity. John introduces the notion of preexistent sonship in which the “Word” from creation is the Son (John 1:1–18; 17:5, 24). God sends into the world his Son (3:16), who reflects the glory of the Father (1:14; 14:6–11) and who will soon return (14:28). Jesus affirms that “I and the Father are one” (10:30), that “the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (10:38). John’s purpose in writing is to provoke faith “that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (20:31).

Some scholars reject the royal Jewish background of “the Son of God” when investigating the phrase in the Gospels. Instead, they appeal to Hellenistic sources to argue that Jesus as the Son of God is a “divine man” (theios anēr), which accounts for his ability to work miracles. This line of thinking, however, is fraught with many difficulties, not least of which is that the epithet is never used to describe the “divine man” in Greek literature.

In Paul’s thinking, the corporate, Israelite background of “Son of God” is renewed with reference to the NT people of God. Paul states that “theirs [the people of Israel] is the adoption to sonship” (Rom. 9:4). Although ethnic Israelites are rightfully called “sons of God,” this status is contingent upon being people of faith: “So in Jesus Christ you are all children of God through faith” (Gal. 3:26); Jesus’ death as the Son effects salvation (Rom. 8:2, 32; Gal. 2:20). The Spirit also plays a role in testifying with the spirits of believers that they are indeed children of God (Rom. 8:15–16), by which they cry, “Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:3–6). The believers’ status as God’s children will be completely revealed when they share in Christ’s glory (Rom. 8:17).

An Aramaic term for “father,” used three times in the NT, always coupled with its Greek equivalent, patēr. A term of endearment used to refer to God, it demonstrates that the speaker has an intimate, loving relationship with God. Jesus so addresses God the Father in the garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:36). The believer, filled with the Spirit, becomes God’s adopted child and thus can also so speak to God (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The OT provides a background for this in its teaching that God is the father of his people (Exod. 4:22; Deut. 32:6) and, in a special way, of the king (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7).

Architecture is the technology and the art of design and construction. The technology of architecture includes an understanding of mathematical and engineering principles; the art of architecture focuses attention on interest and beauty in design. The creative imagination of the architect is constantly considering how to artfully manage form and function in the design and construction process.

Architecture and the Bible

The term “architecture” does not occur in most English translations of the Bible. There is, however, evidence of and reference to the architectural activity of God’s people. In addition, Israel and the church were contextualized in significant architectural periods (Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman), so the major empires of the biblical period often influenced the design and construction of cities, temples, and structures referenced in the biblical text. Architecture offers biblical studies a way to better understand the historical intentions of the Bible. By means of architectural investigation, the history and the heritage of past civilizations are illuminated. As a result, our reading of the biblical text is enhanced.

When we investigate the biblical text with attention to the technology and art of architecture, two perspectives emerge. First, architecture draws our attention to the background of the biblical text. In certain biblical texts we learn about the design and the construction that took place in Egypt, Assyria, and Palestine during major biblical events. For example, the patriarchal and Mosaic periods occurred during times of expansion and development in the Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties of Egypt (i.e., New Kingdom, sixteenth to eleventh centuries BC). For these periods, we gain knowledge about capital relocations along with temple and pyramid constructions. We learn that during the conquest, Israel took over existing Canaanite cities in keeping with the Mosaic policies. The architecture of Palestine enables us to better understand the form and function of these infrastructures.

Second, architecture draws our attention to the theological implications of the form and function of structures designed by God. In keeping with the scope of architecture, we are forced to understand that what God designed for altars, the ark, the tabernacle, and the temples of the past and the future included more than just the functional requirements of a nation’s religious system. The interpreter of the biblical text must consider how the design of these structures elicits response and communicates meaning. These structures are also windows on the social, political, and economic aspects of the Israelite nation.

Old Testament

Cities and fortifications. The biblical rec­ord makes reference to architectural structures, materials, and furnishings. Cities are referenced frequently throughout the OT canon. The city is obviously the context for architectural expression. The cities of the Bible are not described in extensive detail. We learn that Cain was a city builder who named his work after his son Enoch. The architectural feature of cities mentioned most often is the city gates (Gen. 19:1; 23:10, 18; Deut. 17:5; Josh. 2:5; 7:5; 20:4; Judg. 5:8). This was an important place for city life and activity (Gen. 23:1; Prov. 31:31). There was also sinister activity at city gates. Abner, for example, was killed in the city gate (2 Sam. 3:22–30). In addition, executions for covenant violations were carried out at the city gate (Deut. 17:5). There was more than one city gate, as we learn from the postexilic construction activity of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Within the city there was a strong tower. The people of Babel used thoroughly baked bricks instead of stone and tar for mortar in order to build the city and the tower that was designed to reach to the heavens (Gen. 11:3–4). A city tower functioned as a place of refuge for the people within the city limits (Judg. 9:49–51).

Cities were protected by a wall system (Lev. 25:29) that also provided space for housing (Josh. 2:15). The conquest of Jericho recounts the familiar defeat of that city by the very unconventional destruction of its walls (Josh. 6:20). A city square is another feature of the city architecture (Judg. 19:15–17) that served the public needs of the community.

The biblical descriptions of Jerusalem offer a measure of insight into its architecture. During the rebuilding process in the postexilic period, Nehemiah comments on both the construction and the building materials (Neh. 2:8; 13:31; cf. Ezra 6:4) and the spacious nature of the city (Neh. 7:4). From another perspective, the psalmist comments, “Jerusalem is built like a city that is closely compacted together” (Ps. 122:3).

Beyond these textual details we learn through the writings of the prophets that cities are the subject of God’s wrath for covenant violation (Jer. 6:6; Hos. 11:6; Mic. 5:11). Despite this, the nation of Israel is not left without the hope of restoration. The prophets also anticipated the return of the people along with the restoration of the city infrastructure (Amos 9:14; Mal. 1:4).

The temple and sacred structures. The other architectural features referenced by the writers of Scripture include altars, the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, and the temple. The tent and the tabernacle were also outfitted with unique furniture items described in detail and expertly crafted. The construction projects of Solomon are detailed in 1 Kings 5–7. Solomon, like David, pursued his architectural ambitions. The book of Ezekiel gives extensive architectural detail for the construction of a future temple in which God will reign and rule (Ezek. 40–48).

The temple and royal residences were made of stone with cedar roofing. The chamber buildings that surrounded the temple were three stories high. The interior walls and ceilings were lined with cedar to cover all the stone (1 Kings 6:1–10). In all the construction details for the temple, the text does not elaborate on architectural style. Perhaps the builders were influenced to some degree by the styles of the major periods.

What are the theological implications related to the form and function of the sacred structures in the biblical material? The first is that God is the ultimate designer of Israel’s architecture. God’s signature work certainly is not the tabernacle or the Solomonic temple, but rather the created realm. The beauty and the complexities of the created world continue to draw attention to God’s beauty and intelligence. As the psalmist declares, the creation, which God designed, is a constant source of praise (Ps. 19).

God’s skill and artistic beauty as a master architect are reflected also in the revelation of his plans for the sacred structures of Israel to the nation’s artisans. The skill that the artisans manifested in the construction process was also a gift from God (Exod. 35:35; 2 Chron. 2:14).

The structures designed by God for construction were primarily for him. This is understandable because the patriarchal and Mosaic periods included long desert pilgrimages and the related tent dwelling. References to homes and houses in the book of Leviticus are not about design and construction but about function. The domestic home must be free of mildew (Lev. 14:34–41) and thus clean according to the standards of the law. The construction of Davidic and Solomonic homes is given attention in Scripture (2 Sam. 5:11; 7:1; 1 Kings 7:1–12).

The tabernacle and the temple were divine residences (Exod. 30:6; 40:34; 2 Sam. 7:5; 1 Kings 8:11). For this reason, the design and function of each structure reflected the glorious worth of God and reminded the nation of its own uncleanness. Beyond the structures of temple and tabernacle, the city of Jerusalem was privileged to be the resting place of the “Name” (i.e., presence) of the Lord (2 Chron. 6:5–6) and to have David as the chosen ruler (2 Chron. 6:34).

The history of Israel reveals that the sustainability of these sacred structures was influenced by physical and spiritual factors. God occupied the structures or met with Israel at these sacred places as long as Israel conformed to the terms of the Mosaic covenant (1 Sam. 4:21; 1 Kings 9:6–9). During the monarchy, kings who departed from Torah would strip the temple to pay tribute to foreign overlords (2 Kings 24:13) or would modify the function of the structure to accommodate the worship of foreign gods (see 2 Kings 23). Although there were periodic times of rebuilding the sacred structures, sustainability was short lived. The ideology of the sacred structures anticipates a future time when their original function will be replaced with the opportunity to live in God’s presence forever.

New Testament

The NT refers only rarely to architects or architecture. Hebrews 11:10 speaks of God as the “architect [technitēs] and builder” of the heavenly Jerusalem. Paul refers to the church as the temple of God. Jesus Christ is the foundation, and Christian leaders are building upon that foundation with either gold, silver, and costly stones or wood, hay, and straw (1 Cor. 3:10–17; cf. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16).

In terms of physical buildings, the church of the NT was a house church. During the time of Christ the significant architectural structures were the temple and synagogues. Herod the Great was the major builder of the time, whose impressive temple dominated the landscape of the Jerusalem area. Although the synagogue was a central structure during the life of Christ and the early church, function is emphasized over form in the biblical material. The synagogue was a place for prayer, Scripture study, and the administration of justice (Luke 4:16–30; Acts 13:15; 14:1).

The focus of the NT is also on the church’s function instead of its architectural form. The church, however, prospered and grew in the context of a significant Hellenistic architectural period (300 BC to AD 300). In this period the Seleucids were responsible for establishing large Greek cities across western and central Asia. The primary construction material continued to be the mud-brick, which resulted in rapidly decaying buildings. Although cities continued to be laid out in a grid format, a more dynamic, hilly format was being introduced. The homes in these cities often were built with courtyards like ones in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The temples of the Hellenistic period were designed with landscaping and terracing, along with porticoed enclosures and stairways.

The book of Revelation closes the canon with extensive detail about the new city of Jerusalem, which God will design and build (Rev. 21) and which will function to serve his sovereign purposes as creator and redeemer.

A sacred cultic object, in the shape of a box, that represented the presence of God among the Israelites. The ark (Heb. ’aron), constructed in wood, measured 45 inches long, 27 inches wide, and 27 inches high (Exod. 25:10), and it was transported by means of two poles inserted on either side of the ark. The most important aspects of the ark were the cover and the cherubim attached to the ark cover. Blood was ritually sprinkled on the cover, which was the designated place of atonement. In the earliest accounts, the ark became the place of atonement, meeting, and revelation between God and Israel.

In a few instances the Hebrew word ’aron also denotes a collection box (NIV: “chest”) in the temple (2 Kings 12:9–10; 2 Chron. 24:8, 10–11), and in one case it refers to Joseph’s sarcophagus, or coffin (Gen. 50:26). The Scriptures mention the ark 195 times, frequently (82 times) in association with the Lord or God, resulting in expressions such as “the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord,” the “ark of the God of Israel,” and the “ark of God.”

The Function and Locations of the Ark

The ark was housed first in the portable sanctuary or tabernacle used for worship in early Israelite history, and Exodus and Deuteronomy note that it served as a receptacle for the “testimony” or two tablets of the Ten Commandments. Consequently, the ark is often referred to as the “ark of the testimony,” since the Hebrew word for “testimony” is synonymous with the common Hebrew word for “covenant” (Pss. 25:10; 132:12), and the designations of the container as the “Ark of the Covenant” (Deut. 9:9, 15) and as “the ark of the testimony” (Exod. 27:8; 31:18) seem interchangeable. The NT notes that the ark also contained a gold jar of manna and Aaron’s blossoming rod (Heb. 9:4; cf. Exod. 16:32–34; Num. 17:8–10). The location of the ark became associated with the centralized place of gathering and worship by the Israelites. Moses composed what has come to be called the “Song of the Ark” (Num. 10:35–36), signifying the ark’s role in preceding the nomadic Israelites in the wilderness and indicating where they should rest.

In the book of Joshua, the ark led the people in conquest (3:1–5:1; 6:1–25). The crossing of the Jordan (3:7–11) amid dry ground, when carrying the ark into the river caused the waters to be swept in a heap, depicts the supernatural relationship between the ark and the presence of God. The ark became so closely associated with the divine presence that the Israelites assumed that the presence of God resided within the ark. Only the consecrated Levitical priests could carry the ark, which was covered by three layers of cloth in order to conceal it from the people (Num. 4:5–6, 15, 18–20), who had to remain at least a thousand yards away. In 2 Sam. 6:2–7 the oxen carrying the ark stumbled, and Uzzah, who was not a priest, reached out and touched the ark to steady it, resulting in his death (cf. 1 Chron. 13:7–10). Following the entry into the Promised Land, the ark abided at the Gilgal sanctuary, and eventually it shifted from Bethel to Shiloh.

The function of the ark as the place where the tribal confederacy sought divine counsel for holy war led also to employing the ark as a war symbol, carried forth into battle to assure victory (Josh. 6:4–21). This use of the ark most likely originates from ancient Near Eastern religious concepts and practices that associated the presence of a god with an emblematic war throne useful for divination and success in battle. The expression “the Lord Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim” links God’s roles as king and warrior, reinforcing the ark as God’s throne or his “footstool” (1 Sam. 4:4), symbolic of the invisibly enthroned deity. Other Canaanite deities, including El, had footstools that resembled gold-plated and ornate boxes upon which to rest their feet, signifying their regal authority and military power. In 1 Chron. 28 the ark is referred to as God’s “footstool,” and the psalmist enjoins the people to gather and worship at God’s footstool (Ps. 99:5). Similarly, Ps. 132, a liturgical poem linked to the formal procession of the ark, refers to the “footstool of [God]” as the centralized place of worship.

The Ark of the Covenant rested in the Shiloh temple in the custody of Eli until it was captured by the Philistines, who possessed it in their territory for seven months (1 Sam. 4–6). The loss of the ark was mourned as symbolizing the abandonment or departure of God’s presence, and yet its capture emphasized the Israelites’ false presumptions concerning the ark as a guarantor of military success and reinforced the fact that God could not be manipulated. Following a plague inflicted by God upon the Philistines, the ark was returned and remained at Kiriath Jearim for twenty years (6:21–7:2).

Eventually, King David transported the ark to the city of Jerusalem, reinforcing the political and cultic importance of the location. Here it remained in a “tent” until it was placed in Solomon’s temple (2 Sam. 6:17; 7:2). The ark disappeared sometime during the late monarchical period; its capture is not listed in the temple assets seized by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:13–17). The ark was never replaced after the return from the Babylonian exile, and Jeremiah declared that the ark should not be remade (Jer. 3:16). The ark is not mentioned in Ezekiel’s description of the new temple (Ezek. 40–48).

The book of Hebrews mentions the ark in relation to its prominence and purpose in the temple (9:4–5). In addition, Heb. 9:1–14 contrasts the application of Christ’s own blood in the heavenly holy place with the priestly sprinkling of blood on the “mercy seat” (NIV: “atonement cover”) of the ark. Revelation 11:19 speaks of the ark of God’s covenant being located in the heavens.

The Ark and the Holiness of God

The Ark of the Covenant underscores the holiness of God and his necessary separation from sin. The holiness or consecration of those who approach God at the ark signifies the importance of cleansing from impurity as a prerequisite to maintaining the covenant relationship with God. Although the ark and the presence of God became inseparably linked in the minds of the Israelites, God’s promise to be present among them did not imply a spatial or corporeal limitation. The law tablets contained in the ark are inextricably linked with the glory of God’s presence and the point of covenant accessibility through the word of God. The portable nature of the ark, and the tent in which it was housed, emphasizes that God’s presence or revelation is not limited to a specific location.

The NT also concretizes the ark to the holiness of God and his law. God is both merciful and just; his holiness requires propitiation for sin, and his mercy provides it through the blood atonement accomplished through the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ’s sufficient and efficacious vicarious sacrifice on the cross replaced the yearly ritual necessary to secure the salvation and forgiveness of God’s people, highlighting the superiority of Christ and salvation by grace through faith in his redemptive work on the cross. The sacrificial death of Christ provides infinite atonement and reconciliation for believers, who affirm God’s immanence while at the same time acknowledging his sovereignty and transcendence. Believers look forward to the literal and physical return of Christ, when they will realize the fulfillment of God’s promise to live with and among them eternally.

A sacred cultic object, in the shape of a box, that represented the presence of God among the Israelites. The ark (Heb. ’aron), constructed in wood, measured 45 inches long, 27 inches wide, and 27 inches high (Exod. 25:10), and it was transported by means of two poles inserted on either side of the ark. The most important aspects of the ark were the cover and the cherubim attached to the ark cover. Blood was ritually sprinkled on the cover, which was the designated place of atonement. In the earliest accounts, the ark became the place of atonement, meeting, and revelation between God and Israel.

In a few instances the Hebrew word ’aron also denotes a collection box (NIV: “chest”) in the temple (2 Kings 12:9–10; 2 Chron. 24:8, 10–11), and in one case it refers to Joseph’s sarcophagus, or coffin (Gen. 50:26). The Scriptures mention the ark 195 times, frequently (82 times) in association with the Lord or God, resulting in expressions such as “the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord,” the “ark of the God of Israel,” and the “ark of God.”

The Function and Locations of the Ark

The ark was housed first in the portable sanctuary or tabernacle used for worship in early Israelite history, and Exodus and Deuteronomy note that it served as a receptacle for the “testimony” or two tablets of the Ten Commandments. Consequently, the ark is often referred to as the “ark of the testimony,” since the Hebrew word for “testimony” is synonymous with the common Hebrew word for “covenant” (Pss. 25:10; 132:12), and the designations of the container as the “Ark of the Covenant” (Deut. 9:9, 15) and as “the ark of the testimony” (Exod. 27:8; 31:18) seem interchangeable. The NT notes that the ark also contained a gold jar of manna and Aaron’s blossoming rod (Heb. 9:4; cf. Exod. 16:32–34; Num. 17:8–10). The location of the ark became associated with the centralized place of gathering and worship by the Israelites. Moses composed what has come to be called the “Song of the Ark” (Num. 10:35–36), signifying the ark’s role in preceding the nomadic Israelites in the wilderness and indicating where they should rest.

In the book of Joshua, the ark led the people in conquest (3:1–5:1; 6:1–25). The crossing of the Jordan (3:7–11) amid dry ground, when carrying the ark into the river caused the waters to be swept in a heap, depicts the supernatural relationship between the ark and the presence of God. The ark became so closely associated with the divine presence that the Israelites assumed that the presence of God resided within the ark. Only the consecrated Levitical priests could carry the ark, which was covered by three layers of cloth in order to conceal it from the people (Num. 4:5–6, 15, 18–20), who had to remain at least a thousand yards away. In 2 Sam. 6:2–7 the oxen carrying the ark stumbled, and Uzzah, who was not a priest, reached out and touched the ark to steady it, resulting in his death (cf. 1 Chron. 13:7–10). Following the entry into the Promised Land, the ark abided at the Gilgal sanctuary, and eventually it shifted from Bethel to Shiloh.

The function of the ark as the place where the tribal confederacy sought divine counsel for holy war led also to employing the ark as a war symbol, carried forth into battle to assure victory (Josh. 6:4–21). This use of the ark most likely originates from ancient Near Eastern religious concepts and practices that associated the presence of a god with an emblematic war throne useful for divination and success in battle. The expression “the Lord Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim” links God’s roles as king and warrior, reinforcing the ark as God’s throne or his “footstool” (1 Sam. 4:4), symbolic of the invisibly enthroned deity. Other Canaanite deities, including El, had footstools that resembled gold-plated and ornate boxes upon which to rest their feet, signifying their regal authority and military power. In 1 Chron. 28 the ark is referred to as God’s “footstool,” and the psalmist enjoins the people to gather and worship at God’s footstool (Ps. 99:5). Similarly, Ps. 132, a liturgical poem linked to the formal procession of the ark, refers to the “footstool of [God]” as the centralized place of worship.

The Ark of the Covenant rested in the Shiloh temple in the custody of Eli until it was captured by the Philistines, who possessed it in their territory for seven months (1 Sam. 4–6). The loss of the ark was mourned as symbolizing the abandonment or departure of God’s presence, and yet its capture emphasized the Israelites’ false presumptions concerning the ark as a guarantor of military success and reinforced the fact that God could not be manipulated. Following a plague inflicted by God upon the Philistines, the ark was returned and remained at Kiriath Jearim for twenty years (6:21–7:2).

Eventually, King David transported the ark to the city of Jerusalem, reinforcing the political and cultic importance of the location. Here it remained in a “tent” until it was placed in Solomon’s temple (2 Sam. 6:17; 7:2). The ark disappeared sometime during the late monarchical period; its capture is not listed in the temple assets seized by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:13–17). The ark was never replaced after the return from the Babylonian exile, and Jeremiah declared that the ark should not be remade (Jer. 3:16). The ark is not mentioned in Ezekiel’s description of the new temple (Ezek. 40–48).

The book of Hebrews mentions the ark in relation to its prominence and purpose in the temple (9:4–5). In addition, Heb. 9:1–14 contrasts the application of Christ’s own blood in the heavenly holy place with the priestly sprinkling of blood on the “mercy seat” (NIV: “atonement cover”) of the ark. Revelation 11:19 speaks of the ark of God’s covenant being located in the heavens.

The Ark and the Holiness of God

The Ark of the Covenant underscores the holiness of God and his necessary separation from sin. The holiness or consecration of those who approach God at the ark signifies the importance of cleansing from impurity as a prerequisite to maintaining the covenant relationship with God. Although the ark and the presence of God became inseparably linked in the minds of the Israelites, God’s promise to be present among them did not imply a spatial or corporeal limitation. The law tablets contained in the ark are inextricably linked with the glory of God’s presence and the point of covenant accessibility through the word of God. The portable nature of the ark, and the tent in which it was housed, emphasizes that God’s presence or revelation is not limited to a specific location.

The NT also concretizes the ark to the holiness of God and his law. God is both merciful and just; his holiness requires propitiation for sin, and his mercy provides it through the blood atonement accomplished through the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ’s sufficient and efficacious vicarious sacrifice on the cross replaced the yearly ritual necessary to secure the salvation and forgiveness of God’s people, highlighting the superiority of Christ and salvation by grace through faith in his redemptive work on the cross. The sacrificial death of Christ provides infinite atonement and reconciliation for believers, who affirm God’s immanence while at the same time acknowledging his sovereignty and transcendence. Believers look forward to the literal and physical return of Christ, when they will realize the fulfillment of God’s promise to live with and among them eternally.

There were at least two towns called “Bethlehem” (meaning “house of bread”). (1) A town in Zebulun, in the north, about seven miles northwest of Nazareth (Josh. 19:15).

(2) The well-known town about four miles south of Jerusalem in Judah, situated on a couple of hills about 2,300 feet above sea level. The ancient name was “Ephrath” or “Ephrathah” (Gen. 35:16, 19; 48:7; Ruth 4:11; Ps. 136:2; Mic. 5:2; see also Bethlehem Ephrathah). With the possible exception of the story of the judge Ibzan (Judg. 12:8–10), most references to Bethlehem are to the town in Judah, which still exists.

Bethlehem first enters biblical history when Jacob’s wife Rachel dies there while giving birth to Benjamin (Gen. 35:16–19). After the conquest, the town was inhabited by Ephrathites descended from Caleb, one of whom was called “father of Bethlehem” (in the sense of civic leader; 1 Chron. 2:51; 4:4; cf. 2:54). Judges mentions two Levites passing though, one who moved from Bethlehem to Ephraim (Judg. 17:7–9), and another who lived in Ephraim but took a concubine from Bethlehem (19:1). The most important references to Bethlehem from this era, however, are in Ruth. It was from Bethlehem that Elimelek’s family set out for Moab (Ruth 1:1), and to Bethlehem that Ruth and Naomi returned (1:22). Two generations later, it was into this same Bethlemite family that the future king David was born (Ruth 4:18–22; 1 Sam. 16:1).

Bethlehem is mentioned frequently as David’s hometown (e.g., 1 Sam. 17:12, 58; 20:6). Several of the mighty men on whom David depended so much were from there, including the brothers Joab, Abishai, and Asahel (2 Sam. 2:18, 32) and Elhanan (2 Sam. 23:24). At one point, when Bethlehem was temporarily garrisoned by Philistines, some of the mighty men risked their lives to fetch David water from the town well (2 Sam. 23:14–17; 2 Chron. 11:16–26). Bethlehem was later fortified by David’s grandson Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:6).

In the eighth century the prophet Micah promised that although Judah’s defeat was inevitable, a new king would arise from this otherwise insignificant town to save the whole of Israel (Mic. 5:2). Both the place and the clan retained their identity through the exile, and 123 men of Bethlehem returned to Judah (Ezra 2:21; see also Neh. 7:26).

Luke stresses that Jesus was born in David’s city (Luke 2:4; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12–16); Joseph had taken Mary to his ancestral home, Bethlehem, for a Roman census. The angels announced Jesus’ birth to some shepherds in the vicinity of town (Luke 2:1–20). Matthew makes a more specific connection to Micah’s prophecy; indeed, it was on the basis of this prophecy that Herod decided where to send the magi (Matt. 2:1–8) and where to slaughter the baby boys (2:16). Matthew sees in this slaughter a fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy that Rachel, who died at Bethlehem, would mourn her children (Matt. 2:18; Jer. 31:15). Ironically, some Jews rejected Jesus because they thought that he came from Galilee (John 7:42). Constantine the Great, the fourth-century Roman emperor, built a church above a cave in Bethlehem, traditionally believed to be the birthplace of Jesus. Today the city boasts a population of about thirty thousand and is one of the most visited sites in Israel, especially during the Christmas season, when thousands of Christians make a pilgrimage to the traditional place of Jesus’ birth.

There were at least two towns called “Bethlehem” (meaning “house of bread”). (1) A town in Zebulun, in the north, about seven miles northwest of Nazareth (Josh. 19:15).

(2) The well-known town about four miles south of Jerusalem in Judah, situated on a couple of hills about 2,300 feet above sea level. The ancient name was “Ephrath” or “Ephrathah” (Gen. 35:16, 19; 48:7; Ruth 4:11; Ps. 136:2; Mic. 5:2; see also Bethlehem Ephrathah). With the possible exception of the story of the judge Ibzan (Judg. 12:8–10), most references to Bethlehem are to the town in Judah, which still exists.

Bethlehem first enters biblical history when Jacob’s wife Rachel dies there while giving birth to Benjamin (Gen. 35:16–19). After the conquest, the town was inhabited by Ephrathites descended from Caleb, one of whom was called “father of Bethlehem” (in the sense of civic leader; 1 Chron. 2:51; 4:4; cf. 2:54). Judges mentions two Levites passing though, one who moved from Bethlehem to Ephraim (Judg. 17:7–9), and another who lived in Ephraim but took a concubine from Bethlehem (19:1). The most important references to Bethlehem from this era, however, are in Ruth. It was from Bethlehem that Elimelek’s family set out for Moab (Ruth 1:1), and to Bethlehem that Ruth and Naomi returned (1:22). Two generations later, it was into this same Bethlemite family that the future king David was born (Ruth 4:18–22; 1 Sam. 16:1).

Bethlehem is mentioned frequently as David’s hometown (e.g., 1 Sam. 17:12, 58; 20:6). Several of the mighty men on whom David depended so much were from there, including the brothers Joab, Abishai, and Asahel (2 Sam. 2:18, 32) and Elhanan (2 Sam. 23:24). At one point, when Bethlehem was temporarily garrisoned by Philistines, some of the mighty men risked their lives to fetch David water from the town well (2 Sam. 23:14–17; 2 Chron. 11:16–26). Bethlehem was later fortified by David’s grandson Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:6).

In the eighth century the prophet Micah promised that although Judah’s defeat was inevitable, a new king would arise from this otherwise insignificant town to save the whole of Israel (Mic. 5:2). Both the place and the clan retained their identity through the exile, and 123 men of Bethlehem returned to Judah (Ezra 2:21; see also Neh. 7:26).

Luke stresses that Jesus was born in David’s city (Luke 2:4; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12–16); Joseph had taken Mary to his ancestral home, Bethlehem, for a Roman census. The angels announced Jesus’ birth to some shepherds in the vicinity of town (Luke 2:1–20). Matthew makes a more specific connection to Micah’s prophecy; indeed, it was on the basis of this prophecy that Herod decided where to send the magi (Matt. 2:1–8) and where to slaughter the baby boys (2:16). Matthew sees in this slaughter a fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy that Rachel, who died at Bethlehem, would mourn her children (Matt. 2:18; Jer. 31:15). Ironically, some Jews rejected Jesus because they thought that he came from Galilee (John 7:42). Constantine the Great, the fourth-century Roman emperor, built a church above a cave in Bethlehem, traditionally believed to be the birthplace of Jesus. Today the city boasts a population of about thirty thousand and is one of the most visited sites in Israel, especially during the Christmas season, when thousands of Christians make a pilgrimage to the traditional place of Jesus’ birth.

The book of Ezekiel is widely recognized as one of the most idiosyncratic of the OT prophetic books. Some rabbis prohibited anyone under the age of thirty from reading portions of the book (i.e., the visions of God’s glory in chapters 1 and 10 might lead to dangerous speculations about the mystery of God).

Authorship and Date

Up until the beginning of the twentieth century, most scholars viewed the unparalleled extensive dating in the book (1:1–2; 8:1; 20:1; 24:1; 26:1; 29:1, 17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1, 17; 33:21; 40:1), along with the symmetry achieved by deliberate thematic repetition (i.e., the “watchman” passages in 3:16–21; 33:1–9; Ezekiel’s message of judgment/hope addressed to the mountains of Israel respectively in chaps. 6; 36) as indisputable proof that the book was the product of a single author. Even during the first one hundred years or so of historical-critical dominance in OT research, historical-critical investigations tended to confirm the traditional views of the unity, authenticity, and date of the book of Ezekiel, although the opinions of the majority of scholars began to shift early in the twentieth century.

For much of the first half of the twentieth century, issues of authorship, dating, and provenance of the prophet’s ministry dominated critical research on the book of Ezekiel. The book’s peculiarities lent themselves to various suggestions regarding the place of Ezekiel’s ministry. If, as 1:1–3 records, Ezekiel was called to prophetic ministry among the exilic community in Babylon, how does one explain Ezekiel’s apparent knowledge of particular events in Jerusalem, such as the death of Pelatiah (11:13) and the various forms of idolatry taking place in and around the temple complex in chapters 8–11? Furthermore, what is one to make of Ezekiel’s words to those who remained behind in Jerusalem (5:8–17; 11:5–12; 33:23–29)?

Many of those who sought to defend a straightforward understanding of the book’s own claims looked to mysticism or psychology to explain Ezekiel’s visionary involvement in events occurring some seven hundred miles away. Explanations for the apparent idiosyncrasies of his ministry—including extremely violent and graphic language, his extended period of “muteness,” various striking sign-acts, and the extended length and emotional intensity of his visionary experiences—tended to bleed into the discussion of how to understand his visionary experience of being transported to remote locations. Earlier solutions ranged from noting the similarities between Ezekiel’s experiences and those of the mystics to characterizing Ezekiel as having a “complex personality” and as one whose life was more attuned to the realities of the supernatural world.

Geographical solutions to account for Ezekiel’s apparent knowledge of events in Jerusalem include two suggestions. The first is that Ezekiel ministered only in Jerusalem. His preaching forms the core of chapters 1–39, and a later exilic redactor updated these chapters to address the concerns of an exilic audience and also added chapters 40–48. The second suggestion is that Ezekiel ministered in Jerusalem from 593 BC until the fall of Jerusalem, at which time he was taken into captivity in Babylon, where he continued his ministry among the exiles. The appeal of a dual-ministry approach is that it accounts for the double geographical focus of Ezekiel without resorting to ecstatic or supernatural flight from one city to the other or positing extensive secondhand editing of the book.

On the other hand, there is evidence from other biblical materials that ecstatic or visionary experiences of this sort were part of the prophetic tradition. Many of Ezekiel’s apparent idiosyncrasies actually resemble characteristics of the preclassical prophets. Viewing Ezekiel’s ministry as part of an accepted cultural tradition provides a more persuasive explanation for the text as it stands. For example, the evidence of continued contacts between the Jerusalem and exilic communities (Jer. 29; Ezek. 33:21) suffices to explain whatever knowledge Ezekiel possessed of events in Jerusalem. The manner of their presentation in his visions is dictated by the cultural standards and expectations of a prophet operating under the influence of the “hand of Yahweh” and by the rhetorical goals of his preaching.

It is entirely plausible to suggest that the author of Ezekiel was an Israelite who was a rough contemporary of the tragic events surrounding the dismantling of the Judahite monarchy by the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

Historical Background

The book of Ezekiel itself yields pertinent information about Ezekiel’s world, which, when supplemented with other biblical texts (2 Kings, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Habakkuk), enables us to reconstruct a working picture of the social, historical, and theological milieu in which Ezekiel lived and ministered.

In 701 BC the kingdom of Judah escaped annihilation by the Assyrians, as had befallen the northern kingdom in 722 BC, due in large part to the ministry of Isaiah and the faith of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:1–20:21; Isa. 36–37), albeit at a crippling financial expense in the form of heavy tribute to Assyria. After Hezekiah’s death in 698 BC, his son Manasseh reversed his father’s religious reforms, which meant disaster spiritually (2 Kings 21:1–18; 2 Chron. 33:1–11) and survival politically. Judah continued to exist for most of the seventh century BC as a vassal kingdom under Assyrian domination. The spiritual decline of Judah was briefly challenged during the reign of Josiah, who ruled in the years 640–609 BC. However, Jeremiah’s strong invectives against empty religious formalism and social irresponsibility during much of Josiah’s reign suggest that Josiah’s attempts at religious reforms were only nominally successful and did not penetrate to the populace at large.

While Josiah was seeking to institute his reforms, power in the international scene was shifting. After the death of Ashurbanipal, the last great Assyrian ruler, the Assyrian Empire began to wane. The Neo-Babylonian Empire, founded by Nabopolassar (626 BC), dealt Assyria its final blow with the conquest of Nineveh (612 BC), followed by the destruction of Harran a few years later. This, coupled with the untimely death of Josiah in battle against the Egyptians at Megiddo (609 BC), spelled disaster for Judah (2 Kings 23:29–30; 2 Chron. 35:20–24). Nebuchadnezzar assumed leadership of Babylon after the death of his father (605 BC). Later that same year, Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egyptian forces at Carchemish and also ordered the deportation of some of the educated young Jewish men to Babylon (Dan. 1:1–4). This was followed by a second deportation in 597 BC, which included King Jehoiachin, Ezekiel, and about ten thousand Jews (2 Kings 24:14). Zedekiah was placed on the Judean throne as a puppet king. His rebellion against Babylon (588 BC) led to Nebuchadnezzar’s one-and-a-half-year siege of Jerusalem before its final demise in 586 BC.

The political crisis of 597–586 BC led to a crisis of faith. The promises of an eternal Davidic kingdom (2 Sam. 7:7–16; Ps. 89:3–4, 35–37) and Yahweh’s vow to set up his abode forever in the temple at Jerusalem (Pss. 68:16; 132:13–14) seemed to be failing. At the beginning of Ezekiel’s ministry, the Davidic promise was already under a cloud: Jehoiachin, the rightful heir of the line of David, had been taken in captivity to Babylon, and in his place sat the puppet king Zedekiah. In addition, the land of Canaan had played a significant role in shaping the Israelites’ understanding of themselves as Yahweh’s chosen people (Gen. 12:1–3; Deut. 4:37–38; 7:1–11). Because true worship of God was so closely aligned with the Israelites’ inheritance of the land (Deut. 12), to be outside the land immediately raised grave concern about their status before God (1 Sam. 26:19). To be outside the promised land would lead in a few short years to a questioning of whether true worship was even possible any longer (Ps. 137:4). Throughout this period, Ezekiel (and Jeremiah) consistently portrayed Nebuchadnezzar as an unwitting pagan king commissioned by Yahweh to execute the covenant curses on the recalcitrant southern kingdom.

Far from recognizing these events as such, many Israelites in the rebellion party, supported by rebellion prophets, asserted their claim to divine favor and denied the validity of prophetic indictments. They supported their claims with appeals to the miraculous deliverance from the formidable Assyrian army (701 BC), selective use of Scripture’s focus on the inviolability of Jerusalem and the temple, the unconditional promises of an eternal Davidic kingdom (see above), and predictions by rebellion prophets of a quick return for the exiles (Jer. 28; 29:15–32; Ezek. 13).

From Ezekiel’s perspective, the people of Judah were making a liar out of Yahweh. Yahweh had always demanded their exclusive worship. In light of their recent history of idolatry, the only appropriate response was to execute judgment on them (Ezek. 20:4–44). By denying this, the only explanation left to the rebellion party for the destruction of Jerusalem and exile was that a mighty and wicked kingdom that they intensely hated (Ps. 137:4) had bested Yahweh.

From this historical survey one may distill the overall situation faced by Ezekiel into a set of opinions probably shared by the majority of Ezekiel’s fellow exiles. First, there was a widespread belief that it was proper to worship other deities in addition to Yahweh. Also, it was generally believed that the people of Judah were in good standing with Yahweh and were objects of his favor, and that he would shortly bring them deliverance. These beliefs combined to eliminate serious consideration of the possibility that destruction of the kingdom and exile were Yahweh’s intention. Consequently, once the kingdom was destroyed and exile had become a reality, Yahweh’s power and/or character became suspect in the minds of many. Furthermore, the perceived link between the land and the presence and blessing of Yahweh cast the exilic experience in an extremely negative light. For those gripped by these convictions, exile raised the specter of hopelessness. The sense of hopelessness was intensified by its conjunction with the belief that destruction of the kingdom and exile were undeserved. There was no way to integrate the outcome of the Babylonian crisis with their previously held beliefs about Yahweh and his purposes for Israel.

Literary Considerations

Structure and outline. There are several frameworks that can help the reader understand the “inner logic” of the book.

Tripartite structure. In chapters 1–24 the theme of God’s impending judgment on the nation of Israel for violation of the covenant laws is emphatically repeated in both word and sign-act. Chapters 25–32 serve a Janus (double) function, connecting with chapters 1–24 by continuing the theme of God’s judgment, now directed toward the foreign nations. The pronouncements of coming judgment in these chapters anticipate the last part of the book, with the message of hope for Israel that dominates chapters 33–48. The emphasis on divine judgment in the first half of the book is not a de facto statement that God is finished with Israel; rather, it is recognition that only by means of judgment (both of Israel and their neighbors) is future restoration and reconciliation possible. Many recognize a further subdivision in the third section, with chapters 33–39 focusing on the renewal of the nation and chapters 40–48 dealing with Ezekiel’s temple vision.

This yields the following outline:

I. God’s Judgment on Israel (1–24)

II. God’s Judgment on the Foreign Nations (25–32)

III. Hope for Israel (33–48)

A. Renewal of the nation (33–39)

B. Ezekiel’s temple vision (40–48)

Visions. Visions open and close the book (chaps. 1–3; 40–48), with two additional visions in between: temple idolatry and the incremental departure of God’s glory as judgment is executed (chaps. 8–11), and the valley of dry bones (37:1–14).

The movement of God’s glory. Ezekiel’s sustained concern for the temple as the place where God’s glory dwells provides a unifying structure to the book as Ezekiel chronicles God’s glory coming to Babylon in his ominous inaugural vision (chaps. 1–3), the incremental departure of God’s glory from the temple and the city (chaps. 8–11), and the return of God’s glory in the vision of the new temple (chaps. 40–48).

Genre. The book of Ezekiel is considered by many to be a literary masterpiece composed of various genres, including extended visionary narrative (1–3; 8–11; 37:1–14; 40–48), allegory (16; 23), poetry (19; 26–28), parable (17; 24:3), and popular sayings (8:12; 9:9; 11:3, 15; 12:22, 27; 18:2; 33:10, 17, 20, 24, 30; 37:11). Other prophets quoted popular sayings (Isa. 40:27; Jer. 31:29; Amos 5:14; Hag. 1:2; Mal. 1:2, 6–7, 12–13), but the quotations are far more frequent in Ezekiel and are couched in uniquely theocentric language. In each case it is God who informs Ezekiel what the people are saying. Ezekiel uses popular sayings of the people to establish their hostility toward God and to vindicate God by demonstrating his covenant faithfulness. The unparalleled frequency of Ezekiel’s use of popular sayings in his oracles against the Israelites and the patently theocentric garb in which his counterreplies are clothed serve to anchor both the judgment and the hope of restoration in God alone. Ezekiel’s quotations serve as a foil for a frontal attack on the entire religious enterprise of his contemporaries in Jerusalem and Babylon. By citing these popular sayings and refuting them, Ezekiel skillfully reveals both the necessity and purpose of the exilic crisis. He turns the sayings of the people against them, exposing the depths of their opposition to God and thus furthering the purpose of vindicating God.

Theological Message

The sovereignty of God. The book emphasizes God’s sovereignty over all as Ezekiel challenged the false theology of his fellow Jewish exiles, which held that Yahweh, bound by covenantal oath, could not destroy Jerusalem. The formulaic expression (with variations) “After X occurs, then you/they will know that I am the Lord/I have spoken” occurs over sixty-five times in the book to emphasize God’s intervention in human events, including the exile and restoration (e.g., 7:27; 13:23; 29:16), to uphold the covenant and establish his kingdom.

The holiness of God. Israel’s sins had obscured God’s holiness in the sight of their neighbors (20:9). God’s holiness required both punishment of Israel’s sins and the continuation of his covenantal relationship with his people. God’s purging judgment and restoration would be a fulfillment of his covenantal obligations and would display his holiness (20:40–44; 28:25; 36:16–32).

Hope in the midst of judgment. God’s covenantal faithfulness would include restoration after judgment (chaps. 33–39). The final temple vision (chaps. 40–48) gives a picture of the restoration using typological images and cultural idioms with which the people were familiar.

New Testament Connections

There are approximately sixty-five quotations and allusions to the book of Ezekiel in the NT. Echoes of Ezekiel are prevalent in John’s Gospel (John 10:1–30 [Ezek. 34]; John 15:1–8 [Ezek. 15]) and the book of Revelation (Rev. 4:6–9 [Ezek. 1]; Rev. 20–22 [Ezek. 40–48]).

The book of Haggai is the tenth book in the collection known as the Minor Prophets or the Book of the Twelve. Haggai was a contemporary of Zechariah, and the two prophets had an overlapping purpose: to encourage their generation to rebuild the temple. Though short and similar in theme to Zechariah, Haggai has its own interests, and it repays close reading.

Historical Background

The superscription (1:1) attributes the book to a man named “Haggai” (related to the Hebrew word hag, meaning “festival”). Though mentioned in Ezra 5:1–2; 6:14, these texts add nothing substantial to the little knowledge that we have about Haggai from the book itself, except that he was responsible for the prophetic speeches contained in the book. These speeches are placed in a narrative context, but it is speculative to argue that anyone other than Haggai was responsible for the book.

Haggai and Zechariah are unusually precise in the dates that they give their oracles. They are dated to a fairly brief period during the reign of the Persian king Darius I (see table 1).

Table 1. Dates Given in the Oracles of Haggai and Zechariah:

Haggai 1:1 – Year 2/Month 6/Day 1 of Darius’ reign – Aug. 29, 520 BC – Temple to be built

Haggai 1:15 – Year 2/Month 6/Day 24 of Darius’ reign – Sept. 21, 520 BC – Work on temple resumed

Haggai 2:1 – Year 2/Month 7/Day 21 of Darius’ reign – Oct. 17, 520 BC – Glory of the temple

Zechariah 1:1 – Year 2/Month 8 of Darius’ reign – Oct./Nov. 520 BC – Zechariah’s authority

Haggai 2:10, 20 – Year 2/Month 9/Day 24 of Darius’ reign – Dec. 18, 520 BC – Zerubbabel as God’s signet

Zechariah 1:7 – Year 2/Month 11/Day 24 of Darius’ reign – Feb. 15, 519 BC – First night vision

Zechariah 7:1 – Year 4/Month 9/Day 4 of Darius’ reign – Dec. 7, 518 BC – An issue about fasting

Ezra 6:15 – Year 6/Month 12/Day 3 of Darius’ reign – Mar. 12, 515 BC – Temple completed

The situation that Haggai addresses begins in 587/586 BC with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Babylonians and the beginning of the exile. Not all the people of Judah were taken to Babylon, but the vast majority of the leaders were.

In 539 BC the Persian Empire, led by Cyrus the Great, defeated Babylon and inherited its vast empire, including its vassals, among which was Judah. From the start, the Persians adopted a different foreign policy. They allowed all the Babylonian vassals to return to their homelands to rebuild their temples (this policy is recorded in a contemporary cuneiform text known as the Cyrus Cylinder). Cyrus announced his intentions to the Jewish people through what has come to be known as the Cyrus Decree, in which he describes how God has called him to have the temple rebuilt (2 Chron. 36:23; Ezra 1:2–4).

While one might have expected droves of Jewish exiles to return home, that was not the case. Many had heeded Jeremiah’s call to settle down in the place of their exile (Jer. 29:5–6), but among the early leaders of those who did return was Zerubbabel, a Davidic descendant who became governor of the Persian province of Yehud (the Persian period name for Judah). Haggai addressed his letter to Zerubbabel and to Joshua, the high priest at the time.

Zerubbabel came back to Jerusalem in 539 BC (or soon after) and immediately rebuilt the altar and the foundation of the temple (Ezra 3:2–10), but then the work faltered. A number of factors contributed to the cessation of work, including conflicts between the returnees and those who took over their land while they were in exile (Jer. 52:15–16; Ezek. 11:3, 15). The need to establish their own holdings in the land distracted them from the work on the temple. Neighboring people and local Persian officials also put roadblocks in the way of reconstruction (Ezra 4:1–5; 5:3–5).

After several years of inactivity on the part of the returnees, God raised up Haggai and Zechariah to exhort the people to get their priorities straight. The people responded to their message and work resumed, with the result that the second temple was finished in 515 BC.

Outline and Content

The book of Haggai is a narrative presentation of four of Haggai’s prophetic oracles:

I. Superscription (1:1)

II. Oracle Urging the People to Rebuild the Temple and the People’s Positive Response (1:2–15)

III. Oracle of Encouragement concerning the Glory of the Second Temple (2:1–9)

IV. Oracle Encouraging the People to Stay Pure and Receive a Blessing (2:10–19)

V. Oracle of Divine Blessing to Zerubbabel (2:20–23)

The first oracle (August 29, 520) is a disputation whereby God challenges his people for tending to their own houses and fields while neglecting the construction of the temple. The people respond positively and start building the temple just a few weeks later (1:15). The second oracle (October 17, 520), given just a few weeks after construction has commenced, is a divine encouragement that although the second temple is not as physically grand as the first one, God’s glory will make this temple greater than the first. The third and fourth oracles are delivered on the same day (December 18, 520 BC). The third oracle contains a dialogue between God and the people concerning holiness and uncleanness. The point seems to be that the people want to acquire holiness from the temple just by working there. It is not contagious, however. They will have to work at being holy. On the other hand, something can be made unholy by coming into contact with something unclean, so the temple can become defiled if a sinful and unrepentant people come into contact with it. The final oracle is a divine pronouncement that Zerubbabel is of special significance to God and his purposes. While this could lead some to think of Zerubbabel as the expected deliverer (the Messiah), that is not the role he plays.

Theological Message

The oracles of Haggai are clearly and specifically dated, so modern readers know that they reflect his prophetic ministry during a four-month period in 520 BC. The historical background to his message begins with the early return from exile under Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, the latter being frequently mentioned in Haggai. Soon after the return, the altar was rebuilt, and sacrifices began to be offered in the temple area, but the temple itself was still in disarray. The focus of Haggai’s concern is that God wants his people to get busy reconstructing the temple. They have been hesitant, according to Haggai, because of their own economic struggles. God, through Haggai, tells his people that they must first take care of their religious obligations, and then God will bless them with personal well-being.

In addition, Zerubbabel plays an important role in the prophecy of Haggai. He is a descendant of David and a leader in postexilic Judah. His presence may have given rise to the expectation of the reestablishment of the Davidic monarchy, or at least that seems to be the implication of the last verses of the book, based on 2 Sam. 7:1–11.

New Testament Connections

Haggai and Zechariah’s call to return to the task of rebuilding the temple had its intended influence. The people of God set to work on the temple and finished it in 515 BC. Haggai’s message continues to be relevant, however, especially as he calls readers to get their priorities straight. In essence, the principle behind Haggai’s call is to “seek first the kingdom of God” (cf. Matt. 6:33). He reminds God’s people that God comes first, and then other matters fall into their proper place.

On the other hand, whatever greater expectation there was regarding Zerubbabel never really materialized. Although used for God’s purposes, he fades from biblical history. The expectation of a Davidic ruler was not fulfilled at that time, and this led to intensified expectation. The NT authors understand that the Davidic covenant came to fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

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

Historical Background

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

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

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

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

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

Text

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

Literary Types

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outline

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

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

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

B Summary (25:1–14)

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

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

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

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

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

E. Account of the exile (39:1–44:30)

F. Oracle to Baruch (45:1–5)

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

IV. Epilogue (52:1–34)

Structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theological Message

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

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

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

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

New Testament Connections

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

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

A collection of 150 poems. They are the hymnbook of the OT period, used in public worship. Psalms contains songs of different lengths, types, and dates. The earliest psalm (Ps. 90) is attributed to Moses (mid-second millennium BC), while the content of Ps. 126 and Ps. 137 points to the latest periods of the OT (mid-first millennium BC). They continue to be used as a source of public worship and private devotion.

Historical Background

Most psalms have a title. In the Hebrew text this title comprises the first verse, whereas English translations set it off before the first verse. Titles vary. Many name an author (e.g., David [Ps. 3]; Asaph [Ps. 77]; sons of Korah [Ps. 42]), while others provide information about genre (e.g., Psalms of Ascent [Pss. 120–134]), tune (e.g., “Do Not Destroy” [Ps. 75]), use in worship (Ps. 92), and a circumstance that led to composition (Ps. 51). Information in the title gives hints concerning how psalms were written and brought into a final collection.

Composition

As mentioned, the titles of the psalms often give indications of authorship and occasionally name the circumstance that led to the writing of the psalm. A good example is Ps. 51, where the title states, “For the director of music. A psalm of David. When the prophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba.” The title connects the psalm with the events recorded in 2 Sam. 11–12 and suggests that David wrote the song in response to his sin and Nathan’s confrontation.

Although only a handful of the psalms have such a historical title, it is likely that most psalms were composed in response to some specific circumstance that encouraged the author to write. Interestingly, though, the psalmists do not speak about the specific circumstance in the psalm itself. Psalm 51, for instance, fits perfectly with the situation that the title describes in that it expresses guilt toward God and asks for forgiveness, but nowhere does it speak specifically about adultery. The psalmists do this intentionally because they are writing the song not as a memorial to an event, but rather as a prayer that others who have had similar though not identical experiences can use after them. Thus, Ps. 51 has been used as a model prayer for many penitents, whether they have sinned like David or in another way.

Most modern hymns have a similar background. John Newton, for instance, was inspired to write “Amazing Grace” because of awe that he felt at his conversion to Christianity from the evil of being a slave trader. However, when he wrote it, he wanted others to sing it as reflecting not on his conversion but on their own.

Collection

The psalms were composed over a thousand-year period. Thus, it appears that the book of Psalms was a growing collection until it came to a close at an unknown time between the writing of the two Testaments.

In 1 Chron. 16:7–36 we may get a glimpse of how the process worked. The text describes David turning a musical composition over to the Levitical musician Asaph and his associates. It is likely that the priests kept an official copy of the book of Psalms in the holy place (the temple while it stood). The psalms, after all, were the hymns of ancient Israel. Their primary function was as a corporate book of prayer, though certainly they could be used in private devotions (note Hannah’s prayer in 1 Sam. 2:1–10 and its relationship to Ps. 113).

Organization and Structure

The psalms have no obvious organization that explains the location of all the psalms. They are not organized in terms of genre, authorship, time of composition, or length. There is only one statement about organization, found in Ps. 72:20: “This concludes the prayers of David son of Jesse.” In the light of this comment, it is surprising that a number of Davidic psalms appear in subsequent sections (Pss. 101; 103; 108–110; 122; 124; 131; 133; 138–145). The best explanation is that at one point Ps. 72 concluded the Davidic psalms, but there was a reorganization before the canonical order was permanently closed.

A number of contemporary theories try to find some deep structure to the book, but it is best to refrain from speculation in regard to the overall structure. Nonetheless, a few structural characteristics are obvious. First, the division of Psalms into five books seems to reflect the fivefold division of the Pentateuch:

I. Book 1 (Pss. 1–41)

II. Book 2 (Pss. 42–72)

III. Book 3 (Pss. 73–89)

IV. Book 4 (Pss. 90–106)

V. Book 5 (Pss. 107–150)

Each book ends with a doxology. Such an intentional association with the Pentateuch would lend support to the Psalter’s claim to authority. Although these are prayers to God, they are also God’s word.

Second, within the Psalter there are subcollections. That is, there are psalms that came into the book not individually but as a group. The best-known such group are the Psalms of Ascent (Pss. 120–134), probably so named because worshipers sang them while going up (ascending) to the Temple Mount during one of the annual religious festivals in Jerusalem.

Third, it appears that psalms are intentionally placed at the beginning and at the end of the book to serve as an introduction and a conclusion. Psalms 1–2 serve as an introduction that alerts the reader to the twin important themes of law and messiah. Psalm 1 pronounces a blessing on those who love God’s law. The psalms, after all, are an intimate and personal conversation with God. One must be on the side of the godly to enter such a holy textual space, just as one must be godly to enter the precincts of the temple. After the reader enters, Psalm 2 provides an encounter with God and his anointed one (messiah). At the end of the book, the last five psalms (Pss. 146–150) constitute a tremendous doxology of praise.

This leads to the final observation on structure. Psalms of lament predominate at the beginning of the book, but they give way to hymns of praise toward the end. It is almost as if one enters the Psalter mourning and leaves it praising. Indeed, the Psalter brings the reader into contact with God and thus transforms the reader from sadness to joy.

Literary Considerations

Genre. The individual psalms may be identified as songs, prayers, or poems. Specifically, they are lyric poems (expressing the emotions of the poet), often addressed to God, and set to musical accompaniment. Although the categories overlap, seven different types of psalms can be recognized, with the first three being by far the most common.

• Lament. The largest single group of psalms are the laments, characterized by the expression of unhappy emotions: sadness, disappointment, anger, worry. The lamenters call on God to save them, even while at times complaining about God’s actions toward them (Ps. 42:9–10). Some laments contain petitions for forgiveness (Ps. 51), while others assert innocence of any wrongdoing (Ps. 26). A few laments even contain curses directed toward the enemies who are trying to harm the psalmist (Ps. 69:19–28). Most laments end by praising God or reaffirming confidence in God (Ps. 130:7–8). Usually the reason for the change from mourning to rejoicing is not given, but Ps. 77 pinpoints the reason as the memory of God’s great salvation events in the past (vv. 10, 16–20). One psalm, Ps. 88, laments but never makes the turn, remaining in the pit of despair. Yet even here we have a glimmer of hope in that the one who laments is still speaking to God.

• Thanksgiving. When God answers a lament, the response is thanksgiving. Psalms of thanksgiving are very similar to hymns (see below), but they cite an earlier problem that God has addressed. Psalm 30 praises God for restoring the psalmist’s good fortune and health after he suffered due to his earlier arrogance that led him to forget God (vv. 6–7).

• Hymn. Hymns are psalms of unalloyed praise directed toward God. The psalmists often call for others to join their worship of God (Ps. 100).

• Remembrance. While many psalms evoke memories of God’s actions in the past (as the lament in Ps. 77 recalls the exodus), certain psalms focus on rehearsing the actions of God in the past. Psalm 136 is one of the most memorable examples. As a liturgical psalm, it recites a divine action (“[God] swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea” [v. 15]) followed by a congregational response (“His love endures forever”).

• Confidence. These psalms are defined by their mood of quiet trust in God even in the midst of trouble. They often present a reassuring image of God. The picture of God as a shepherd in Ps. 23 or as a mother in Ps. 131 are good examples.

• Wisdom. Some psalms meditate on the law (Pss. 1; 119) or have interests similar to those of wisdom literature, such as Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes (Pss. 49; 73).

• Kingship. A number of psalms praise God as king (Ps. 47) or the human king as his agent (Pss. 20–21) or both (Ps. 2).

Style. The psalms are poems, and so their style is characterized by the use of parallelism and figurative language. Poetry is also notable for its short lines. A poet packs a lot of meaning into very few words. So it is important to slow down and reflect on a psalm in order to derive its maximum effect. Besides brevity of expression, parallelism, and figurative language, poets create interest by using other literary tools. The psalmists use these poetic devices not only to inform their readers’ intellect but also to stimulate their imagination and arouse their emotions. (See also Acrostic; Imagery; Poetry.)

Theological Message

Although the psalms are not theological essays, readers can learn about God and their relationship with God from these poems. The book of Psalms is a bit like a portrait gallery of God, using images to describe who he is and the nature of our relationship with him. Some examples include God as shepherd (Ps. 23), king (Ps. 47), warrior (Ps. 98), and mother (Ps. 131), and the list could be greatly expanded. Each one of these picture images casts light on the nature of God and also the nature of our relationship with God. After all, the aforementioned psalms explicitly or implicitly describe God’s people as sheep, subjects, soldiers, and children.

Connection to the New Testament and Today

Jesus himself draws attention to Psalms as a book that anticipated his coming suffering and glorification (Luke 24:25–27, 44). The Gospels recognized that Jesus’ zeal for God was well expressed by Ps. 69:9 (John 2:17). When at the apex of his suffering on the cross, Jesus uttered the words found in Ps. 22:1 (Matt. 27:46). The NT writers also saw that Jesus was the fulfillment of the covenant that promised that a son of David would have an everlasting throne (2 Sam. 7:16). Accordingly, the royal psalms (e.g., Pss. 2; 110) often were applied to Jesus, who is the Messiah (the Christ, “the anointed one”).

Today we read Psalms not only as an ancient witness to the coming work of Christ but also, as John Calvin put it, as a mirror of our souls. The psalms were written for worshipers who came after them with similar though not identical joys and problems. The psalms should become models of our prayers.

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

Authorship and Date

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

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

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

Genre

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

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

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

Style

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

The Plan of the Book

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

Themes

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

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

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

New Testament Connections

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

Outline

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

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

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

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

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

VI. The Fall of Israel (2 Kings 17)

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

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

The books of Samuel tell the story of how kingship began in Israel and was subsequently secured under David. Almost all of David’s own story is recounted in Samuel, including God’s promise to him of a dynasty. This promise became a key seedbed for the messianic hope within the OT, which finds its fulfillment in Jesus as David’s son (Matt. 1:1).

Genre and Purpose

Samuel is part of a block of texts running from Joshua through Kings (excluding Ruth), which is known in the Hebrew Bible as the Former Prophets. This block offers a more or less continuous account of Israel’s life in the land of promise from its entry under Joshua until the exile after Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians (2 Kings 25). Any assessment of the genre and purpose of Samuel must consider its relationship to these surrounding texts, though it should also recognize the distinctive elements of Samuel itself.

At its simplest, Samuel is a work of narrative prose that tells how kingship began in Israel and was secured under David after the failure of Saul, though it also contains a number of important poems. Although contemporary history writing would not be done in the same way, since Samuel points to the ways in which God is active throughout this time, Samuel certainly offers a testimony to this crucial period in Israel’s history. It is not the whole story of the period, as its testimony is concerned with a specific set of issues, and that testimony is related through God’s purposes for Samuel, Saul, and David. But this observation is vital for appreciating that Samuel is not just the story of how kingship came to Israel but is specifically a theological examination of it. It explores how God was at work, fulfilling the hope for kingship that had been expressed through Judg. 17–21, while also providing hope that the exile was not the end of his purposes for Israel as a whole and the kings of David’s line in particular. We should not think of this as a dry piece of history writing, for an important element is also that the telling of this story should entertain and grip those who either read or (perhaps more likely) heard it. Knowing that God had acted in the past for his people and that these actions continued to be important was not enough; the excitement that this should generate also needed to be apparent in the skill with which the story was told.

Outline

I. The Rise of Samuel (1 Sam. 1–7)

II. The Birth of Monarchy (1 Sam. 8–12)

III. Saul’s Early Reign and Rejection (1 Sam. 13–15)

IV. Long Rivalry Narrative: David and Saul (1 Sam.16–2 Sam. 1)

A. David’s anointing and arrival at court (1 Sam. 16–17)

B. David within Saul’s court (1 Sam. 18–20)

C. David as an outlaw in Judah (1 Sam. 21–26)

D. David in Philistine territory and Saul’s death (1 Sam. 27–2 Sam. 1)

V. Short Rivalry Narrative: David and Ish-Bosheth (2 Sam. 2:1–5:5)

VI. First Summary of David’s Reign (2 Sam. 5:6–8:18)

VII. Narrative of David’s Court (2 Sam. 9–20)

A. David accepts Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 9)

B. The war with Ammon and David’s sin (2 Sam. 10–12)

C. Long rebellion narrative: Absalom against David (2 Sam. 13–19)

D. Short rebellion narrative: Sheba against David (2 Sam. 20)

VIII. Second Summary of David’s Reign (2 Sam. 21–24)

Composition

Authorship and sources. The books of Samuel are anonymous, and any assessment of their authorship needs to start with this basic fact. There is a tradition in the Talmud (b. B. Bat. 14b; 15a) that associates the book with Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, presumably concluding that the books of Samuel constitute the source mentioned by 1 Chron. 29:29. But this reference is only to information on David’s life and thus is unlikely to refer to the whole of Samuel. Since Samuel’s own death is recorded in 1 Sam. 25:1, the book’s title in our tradition (in the LXX the books of Samuel are the first two books of Kingdoms, which continue into Kings) is unlikely to refer to authorship. Rather, it is more likely that a later author has drawn together a range of source materials in order to offer a coherent testimony about the origins of kingship.

For some time, the main sources behind Samuel seemed to have been identified, and they included a series of Shiloh traditions concerning the end of the house of Eli and the rise of Samuel (1 Sam. 1:1–4:1a), an ark narrative (2 Sam. 4:1b–7:1; 6), traditions concerning Saul and the origins of kingship (1 Sam. 7:2–15:35), a history of David’s rise (1 Sam. 16:1–2 Sam. 5:5), a succession narrative (2 Sam. 9–20), and a Samuel appendix (2 Sam. 21–24). Within this analysis, the place of 2 Sam. 5:6–25 and 2 Sam. 7:1–8:17 remained unclear, but the general thought was that the sources were more or less placed one after the other in their chronological sequence. But the probability of this conclusion has been challenged in recent times because the various sections of the books are clearly aware of information in other parts, so that the whole is actually well integrated. In addition, the actual boundaries of the sources remained unclear. An unfortunate effect of the source theories is that they tended to downplay some parts of the book, especially 2 Sam. 21–24, as being of less importance, whereas some recent studies have shown that they are closely integrated into the rest of the book, tying together themes developed elsewhere while also showing the structural integrity of the whole of Samuel.

Samuel is likely the end product of several stages of material collected together, rather than being the product of sources that are kept intact, but it is still a unified work. Possibly the oldest material is the collection of longer poems in 1 Sam. 2:1–10; 2 Sam. 1:17–27; 22:1–23:7, all of which draws on common themes and language and comments on the nature of kingship. The opening and closing blocks form the bookends, raising the hope of kingship (1 Sam. 2:1–10) and then commenting on how the king must submit to God’s reign (2 Sam. 22:1–23:7). In the central poem (2 Sam. 1:17–27) David laments the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. It is likely that these poems were joined with the stories about Samuel, Saul, and David in the ninth century BC but were then carefully placed to comment on the stories and yet also be commented on by them. Further editing may have continued until the time of Hezekiah in the late eighth century BC. Later on, more or less the whole of Samuel as we know it was included in the Former Prophets, perhaps during the exile. The important point to note here is that Samuel is a carefully composed whole and not simply a collection of source materials.

Literary devices. Evidence for the nature of the book’s composition can be seen in how it employs certain literary devices throughout. Two that are worth noting are the way the text plays with narrative chronology and employs repetition in various forms. The play with narrative chronology means that although the movement of the book is broadly chronological (moving from the origins of the monarchy to the latter period of David’s reign), not every element is recorded in its actual chronological sequence, since at some points other factors were more important. Alternatively, at some points different narrative strands are brought into a chronological relationship with one another, most notably in comparing the locations of David and Saul in 1 Sam. 27–2 Sam. 1. A simple example of relating material outside its chronological sequence occurs in 1 Sam. 26:12, where it is said that God had caused Saul’s soldiers to sleep so that David could enter Saul’s camp only after David had reached Saul, though clearly the soldiers must already have been asleep.

At other points, the breaks with chronological sequence cover different stories about David. For example, in 2 Sam. 5:17–8:14 there are four accounts about David, two in which he overcomes enemies (5:17–25; 8:1–14) and two associated with events in Jerusalem and public worship (6:1–7:29). Since 7:1 tells us that David’s desire to build a temple came after God had delivered him from all his enemies, it follows that the events of chapter 7 must have come after those of 8:1–14. Here, arranging the material to highlight the theme of public worship was more important than placing it in chronological sequence.

This same section also demonstrates the use of repetition. Hence, 5:17–25 recounts two nearly identical defeats of the Philistines in which David must trust God, while the victories in 8:1–14 are twice said to come about because God gave David victory wherever he went (8:6, 14). Similarly, both 6:1–23 and 7:1–29 depend upon interest in the ark and thus mutually interpret each other. Other large-scale repetitions include two announcements of the coming of kingship (1 Sam. 2:10, 34), two announcements of the end of Eli and his family in the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sam. 2:27–36; 3:10–14), and two times when David does not kill Saul (1 Sam. 24; 26). In an oral culture, such repetitions are not evidence of poor composition but rather are a crucial tool for emphasizing the central themes being developed. In addition, variations within each repetition are a tool for increasing the audience’s interest, showing that the authors of Samuel were interested in both giving historical testimony and entertaining their audience.

Text

It is generally agreed that the text of Samuel poses more than its fair share of difficulties, something that can be seen in the often significant differences between the received Hebrew text (MT) and the early translations, especially the main Greek translation (LXX). For example, in 1 Sam. 17 the best-regarded edition of the LXX lacks vv. 12–31, 50, 55–58, and even in shared material it is sometimes significantly shorter. It is generally agreed that the Greek version resolves a number of anomalies, but is this because the MT has been expanded or because the LXX has been abbreviated? In addition, three significant Samuel manuscripts were found at Qumran. Although two of these are only fragmentary, one covers significant portions of Samuel. Although the disputed portions of 1 Sam. 17 are absent from it, there are some points where it appears to support the LXX and others where it agrees with the MT while also introducing some other issues of its own.

It is clear, therefore, that complex issues are involved in determining the text of Samuel, and one must avoid taking a doctrinaire position and allow each point to be resolved on its own merits. At the same time, the difficulties should not be magnified beyond reason, since large sections of the text can be established with reasonable certainty, and for all the problems, the MT remains a reliable guide. One might suggest in the case of 1 Sam. 17, for example, that the LXX text represents an early attempt to address apparent difficulties in the narrative (especially the question of when Saul met David) that nevertheless failed to realize that not everything in Samuel is narrated in exact chronological order. Nevertheless, anyone who compares different translations of Samuel (e.g., NIV and NRSV) will notice variants and should make use of good commentaries at that point.

Central Themes

The reign of God. Kingship lies at the heart of Samuel. But although it is concerned with the story of Israel’s first two kings (Abimelek in Judg. 9 is an aberration and probably only a local figure), it places their story within the framework of God’s reign. No matter what authority a king in Israel might claim, it was always subject to God’s greater authority. Indeed, Samuel makes clear that God did not need a king but rather chose the monarchy as the means by which his own reign might be demonstrated.

An important way in which God’s reign is demonstrated is through the motif of the reversal of fortunes, in which the powerful are brought down and the weak raised. This is announced in Hannah’s Song (1 Sam. 2:4–8) and is then demonstrated when God removed the corrupt family of Eli from their position of power in the sanctuary at Shiloh (2:27–36; 4:1–18). On the other hand, Samuel himself came to prominence even though he had no position of power. Saul, likewise, although a member of a relatively wealthy family (9:1–2), knew that he was not someone who had automatic power (9:21) but still was raised up to be king by God. Yet when he, like Eli before him, became corrupt and clung to power rather than submit to God, he too was removed so that he could be replaced (15:28–29).

David also came from a humble position as the youngest son in his family (1 Sam. 16:11), but unlike Eli and Saul, he would not grasp power for himself. Indeed, he twice refused to kill Saul when he had the chance (1 Sam. 24; 26) and punished those who claimed that they could exercise violence on his behalf (2 Sam. 1:11–16; 4:9–12). Even when it seemed that David had later lost all to Absalom, he held to the fact that he could reign only as long as he had God’s support (2 Sam. 15:25–26). This, in fact, is a central theme in 2 Sam. 7 when David wanted to build a temple for God, for there it is made clear that David cannot act without God’s authority, and that his descendants will have authority as long as they too submit to God (2 Sam. 7:11b–15). David’s closing songs (22:1–23:7) make clear that the king has no authority apart from God.

Kingship. Kingship in Israel is closely related to the theme of God’s reign. The possibility of kingship first arises in Hannah’s Song (1 Sam. 2:10) and is confirmed by the man of God who announces the judgment against Eli’s family (2:34). Both references occur before Israel’s elders requested a king because of the failure of Samuel’s sons (8:1–9), indicating that the request for a king did not take God by surprise. In addition, it indicates that authentic kingship in Israel could only be that which was initiated by God.

The story of Saul’s rise to the throne needs to be read in light of this. Although the human move to kingship stemmed from the request of the elders for a king (1 Sam. 8:4–9), it was still the case that Saul could become king only because of God’s decision. Although 1 Sam. 8–12 often has been broken down into supposedly conflicting sources, it is better to read it as a unified text but to note that the narrator’s voice is not equivalent to any of the characters that speak through it. When the text is understood in this way, it is possible to appreciate that kingship was part of God’s purposes for Israel, but it needed to follow his model. Kings in Israel could prosper only when they submitted to the greater reign of God. It was Saul’s mistake that he did not recognize this. David, although he made some terrible mistakes, always understood this truth, and his closing songs (2 Sam. 22:1–23:7) reflect on it. David learned what Saul never did: power is never something to be grasped; rather, it can only be accepted as a gracious gift from God to be used for his purposes.

New Testament Connections

The importance of the books of Samuel for the NT is far greater than its five direct citations there (Acts 13:22; Rom. 15:9; 2 Cor. 6:18 [2×]; Heb. 1:5) might indicate. The theme of kingship and the associated promise to David in 2 Sam. 7 are fundamental to the messianic hope throughout the OT and are picked up in the NT. Even when the NT cites other OT texts (such as Ps. 2) with reference to Jesus, it is still the books of Samuel that lie behind the citation. In addition, the NT frequently indicates that Jesus was a son of David (e.g., Matt. 1:1). Although such texts do not cite Samuel directly, they clearly allude to it because of God’s promise that David’s throne would be established forever (2 Sam. 7:16). Jesus’ ministry transcends that of David in every way, but we cannot understand his ministry apart from David and God’s promise to him.

The NT begins with the claim that Jesus is the “son” or descendant of King David, presupposing the significance of the biblical narrative about the kings of Israel for understanding the gospel (Matt. 1:1, 6; see also Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8). The epithet also creates an almost immediate conflict with Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1–2), who was given the title “King of the Jews” by the Roman senate in 40 BC, although he was not a Jew. Herod unsuccessfully attempts to kill the infant king, but Jesus finally is executed by the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate as “King of the Jews” (Matt. 27:37 pars.).

Greco-Roman and Jewish Backgrounds

The conflict between the king and the child somewhat parallels a more extensive Greco-Roman motif. Virgil, in his Fourth Bucolic, offers a vision of a golden age to attend the birth of a child king. (Christians in the Middle Ages interpreted his poem as a prophecy of Christ’s birth.) The threat upon Jesus’ life also resembles Herodotus’s account of Cyrus: King Astyages has a dream vision that the magi interpret to be a prophecy that the child of his daughter will eventually rule in his place. He commands Harpagus, his most faithful servant, to take the male child, “adorned for its death,” and kill him. Overcome with emotion, Harpagus pawns the child off to a cowherd, Mitradates, who is instructed to lay the child “in the most desolate part of the mountains.” When Mitradates’s wife sees the beauty of the child, she pleads for his life and devises a plan to switch her stillborn child with Cyrus. They then raise Cyrus under a pseudonym as their own (Herodotus, Hist. 1.107–30). Interestingly, the prophet Isaiah refers to Cyrus as the Lord’s “messiah” or “anointed” (Isa. 45:1), a uniquely positive role for a non-Israelite king. By God’s power, Cyrus will free the exiles (Isa. 45:13).

In the OT, God promises David, the king of Israel, an eternal reign for his “offspring” (2 Sam. 7:12–16). After the fall of the Davidic monarchy, the prophets reiterate the promise in visions of God’s future salvation (Isa. 55:3; Hos. 3:5; Amos 9:11; Mic. 4:8; 5:1–5 [cited in Matt. 2:5–6]; Zech. 3:8). By the first century, “son of David” had become a popular messianic title, signifying a warrior who would free the Jews from Roman oppression and establish an everlasting kingdom. Although not viewed as a supernatural being, the Davidic messiah, some claimed, would be without sin, ruling with perfect wisdom, justice, mercy, and power—different from his predecessors. He would restore the ancient tribal divisions and regather the Diaspora, Jews living outside Judea and Galilee. The nations (non-Jews) would pay him homage (see Psalms of Solomon).

Jesus’ Kingship

The popular Jewish emphasis on a violent overthrow of Rome probably explains why in the Gospels Jesus himself does not emphasize his kingship in his ministry, except for the explicit fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy of a humble king riding into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matt. 21:1–9 pars.; cf. Zech. 9:9; see also Isa. 62:11). However, following his resurrection and final instructions to his disciples, Jesus ascends to the right hand of the Father (Luke 24:50–51; Acts 1:6–11; 2:33–36), a coronation ceremony foretold in the psalms (Pss. 2; 110). He presently reigns from heaven (Rev. 1:5; cf. Matt. 28:18), but he will return to make his authority explicit on earth, which includes the dispensing of justice (2 Thess. 1:5–12). His rule is present, however, in the lives of those who obey him and wherever the Holy Spirit is manifested. Through his ministry, the God of Israel comes near so as to once again exercise sovereign power on behalf of God’s people. For Christians, Jesus alone is Lord and Savior (Phil. 3:20). Paul presents Jesus as the “Savior of all people” (1 Tim. 4:10). This title was given to the Roman emperors. (The preamble to a decree by the council of the province of Asia describes Augustus as “the father who gives us happy life; the savior of all mankind.”)

The Western church has largely maintained a distinction between two spheres of authority: political and ecclesiastical. Hosius, bishop of Cordova (AD 296–357), wrote to Emperor Constantius, “For into your hands God has put the kingdom; the affairs of his Church he has committed to us. . . . We are not permitted to exercise an earthly rule; and you, Sire, are not authorized to burn incense.” Paul affirms the continuing role of government despite the overarching lordship of Jesus Christ, who preferred to speak of the kingdom of God, a restored theocracy that incorporates yet transcends the Davidic covenant (Rom. 13:1–7; cf. John 18:36). But this process does begin a delegitimizing of all contrary claims to authority and will lead to their complete withdrawal. For this reason, the kingdom of God cannot be separated from the political, economic, and religious conflicts taking place in Roman Palestine in the first century and wherever similar conflicts occur today.

The Israelite conquest of the Promised Land is narrated in Numbers through 2 Samuel and includes key figures such as Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Saul, and David, although the main events of the conquest are described in Joshua and Judges. There is considerable scholarly debate about the very complicated details of the conquest. Much of this debate centers on archaeology and the dating of sites and artifacts that have been excavated in the last century. Further complicating things is the fact that many of the events recorded in the Bible are not recorded anywhere else, making verification of events challenging.

Dating the conquest (using the destruction of Jericho as a fixed point) is notoriously difficult. Scholars who accept the biblical account as historically reliable tend to date the conquest of Jericho in the early twelfth century BC. This dating is based on the identification of the pharaoh in the exodus story as one of the Ramesses (who reigned in the Nineteenth or Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty, or roughly the thirteenth to tenth centuries BC). Some archaeologists, however, have argued that during this time Jericho was no more than a small, unwalled village with little or no military significance, thus making the story of Jericho’s destruction in the Bible impossible. Thus, other scholars have suggested a fifteenth- or sixteenth-century date for the conquest (when Jericho was known to be fortified). This solution, however, makes identification of the exodus pharaoh difficult and requires spreading out the events in Judges over four centuries instead of two. Both sides have different theories of how to accommodate the statement in 1 Kings 6:1 that it was 480 years after the exodus that Solomon began to build the temple. This controversy involving biblical scholars, historians, and archaeologists promises to continue for many years to come.

The background for the Canaanite conquest is found in the Pentateuch narratives that describe the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt and their trek toward Palestine. Indeed, the conquest is anticipated already in God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants will become a mighty nation (Gen. 12:1–3; see also 15:16). The story describes God’s initial command to quickly conquer the land after meeting them on Mount Sinai (Num. 13), and the people’s rebellion caused by fear of the Canaanites, who are described as “giants in the land” (NLT). As a result, the Israelites are forced to wander in the Sinai wilderness until the entire generation dies (with the exception of Joshua and Caleb).

As narrated in the Bible, the conquest begins with defeat of the Midianites on the eastern side of the Jordan River under the leadership of Moses (Num. 31–32). Then, after Moses’ death, the Israelites cross the Jordan River to attack Jericho (Josh. 1–7). After the miraculous destruction of Jericho, the Israelites move to Ai and encounter initial defeat due to one man’s sin (Josh. 8). Later, after being tricked by the Gibeonites, the Israelites engage in battle with the five kings of the Amorites (Josh. 9–10). Finally, Josh. 11 describes the conquest of the northern part of the land and especially the military and strategically important city of Hazor.

The book of Judges relates fewer, more concentrated battles against different enemies, sometimes in offensive attacks and other times as defensive battles to preserve land control. The final stage of the conquest under David’s kingship is described in 2 Sam. 1–8. After Saul’s death, a short and violent confrontation takes place between Israelite forces still loyal to Saul’s family and those loyal to David. Political power is consolidated with a few key assassinations, rather than through full-fledged war, orchestrated by David’s men (there is some debate about how involved David was in these events). As a result, David, with the full support of the army (both the forces previously loyal to Saul and his own), takes the city of Jerusalem and then finally conquers the areas of the Philistines, the Ammonites, and the Moabites (areas that Saul had been unable to subdue). Thus, large-scale fighting for territory ends during David’s reign.

The tribal boundaries are described in Josh. 14–22. How closely these boundaries describe land actually conquered and how much of it was a territorial stake that required further warfare in order to be obtained are subject to intense debate. By the time of David, however, the allotment (described in Joshua) fairly closely reflects the largest reaches of the United Kingdom under David (described in 2 Samuel).

The descriptions of the Israelites’ total destruction of their enemies, often including women, children, and livestock, have created theological difficulties for interpreters trying to reconcile the seeming incongruity of God’s love for humankind, especially the innocent, and his commands to completely destroy these cultures. Some scholars have sought to justify these actions by describing the horrific religious practices of these people (such as child sacrifice and ritual sexual perversions), but there are questions about how widespread these practices actually were and doubt about how they would justify a response involving the death of innocents. Currently, there is no strong scholarly consensus on how to resolve this difficult theological issue.

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A sacred cultic object, in the shape of a box, that represented the presence of God among the Israelites. The ark (Heb. ’aron), constructed in wood, measured 45 inches long, 27 inches wide, and 27 inches high (Exod. 25:10), and it was transported by means of two poles inserted on either side of the ark. The most important aspects of the ark were the cover and the cherubim attached to the ark cover. Blood was ritually sprinkled on the cover, which was the designated place of atonement. In the earliest accounts, the ark became the place of atonement, meeting, and revelation between God and Israel.

In a few instances the Hebrew word ’aron also denotes a collection box (NIV: “chest”) in the temple (2 Kings 12:9–10; 2 Chron. 24:8, 10–11), and in one case it refers to Joseph’s sarcophagus, or coffin (Gen. 50:26). The Scriptures mention the ark 195 times, frequently (82 times) in association with the Lord or God, resulting in expressions such as “the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord,” the “ark of the God of Israel,” and the “ark of God.”

The Function and Locations of the Ark

The ark was housed first in the portable sanctuary or tabernacle used for worship in early Israelite history, and Exodus and Deuteronomy note that it served as a receptacle for the “testimony” or two tablets of the Ten Commandments. Consequently, the ark is often referred to as the “ark of the testimony,” since the Hebrew word for “testimony” is synonymous with the common Hebrew word for “covenant” (Pss. 25:10; 132:12), and the designations of the container as the “Ark of the Covenant” (Deut. 9:9, 15) and as “the ark of the testimony” (Exod. 27:8; 31:18) seem interchangeable. The NT notes that the ark also contained a gold jar of manna and Aaron’s blossoming rod (Heb. 9:4; cf. Exod. 16:32–34; Num. 17:8–10). The location of the ark became associated with the centralized place of gathering and worship by the Israelites. Moses composed what has come to be called the “Song of the Ark” (Num. 10:35–36), signifying the ark’s role in preceding the nomadic Israelites in the wilderness and indicating where they should rest.

In the book of Joshua, the ark led the people in conquest (3:1–5:1; 6:1–25). The crossing of the Jordan (3:7–11) amid dry ground, when carrying the ark into the river caused the waters to be swept in a heap, depicts the supernatural relationship between the ark and the presence of God. The ark became so closely associated with the divine presence that the Israelites assumed that the presence of God resided within the ark. Only the consecrated Levitical priests could carry the ark, which was covered by three layers of cloth in order to conceal it from the people (Num. 4:5–6, 15, 18–20), who had to remain at least a thousand yards away. In 2 Sam. 6:2–7 the oxen carrying the ark stumbled, and Uzzah, who was not a priest, reached out and touched the ark to steady it, resulting in his death (cf. 1 Chron. 13:7–10). Following the entry into the Promised Land, the ark abided at the Gilgal sanctuary, and eventually it shifted from Bethel to Shiloh.

The function of the ark as the place where the tribal confederacy sought divine counsel for holy war led also to employing the ark as a war symbol, carried forth into battle to assure victory (Josh. 6:4–21). This use of the ark most likely originates from ancient Near Eastern religious concepts and practices that associated the presence of a god with an emblematic war throne useful for divination and success in battle. The expression “the Lord Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim” links God’s roles as king and warrior, reinforcing the ark as God’s throne or his “footstool” (1 Sam. 4:4), symbolic of the invisibly enthroned deity. Other Canaanite deities, including El, had footstools that resembled gold-plated and ornate boxes upon which to rest their feet, signifying their regal authority and military power. In 1 Chron. 28 the ark is referred to as God’s “footstool,” and the psalmist enjoins the people to gather and worship at God’s footstool (Ps. 99:5). Similarly, Ps. 132, a liturgical poem linked to the formal procession of the ark, refers to the “footstool of [God]” as the centralized place of worship.

The Ark of the Covenant rested in the Shiloh temple in the custody of Eli until it was captured by the Philistines, who possessed it in their territory for seven months (1 Sam. 4–6). The loss of the ark was mourned as symbolizing the abandonment or departure of God’s presence, and yet its capture emphasized the Israelites’ false presumptions concerning the ark as a guarantor of military success and reinforced the fact that God could not be manipulated. Following a plague inflicted by God upon the Philistines, the ark was returned and remained at Kiriath Jearim for twenty years (6:21–7:2).

Eventually, King David transported the ark to the city of Jerusalem, reinforcing the political and cultic importance of the location. Here it remained in a “tent” until it was placed in Solomon’s temple (2 Sam. 6:17; 7:2). The ark disappeared sometime during the late monarchical period; its capture is not listed in the temple assets seized by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:13–17). The ark was never replaced after the return from the Babylonian exile, and Jeremiah declared that the ark should not be remade (Jer. 3:16). The ark is not mentioned in Ezekiel’s description of the new temple (Ezek. 40–48).

The book of Hebrews mentions the ark in relation to its prominence and purpose in the temple (9:4–5). In addition, Heb. 9:1–14 contrasts the application of Christ’s own blood in the heavenly holy place with the priestly sprinkling of blood on the “mercy seat” (NIV: “atonement cover”) of the ark. Revelation 11:19 speaks of the ark of God’s covenant being located in the heavens.

The Ark and the Holiness of God

The Ark of the Covenant underscores the holiness of God and his necessary separation from sin. The holiness or consecration of those who approach God at the ark signifies the importance of cleansing from impurity as a prerequisite to maintaining the covenant relationship with God. Although the ark and the presence of God became inseparably linked in the minds of the Israelites, God’s promise to be present among them did not imply a spatial or corporeal limitation. The law tablets contained in the ark are inextricably linked with the glory of God’s presence and the point of covenant accessibility through the word of God. The portable nature of the ark, and the tent in which it was housed, emphasizes that God’s presence or revelation is not limited to a specific location.

The NT also concretizes the ark to the holiness of God and his law. God is both merciful and just; his holiness requires propitiation for sin, and his mercy provides it through the blood atonement accomplished through the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ’s sufficient and efficacious vicarious sacrifice on the cross replaced the yearly ritual necessary to secure the salvation and forgiveness of God’s people, highlighting the superiority of Christ and salvation by grace through faith in his redemptive work on the cross. The sacrificial death of Christ provides infinite atonement and reconciliation for believers, who affirm God’s immanence while at the same time acknowledging his sovereignty and transcendence. Believers look forward to the literal and physical return of Christ, when they will realize the fulfillment of God’s promise to live with and among them eternally.

Grace is the nucleus, the critical core element, of the redemptive and sanctifying work of the triune God detailed throughout the entire canon of Scripture. The variegated expressions of grace are rooted in the person and work of God, so that his graciousness and favor effectively demonstrated in every aspect of the created realm glorify him as they are shared and enjoyed with one another.

The biblical terminology informing an understanding of grace defines it as a gift or a favorable reaction or disposition toward someone. Grace is generosity, thanks, and goodwill between humans and from God to humans. Divine expressions of grace are loving, merciful, and effective. The biblical texts provide a context for a more robust understanding of divine gift. The overall redemptive-historical context of grace is the desire of the eternal God to bring glory to himself through a grace-based relationship with his creation. The Creator-Redeemer gives grace, and the recipients of grace give him glory.

Old Testament

Genesis. The grace of the creation narratives is summarized with the repeated use of the term “good” (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). God is good, and he made a good creation with abundant gifts for Adam and Eve to enjoy. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, he righteously judged and graciously provided for an ongoing relationship. God clothed the naked Adam and Eve (3:21) and announced that the seed of the woman would yield a redeemer (3:15).

Grace in the postcreation narratives (Gen. 4–6) is focused on individuals. God looked with favor on Abel and his offering (4:4), and Noah found grace in God’s eyes (6:8). God looked at and had regard for the offering of Abel (Gen. 4). Jacob confessed to Esau that God graced him with descendants and with possessions (33:5).

Grace and graciousness also characterize interaction between individuals. The Jacob and Esau exchange uses grace vocabulary for the gift and the disposition of grace. Jacob invited Esau to accept his gift if he had a favorable disposition toward him (Gen. 33:11). The covenant son Joseph received favorable treatment from the prison warden because of his disposition toward him (39:21).

Exodus. The exodus narrative recounts how the seed of Abraham multiplies, is redeemed, and then is given the law, which defines the relationship of God to Israel. All these events are tied to the gracious promises that God made to Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12; 15; 17; see also Gen. 21; 27).

The grace associated with the redemption of Israel from Egypt is celebrated in the song of Exod. 15. God’s victory over the Egyptian army and his covenant fidelity to the patriarchs are the song’s themes. Moses and the Israelites sing because God heard Israel’s groaning; he remembered his covenant with Abraham and looked on Israel with concern (2:24). God made Egypt favorably disposed toward Israel (3:21) and parted the sea for Israel to escape (11:3; 12:36). The confession “He is my God . . . my father’s God” ties together major sections of redemptive history and affirms the constancy of God’s grace throughout the periods (15:2). God’s tenacious covenant loyalty (khesed) to the nation and his covenant grace (15:13) to Israel cannot be merited.

The giving of the law in Exod. 20 is prefaced by a gracious and powerful presentation of God to the nation in Exod. 19. In the organization and development of Exod. 19–20, grace themes emerge. The grace associated with redemption and covenant life is marked in Exod. 19. God took Israel from Egyptian bondage, redeemed it, and brought the nation to himself (19:4). Through this action, the nation will become a special treasure, a holy nation, a kingdom of priests (19:5–6). In sum, Israel exists because God created, loved, and redeemed it.

Second, the Decalogue of Exod. 20 follows upon the redemption effected by God, defining how Israel will relate to its God. In this sense, law is viewed as a gift that expresses the divine will. When compared and contrasted with ancient Near Eastern laws, Torah reflects the grace of God’s character and his genuine concern for the poor, slaves, aliens, and widows. In addition, there is a grace ethic that motivates obedience to the law. The motivational statements in the Decalogue in Exod. 20 relate to the grace of redemption (v. 2), the righteousness of God (vv. 4–7), the creation work of God (vv. 8–11), and long life (v. 12).

Exodus 32–34 is a key passage that links the covenant with grace terminology. This section begins with the story of the golden calf (chap. 32) and ends with the account of Moses’ radiant face (34:29–35). The grace terminology is observed in 33:19; 34:6–7. The context of 33:19 involves Moses meeting with God face-to-face. According to 33:12–17, Moses wanted to know who would be left after the purge of 33:5. He acknowledged God’s favor in his life and wondered who else might enjoy it. Moses reminded God that the nation was his people (33:13). The grace of this account is God’s assurance of his presence with Israel and the unmerited purposeful expression of his grace.

Exodus 34:6–7 employs a series of adjectives in a grace confessional statement. This statement arises out of God’s instructions to Moses to cut two new tablets of stone like the first ones (34:1; see also 24:12), which were broken after the incident of the golden calf (32:19). God descended in a cloud, stood with Moses, and proclaimed his name to him (34:5). The rhetoric of the passage emphasizes the speech of God, who defines himself in connection with covenant making. God is merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and distinguished by steadfast love.

Grace and covenant loyalty. These key passages are foundational for understanding the grace and steadfast loyalty of God expressed in the subsequent events of covenant history. Grace and khesed are expressed in connection with covenant curse implementation (Num. 14:18; Hos. 4:1; 6:4, 6), in the overall structure of Deuteronomy (5:10; 7:9, 12), in the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:15; 1 Chron. 17:13), in the future hope of Israel (Isa. 54:8), in restoration (Jer. 32:18), in the new covenant (Jer. 31:31), and in exile (Dan. 9:4).

To round out the OT discussion, we may note that covenant siblings were to be gracious and loyal in their ongoing relationships with one another. The book of Ruth illustrates covenant grace in action (2:2, 10, 13). In addition, grace is to be expressed toward the poor (Prov. 28:8), the young and the old (Deut. 28:50), and those who suffer (Job 19:21).

New Testament

The NT focus of grace is developed in keeping with the foundation laid in the OT. The triune God is the center and source of grace: it is the grace of God (Rom. 1:7), the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:29), and the grace of Christ (John 1:17). The grace of God revealed in the OT is unveiled uniquely in the person and work of Christ.

The Gospel of John. The canonical development of the grace theme between the Testaments is explained in the opening chapter of John’s Gospel. Jesus Christ is the Word, who was with God, who is God, and who created the world (John 1:1–3). Christ then became flesh and dwelled among us (1:14). In doing so, he made known the glory of God to us. At this point in the development of chapter 1, John connects Christ (the Word) with the adjectives describing God in Exod. 34:6 to affirm that Christ has the very same virtues that God has. The assertion in John 1:17 that Jesus is full of grace and truth parallels the statement in Exod. 34:6 of God’s steadfast love and faithfulness. In Christ we are able to see the glory that Moses hoped to see in God (John 1:18). Christ is both the message and the messenger of grace and truth.

The Epistles and Acts. The NT Epistles develop the “full of grace and truth” statement about Christ (John 1:14) in several ways. The grace and truth found in Christ are given to his servants (1 Cor. 1:4) and are a reason for praise (2 Cor. 8:9; Gal. 1:6, 15; Eph. 4:7; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:1). This grace from Christ is effective in bringing about redemption and sustaining a life of godliness. Ephesians 2:8–9 is the classic statement affirming that God’s favor is the source of salvation. Paul makes this point by repeating “it is by grace” in 2:5, 8 and clarifying the grace of salvation with the “it is the gift of God” statement in 2:8. This design of salvation celebrates the incomparable riches of Christ’s grace and the expression of his kindness to us (cf. Eph. 1:7). Salvation is devoid of human merit, gifts, or favor (2:8). Keeping the law as a means of entrance into a relationship with God and as a means of gaining favor with God is antithetical to the nature of grace. God’s favor expressed to people in salvation is an expression of his sovereign will.

Romans 5 declares many of the same themes found in Eph. 2. In Rom. 5 Paul contrasts the action and result of Adam’s transgression with the obedience of Christ. Salvation is God’s grace and gift brought by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ (v. 15). The gift and grace of Christ brought about justification.

The effective operation of God’s grace in salvation is illustrated in the historical narratives of Acts. The men involved in the heated debate of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:2) affirmed the salvation of the Gentiles by grace after hearing the report of Barnabas and Paul (15:12). Those in Achaia (18:27) are another illustration of an effective operation of grace.

The grace of God that saves is also the grace that sanctifies. Titus 2:11 declares that redemptive grace instructs the redeemed to say no to a life of ungodliness. The instructional nature of grace is highlighted in the development of the Titus 2 context. The teacher in 2:1–10, 15 is Titus, who is to nurture godly people. There is a change of instructors in 2:11, with grace now teaching. Redemptive grace works in harmony with sanctifying grace to provide for godly living.

According to Titus 3:8, those who trust in the generosity of God’s grace should devote themselves to doing what is good. By God’s grace, justified sinners will find their delight and satisfaction in the promises of God for a life of persevering godliness.

Grace also functions as an enablement for life and ministry. Paul often rehearses this feature of grace in his letters. In Rom. 1:5 Paul testifies about the grace associated with a commission to be an apostle. When reflecting on his role in the church, he affirms that by God’s grace he has been able to lay a foundation (1 Cor. 3:10). Paul’s testimony in 1 Cor. 15:10 demonstrates the essential role of grace in making him who he is and effectively enabling what he does. Giving is also viewed as an exercise of grace (2 Cor. 8:7) reflecting the grace received by individual believers. This gift of grace for life and ministry is somehow recognizable. Peter, James, and John recognized it in Paul (Gal. 2:9). It was upon the apostles (Acts 4:33), and it was seen in the church of Antioch (11:23).

Given the source and the effective nature of grace, one can understand the appropriateness of appealing to grace in greetings and salutations (Rom. 1:7; 16:20; Gal. 1:3; 6:18).

Common grace. Finally, grace does operate beyond the context of the elect and the work of salvation and sanctification. Theologians define this as “common grace.” God’s sending rain and giving creatures intellectual and artistic abilities are expressions of common grace.

Temples have always been the domain and house of the gods throughout the ancient Near East. As the abode of the God of Israel, the Jerusalem temple served the same purpose. The temple played an important role in the social, religious, and political life of ancient Israel. No archaeological remains of the actual temple building exist today; nevertheless, the temple has dominated biblical scholarship. The Jerusalem temple was originally built by Solomon in 953 BC and was destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. After the exile, the temple was rebuilt and then rededicated by Zerubbabel in 515 BC (Ezra). Herod the Great significantly expanded and changed the temple, but it was eventually destroyed by the Romans under the direction of Titus in AD 70.

The biblical text refers to the temple in several ways: temple, house of God/Yahweh, and sanctuary/shrine. These terms all refer to the dwelling or house of God and an area of sacredness. The sources for information on the temple are biblical texts, Josephus, and the Mishnah (tractate Middot). The most detailed accounts of the construction of the Solomonic temple are found in 1 Kings 6–8; 2 Chron. 2–4. In addition to these major sections, there are several references to building activities and repairs to the temple throughout the OT. Another major text is Ezek. 40, but it is debated whether this represents the actual temple or an ideal temple. There are several references in the NT that directly or indirectly refer to functions and specific components of the Temple Mount complex.

Archaeological Investigation

The location of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem has been undisputed. Current scholarly opinion locates the temple on the spot of the current Muslim shrine, the Dome of the Rock. Today the larger enclosed area is referred to as the harem esh-sharif (the noble sanctuary). Explorers in the nineteenth century did not attempt archaeological research of the temple itself, although various explorations focused on recording visible features and conducting soundings along the sides of the Temple Mount. Even after the unification of Jerusalem in 1967, with three major excavations in the city, no archaeological investigation of the temple was conducted. Due to the political and religious variables associated with the Muslim holy sites, there are no foreseeable archaeological investigations. A recent renovation of the Mosque of Omar, located on the southern end of the Temple Mount, removed truckloads of earth. Unfortunately, there was no archaeological supervision of the project and no archaeological excavations of the site were conducted.

In spite of the limited archaeological excavations, several popular accounts of alternate locations of the temple have been proposed. Most of these place the temple somewhere other than the Dome of the Rock, but none of these proposals has garnered scholarly support to rival the current location.

First Temple: Temple of Solomon

Throughout the ancient Near East, temples served as monumental edifices that provided divine legitimacy for the king or dynasty. While temples should be considered part of the religious sphere of society, their construction, maintenance, and associated activities are interlinked with the political sphere. The construction of the temple in Jerusalem is also linked to state formation by the Israelites. The Solomonic temple ushered in a new period of religious activity among the ancient Israelites. Previously, Israel had worshiped at various shrines and sanctuaries, and its central religious practice was associated with the tabernacle. With the establishment of the monarchy, dynastic kingship and centralized authority were created. Although the biblical text credits Solomon as the Israelite king who built the temple, the project was initiated under David. David united the Israelite tribes, captured Jerusalem and made it the capital of the kingdom, and built a royal palace. He made Jerusalem the political capital but also the religious center when he brought the holy ark, the visible symbol of Yahweh’s presence, to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5–6). David intended to build Yahweh a permanent dwelling (2 Sam. 7:2).

Location. The biblical text preserves multiple traditions and accounts of the location and acquisition of land for the temple. In the ancient world the city temple was commonly located on the acropolis (highest point) of the city. The temple is located on the highest point of a ridge where the OT city of Jerusalem is located (Jebusite city, later the City of David). There are two accounts of the purchase of the land: the threshing floors of Araunah (2 Sam. 24:18–25) and of Ornan (1 Chron. 21:15–30; 2 Chron. 3:1 [here the NIV supplies “Araunah,” but see, e.g., the NET, NASB, ESV]). It is possible that Araunah and Ornan were kin, but most likely they are the same person, with Samuel and Chronicles using variant names. However, the two accounts disagree further on the amount paid for the land: fifty silver shekels (2 Sam. 24:24) and six hundred shekels of gold (1 Chron. 21:25). One theory explains this discrepancy as arising from two separate transactions. First, David purchased the threshing floor to build an altar to Yahweh, and he later purchased the whole mountain to build a temple. Later tradition associates the hill where David built an altar with the location where earlier Abraham built an altar to sacrifice Isaac (Mount Moriah).

Construction and dimensions. Solomon started to build during the fourth year of his reign (2 Chron. 3:1), and construction lasted for seven years. The plan of the temple was revealed to Solomon during a night in the sanctuary at Gibeon (2 Chron. 1:7–13). The king obtained building materials, specifically cedar from Lebanon (2 Chron. 2:3–10), and construction and design expertise from Phoenician artisans (1 Kings 7:13–14, 45). The Solomonic temple consisted of a tripartite plan similar to other temples in Syro-Palestine during this period. There are two accounts for the construction and dedication of the first temple (1 Kings 6–8; 2 Chron. 3–7). Both accounts offer similar descriptions but there are some differences in measurements. Most scholars account for these differences by viewing the dimensions in the book of Chronicles as reflecting the temple measurements after Hezekiah’s repair and rebuilding projects.

The basic plan was a rectangle, 70 cubits long (120 ft. 7 in.) and 20 cubits wide (34 ft. 5 in.) on a straight axis facing east; the height was 30 cubits (51 ft. 7 in.). These measurements refer to the inside dimensions (1 cubit = 20.67 in.). The three distinct architectural units formed three distinct rooms where various functions were performed and also reflected levels of holiness. The three units were the ’ulam (“porch” or “vestibule”), the hekal (“cella” or “nave”), and the debir (the innermost sanctuary, the most holy place). In the biblical accounts the whole building is called the “house [bayit] of the Lord,” and the word “temple” is used for the hekal. There was a three-story structure built around the sides and back of the temple (see below).

The porch was 10 cubits (17 ft. 2 in.) by 20 cubits (34 ft. 5 in.). The account in Kings does not provide its height; the account in Chronicles gives the height as 120 cubits. In its description and measurements in the biblical text, the porch is considered separate from the temple (bayit, house). The porch contained two pillars of bronze: yakin (“he will establish”) on the right side and bo’az (“in strength”) on the left (see Boaz; Jakin). The pillars were bronze, 18 cubits (35 cubits in Chronicles) in height, with elaborate double capitals. The bottom capital was 5 cubits, round in shape, and surrounded by nets with pomegranates. Above this was another capital, 4 cubits high, shaped like a lily.

The hekal was 40 cubits long and 20 cubits wide and was the only part with windows (1 Kings 6:4). The debir was a cube, 20 cubits per side. The debir is also called the “holy of holies.” The difference in height (10 cubits shorter than the hekal  ) is due to the rise in the bedrock. This measurement is confirmed today in the interior of the Dome of the Rock.

The walls of the house (hekal and debir) were built of whole stones dressed in the quarry, as “no hammer, chisel or any other iron tool was heard at the temple site while it was being built” (1 Kings 6:7). The roof was made of cedar wood (1 Kings 6:10), with crossbeams and intersecting boards. The stone walls were covered from ground to ceiling with boards of cedar wood, and the floor was made of cypress wood, covered with gold (1 Kings 6:30). The wood had carved engravings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. The hekal and the debir were separated by a partition made of olive wood.

The three-story structure surrounding the temple was constructed of cedar wood. Each story was 5 cubits. The width of the first floor was 5 cubits, the middle 6 cubits, and the top 7 cubits. This structure was entered from the right side of the temple, and the floors were connected by openings with ladders. This structure formed chambers and storage for the activities of the priests.

In front of the temple was a courtyard surrounded by a wall. Inside the courtyard was a great bronze basin (known as “the Sea”). This basin rested on the backs of twelve bronze oxen. Ten smaller basins in groups of five were set on elaborate wheeled stands. A large altar also was located in this courtyard.

In the holy of holies stood two large cherubim of olive wood covered with gold. They were 10 cubits in height, with a wingspan of 10 cubits. These cherubim stood over the ark of the covenant. In the hekal were the golden altar, the golden table, and ten lampstands.

History. From Solomon to Zedekiah, the temple was used for political and religious power shifts. Kings of Israel raided the temple treasury to pay off invaders, closed the temple, or placed idols in the temple in periods of apostasy. During periods of reform they repaired and rebuilt the temple and its furnishings.

Under Rehoboam’s reign, Shishak king of Egypt ransacked the temple and removed all its treasures (1 Kings 14:25–28; 2 Chron. 12:9). Asa and his father, Abijah, added to the treasure of the temple with silver, gold, and other vessels (2 Chron. 15:18) but used these to pay Ben-Hadad of Syria to help him fight Baasha king of Israel (16:2–3). Asa’s son Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 17) ruled during a time of prosperity and reform. It was under his rule that the court in front of the temple probably was enlarged (20:5). The sons of Athaliah broke into the temple and worshiped Baal. During the reign of Amaziah the temple was plundered by Jehoash king of Israel (2 Chron. 25). Uzziah ruled for a long period of prosperity (787–736 BC) but attempted to burn incense on the altar in the hekal, a ritual kept solely for the priests. A later king, Jotham, built the Upper Gate of the house of Yahweh (2 Kings 15:35; 2 Chron. 27:3). Jotham’s son Ahaz took the silver and gold from the temple and sent it as a present to the king of Assyria. He moved and changed various vessels of the temple and shut its doors (2 Chron. 28:24).

Hezekiah son of Ahaz ruled during a time of prosperity and revival. He reopened the temple doors (2 Chron. 29), cleaned out the temple, and created a 500-cubit-square mount around the temple. Hezekiah conducted many building projects in Jerusalem and reforms throughout the land. He also “stripped off the gold with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the temple of the Lord” to pay a ransom to Sennacherib king of Assyria (2 Kings 18:16). Due to his building activities, most scholars attribute major changes to the temple to Hezekiah’s reign. The differences in the temple descriptions in Kings and Chronicles probably reflect two different periods of history concerning the temple (e.g., Kings represents the temple during the period of Solomon, while Chronicles represents the changes to the temple by Hezekiah). Manasseh, Hezekiah’s son, undid the work of his father by building altars in the temple.

The last resurgence of the temple in the life of the people of Israel was under Josiah. He instigated a reform throughout the land and a cleansing of the temple. Hilkiah the high priest found a copy of the “Book of the Law” (2 Kings 22:8). After a reading of the law in the public square, a collection was taken from the people to be given to workers for temple repair. The Babylonians took some of the temple treasure (2 Chron. 36:7) under the rule of Jehoiakim. The last two kings of Judah, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, also lost temple treasure to Babylon, and eventually the temple was destroyed during the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC (2 Chron. 36).

Second Temple: Zerubbabel and the Temple of Herod the Great

Zerubbabel’s temple. Solomon’s temple was rebuilt by the Jews who returned from exile under the decree of the Persian king Darius (Ezra 6:1–5). The temple was built under the direction of the governor Zerubbabel with the support of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 6:13–18) and was dedicated in 515 BC. This would have been a poorer temple due to the poverty of the inhabitants of Judah. During the Hasmonean period (152–37 BC) a platform and a fortress were constructed. Not much is known about the temple during this period. It would be greatly eclipsed by the work of Herod the Great.

Temple of Herod the Great. Herod invested heavily in building projects throughout his kingdom. He was keen on bringing Hellenistic culture to the Jews but also on upholding traditional Jewish religious practices, especially when it came to the temple. Just as the first temple mimicked the religious architecture of the ancient Near East, the second temple reflected the massive sacred architecture of the classical world. John 2:20 indicates that thus far it had taken forty-six years (beyond Herod’s life) to build. Herod could not alter the dimensions of the temple, but he was able to make additions to the outside, alter its outer furnishings, and expand the compound and platform to match the grandeur of Greco-Roman temples. Today scholars refer to all these buildings and the temple as the Temple Mount complex.

Herod expanded the space of the Temple Mount by building a “box” around the mountain. This was a massive wall with varying height due to the topography. This wall is still visible today, especially the current religious site of the Western Wall. This construction allowed for a level platform with various buildings and plazas on the top. The leveling was done by filling in the gaps and building subterranean arches in low areas. One of these areas is located on the southeast corner (the underground arched supports are erroneously called “Solomon’s Stables” today). The whole area was surrounded by a colonnaded portico (Solomon’s Colonnade [John 10:23; Acts 3:11; 5:12]). On the northwest corner was the Antonia Fortress (Acts 21:35), and the southern end of the complex contained the Royal Stoa, a basilica-style building (four rows of forty columns) that housed the Sanhedrin and had other religious and political functions (Luke 22:66).

This complex became the religious and political center of the city of Jerusalem, and Herod built many auxiliary components. Several entrances and bridges from the Upper City were built. The public entered the complex from the south. A southern complex consisting of monumental stairs (210 feet wide) and entrance and exit gates (Double and Triple Gates) took pedestrians from the outside up through underground tunnels to the top of the temple compound. These stairs became an area for public forums. In addition, several shops (Mark 11:15–17) were built around the complex, as well as a large bathhouse for ritual cleansing. In order to facilitate the many sacrifices, Herod built a complex hydrologic system that brought water into the city. This was accomplished by various aqueducts and storage pools. The Temple Mount had many cisterns and a new pool on the northeast end of the Temple Mount complex, the Pool of Israel. Although Herod could not alter the dimensions of the temple itself, he was able to enlarge the facade, added storage chambers and auxiliary buildings, build a second story above the temple, and construct several courtyards and various buildings associated with them. In keeping with the earlier tripartite level of holiness, these additional temple buildings and courtyards retained the same linear degree of holiness and exclusion.

Josephus called Herod’s temple “a structure more noteworthy than any under the sun” (Ant. 15.412). Herod built a new monumental facade in front of the existing temple and added a second story. Herod’s temple measured 100 cubits (172 ft.) in all three dimensions. It stood on top of a foundation that gave it added height. It had two stories, each one 45 cubits (77.5 ft.) in height. On the roof was a parapet, 3 cubits in height, which contained golden spikes, 1 cubit in height, to prevent birds from perching on the roof’s edge. The temple was decorated with gold overlay. The opening between the ’ulam (“porch”) and the sanctuary was 20 cubits high and 10 cubits wide (34 ft. by 17 ft.). There were two sets of double folding doors. The sanctuary contained the golden menorah, the table of the bread of the Presence, and the altar of incense. Between the sanctuary and the holy of holies was a large tapestry (veil) (Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). The holy of holies had gold plating on its walls. Around the temple were thirty-eight cells built in three stories (m. Mid. 4:3–4). All of the cells were interconnected by openings between adjoining cells and by one in the ceiling to reach the cell above. To the north, between the outer wall of the temple and the cells, was an inner stairway with access to the top of the temple and the upper chamber (second story of the temple). The upper chamber allowed priests to service the holy of holies. They would be suspended in baskets, covered on three sides, through openings in the floor to clean the gold overlay in the holy of holies.

The temple courtyard was surrounded by various gates and buildings. These were specific entrances and buildings that the priests used for the various functions of the sacrifices and offerings (Mark 13:1–2). These included the Kindling Gate, Wood Chamber, Gate of the Firstlings, Golah Chamber, Water Gate, Chamber of the Hearth, Gate of Jeconiah, Rinsing Chamber, Gate of the Offering-Women, Salt-Parva Chamber, and Gate of the Flame-Singers. In front of the temple were two narrow courts: the court of the priests to the west and the court of the Israelites (men) to the east. Inside the temple court was the altar of burnt offering. During the Second Temple period it was a stationary, square-shaped altar constructed of unhewn stones. According to the Mishnah (m. Mid. 3:1), this altar was 32 cubits square at the base and about 10 cubits in height. A ramp 32 cubits long, also built of unhewn stones, led the priests up to the altar from the south. A laver, the great bronze basin known as “the Sea,” stood west of the altar between the altar and the temple porch (’ulam) for the washing of hands and feet. North of the altar was the place of slaughtering.

The court of the women, 135 cubits square, was in front of the temple to the east. This court had four smaller courts, one at each corner. Women could enter the temple only as far as this court. It was surrounded by a colonnade. Inside these porches (porticoes) were thirteen collection boxes for money. This is where Jesus saw the poor widow donating two copper coins (Luke 21:1–3). The court had four large lampstands nearly half the height of the temple. The Mishnah states that each of the corner chambers was 40 cubits square and roofless. The central area was exposed to the sky, with a portico around each courtyard—typical of Mediterranean buildings. The chamber to the immediate right of the court’s entrance (northeast) was the chamber of the woodshed, where priests examined logs for impurities (e.g., parasites). To the left (southeast) was the chamber of the Nazirites. To the northwest was the chamber of the lepers. A leper who had been healed brought an offering and then bathed in this chamber before coming to the priests for the performance of rituals. In the southwest corner was the chamber of the house of oil. Between the court of the women and the temple court was the Nicanor Gate. Fifteen semicircular steps led up to this gate. It was on these steps that the Levites sang the fifteen Psalms of Ascent (Pss. 120–134).

Surrounding the temple and the court of the women was a balustrade or railing that served as a boundary beyond which no Gentile could enter. Outside this boundary was the court of the Gentiles (see John 12:20–22; Acts 21:27–29). Archaeologists have found an inscription that forbids Gentiles, upon pain of death, to enter any farther. Herod’s temple was destroyed in AD 70. The Temple Mount continued to be used and considered sacred, as Roman temples, Crusader churches, and Muslim shrines marked the sacredness of the location.

Role of the Temple

The temple was the dwelling place of Yahweh. It was the domain of the religious leaders, priests, and Levites. It also represented the relationship/covenant between God and the nation of Israel. Various kings used the temple for their political maneuvering and attempts to shift the religious worship of the nation. The temple was the visible presence of God and embodied the political and religious aspirations of the people. The temple sat on top of a sacred mountain.

During turbulent political times the temple was central to God’s protection and judgment. From the Babylonian and Roman periods, two texts spoke of a future temple. Ezekiel’s vision saw a futuristic temple measuring 500 cubits square surrounded by a massive court measuring 3,000 cubits square (Ezek. 40:1–47:12). Among the DSS, the Temple Scroll also talks about a rebuilt temple. Today many Christians and Jews look to a future rebuilding of the temple.

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Introduction

Name. Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title “Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). The name “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was a common male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ” is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually were named after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry of Jesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources. From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesus constitute the turning point in human history. From a historical perspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian first-century and early second-century literary sources are extant, but they are few in number. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initial resistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Roman historian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,” since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailing worldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sources therefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christian sources.

The NT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry of Jesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four Source Hypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as a source by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (from German Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their own individual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additional sources.

The early church tried to put together singular accounts, so-called Gospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionites represents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Another harmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was produced around AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning the life of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4). The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was a passion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. The first extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognized from the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:13–14).

Among non-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in a letter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about the history of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Rome because of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Some scholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of “Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

The Jewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in a different part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). The majority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic but heavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source, the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but these references are very late and of little historical value.

Noncanonical Gospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these may contain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most part they are late and unreliable.

Jesus’ Life

Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.

On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesus was born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered a temple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford to sacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, or metal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth was not a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground. Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently common first-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesus was also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy were surely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnant before her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only the intervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal (Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem, far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinship hospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay with distant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcome because of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Mary had to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feeding trough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later in Nazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son” (Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming him as one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewise rejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucify him!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21; John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter, vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71; Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His own siblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamed of his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his mother into the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27) rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.

Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’ public ministry: chronology. Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28, and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple had been forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as the temple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out the money changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding and expansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during the eighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry of John the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From these dates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of the reign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset of Jesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast in John 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended over three or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a half years. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came on a Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death was therefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and his Judean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry in Galilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.

All Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.

During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).

The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fed five thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark 6:48–49).

In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).

Passion Week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Various aspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels, depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses to Jesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning and examining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark 3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70; 23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritual realm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). At Jesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus was transfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voice affirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’ identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and other guards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf. Mark 15:39).

Miracle worker. In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers were part of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs and miracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of God over various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature, and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus his identity.

No challenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miracles and signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed a storm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke 8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13; Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised the dead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16; 8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculous feedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44; 8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked on water (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

The Pharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark 8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4). The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—his death and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice, taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher. Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbis or Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguished him was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathered disciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to join him in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesus used a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables (Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35; 21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark 4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18; 12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15, 19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33), used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons (Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke 13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Major themes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the cost of discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, his identity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings, observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’s kingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’ teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. These conflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions in which the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus used these interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gave replies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’s will, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. The Synoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations of violating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answers to such accusations often echoed the essence of 1 Sam. 15:22, “To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). An overall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’ public teaching.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than” ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outward obedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equal to murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfully amounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revenging wrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesus valued compassion above traditions and customs, even those contained within the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter of the law.

Jesus’ teachings found their authority in the reality of God’s imminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9), necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence (Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—the family of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged, “Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among prophetic teachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his own grounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt. 10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examples of a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include the occasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesus used an aphorism in response to accusations about his associations with sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking the law, he pointed to an OT exception (1 Sam. 21:1–6) to declare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also applied the “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, since women suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly became outcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’ kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, and eschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internal transformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring on love (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus to bless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesus taught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” ones in Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful, and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godly character.

Some scholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic” for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end of time. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of his teachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah. The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore the glories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability was common in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babylonian captivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace and protection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer, one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice and righteousness (2 Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16; Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whose suffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle of expectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’ authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianic images in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearers called him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt. 12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesus as the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). In line with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesus focused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regeneration through his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatological prophet. Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God to intervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom of God. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2, 15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). In addition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representative of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30). Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images of coming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt. 24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

Suffering Son of God. Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth was paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa. 61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so he revealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptly portrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ own teachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13, 31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “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). His earthly career ended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewish components (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65; 15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24; 18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’ suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt. 27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John 19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror, bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyone hanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with a crucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed as a lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referred to this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

Exalted Lord. Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46). The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday (Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) and risen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke 24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus was witnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples (Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appeared to as many as five hundred others (1 Cor. 15:6). He appeared in bodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43; John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

As much as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory over death was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises (Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31). Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through his resurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his life and work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him as Lord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’ exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification (Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and his intercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascension signaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John 14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return in glory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt. 19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, who preaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent (4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter the kingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, one made in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

In the prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identity of Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidings of salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of the gospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Luke likewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose of Jesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is the kingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesus answered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, as presented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’ healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God already present in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20; 8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signs throughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, his identity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundant life is lived out in community.

In the Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community of God (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but they continued to live in the world (17:14–16). 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 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. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’s family—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained by adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

The quest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from a historical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary by scholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’ death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding of the church.

The beginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecture notes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously. Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus that rejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. He concluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles, prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’s conclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry of rationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continued throughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “first quest” for the historical Jesus.

In 1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of the first quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-century researchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming the historical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching an inoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’s conclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest. Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was an eschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days in Jerusalem.

With the demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historical Jesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’s former students launched what has come to be known as the “new quest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). This quest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was still dominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels is largely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

As the rebuilding years of the post–World War II era waned and scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeological finds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on to what has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeks especially to research and understand Jesus in his social and cultural setting.

The English word “messiah” derives from the Hebrew verb mashakh, which means “to anoint.” The Greek counterpart of the Hebrew word for “messiah” (mashiakh) is christos, which in English is “Christ.”

Old Testament

In English translations of the Bible, the word “messiah” (“anointed one”) occurs rarely in the OT. In the OT, kings, prophets, and priests were “anointed” with oil as a means of consecrating or setting them apart for their respective offices. Prophets and priests anointed Israel’s kings (1 Sam. 16:1–13; 2 Sam. 2:4, 7). Samuel anointed Saul (1 Sam. 9:16; 10:1; 15:1) and David (1 Sam. 16:12–13). Later, Nathan the prophet and Zadok the priest anointed Solomon, the successor of King David (1 Kings 1:34). The word “anoint” occurs even earlier, in the book of Judges, in a parable about Abimelek becoming king (Judg. 9:7–15). In 1–2 Samuel and Psalms the king is sometimes called “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 16:6; 24:6; 26:9; Pss. 2:2; 18:50; 20:6). The anointing of priests occurs very early in Israelite tradition, in which Aaron and his sons are consecrated for their priestly service (Exod. 28:41; 30:30). In Num. 35:25 the high priest is anointed with “holy oil.” Sacred objects for use in the tabernacle also were anointed (Exod. 29:36; 30:26; Lev. 8:10–11). As for the anointing of prophets, God commanded Elijah to anoint Elisha as his successor (1 Kings 19:16). The prophet Isaiah also claimed to be anointed for his work of proclamation (Isa. 61:1–2).

The expectation for a “messiah,” or “anointed one,” arose from the promise given to David in the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7). David was promised that from his seed God would raise up a king who would reign forever on his throne. Hopes for such an ideal king began with Solomon and developed further during the decline (cf. Isa. 9:1–7) and especially after the collapse of the Davidic kingdom.

The harsh reality of exile prompted Israel to hope that God would rule in such a manner. A number of psalms reflect the desire that an ideal son of David would come and rule, delivering Israel from its current plight of oppression. Hence, in Ps. 2 God declares that his son (v. 7), who is the Lord’s anointed one (v. 2), will receive “the nations [as] your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession” (v. 8). God promises that “you will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery” (v. 9; see NIV footnote). In Ps. 89 the psalmist yearns for the establishment of David’s kingdom because God has been “very angry with your anointed one” (v. 38). Later, the psalmist pleads with God, “For the sake of your servant David, do not reject your anointed one” (Ps. 132:10). In the postexilic literature, Zerubbabel, for example, appears to be understood as a messianic figure. Speaking of Zerubbabel and Joshua, the angel says, “These are the two who are anointed to serve the Lord of all the earth” (Zech. 4:14).

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

In some apocalyptic literature a messiah-like figure ushers in God’s kingdom, overthrowing the current evil powers that oppress God’s people. In 1 Enoch the “son of man” (46.1–3) is an anointed figure (52.6) who will judge the kings and the mighty from his heavenly throne and will champion the cause of the faithful (46.4–8; 62.5). In 2 Baruch “my anointed” (39.7; 40.1) will reign over the remnant in a place chosen by God (40.2). Finally, in a nonapocalyptic Jewish text, Psalms of Solomon, the author expects deliverance from the Roman oppressors and the corrupt Hasmonean dynasty by the “Lord Messiah” (18.7): “See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, to rule over your servant Israel” (17.21). These texts confirm the diversity of first-century messianic expectations. Yet the most common hope centered on the “Davidic messiah,” the coming king from David’s line who would establish justice and righteousness and reign forever on David’s throne.

New Testament

Jesus demonstrates great reticence in using the title “Messiah.” In the Synoptic Gospels he almost never explicitly claims it. The two key Synoptic passages where Jesus accepts the title are themselves enigmatic. In Mark’s version of Peter’s confession (8:29), Jesus does not explicitly affirm Peter’s claim, “You are the Messiah,” but instead goes on to speak of the suffering of the Son of Man. Later, Jesus is asked by the high priest Caiaphas at his trial, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:60). In Mark 14:62, Jesus answers explicitly with “I am,” while in Matt. 26:64, he uses the more enigmatic “You have said so.” Jesus then goes on to describe himself as the exalted Son of Man who will sit at Yahweh’s right hand.

Jesus no doubt avoided the title because it risked communicating an inadequate understanding of the kingdom and his messianic role. Although the Messiah was never a purely political figure in Judaism, he was widely expected to destroy Israel’s enemies and secure its physical borders. Psalms of Solomon portrays the coming “son of David” as one who will “destroy the unrighteous rulers” and “purge Jerusalem from Gentiles who trample her to destruction” (Pss. Sol. 17.21–23). To distance himself from such thinking, Jesus never refers to himself as “son of David” and “king of Israel/the Jews” as other characters do in the Gospels (Matt. 12:23; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47; 15:2; John 1:49; 12:13; 18:33). When Jesus was confronted by a group of Jews who wanted to make him into such a king, he resisted them (John 6:15).

In Mark 12:35–37, Jesus also redefines traditional understandings of the son of David in his short discussion on Ps. 110:1: he is something more than a mere human son of David. Combining Jesus’ implicit affirmation that he is the Messiah in Mark 8:30 with his teaching about the Son of Man in 8:31, we see that Jesus is a Messiah who will “suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the teachers of the law” (8:31) and through whom redemption will come (10:45). Jesus came not to defeat the Roman legions, but to bring victory over Satan, sin, and death.

In the book of Acts, Peter reaffirms the messiahship of Jesus at the conclusion of his sermon: “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah” (2:36 [cf. 5:42; 9:22]). Since it is now apparent that through suffering and death Jesus the Messiah would effect salvation, there is no risk of the Jews misunderstanding Christ’s messiahship. However, he is still a deliverer and savior like the Lord’s anointed of the OT, but he brings about this salvation through unexpected means (3:18–20). Further, Jesus is now the ascended and exalted messianic king in the style of Ps. 110:1 (cf. Acts 2:34–36), which he predicted during his earthly ministry (Mark 14:62). The reality of Jesus’ exalted messianic status is so pervasive in early Christian thinking that the title Christos becomes a synonym for “Jesus” or is used in combination with “Jesus.” And indeed, the earliest followers of Jesus after the resurrection become know as Christianoi (Acts 11:26).

The English word “messiah” derives from the Hebrew verb mashakh, which means “to anoint.” The Greek counterpart of the Hebrew word for “messiah” (mashiakh) is christos, which in English is “Christ.”

Old Testament

In English translations of the Bible, the word “messiah” (“anointed one”) occurs rarely in the OT. In the OT, kings, prophets, and priests were “anointed” with oil as a means of consecrating or setting them apart for their respective offices. Prophets and priests anointed Israel’s kings (1 Sam. 16:1–13; 2 Sam. 2:4, 7). Samuel anointed Saul (1 Sam. 9:16; 10:1; 15:1) and David (1 Sam. 16:12–13). Later, Nathan the prophet and Zadok the priest anointed Solomon, the successor of King David (1 Kings 1:34). The word “anoint” occurs even earlier, in the book of Judges, in a parable about Abimelek becoming king (Judg. 9:7–15). In 1–2 Samuel and Psalms the king is sometimes called “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 16:6; 24:6; 26:9; Pss. 2:2; 18:50; 20:6). The anointing of priests occurs very early in Israelite tradition, in which Aaron and his sons are consecrated for their priestly service (Exod. 28:41; 30:30). In Num. 35:25 the high priest is anointed with “holy oil.” Sacred objects for use in the tabernacle also were anointed (Exod. 29:36; 30:26; Lev. 8:10–11). As for the anointing of prophets, God commanded Elijah to anoint Elisha as his successor (1 Kings 19:16). The prophet Isaiah also claimed to be anointed for his work of proclamation (Isa. 61:1–2).

The expectation for a “messiah,” or “anointed one,” arose from the promise given to David in the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7). David was promised that from his seed God would raise up a king who would reign forever on his throne. Hopes for such an ideal king began with Solomon and developed further during the decline (cf. Isa. 9:1–7) and especially after the collapse of the Davidic kingdom.

The harsh reality of exile prompted Israel to hope that God would rule in such a manner. A number of psalms reflect the desire that an ideal son of David would come and rule, delivering Israel from its current plight of oppression. Hence, in Ps. 2 God declares that his son (v. 7), who is the Lord’s anointed one (v. 2), will receive “the nations [as] your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession” (v. 8). God promises that “you will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery” (v. 9; see NIV footnote). In Ps. 89 the psalmist yearns for the establishment of David’s kingdom because God has been “very angry with your anointed one” (v. 38). Later, the psalmist pleads with God, “For the sake of your servant David, do not reject your anointed one” (Ps. 132:10). In the postexilic literature, Zerubbabel, for example, appears to be understood as a messianic figure. Speaking of Zerubbabel and Joshua, the angel says, “These are the two who are anointed to serve the Lord of all the earth” (Zech. 4:14).

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

In some apocalyptic literature a messiah-like figure ushers in God’s kingdom, overthrowing the current evil powers that oppress God’s people. In 1 Enoch the “son of man” (46.1–3) is an anointed figure (52.6) who will judge the kings and the mighty from his heavenly throne and will champion the cause of the faithful (46.4–8; 62.5). In 2 Baruch “my anointed” (39.7; 40.1) will reign over the remnant in a place chosen by God (40.2). Finally, in a nonapocalyptic Jewish text, Psalms of Solomon, the author expects deliverance from the Roman oppressors and the corrupt Hasmonean dynasty by the “Lord Messiah” (18.7): “See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, to rule over your servant Israel” (17.21). These texts confirm the diversity of first-century messianic expectations. Yet the most common hope centered on the “Davidic messiah,” the coming king from David’s line who would establish justice and righteousness and reign forever on David’s throne.

New Testament

Jesus demonstrates great reticence in using the title “Messiah.” In the Synoptic Gospels he almost never explicitly claims it. The two key Synoptic passages where Jesus accepts the title are themselves enigmatic. In Mark’s version of Peter’s confession (8:29), Jesus does not explicitly affirm Peter’s claim, “You are the Messiah,” but instead goes on to speak of the suffering of the Son of Man. Later, Jesus is asked by the high priest Caiaphas at his trial, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:60). In Mark 14:62, Jesus answers explicitly with “I am,” while in Matt. 26:64, he uses the more enigmatic “You have said so.” Jesus then goes on to describe himself as the exalted Son of Man who will sit at Yahweh’s right hand.

Jesus no doubt avoided the title because it risked communicating an inadequate understanding of the kingdom and his messianic role. Although the Messiah was never a purely political figure in Judaism, he was widely expected to destroy Israel’s enemies and secure its physical borders. Psalms of Solomon portrays the coming “son of David” as one who will “destroy the unrighteous rulers” and “purge Jerusalem from Gentiles who trample her to destruction” (Pss. Sol. 17.21–23). To distance himself from such thinking, Jesus never refers to himself as “son of David” and “king of Israel/the Jews” as other characters do in the Gospels (Matt. 12:23; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47; 15:2; John 1:49; 12:13; 18:33). When Jesus was confronted by a group of Jews who wanted to make him into such a king, he resisted them (John 6:15).

In Mark 12:35–37, Jesus also redefines traditional understandings of the son of David in his short discussion on Ps. 110:1: he is something more than a mere human son of David. Combining Jesus’ implicit affirmation that he is the Messiah in Mark 8:30 with his teaching about the Son of Man in 8:31, we see that Jesus is a Messiah who will “suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the teachers of the law” (8:31) and through whom redemption will come (10:45). Jesus came not to defeat the Roman legions, but to bring victory over Satan, sin, and death.

In the book of Acts, Peter reaffirms the messiahship of Jesus at the conclusion of his sermon: “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah” (2:36 [cf. 5:42; 9:22]). Since it is now apparent that through suffering and death Jesus the Messiah would effect salvation, there is no risk of the Jews misunderstanding Christ’s messiahship. However, he is still a deliverer and savior like the Lord’s anointed of the OT, but he brings about this salvation through unexpected means (3:18–20). Further, Jesus is now the ascended and exalted messianic king in the style of Ps. 110:1 (cf. Acts 2:34–36), which he predicted during his earthly ministry (Mark 14:62). The reality of Jesus’ exalted messianic status is so pervasive in early Christian thinking that the title Christos becomes a synonym for “Jesus” or is used in combination with “Jesus.” And indeed, the earliest followers of Jesus after the resurrection become know as Christianoi (Acts 11:26).

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Introduction

Name. Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title “Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). The name “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was a common male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ” is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually were named after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry of Jesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources. From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesus constitute the turning point in human history. From a historical perspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian first-century and early second-century literary sources are extant, but they are few in number. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initial resistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Roman historian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,” since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailing worldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sources therefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christian sources.

The NT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry of Jesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four Source Hypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as a source by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (from German Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their own individual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additional sources.

The early church tried to put together singular accounts, so-called Gospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionites represents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Another harmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was produced around AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning the life of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4). The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was a passion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. The first extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognized from the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:13–14).

Among non-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in a letter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about the history of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Rome because of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Some scholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of “Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

The Jewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in a different part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). The majority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic but heavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source, the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but these references are very late and of little historical value.

Noncanonical Gospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these may contain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most part they are late and unreliable.

Jesus’ Life

Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.

On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesus was born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered a temple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford to sacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, or metal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth was not a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground. Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently common first-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesus was also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy were surely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnant before her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only the intervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal (Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem, far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinship hospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay with distant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcome because of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Mary had to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feeding trough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later in Nazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son” (Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming him as one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewise rejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucify him!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21; John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter, vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71; Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His own siblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamed of his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his mother into the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27) rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.

Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’ public ministry: chronology. Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28, and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple had been forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as the temple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out the money changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding and expansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during the eighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry of John the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From these dates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of the reign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset of Jesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast in John 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended over three or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a half years. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came on a Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death was therefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and his Judean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry in Galilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.

All Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.

During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).

The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fed five thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark 6:48–49).

In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).

Passion Week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Various aspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels, depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses to Jesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning and examining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark 3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70; 23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritual realm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). At Jesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus was transfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voice affirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’ identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and other guards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf. Mark 15:39).

Miracle worker. In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers were part of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs and miracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of God over various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature, and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus his identity.

No challenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miracles and signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed a storm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke 8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13; Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised the dead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16; 8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculous feedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44; 8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked on water (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

The Pharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark 8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4). The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—his death and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice, taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher. Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbis or Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguished him was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathered disciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to join him in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesus used a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables (Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35; 21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark 4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18; 12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15, 19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33), used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons (Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke 13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Major themes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the cost of discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, his identity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings, observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’s kingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’ teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. These conflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions in which the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus used these interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gave replies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’s will, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. The Synoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations of violating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answers to such accusations often echoed the essence of 1 Sam. 15:22, “To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). An overall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’ public teaching.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than” ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outward obedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equal to murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfully amounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revenging wrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesus valued compassion above traditions and customs, even those contained within the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter of the law.

Jesus’ teachings found their authority in the reality of God’s imminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9), necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence (Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—the family of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged, “Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among prophetic teachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his own grounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt. 10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examples of a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include the occasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesus used an aphorism in response to accusations about his associations with sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking the law, he pointed to an OT exception (1 Sam. 21:1–6) to declare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also applied the “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, since women suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly became outcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’ kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, and eschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internal transformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring on love (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus to bless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesus taught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” ones in Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful, and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godly character.

Some scholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic” for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end of time. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of his teachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah. The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore the glories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability was common in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babylonian captivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace and protection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer, one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice and righteousness (2 Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16; Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whose suffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle of expectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’ authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianic images in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearers called him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt. 12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesus as the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). In line with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesus focused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regeneration through his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatological prophet. Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God to intervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom of God. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2, 15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). In addition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representative of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30). Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images of coming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt. 24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

Suffering Son of God. Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth was paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa. 61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so he revealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptly portrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ own teachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13, 31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “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). His earthly career ended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewish components (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65; 15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24; 18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’ suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt. 27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John 19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror, bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyone hanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with a crucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed as a lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referred to this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

Exalted Lord. Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46). The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday (Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) and risen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke 24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus was witnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples (Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appeared to as many as five hundred others (1 Cor. 15:6). He appeared in bodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43; John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

As much as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory over death was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises (Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31). Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through his resurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his life and work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him as Lord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’ exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification (Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and his intercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascension signaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John 14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return in glory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt. 19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, who preaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent (4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter the kingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, one made in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

In the prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identity of Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidings of salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of the gospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Luke likewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose of Jesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is the kingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesus answered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, as presented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’ healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God already present in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20; 8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signs throughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, his identity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundant life is lived out in community.

In the Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community of God (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but they continued to live in the world (17:14–16). 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 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. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’s family—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained by adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

The quest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from a historical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary by scholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’ death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding of the church.

The beginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecture notes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously. Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus that rejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. He concluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles, prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’s conclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry of rationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continued throughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “first quest” for the historical Jesus.

In 1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of the first quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-century researchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming the historical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching an inoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’s conclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest. Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was an eschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days in Jerusalem.

With the demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historical Jesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’s former students launched what has come to be known as the “new quest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). This quest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was still dominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels is largely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

As the rebuilding years of the post–World War II era waned and scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeological finds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on to what has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeks especially to research and understand Jesus in his social and cultural setting.

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A technical term for “promise” does not appear in the OT, but its concept is present throughout Scripture. God unfolds the history of redemption by employing the idea of promises. The writers of the NT repeatedly assert that Jesus Christ has fulfilled God’s promises in the OT (e.g., Luke 24:44–48; 1 Cor. 15:3–8).

Old Testament

The promises in the OT are closely related to the history of salvation. At each stage of redemptive history, God delivered a new message about redemption, usually in the form of a covenant. Immediately after the fall of humankind, God first revealed his plan of salvation: the promise that the seed of the woman would ultimately crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). After the flood, God made a covenant with Noah, promising never again to destroy the earth with a flood (Gen. 8:21–9:17).

Most remarkable is the promise that God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 17:4–8; 22:17–18; 26:1–5; 28:13–15). God called Abraham in order to give him three specific blessings: the land, descendants, and the channel of blessing among the nations. As a sign of his promise, God made a covenant of circumcision with Abraham and his descendants (17:10–14). With Isaac (26:1–5) and Jacob (28:13–15), God repeatedly reconfirmed the promise made to Abraham. At the time of the exodus and later the settlement in Canaan, God’s promise to Abraham was partially fulfilled by multiplying his descendants into millions and by giving them the promised land.

At Mount Sinai, God made another covenant with the Israelites. In this covenant, God promised that they would be his “treasured possession” among the nations if they would obey him and keep his covenant (Exod. 19:5). God’s special blessings were pronounced for them to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (19:6). For this purpose, God gave them the Ten Commandments, which became the religious and ethical standard for his covenant people (20:1–17). In the book of Deuteronomy, moreover, God’s promises were made in the form of blessings to the obedient and of curses to the disobedient (Deut. 28). Later these became the criteria by which the kings of Israel were judged to determine whether they had lived an obedient life.

According to 2 Sam. 7:11–16, God made an eternal covenant with David, promising the permanence of David’s house, kingdom, and throne. In this covenant it was also promised that his offspring would build the house of the Lord. The Davidic covenant was partially fulfilled at the time of Solomon, who as king built the house of the Lord, the first temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:15–25). Later, in the period of the classical prophets, when the hope for the Davidic throne was endangered, the permanence of the Davidic throne and kingdom reappeared in the form of messianic prophecy (Jer. 23:5–8; Ezek. 37:24–28). This promise was ultimately fulfilled by the coming of Jesus Christ from the line of David (Matt. 1:1–17).

The history of Israel shows that although the nation repeatedly broke God’s covenants, he remained faithful to them. According to Num. 23:19, God’s promises are absolutely trustworthy: “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?” The trustworthiness of God’s promises results from his unchanging character (Ps. 110:4; Mal. 3:6–7). The almighty God has the power to fulfill his promises (Isa. 55:11). When Joshua finished conquering the land of Canaan, he confessed that God was faithful in keeping all his promises to his ancestors (Josh. 21:45; 23:14–15). Joshua himself witnessed that trusting God’s promises is a life-and-death issue. Those who had not trusted his promise to give them the land of Canaan perished in the wilderness, but those who had trusted his promise were allowed to enter it (Num. 14:1–35).

New Testament

The central message of the NT is that God’s promises in the OT are fulfilled with the coming of Jesus Christ. Matthew’s numerous citation formulas are evidence of this theme. In Luke 4:16–21 Jesus pronounces the fulfillment of Isaiah’s promise (about the Messiah’s ministry [Isa. 61:1–3]) in his own life. The book of Acts specifically states that Jesus’ suffering and resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit are the fulfillment of the OT promises (2:29–31; 13:32–34). Jesus’ identity both as the descendant of David (Acts 13:23) and as the prophet like Moses (Acts 3:21–26; cf. Deut. 18:15–18) is also regarded as the fulfillment of the OT.

Paul’s view of God’s promises is summarized in this statement: “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ” (2 Cor. 1:20). According to Rom. 1:2–3, Paul regards the gospel as the message that God “promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son.” In Rom. 4 Abraham’s faith is described in terms of his trust in God’s promises, which leads to his righteousness. He is presented as our model of faith in God’s promises. The famous phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Cor. 15:3–4 is, in a sense, understood by Paul as the fulfillment of God’s promises regarding Christ’s death and resurrection.

In the book of Hebrews, the concept of promise plays an important role. In Heb. 6 Abraham is presented as the exemplary man who trusted in God’s promise. The author exhorts the Hebrew Christians to follow Abraham’s model of trust in God’s promise (6:12–20). The author also asserts that Jesus’ new covenant is superior to the old one because his ministry “is established on better promises” (8:6). In Heb. 11 the faith of the great OT saints is acclaimed in terms of their faith in God’s promises.

In the NT, God makes new promises based on the work of Christ, including the final resurrection and the second coming of Christ (John 5:29; 11:25–26; 1 Cor. 15:48–57; 2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Thess. 4:13–18). Furthermore, the message of the gospel is presented as multiple promises, including eternal life, the fullness of life in Christ, the forgiveness of sins, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the peace of God, the knowledge of God, and the joy of God (Matt. 28:18–20; John 3:16; 10:10; 14:16, 27; 16:20–24; 17:25–26; Phil. 4:4–9; 1 John 1:9).

Human Promises

The Scriptures contain many cases of people making promises to other people. For example, Abraham made promises to the king of Sodom and to Abimelek (Gen. 14:22–24; 21:22–24). The Israelite spies made a promise to Rahab (Josh. 2:12–21). People also make promises to God: Jacob, Jephthah, Hannah, and the returning exiles (Gen. 28:20–21; Judg. 11:29–40; 1 Sam. 1:11–20; Neh. 10:28–29). Human promises usually are accompanied by the taking of an oath (Gen. 14:22; 21:24; Deut. 6:13; Josh. 2:12–14) or the declaration of a curse in case of its breach (Ruth 1:17; 1 Sam. 14:24; 2 Sam. 3:35; 1 Kings 2:23). It is imperative to keep the promise that one makes to a human being or to God (Num. 30:1–2; Ps. 50:14). In Mal. 2:14–16, divorce is regarded as a breaking of the oath between husband and wife. In OT times, people were afraid of curses falling upon them when they broke a promise. The Bible warns of the danger of making false promises, as doing so will bring about sin and judgment (Lev. 19:12; Deut. 23:21; Zech. 8:17). It is an axiom of the wisdom literature that one should not make promises rashly or lightly (Prov. 20:25; Eccles. 5:1–7), and Jesus prohibits the taking of any oath because of the possibility of its breach (Matt. 5:33–37).

A collection of 150 poems. They are the hymnbook of the OT period, used in public worship. Psalms contains songs of different lengths, types, and dates. The earliest psalm (Ps. 90) is attributed to Moses (mid-second millennium BC), while the content of Ps. 126 and Ps. 137 points to the latest periods of the OT (mid-first millennium BC). They continue to be used as a source of public worship and private devotion.

Historical Background

Most psalms have a title. In the Hebrew text this title comprises the first verse, whereas English translations set it off before the first verse. Titles vary. Many name an author (e.g., David [Ps. 3]; Asaph [Ps. 77]; sons of Korah [Ps. 42]), while others provide information about genre (e.g., Psalms of Ascent [Pss. 120–134]), tune (e.g., “Do Not Destroy” [Ps. 75]), use in worship (Ps. 92), and a circumstance that led to composition (Ps. 51). Information in the title gives hints concerning how psalms were written and brought into a final collection.

Composition

As mentioned, the titles of the psalms often give indications of authorship and occasionally name the circumstance that led to the writing of the psalm. A good example is Ps. 51, where the title states, “For the director of music. A psalm of David. When the prophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba.” The title connects the psalm with the events recorded in 2 Sam. 11–12 and suggests that David wrote the song in response to his sin and Nathan’s confrontation.

Although only a handful of the psalms have such a historical title, it is likely that most psalms were composed in response to some specific circumstance that encouraged the author to write. Interestingly, though, the psalmists do not speak about the specific circumstance in the psalm itself. Psalm 51, for instance, fits perfectly with the situation that the title describes in that it expresses guilt toward God and asks for forgiveness, but nowhere does it speak specifically about adultery. The psalmists do this intentionally because they are writing the song not as a memorial to an event, but rather as a prayer that others who have had similar though not identical experiences can use after them. Thus, Ps. 51 has been used as a model prayer for many penitents, whether they have sinned like David or in another way.

Most modern hymns have a similar background. John Newton, for instance, was inspired to write “Amazing Grace” because of awe that he felt at his conversion to Christianity from the evil of being a slave trader. However, when he wrote it, he wanted others to sing it as reflecting not on his conversion but on their own.

Collection

The psalms were composed over a thousand-year period. Thus, it appears that the book of Psalms was a growing collection until it came to a close at an unknown time between the writing of the two Testaments.

In 1 Chron. 16:7–36 we may get a glimpse of how the process worked. The text describes David turning a musical composition over to the Levitical musician Asaph and his associates. It is likely that the priests kept an official copy of the book of Psalms in the holy place (the temple while it stood). The psalms, after all, were the hymns of ancient Israel. Their primary function was as a corporate book of prayer, though certainly they could be used in private devotions (note Hannah’s prayer in 1 Sam. 2:1–10 and its relationship to Ps. 113).

Organization and Structure

The psalms have no obvious organization that explains the location of all the psalms. They are not organized in terms of genre, authorship, time of composition, or length. There is only one statement about organization, found in Ps. 72:20: “This concludes the prayers of David son of Jesse.” In the light of this comment, it is surprising that a number of Davidic psalms appear in subsequent sections (Pss. 101; 103; 108–110; 122; 124; 131; 133; 138–145). The best explanation is that at one point Ps. 72 concluded the Davidic psalms, but there was a reorganization before the canonical order was permanently closed.

A number of contemporary theories try to find some deep structure to the book, but it is best to refrain from speculation in regard to the overall structure. Nonetheless, a few structural characteristics are obvious. First, the division of Psalms into five books seems to reflect the fivefold division of the Pentateuch:

I. Book 1 (Pss. 1–41)

II. Book 2 (Pss. 42–72)

III. Book 3 (Pss. 73–89)

IV. Book 4 (Pss. 90–106)

V. Book 5 (Pss. 107–150)

Each book ends with a doxology. Such an intentional association with the Pentateuch would lend support to the Psalter’s claim to authority. Although these are prayers to God, they are also God’s word.

Second, within the Psalter there are subcollections. That is, there are psalms that came into the book not individually but as a group. The best-known such group are the Psalms of Ascent (Pss. 120–134), probably so named because worshipers sang them while going up (ascending) to the Temple Mount during one of the annual religious festivals in Jerusalem.

Third, it appears that psalms are intentionally placed at the beginning and at the end of the book to serve as an introduction and a conclusion. Psalms 1–2 serve as an introduction that alerts the reader to the twin important themes of law and messiah. Psalm 1 pronounces a blessing on those who love God’s law. The psalms, after all, are an intimate and personal conversation with God. One must be on the side of the godly to enter such a holy textual space, just as one must be godly to enter the precincts of the temple. After the reader enters, Psalm 2 provides an encounter with God and his anointed one (messiah). At the end of the book, the last five psalms (Pss. 146–150) constitute a tremendous doxology of praise.

This leads to the final observation on structure. Psalms of lament predominate at the beginning of the book, but they give way to hymns of praise toward the end. It is almost as if one enters the Psalter mourning and leaves it praising. Indeed, the Psalter brings the reader into contact with God and thus transforms the reader from sadness to joy.

Literary Considerations

Genre. The individual psalms may be identified as songs, prayers, or poems. Specifically, they are lyric poems (expressing the emotions of the poet), often addressed to God, and set to musical accompaniment. Although the categories overlap, seven different types of psalms can be recognized, with the first three being by far the most common.

• Lament. The largest single group of psalms are the laments, characterized by the expression of unhappy emotions: sadness, disappointment, anger, worry. The lamenters call on God to save them, even while at times complaining about God’s actions toward them (Ps. 42:9–10). Some laments contain petitions for forgiveness (Ps. 51), while others assert innocence of any wrongdoing (Ps. 26). A few laments even contain curses directed toward the enemies who are trying to harm the psalmist (Ps. 69:19–28). Most laments end by praising God or reaffirming confidence in God (Ps. 130:7–8). Usually the reason for the change from mourning to rejoicing is not given, but Ps. 77 pinpoints the reason as the memory of God’s great salvation events in the past (vv. 10, 16–20). One psalm, Ps. 88, laments but never makes the turn, remaining in the pit of despair. Yet even here we have a glimmer of hope in that the one who laments is still speaking to God.

• Thanksgiving. When God answers a lament, the response is thanksgiving. Psalms of thanksgiving are very similar to hymns (see below), but they cite an earlier problem that God has addressed. Psalm 30 praises God for restoring the psalmist’s good fortune and health after he suffered due to his earlier arrogance that led him to forget God (vv. 6–7).

• Hymn. Hymns are psalms of unalloyed praise directed toward God. The psalmists often call for others to join their worship of God (Ps. 100).

• Remembrance. While many psalms evoke memories of God’s actions in the past (as the lament in Ps. 77 recalls the exodus), certain psalms focus on rehearsing the actions of God in the past. Psalm 136 is one of the most memorable examples. As a liturgical psalm, it recites a divine action (“[God] swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea” [v. 15]) followed by a congregational response (“His love endures forever”).

• Confidence. These psalms are defined by their mood of quiet trust in God even in the midst of trouble. They often present a reassuring image of God. The picture of God as a shepherd in Ps. 23 or as a mother in Ps. 131 are good examples.

• Wisdom. Some psalms meditate on the law (Pss. 1; 119) or have interests similar to those of wisdom literature, such as Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes (Pss. 49; 73).

• Kingship. A number of psalms praise God as king (Ps. 47) or the human king as his agent (Pss. 20–21) or both (Ps. 2).

Style. The psalms are poems, and so their style is characterized by the use of parallelism and figurative language. Poetry is also notable for its short lines. A poet packs a lot of meaning into very few words. So it is important to slow down and reflect on a psalm in order to derive its maximum effect. Besides brevity of expression, parallelism, and figurative language, poets create interest by using other literary tools. The psalmists use these poetic devices not only to inform their readers’ intellect but also to stimulate their imagination and arouse their emotions. (See also Acrostic; Imagery; Poetry.)

Theological Message

Although the psalms are not theological essays, readers can learn about God and their relationship with God from these poems. The book of Psalms is a bit like a portrait gallery of God, using images to describe who he is and the nature of our relationship with him. Some examples include God as shepherd (Ps. 23), king (Ps. 47), warrior (Ps. 98), and mother (Ps. 131), and the list could be greatly expanded. Each one of these picture images casts light on the nature of God and also the nature of our relationship with God. After all, the aforementioned psalms explicitly or implicitly describe God’s people as sheep, subjects, soldiers, and children.

Connection to the New Testament and Today

Jesus himself draws attention to Psalms as a book that anticipated his coming suffering and glorification (Luke 24:25–27, 44). The Gospels recognized that Jesus’ zeal for God was well expressed by Ps. 69:9 (John 2:17). When at the apex of his suffering on the cross, Jesus uttered the words found in Ps. 22:1 (Matt. 27:46). The NT writers also saw that Jesus was the fulfillment of the covenant that promised that a son of David would have an everlasting throne (2 Sam. 7:16). Accordingly, the royal psalms (e.g., Pss. 2; 110) often were applied to Jesus, who is the Messiah (the Christ, “the anointed one”).

Today we read Psalms not only as an ancient witness to the coming work of Christ but also, as John Calvin put it, as a mirror of our souls. The psalms were written for worshipers who came after them with similar though not identical joys and problems. The psalms should become models of our prayers.

Architecture is the technology and the art of design and construction. The technology of architecture includes an understanding of mathematical and engineering principles; the art of architecture focuses attention on interest and beauty in design. The creative imagination of the architect is constantly considering how to artfully manage form and function in the design and construction process.

Architecture and the Bible

The term “architecture” does not occur in most English translations of the Bible. There is, however, evidence of and reference to the architectural activity of God’s people. In addition, Israel and the church were contextualized in significant architectural periods (Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman), so the major empires of the biblical period often influenced the design and construction of cities, temples, and structures referenced in the biblical text. Architecture offers biblical studies a way to better understand the historical intentions of the Bible. By means of architectural investigation, the history and the heritage of past civilizations are illuminated. As a result, our reading of the biblical text is enhanced.

When we investigate the biblical text with attention to the technology and art of architecture, two perspectives emerge. First, architecture draws our attention to the background of the biblical text. In certain biblical texts we learn about the design and the construction that took place in Egypt, Assyria, and Palestine during major biblical events. For example, the patriarchal and Mosaic periods occurred during times of expansion and development in the Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties of Egypt (i.e., New Kingdom, sixteenth to eleventh centuries BC). For these periods, we gain knowledge about capital relocations along with temple and pyramid constructions. We learn that during the conquest, Israel took over existing Canaanite cities in keeping with the Mosaic policies. The architecture of Palestine enables us to better understand the form and function of these infrastructures.

Second, architecture draws our attention to the theological implications of the form and function of structures designed by God. In keeping with the scope of architecture, we are forced to understand that what God designed for altars, the ark, the tabernacle, and the temples of the past and the future included more than just the functional requirements of a nation’s religious system. The interpreter of the biblical text must consider how the design of these structures elicits response and communicates meaning. These structures are also windows on the social, political, and economic aspects of the Israelite nation.

Old Testament

Cities and fortifications. The biblical rec­ord makes reference to architectural structures, materials, and furnishings. Cities are referenced frequently throughout the OT canon. The city is obviously the context for architectural expression. The cities of the Bible are not described in extensive detail. We learn that Cain was a city builder who named his work after his son Enoch. The architectural feature of cities mentioned most often is the city gates (Gen. 19:1; 23:10, 18; Deut. 17:5; Josh. 2:5; 7:5; 20:4; Judg. 5:8). This was an important place for city life and activity (Gen. 23:1; Prov. 31:31). There was also sinister activity at city gates. Abner, for example, was killed in the city gate (2 Sam. 3:22–30). In addition, executions for covenant violations were carried out at the city gate (Deut. 17:5). There was more than one city gate, as we learn from the postexilic construction activity of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Within the city there was a strong tower. The people of Babel used thoroughly baked bricks instead of stone and tar for mortar in order to build the city and the tower that was designed to reach to the heavens (Gen. 11:3–4). A city tower functioned as a place of refuge for the people within the city limits (Judg. 9:49–51).

Cities were protected by a wall system (Lev. 25:29) that also provided space for housing (Josh. 2:15). The conquest of Jericho recounts the familiar defeat of that city by the very unconventional destruction of its walls (Josh. 6:20). A city square is another feature of the city architecture (Judg. 19:15–17) that served the public needs of the community.

The biblical descriptions of Jerusalem offer a measure of insight into its architecture. During the rebuilding process in the postexilic period, Nehemiah comments on both the construction and the building materials (Neh. 2:8; 13:31; cf. Ezra 6:4) and the spacious nature of the city (Neh. 7:4). From another perspective, the psalmist comments, “Jerusalem is built like a city that is closely compacted together” (Ps. 122:3).

Beyond these textual details we learn through the writings of the prophets that cities are the subject of God’s wrath for covenant violation (Jer. 6:6; Hos. 11:6; Mic. 5:11). Despite this, the nation of Israel is not left without the hope of restoration. The prophets also anticipated the return of the people along with the restoration of the city infrastructure (Amos 9:14; Mal. 1:4).

The temple and sacred structures. The other architectural features referenced by the writers of Scripture include altars, the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, and the temple. The tent and the tabernacle were also outfitted with unique furniture items described in detail and expertly crafted. The construction projects of Solomon are detailed in 1 Kings 5–7. Solomon, like David, pursued his architectural ambitions. The book of Ezekiel gives extensive architectural detail for the construction of a future temple in which God will reign and rule (Ezek. 40–48).

The temple and royal residences were made of stone with cedar roofing. The chamber buildings that surrounded the temple were three stories high. The interior walls and ceilings were lined with cedar to cover all the stone (1 Kings 6:1–10). In all the construction details for the temple, the text does not elaborate on architectural style. Perhaps the builders were influenced to some degree by the styles of the major periods.

What are the theological implications related to the form and function of the sacred structures in the biblical material? The first is that God is the ultimate designer of Israel’s architecture. God’s signature work certainly is not the tabernacle or the Solomonic temple, but rather the created realm. The beauty and the complexities of the created world continue to draw attention to God’s beauty and intelligence. As the psalmist declares, the creation, which God designed, is a constant source of praise (Ps. 19).

God’s skill and artistic beauty as a master architect are reflected also in the revelation of his plans for the sacred structures of Israel to the nation’s artisans. The skill that the artisans manifested in the construction process was also a gift from God (Exod. 35:35; 2 Chron. 2:14).

The structures designed by God for construction were primarily for him. This is understandable because the patriarchal and Mosaic periods included long desert pilgrimages and the related tent dwelling. References to homes and houses in the book of Leviticus are not about design and construction but about function. The domestic home must be free of mildew (Lev. 14:34–41) and thus clean according to the standards of the law. The construction of Davidic and Solomonic homes is given attention in Scripture (2 Sam. 5:11; 7:1; 1 Kings 7:1–12).

The tabernacle and the temple were divine residences (Exod. 30:6; 40:34; 2 Sam. 7:5; 1 Kings 8:11). For this reason, the design and function of each structure reflected the glorious worth of God and reminded the nation of its own uncleanness. Beyond the structures of temple and tabernacle, the city of Jerusalem was privileged to be the resting place of the “Name” (i.e., presence) of the Lord (2 Chron. 6:5–6) and to have David as the chosen ruler (2 Chron. 6:34).

The history of Israel reveals that the sustainability of these sacred structures was influenced by physical and spiritual factors. God occupied the structures or met with Israel at these sacred places as long as Israel conformed to the terms of the Mosaic covenant (1 Sam. 4:21; 1 Kings 9:6–9). During the monarchy, kings who departed from Torah would strip the temple to pay tribute to foreign overlords (2 Kings 24:13) or would modify the function of the structure to accommodate the worship of foreign gods (see 2 Kings 23). Although there were periodic times of rebuilding the sacred structures, sustainability was short lived. The ideology of the sacred structures anticipates a future time when their original function will be replaced with the opportunity to live in God’s presence forever.

New Testament

The NT refers only rarely to architects or architecture. Hebrews 11:10 speaks of God as the “architect [technitēs] and builder” of the heavenly Jerusalem. Paul refers to the church as the temple of God. Jesus Christ is the foundation, and Christian leaders are building upon that foundation with either gold, silver, and costly stones or wood, hay, and straw (1 Cor. 3:10–17; cf. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16).

In terms of physical buildings, the church of the NT was a house church. During the time of Christ the significant architectural structures were the temple and synagogues. Herod the Great was the major builder of the time, whose impressive temple dominated the landscape of the Jerusalem area. Although the synagogue was a central structure during the life of Christ and the early church, function is emphasized over form in the biblical material. The synagogue was a place for prayer, Scripture study, and the administration of justice (Luke 4:16–30; Acts 13:15; 14:1).

The focus of the NT is also on the church’s function instead of its architectural form. The church, however, prospered and grew in the context of a significant Hellenistic architectural period (300 BC to AD 300). In this period the Seleucids were responsible for establishing large Greek cities across western and central Asia. The primary construction material continued to be the mud-brick, which resulted in rapidly decaying buildings. Although cities continued to be laid out in a grid format, a more dynamic, hilly format was being introduced. The homes in these cities often were built with courtyards like ones in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The temples of the Hellenistic period were designed with landscaping and terracing, along with porticoed enclosures and stairways.

The book of Revelation closes the canon with extensive detail about the new city of Jerusalem, which God will design and build (Rev. 21) and which will function to serve his sovereign purposes as creator and redeemer.

Architecture is the technology and the art of design and construction. The technology of architecture includes an understanding of mathematical and engineering principles; the art of architecture focuses attention on interest and beauty in design. The creative imagination of the architect is constantly considering how to artfully manage form and function in the design and construction process.

Architecture and the Bible

The term “architecture” does not occur in most English translations of the Bible. There is, however, evidence of and reference to the architectural activity of God’s people. In addition, Israel and the church were contextualized in significant architectural periods (Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman), so the major empires of the biblical period often influenced the design and construction of cities, temples, and structures referenced in the biblical text. Architecture offers biblical studies a way to better understand the historical intentions of the Bible. By means of architectural investigation, the history and the heritage of past civilizations are illuminated. As a result, our reading of the biblical text is enhanced.

When we investigate the biblical text with attention to the technology and art of architecture, two perspectives emerge. First, architecture draws our attention to the background of the biblical text. In certain biblical texts we learn about the design and the construction that took place in Egypt, Assyria, and Palestine during major biblical events. For example, the patriarchal and Mosaic periods occurred during times of expansion and development in the Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties of Egypt (i.e., New Kingdom, sixteenth to eleventh centuries BC). For these periods, we gain knowledge about capital relocations along with temple and pyramid constructions. We learn that during the conquest, Israel took over existing Canaanite cities in keeping with the Mosaic policies. The architecture of Palestine enables us to better understand the form and function of these infrastructures.

Second, architecture draws our attention to the theological implications of the form and function of structures designed by God. In keeping with the scope of architecture, we are forced to understand that what God designed for altars, the ark, the tabernacle, and the temples of the past and the future included more than just the functional requirements of a nation’s religious system. The interpreter of the biblical text must consider how the design of these structures elicits response and communicates meaning. These structures are also windows on the social, political, and economic aspects of the Israelite nation.

Old Testament

Cities and fortifications. The biblical rec­ord makes reference to architectural structures, materials, and furnishings. Cities are referenced frequently throughout the OT canon. The city is obviously the context for architectural expression. The cities of the Bible are not described in extensive detail. We learn that Cain was a city builder who named his work after his son Enoch. The architectural feature of cities mentioned most often is the city gates (Gen. 19:1; 23:10, 18; Deut. 17:5; Josh. 2:5; 7:5; 20:4; Judg. 5:8). This was an important place for city life and activity (Gen. 23:1; Prov. 31:31). There was also sinister activity at city gates. Abner, for example, was killed in the city gate (2 Sam. 3:22–30). In addition, executions for covenant violations were carried out at the city gate (Deut. 17:5). There was more than one city gate, as we learn from the postexilic construction activity of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Within the city there was a strong tower. The people of Babel used thoroughly baked bricks instead of stone and tar for mortar in order to build the city and the tower that was designed to reach to the heavens (Gen. 11:3–4). A city tower functioned as a place of refuge for the people within the city limits (Judg. 9:49–51).

Cities were protected by a wall system (Lev. 25:29) that also provided space for housing (Josh. 2:15). The conquest of Jericho recounts the familiar defeat of that city by the very unconventional destruction of its walls (Josh. 6:20). A city square is another feature of the city architecture (Judg. 19:15–17) that served the public needs of the community.

The biblical descriptions of Jerusalem offer a measure of insight into its architecture. During the rebuilding process in the postexilic period, Nehemiah comments on both the construction and the building materials (Neh. 2:8; 13:31; cf. Ezra 6:4) and the spacious nature of the city (Neh. 7:4). From another perspective, the psalmist comments, “Jerusalem is built like a city that is closely compacted together” (Ps. 122:3).

Beyond these textual details we learn through the writings of the prophets that cities are the subject of God’s wrath for covenant violation (Jer. 6:6; Hos. 11:6; Mic. 5:11). Despite this, the nation of Israel is not left without the hope of restoration. The prophets also anticipated the return of the people along with the restoration of the city infrastructure (Amos 9:14; Mal. 1:4).

The temple and sacred structures. The other architectural features referenced by the writers of Scripture include altars, the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, and the temple. The tent and the tabernacle were also outfitted with unique furniture items described in detail and expertly crafted. The construction projects of Solomon are detailed in 1 Kings 5–7. Solomon, like David, pursued his architectural ambitions. The book of Ezekiel gives extensive architectural detail for the construction of a future temple in which God will reign and rule (Ezek. 40–48).

The temple and royal residences were made of stone with cedar roofing. The chamber buildings that surrounded the temple were three stories high. The interior walls and ceilings were lined with cedar to cover all the stone (1 Kings 6:1–10). In all the construction details for the temple, the text does not elaborate on architectural style. Perhaps the builders were influenced to some degree by the styles of the major periods.

What are the theological implications related to the form and function of the sacred structures in the biblical material? The first is that God is the ultimate designer of Israel’s architecture. God’s signature work certainly is not the tabernacle or the Solomonic temple, but rather the created realm. The beauty and the complexities of the created world continue to draw attention to God’s beauty and intelligence. As the psalmist declares, the creation, which God designed, is a constant source of praise (Ps. 19).

God’s skill and artistic beauty as a master architect are reflected also in the revelation of his plans for the sacred structures of Israel to the nation’s artisans. The skill that the artisans manifested in the construction process was also a gift from God (Exod. 35:35; 2 Chron. 2:14).

The structures designed by God for construction were primarily for him. This is understandable because the patriarchal and Mosaic periods included long desert pilgrimages and the related tent dwelling. References to homes and houses in the book of Leviticus are not about design and construction but about function. The domestic home must be free of mildew (Lev. 14:34–41) and thus clean according to the standards of the law. The construction of Davidic and Solomonic homes is given attention in Scripture (2 Sam. 5:11; 7:1; 1 Kings 7:1–12).

The tabernacle and the temple were divine residences (Exod. 30:6; 40:34; 2 Sam. 7:5; 1 Kings 8:11). For this reason, the design and function of each structure reflected the glorious worth of God and reminded the nation of its own uncleanness. Beyond the structures of temple and tabernacle, the city of Jerusalem was privileged to be the resting place of the “Name” (i.e., presence) of the Lord (2 Chron. 6:5–6) and to have David as the chosen ruler (2 Chron. 6:34).

The history of Israel reveals that the sustainability of these sacred structures was influenced by physical and spiritual factors. God occupied the structures or met with Israel at these sacred places as long as Israel conformed to the terms of the Mosaic covenant (1 Sam. 4:21; 1 Kings 9:6–9). During the monarchy, kings who departed from Torah would strip the temple to pay tribute to foreign overlords (2 Kings 24:13) or would modify the function of the structure to accommodate the worship of foreign gods (see 2 Kings 23). Although there were periodic times of rebuilding the sacred structures, sustainability was short lived. The ideology of the sacred structures anticipates a future time when their original function will be replaced with the opportunity to live in God’s presence forever.

New Testament

The NT refers only rarely to architects or architecture. Hebrews 11:10 speaks of God as the “architect [technitēs] and builder” of the heavenly Jerusalem. Paul refers to the church as the temple of God. Jesus Christ is the foundation, and Christian leaders are building upon that foundation with either gold, silver, and costly stones or wood, hay, and straw (1 Cor. 3:10–17; cf. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16).

In terms of physical buildings, the church of the NT was a house church. During the time of Christ the significant architectural structures were the temple and synagogues. Herod the Great was the major builder of the time, whose impressive temple dominated the landscape of the Jerusalem area. Although the synagogue was a central structure during the life of Christ and the early church, function is emphasized over form in the biblical material. The synagogue was a place for prayer, Scripture study, and the administration of justice (Luke 4:16–30; Acts 13:15; 14:1).

The focus of the NT is also on the church’s function instead of its architectural form. The church, however, prospered and grew in the context of a significant Hellenistic architectural period (300 BC to AD 300). In this period the Seleucids were responsible for establishing large Greek cities across western and central Asia. The primary construction material continued to be the mud-brick, which resulted in rapidly decaying buildings. Although cities continued to be laid out in a grid format, a more dynamic, hilly format was being introduced. The homes in these cities often were built with courtyards like ones in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The temples of the Hellenistic period were designed with landscaping and terracing, along with porticoed enclosures and stairways.

The book of Revelation closes the canon with extensive detail about the new city of Jerusalem, which God will design and build (Rev. 21) and which will function to serve his sovereign purposes as creator and redeemer.

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Temples have always been the domain and house of the gods throughout the ancient Near East. As the abode of the God of Israel, the Jerusalem temple served the same purpose. The temple played an important role in the social, religious, and political life of ancient Israel. No archaeological remains of the actual temple building exist today; nevertheless, the temple has dominated biblical scholarship. The Jerusalem temple was originally built by Solomon in 953 BC and was destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. After the exile, the temple was rebuilt and then rededicated by Zerubbabel in 515 BC (Ezra). Herod the Great significantly expanded and changed the temple, but it was eventually destroyed by the Romans under the direction of Titus in AD 70.

The biblical text refers to the temple in several ways: temple, house of God/Yahweh, and sanctuary/shrine. These terms all refer to the dwelling or house of God and an area of sacredness. The sources for information on the temple are biblical texts, Josephus, and the Mishnah (tractate Middot). The most detailed accounts of the construction of the Solomonic temple are found in 1 Kings 6–8; 2 Chron. 2–4. In addition to these major sections, there are several references to building activities and repairs to the temple throughout the OT. Another major text is Ezek. 40, but it is debated whether this represents the actual temple or an ideal temple. There are several references in the NT that directly or indirectly refer to functions and specific components of the Temple Mount complex.

Archaeological Investigation

The location of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem has been undisputed. Current scholarly opinion locates the temple on the spot of the current Muslim shrine, the Dome of the Rock. Today the larger enclosed area is referred to as the harem esh-sharif (the noble sanctuary). Explorers in the nineteenth century did not attempt archaeological research of the temple itself, although various explorations focused on recording visible features and conducting soundings along the sides of the Temple Mount. Even after the unification of Jerusalem in 1967, with three major excavations in the city, no archaeological investigation of the temple was conducted. Due to the political and religious variables associated with the Muslim holy sites, there are no foreseeable archaeological investigations. A recent renovation of the Mosque of Omar, located on the southern end of the Temple Mount, removed truckloads of earth. Unfortunately, there was no archaeological supervision of the project and no archaeological excavations of the site were conducted.

In spite of the limited archaeological excavations, several popular accounts of alternate locations of the temple have been proposed. Most of these place the temple somewhere other than the Dome of the Rock, but none of these proposals has garnered scholarly support to rival the current location.

First Temple: Temple of Solomon

Throughout the ancient Near East, temples served as monumental edifices that provided divine legitimacy for the king or dynasty. While temples should be considered part of the religious sphere of society, their construction, maintenance, and associated activities are interlinked with the political sphere. The construction of the temple in Jerusalem is also linked to state formation by the Israelites. The Solomonic temple ushered in a new period of religious activity among the ancient Israelites. Previously, Israel had worshiped at various shrines and sanctuaries, and its central religious practice was associated with the tabernacle. With the establishment of the monarchy, dynastic kingship and centralized authority were created. Although the biblical text credits Solomon as the Israelite king who built the temple, the project was initiated under David. David united the Israelite tribes, captured Jerusalem and made it the capital of the kingdom, and built a royal palace. He made Jerusalem the political capital but also the religious center when he brought the holy ark, the visible symbol of Yahweh’s presence, to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5–6). David intended to build Yahweh a permanent dwelling (2 Sam. 7:2).

Location. The biblical text preserves multiple traditions and accounts of the location and acquisition of land for the temple. In the ancient world the city temple was commonly located on the acropolis (highest point) of the city. The temple is located on the highest point of a ridge where the OT city of Jerusalem is located (Jebusite city, later the City of David). There are two accounts of the purchase of the land: the threshing floors of Araunah (2 Sam. 24:18–25) and of Ornan (1 Chron. 21:15–30; 2 Chron. 3:1 [here the NIV supplies “Araunah,” but see, e.g., the NET, NASB, ESV]). It is possible that Araunah and Ornan were kin, but most likely they are the same person, with Samuel and Chronicles using variant names. However, the two accounts disagree further on the amount paid for the land: fifty silver shekels (2 Sam. 24:24) and six hundred shekels of gold (1 Chron. 21:25). One theory explains this discrepancy as arising from two separate transactions. First, David purchased the threshing floor to build an altar to Yahweh, and he later purchased the whole mountain to build a temple. Later tradition associates the hill where David built an altar with the location where earlier Abraham built an altar to sacrifice Isaac (Mount Moriah).

Construction and dimensions. Solomon started to build during the fourth year of his reign (2 Chron. 3:1), and construction lasted for seven years. The plan of the temple was revealed to Solomon during a night in the sanctuary at Gibeon (2 Chron. 1:7–13). The king obtained building materials, specifically cedar from Lebanon (2 Chron. 2:3–10), and construction and design expertise from Phoenician artisans (1 Kings 7:13–14, 45). The Solomonic temple consisted of a tripartite plan similar to other temples in Syro-Palestine during this period. There are two accounts for the construction and dedication of the first temple (1 Kings 6–8; 2 Chron. 3–7). Both accounts offer similar descriptions but there are some differences in measurements. Most scholars account for these differences by viewing the dimensions in the book of Chronicles as reflecting the temple measurements after Hezekiah’s repair and rebuilding projects.

The basic plan was a rectangle, 70 cubits long (120 ft. 7 in.) and 20 cubits wide (34 ft. 5 in.) on a straight axis facing east; the height was 30 cubits (51 ft. 7 in.). These measurements refer to the inside dimensions (1 cubit = 20.67 in.). The three distinct architectural units formed three distinct rooms where various functions were performed and also reflected levels of holiness. The three units were the ’ulam (“porch” or “vestibule”), the hekal (“cella” or “nave”), and the debir (the innermost sanctuary, the most holy place). In the biblical accounts the whole building is called the “house [bayit] of the Lord,” and the word “temple” is used for the hekal. There was a three-story structure built around the sides and back of the temple (see below).

The porch was 10 cubits (17 ft. 2 in.) by 20 cubits (34 ft. 5 in.). The account in Kings does not provide its height; the account in Chronicles gives the height as 120 cubits. In its description and measurements in the biblical text, the porch is considered separate from the temple (bayit, house). The porch contained two pillars of bronze: yakin (“he will establish”) on the right side and bo’az (“in strength”) on the left (see Boaz; Jakin). The pillars were bronze, 18 cubits (35 cubits in Chronicles) in height, with elaborate double capitals. The bottom capital was 5 cubits, round in shape, and surrounded by nets with pomegranates. Above this was another capital, 4 cubits high, shaped like a lily.

The hekal was 40 cubits long and 20 cubits wide and was the only part with windows (1 Kings 6:4). The debir was a cube, 20 cubits per side. The debir is also called the “holy of holies.” The difference in height (10 cubits shorter than the hekal  ) is due to the rise in the bedrock. This measurement is confirmed today in the interior of the Dome of the Rock.

The walls of the house (hekal and debir) were built of whole stones dressed in the quarry, as “no hammer, chisel or any other iron tool was heard at the temple site while it was being built” (1 Kings 6:7). The roof was made of cedar wood (1 Kings 6:10), with crossbeams and intersecting boards. The stone walls were covered from ground to ceiling with boards of cedar wood, and the floor was made of cypress wood, covered with gold (1 Kings 6:30). The wood had carved engravings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. The hekal and the debir were separated by a partition made of olive wood.

The three-story structure surrounding the temple was constructed of cedar wood. Each story was 5 cubits. The width of the first floor was 5 cubits, the middle 6 cubits, and the top 7 cubits. This structure was entered from the right side of the temple, and the floors were connected by openings with ladders. This structure formed chambers and storage for the activities of the priests.

In front of the temple was a courtyard surrounded by a wall. Inside the courtyard was a great bronze basin (known as “the Sea”). This basin rested on the backs of twelve bronze oxen. Ten smaller basins in groups of five were set on elaborate wheeled stands. A large altar also was located in this courtyard.

In the holy of holies stood two large cherubim of olive wood covered with gold. They were 10 cubits in height, with a wingspan of 10 cubits. These cherubim stood over the ark of the covenant. In the hekal were the golden altar, the golden table, and ten lampstands.

History. From Solomon to Zedekiah, the temple was used for political and religious power shifts. Kings of Israel raided the temple treasury to pay off invaders, closed the temple, or placed idols in the temple in periods of apostasy. During periods of reform they repaired and rebuilt the temple and its furnishings.

Under Rehoboam’s reign, Shishak king of Egypt ransacked the temple and removed all its treasures (1 Kings 14:25–28; 2 Chron. 12:9). Asa and his father, Abijah, added to the treasure of the temple with silver, gold, and other vessels (2 Chron. 15:18) but used these to pay Ben-Hadad of Syria to help him fight Baasha king of Israel (16:2–3). Asa’s son Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 17) ruled during a time of prosperity and reform. It was under his rule that the court in front of the temple probably was enlarged (20:5). The sons of Athaliah broke into the temple and worshiped Baal. During the reign of Amaziah the temple was plundered by Jehoash king of Israel (2 Chron. 25). Uzziah ruled for a long period of prosperity (787–736 BC) but attempted to burn incense on the altar in the hekal, a ritual kept solely for the priests. A later king, Jotham, built the Upper Gate of the house of Yahweh (2 Kings 15:35; 2 Chron. 27:3). Jotham’s son Ahaz took the silver and gold from the temple and sent it as a present to the king of Assyria. He moved and changed various vessels of the temple and shut its doors (2 Chron. 28:24).

Hezekiah son of Ahaz ruled during a time of prosperity and revival. He reopened the temple doors (2 Chron. 29), cleaned out the temple, and created a 500-cubit-square mount around the temple. Hezekiah conducted many building projects in Jerusalem and reforms throughout the land. He also “stripped off the gold with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the temple of the Lord” to pay a ransom to Sennacherib king of Assyria (2 Kings 18:16). Due to his building activities, most scholars attribute major changes to the temple to Hezekiah’s reign. The differences in the temple descriptions in Kings and Chronicles probably reflect two different periods of history concerning the temple (e.g., Kings represents the temple during the period of Solomon, while Chronicles represents the changes to the temple by Hezekiah). Manasseh, Hezekiah’s son, undid the work of his father by building altars in the temple.

The last resurgence of the temple in the life of the people of Israel was under Josiah. He instigated a reform throughout the land and a cleansing of the temple. Hilkiah the high priest found a copy of the “Book of the Law” (2 Kings 22:8). After a reading of the law in the public square, a collection was taken from the people to be given to workers for temple repair. The Babylonians took some of the temple treasure (2 Chron. 36:7) under the rule of Jehoiakim. The last two kings of Judah, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, also lost temple treasure to Babylon, and eventually the temple was destroyed during the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC (2 Chron. 36).

Second Temple: Zerubbabel and the Temple of Herod the Great

Zerubbabel’s temple. Solomon’s temple was rebuilt by the Jews who returned from exile under the decree of the Persian king Darius (Ezra 6:1–5). The temple was built under the direction of the governor Zerubbabel with the support of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 6:13–18) and was dedicated in 515 BC. This would have been a poorer temple due to the poverty of the inhabitants of Judah. During the Hasmonean period (152–37 BC) a platform and a fortress were constructed. Not much is known about the temple during this period. It would be greatly eclipsed by the work of Herod the Great.

Temple of Herod the Great. Herod invested heavily in building projects throughout his kingdom. He was keen on bringing Hellenistic culture to the Jews but also on upholding traditional Jewish religious practices, especially when it came to the temple. Just as the first temple mimicked the religious architecture of the ancient Near East, the second temple reflected the massive sacred architecture of the classical world. John 2:20 indicates that thus far it had taken forty-six years (beyond Herod’s life) to build. Herod could not alter the dimensions of the temple, but he was able to make additions to the outside, alter its outer furnishings, and expand the compound and platform to match the grandeur of Greco-Roman temples. Today scholars refer to all these buildings and the temple as the Temple Mount complex.

Herod expanded the space of the Temple Mount by building a “box” around the mountain. This was a massive wall with varying height due to the topography. This wall is still visible today, especially the current religious site of the Western Wall. This construction allowed for a level platform with various buildings and plazas on the top. The leveling was done by filling in the gaps and building subterranean arches in low areas. One of these areas is located on the southeast corner (the underground arched supports are erroneously called “Solomon’s Stables” today). The whole area was surrounded by a colonnaded portico (Solomon’s Colonnade [John 10:23; Acts 3:11; 5:12]). On the northwest corner was the Antonia Fortress (Acts 21:35), and the southern end of the complex contained the Royal Stoa, a basilica-style building (four rows of forty columns) that housed the Sanhedrin and had other religious and political functions (Luke 22:66).

This complex became the religious and political center of the city of Jerusalem, and Herod built many auxiliary components. Several entrances and bridges from the Upper City were built. The public entered the complex from the south. A southern complex consisting of monumental stairs (210 feet wide) and entrance and exit gates (Double and Triple Gates) took pedestrians from the outside up through underground tunnels to the top of the temple compound. These stairs became an area for public forums. In addition, several shops (Mark 11:15–17) were built around the complex, as well as a large bathhouse for ritual cleansing. In order to facilitate the many sacrifices, Herod built a complex hydrologic system that brought water into the city. This was accomplished by various aqueducts and storage pools. The Temple Mount had many cisterns and a new pool on the northeast end of the Temple Mount complex, the Pool of Israel. Although Herod could not alter the dimensions of the temple itself, he was able to enlarge the facade, added storage chambers and auxiliary buildings, build a second story above the temple, and construct several courtyards and various buildings associated with them. In keeping with the earlier tripartite level of holiness, these additional temple buildings and courtyards retained the same linear degree of holiness and exclusion.

Josephus called Herod’s temple “a structure more noteworthy than any under the sun” (Ant. 15.412). Herod built a new monumental facade in front of the existing temple and added a second story. Herod’s temple measured 100 cubits (172 ft.) in all three dimensions. It stood on top of a foundation that gave it added height. It had two stories, each one 45 cubits (77.5 ft.) in height. On the roof was a parapet, 3 cubits in height, which contained golden spikes, 1 cubit in height, to prevent birds from perching on the roof’s edge. The temple was decorated with gold overlay. The opening between the ’ulam (“porch”) and the sanctuary was 20 cubits high and 10 cubits wide (34 ft. by 17 ft.). There were two sets of double folding doors. The sanctuary contained the golden menorah, the table of the bread of the Presence, and the altar of incense. Between the sanctuary and the holy of holies was a large tapestry (veil) (Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). The holy of holies had gold plating on its walls. Around the temple were thirty-eight cells built in three stories (m. Mid. 4:3–4). All of the cells were interconnected by openings between adjoining cells and by one in the ceiling to reach the cell above. To the north, between the outer wall of the temple and the cells, was an inner stairway with access to the top of the temple and the upper chamber (second story of the temple). The upper chamber allowed priests to service the holy of holies. They would be suspended in baskets, covered on three sides, through openings in the floor to clean the gold overlay in the holy of holies.

The temple courtyard was surrounded by various gates and buildings. These were specific entrances and buildings that the priests used for the various functions of the sacrifices and offerings (Mark 13:1–2). These included the Kindling Gate, Wood Chamber, Gate of the Firstlings, Golah Chamber, Water Gate, Chamber of the Hearth, Gate of Jeconiah, Rinsing Chamber, Gate of the Offering-Women, Salt-Parva Chamber, and Gate of the Flame-Singers. In front of the temple were two narrow courts: the court of the priests to the west and the court of the Israelites (men) to the east. Inside the temple court was the altar of burnt offering. During the Second Temple period it was a stationary, square-shaped altar constructed of unhewn stones. According to the Mishnah (m. Mid. 3:1), this altar was 32 cubits square at the base and about 10 cubits in height. A ramp 32 cubits long, also built of unhewn stones, led the priests up to the altar from the south. A laver, the great bronze basin known as “the Sea,” stood west of the altar between the altar and the temple porch (’ulam) for the washing of hands and feet. North of the altar was the place of slaughtering.

The court of the women, 135 cubits square, was in front of the temple to the east. This court had four smaller courts, one at each corner. Women could enter the temple only as far as this court. It was surrounded by a colonnade. Inside these porches (porticoes) were thirteen collection boxes for money. This is where Jesus saw the poor widow donating two copper coins (Luke 21:1–3). The court had four large lampstands nearly half the height of the temple. The Mishnah states that each of the corner chambers was 40 cubits square and roofless. The central area was exposed to the sky, with a portico around each courtyard—typical of Mediterranean buildings. The chamber to the immediate right of the court’s entrance (northeast) was the chamber of the woodshed, where priests examined logs for impurities (e.g., parasites). To the left (southeast) was the chamber of the Nazirites. To the northwest was the chamber of the lepers. A leper who had been healed brought an offering and then bathed in this chamber before coming to the priests for the performance of rituals. In the southwest corner was the chamber of the house of oil. Between the court of the women and the temple court was the Nicanor Gate. Fifteen semicircular steps led up to this gate. It was on these steps that the Levites sang the fifteen Psalms of Ascent (Pss. 120–134).

Surrounding the temple and the court of the women was a balustrade or railing that served as a boundary beyond which no Gentile could enter. Outside this boundary was the court of the Gentiles (see John 12:20–22; Acts 21:27–29). Archaeologists have found an inscription that forbids Gentiles, upon pain of death, to enter any farther. Herod’s temple was destroyed in AD 70. The Temple Mount continued to be used and considered sacred, as Roman temples, Crusader churches, and Muslim shrines marked the sacredness of the location.

Role of the Temple

The temple was the dwelling place of Yahweh. It was the domain of the religious leaders, priests, and Levites. It also represented the relationship/covenant between God and the nation of Israel. Various kings used the temple for their political maneuvering and attempts to shift the religious worship of the nation. The temple was the visible presence of God and embodied the political and religious aspirations of the people. The temple sat on top of a sacred mountain.

During turbulent political times the temple was central to God’s protection and judgment. From the Babylonian and Roman periods, two texts spoke of a future temple. Ezekiel’s vision saw a futuristic temple measuring 500 cubits square surrounded by a massive court measuring 3,000 cubits square (Ezek. 40:1–47:12). Among the DSS, the Temple Scroll also talks about a rebuilt temple. Today many Christians and Jews look to a future rebuilding of the temple.

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A form of government that acknowledges God’s kingship. God functions as the ultimate king in every era of biblical history, regardless of the form of human government.

In the book of Deuteronomy, theocracy is indicated in affirmations that Yahweh is Israel’s commander in chief. Yahweh goes before his people and fights battles on their behalf (1:30, 33; 3:22; 7:1, 22–24; 9:3–5; 11:23). An important passage that anticipates the monarchy prescribes that God chooses the human king (17:15). That king should neither turn the people back to Egypt nor amass horses, wives, or riches (17:16–17). Rather, the king is to keep God’s law with him and must “read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law . . . and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites” (17:19–20).

The book of Judges recounts a series of leaders who fail to uphold the theocratic ideal of Deuteronomy. Both the tribes and leaders repeatedly “did evil in the eyes of the Lord” (2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1). The closing chapters of Judges state, “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit” (17:6; 21:25; cf. 18:1; 19:1). These refrains show that Israel needs a human king who will help the people to do what is right (rather than evil) “in the eyes of the Lord.” Israel must maintain theocracy if it is to avoid foreign oppression.

The same issue is at stake in the account of Saul’s rise to kingship. The Israelites’ request for a king is problematic not only because they desired to be like “all the other nations,” but also because they desired a human king who would go before them and fight their battles (1 Sam. 8:5, 20). By asking for a king who would serve in the role of commander in chief, they effectively supplant Yahweh and reject theocracy (1 Sam. 8:7; 10:19; 12:12). In keeping with Deuteronomy, Samuel explains that both king and people are to fear, serve, and obey Yahweh if they are to experience blessing (1 Sam. 12:14–15, 25; cf. Deut. 17:19–20). Since Saul has failed to uphold theocracy, God rejects him as king (1 Sam. 13:14; 15:11, 23, 26–28, 35) and seeks out a man who meets his own criteria for kingship (13:14; cf. 15:28). That David has a proper perspective on God’s authority is evident in statements such as “the battle is the Lord’s” (1 Sam. 17:47). David especially acknowledges God’s kingship by installing the ark in Jerusalem and desiring to build the temple (2 Sam. 6–7), actions that lead to the Davidic covenant (7:4–17).

The Davidic covenant is foundational for a biblical theology of God’s kingdom. Numerous psalms are devoted to God’s kingship (Pss. 2; 20; 21; 47; 93; 145), and eschatological prophecies reveal much about the messianic king/kingdom (Isa. 9; 11; Jer. 23; 30; 33; Ezek. 37; Dan. 2; 7; 9; Mic. 5; Zech. 9; 14). The NT shows that God’s kingdom has arrived in part at the first coming of Jesus but awaits its full consummation at his second coming (Matt. 3:17; 12:28; Mark 1:14–15; Luke 17:20–21; Acts 1:6–8).

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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