Probably the aromatic resin of the terebinth tree, this substance was used as a remedy (Jer. 46:11; 51:8). From centers of production, it was exported throughout the Levant and Egypt (Gen. 37:25; 43:11; Ezek. 27:17). Several biblical texts associate balm production with the region east of the Jordan, including Gilead. Jeremiah’s sarcastic question attests to the origin and use of balm: “Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is there no healing for the wound of my people?” (Jer. 8:22).

Probably the aromatic resin of the terebinth tree, this substance was used as a remedy (Jer. 46:11; 51:8). From centers of production, it was exported throughout the Levant and Egypt (Gen. 37:25; 43:11; Ezek. 27:17). Several biblical texts associate balm production with the region east of the Jordan, including Gilead. Jeremiah’s sarcastic question attests to the origin and use of balm: “Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is there no healing for the wound of my people?” (Jer. 8:22).

Numbers 5:11–31 describes a judicial ordeal for determining whether a wife has been unfaithful. In the course of the ritual, the wife suspected of wrongdoing is to drink water mixed with dirt from the floor of the tabernacle, thus made “bitter” (Heb. mar; Num. 5:18), and in which a scroll containing curses has been washed (so that the water also contains the ink of the scroll). In the event that the woman was guilty of unfaithfulness, this concoction was intended to transfer to her body the curses against her. Deuteronomy 21:1–9 may represent a second judicial ordeal involving water, though bitterness is not involved. The names “En Mishpat” (“spring of judgment” [Gen. 14:7]) and “En Rogel” (“spring of inquiry” [e.g., Josh. 15:7]) may also refer to the use of water for divination or ordeal.

Shortly after crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites came to Marah (“bitterness”), where the waters were bitter and not potable. Moses was divinely instructed to throw a piece of wood in the water, rendering it sweet and drinkable (Exod. 15:23–25), the first of several divine provisions of drinking water in the desert. Revelation 8:11 depicts apocalyptic divine judgment in terms of bitter or poisoned water. In both of these passages, bitterness is effected or removed by the combination of wood and water: “wormwood” (Gk. apsinthos, a bitter substance derived from the wood of a particular shrub). The image of Rev. 8:11 recalls a similar divine threat in Jer. 9:15; 23:15.

Terminology

The word “law,” often referred to as “Torah,” occurs 220 times in the OT and derives from a Hebrew root that means “to teach or instruct.” Biblical law is the body of instructions or teachings that serve to govern and maintain the covenant relationship between God and Israel. The distinctive relationship that Israel enjoyed with God was unparalleled in the ancient Near East. Unlike the Gentile nations, Israel received from Yahweh an instrument outlining his expectations of them, a set of guidelines by which to sustain that covenant relationship (Deut. 4:6–8). Outside the OT, the “Torah” or “Law” often refers to the first five books of the Bible, called the “Pentateuch” (Matt. 5:17–18; Luke 2:22). Second Temple Judaism commonly referred to the Pentateuch in this way.

The term “Torah” is not limited to cultic or ceremonial practice, but embraces civil and social law. In addition, the Torah refers to the prophetic word and more broadly incorporates the idea of parental instruction. The Hebrew word torah is employed in a variety of expressions, variously rendered in English versions: “the law” (Deut. 1:5; 4:8, 44; 2 Kings 23:24), the “Book of the Law” (Deut. 28:61; 29:21; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 22:8), the “Book of the Law of Moses” (Josh. 8:31; 23:6), the “law of Moses” (Josh. 8:32; 1 Kings 2:3), the “Book of the Law of God” (Josh. 24:26), and the “law of the Lord” (2 Kings 10:31)—all of these indicate the divine origin of the instructions or reinforce the association of the Torah with Moses as Israel’s mediator. The OT notes that Moses “wrote a Book of the Law,” which was placed by the ark for reference (Deut. 31:26) and read aloud every seven years, during the Feast of Tabernacles, to all the assembly (Deut. 31:9–13). The book is not mentioned again until its discovery in the temple during the reign of King Josiah (2 Kings 22:8). The discovery of the book initiated a religious reform by Josiah that focused on the centralization of worship and the destruction of idols.

The OT employs a number of close synonyms for “law,” including “commandments,” “testimony,” “judgments,” “statutes,” “ordinances,” “decrees,” and “precepts.” Each of these terms reflects varying nuances or particular aspects of the divine instruction. Unfortunately, all these words as translated into English subtly misrepresent the “law” as an odious external set of rules that inhibit human freedom and require punishment for disobedience. This perspective suggests that obedience to the divine law was coerced by the threat of divine judgment. Contrary to this misconception, the people of Israel rejoiced in following Yahweh’s instructions because their greatest desire was to please and live in harmony with him. Yahweh’s people enjoyed the privilege of receiving divine revelation consisting of directions that assured divine favor. Although perfect adherence to these instructions proved to be an impossible task, Yahweh’s covenant stipulations provided an ideal toward which his people were expected to make progress as they constantly strived to fulfill that ideal. The Torah in its broadest sense reflects a verbal expression of the character, nature, and will of God.

Types of Law

In general, Torah may be subdivided into three categories: judicial, ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlap with the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah” with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19–23) following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt, though some body of customary legislation existed before this time (Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation in other pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24, indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code of conduct and worship for Israel not only during its wilderness wanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan following the conquest.

More specifically, the word “law” often denotes the Ten Commandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “ten words”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered to Moses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandments reflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided into two parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which they were first recorded: the first four address the individual’s relationship to God, and the last six focus on instructions concerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplistic expression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelines extends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any and all incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thing forbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing the prohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice its opposite good in order to be in compliance.

Judicial law. The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), closely associated with the Ten Commandments, immediately follows the Decalogue and may be subdivided into casuistic, or “case,” law (21:2–22:17) and a variety of miscellaneous laws, many which are apodictic, or absolute, commands. The divine instructions cannot address an infinite range of circumstances; consequently, the casuistic laws describe the judicial process in light of general situations, which form the precedence upon which future specific judgments can be made. Apodictic instructions, generally identified by imperatives or volitional forms, set forth a strict prohibition followed by the consequences of disobedience. Government in early Israelite history revolved around the authoritative decisions of judges, who declared a verdict based on custom or precedent (Exod. 18:13–27). The moral emphasis of the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant provides the underlying theological reasons for obeying God’s law and forms an important part of the ethical foundation of pentateuchal discussions and elaborations of law.

Ceremonial law. Ceremonial, or cultic, law includes the instructions guiding the construction and preparation of the tabernacle for worship combined with the Levitical guidelines dictating the proper execution of ritual sacrifice and cultic practice. The significance of the tabernacle as a portable sanctuary of Yahweh and its integral connection with God’s promise to dwell among the Israelites are reinforced by the tabernacle’s association with the appearance of Yahweh at Sinai and the inauguration of the covenant. The tabernacle becomes the place where the people meet God through a mediator and seek continued divine favor through ritual purification, sacrifice, and atonement.

Leviticus systematically outlines the procedure for priestly selection and succession, details the consecration of cultic vessels and priests, describes conditions for participation and the celebration of sacred festivals (Lev. 16; 23–25), and addresses other issues such as blasphemy, sexual behavior, and false prophecy. The sacrificial regulations cover sin offerings (6:25), guilt offerings (7:1, 7), burnt offerings (6:9), grain offerings (6:14), and fellowship offerings (7:11). The book of Leviticus also provides extensive instruction concerning the designation of “clean” (consecrated) and “unclean” (profane), reinforcing the separateness of God’s chosen people (e.g., 11:46; 12:7; 13:59; 14:2, 32; 15:32–33). Uncircumcised foreigners were excluded from participation in Israel’s sacred assemblies.

Moral law. Economic hardship presented numerous challenges in Israelite society that were resolved through laws concerning debt and slavery. A series of laws sought to protect the property and rights of those indebted to creditors (Exod. 22:25–27; Deut. 24:6, 10–13; 2 Kings 4:1; Amos 2:8). Those who were enslaved in order to compensate for their debts had to be released after six years of service (Exod. 21:2, 11; Deut. 15:12–18). Property and persons who were turned over to creditors could often be redeemed (Lev. 25:25–28, 47–55). Those who harvested crops were instructed to leave the corners of fields and the remnants of crops for gleaning by the poor (Deut. 24:19–22; Ruth 2:2–6). The systematic mistreatment of the marginalized in society led to widespread corruption among the judiciary, angering Yahweh and leading to the exile (Isa. 1:15–17; Amos 2:6–7; 11–13). It is clear that this type of law was reenacted during the postexilic period (Neh. 5:1–13; Jer. 34:8–16).

Torah in Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

OT wisdom literature develops the concept of Torah as human instruction for daily living, underscoring the dynamic character of the law and its permeation of all areas of life. Vigilant obedience to the law results in wise and godly conduct. In Proverbs, the son is admonished by the father to obey the Torah (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 6:23), and the pupil is instructed by the teacher to respect the law (13:13) and to resist the company of those who do not obey the Torah (28:4), with such observance resulting in God’s blessings (29:18) and answers to prayer (28:9). The wise woman familiarizes herself with the Torah because the responsibility for instruction of her household lies with her (31:26).

The book of Psalms contains three compositions typically classified as Torah psalms (1; 19; 119). In Ps. 1 continual reflection on the Torah manifests itself in the prosperity and the wisdom of the obedient. Psalm 19 celebrates the benefits of keeping the Torah, including wisdom, joy, enlightenment, life, and moral discernment. In a lengthy acrostic arranged according to the Hebrew alphabet, Ps. 119 exploits the attitudes, effects, and practicality of the Torah as exemplified in the life of the faithful.

In the prophetic material, Torah refers to teaching administered in the name of Yahweh, either by the priests or the prophets. Moral decline, manifested by the social injustice of Israel’s leader-ship coupled with idolatry and syncretistic worship, was directly attributed to the failure of the priests to uphold the Torah and their negligence in instructing the community (Jer. 2:8; 8:8; Ezek. 7:26; 22:26; Hos. 8:1–12; Amos 2:4). The prophetic emphasis on justice and righteousness as characteristic qualities of God’s people highlights the importance placed on fair and equitable treatment (e.g., Isa. 5:23–24; 26:1–11; 48:17–19; 58:6–9; 59:9–14). The Torah provided the authoritative point of departure in the composition of prophetic messages and teachings, undergirding the authority and genuineness of the prophetic proclamations and exhortations to the contemporary audience. The messages of the prophets were in fact not new, but were simply the adaptation and transformation of pentateuchal texts already generally accepted by the community as authoritative.

Biblical Law and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

Biblical law did not develop in isolation from other legal systems; rather, it appears to follow long-established, widespread, and standardized patterns of Mesopotamian law. A persuasive number of parallels between customs and familial relationships addressed in the Nuzi tablets and archaic elements in the patriarchal narratives seem to suggest that the patriarchs operated under Hurrian law. The Nuzi tablets clarify the subjects of adoption, marriage, and economic transactions, apparently exerting an influence on the lives of the early OT patriarchs. The wife-sister accounts of Abram and Isaac, in which the marriage eligibility of Sarai and Rebekah arise (Gen. 12; 26), as well as Abraham’s proposed adoption of his servant Eliezer as an heir (Gen. 15:2–4) and his siring of Ishmael through Sarai’s servant Hagar (Gen. 16), reflect customary practice described in these documents.

A vast range of legal documents regulating judicial procedures provides material for comparative analysis with biblical texts. Included among these discoveries are a number of law collections, generally named after the ruler who commissioned them. Archaeologists have uncovered evidence, from as early as the twenty-first century BC, of two surviving Sumerian legal collections affirming the ancient origins of societal governance. The Laws of King Ur-Nammu, recorded during the last great period of Sumerian literacy (2111–2095 BC), are preserved in scribal copies from Nippur dated between 1800 and 1700 BC and consist of a fragment and two partial stone tablets. Written in a casuistic format, the texts attest to twenty-nine stipulations, including legislation addressing weights and measures; protections for widows, orphans, and the impoverished; sexual offenses; marital laws; slavery; false testimony; and property abuses.

A second Sumerian law collection dating from the nineteenth century BC, that of King Lipit-Ishtar, the fifth ruler of the Isin dynasty in lower Mesopotamia, consists of a prologue, thirty-eight wholly or partially restored laws, and an epilogue. These laws, bequeathed to Lipit-Ishtar by the Sumerian deities Anu and Enlil in order to “establish justice in the land,” represent civil laws governing business practices, slavery, property, family, and inadvertent injury to an individual. What appear to be an additional thirty-eight laws, comprising the second half of the code, have been destroyed along with part of the prologue. All these laws were recorded in a casuistic format.

The Laws of Eshnunna, written in Akkadian, consist of two tablets containing approximately sixty different laws. The authorship and date of origin remain unknown, but historians suggest that this law collection, which has no prologue or epilogue, was contemporary with the Code of Hammurabi (1728–1686 BC). Though written in a casuistic format, this artifact assigns penalties on the basis of social status.

The Code of Hammurabi, named for the sixth of eleven kings of the Old Babylonian dynasty, is perhaps the most famous and most complete of the ancient Mesopotamian collections. In 1902, French archaeologists discovered the code on a black diorite stela, nearly eight feet tall, in what was ancient Susa. Multiple copies of the code have been preserved. Written in Akkadian cuneiform, the law collection consists of 282 legal paragraphs created to promote public welfare and the cause of justice. The format of the code, which includes a prologue, an epilogue, and a category of cursings for disobedience and blessings for obedience, closely mirrors the structure of the book of Deuteronomy. The casuistic format addresses laws governing public order and individual private law. The penalties prescribed for capital offenses, of which there were thirty, were harsh and often cruel, including bodily mutilation, multiple punishments, and vicarious punishment. Retaliatory consequences for the protection of private property were exceptionally cruel, taking the form of torture or excessive fines. Often, those who were presumed guilty would be thrown into the river; survival indicated innocence, while drowning demonstrated guilt. A predominant feature was the lex talionis (the law of retaliation, or measure for measure), whereby a corresponding penalty was exacted against the offender based on the crime. For instance, if a child was killed, the death of the offender’s child was required. Capital crimes included theft of property and adultery. Contrary to biblical law, Hammurabi’s code made financial provision for the loss of life, whereas in the OT the value of life was immeasurable.

The argument from silence suggests that in the absence of a full biblical law code, legal instructions and stipulations in the biblical text consist primarily of codicil emendations, that is, additions and innovations to already existing laws. For example, the discussion on divorce in Deut. 21 describes the execution of a document without giving details concerning the content or form of such a document. The passage also mentions a yet undiscovered “book of divorce.” The absence of legal material on commercial and business law as well as specifics concerning inheritance and other common subjects points to a more comprehensive body of unwritten law reflecting preexisting societal norms. Israelite society was therefore indebted to its Mesopotamian predecessors for its implementation of law as a means of protecting citizens, and for many legal provisions eventually adapted by the biblical text.

The Character of Biblical Law

Although Israelite law was in some ways influenced by the legal codes of other ancient Near Eastern cultures, biblical law retained a distinct identity centered on the relationship between Yahweh and his chosen people. Law in the OT is presented not as secular instruction but rather as divine pronouncement, receiving its authority as an expression of the divine will. The entirety of the divine instruction originates with God, and he is both author and guarantor of the covenant with his people. The people of Israel, then, are held responsible to God for their actions and not just to a legislative body or human ruler. The will of the Israelite is wholly surrendered to the will of God to such a degree that every aspect of an individual’s life is inextricably connected to the divine teachings. God assigns the stipulations and requirements of the law to the entire corporate body of Israel. The responsibility for covenant fidelity does not lie solely with the community leadership; rather, it is shared by every individual in the community, whose dual role includes ensuring both the fair execution of justice in the community and personal observance of the law. God’s instructions are proclaimed publicly and apply equally to all social strata without distinction, apart from specific direction concerning slaves.

Torah becomes the corpus of teaching directed toward the entire community. The didactic purpose of the law is evident by the motive clauses appended to many apodictic and casuistic instructions that elaborate on the ethical, religious, or historical reasons for covenant faithfulness. The pedagogical aim serves to appeal to the Israelite conscience as a means of motivating obedience. In addition, the teaching that humanity is created in the divine image reinforces the sacredness of human life as a foundational concern of the law. Religious rather than economic values prevail, eliminating the death penalty for all property crimes. Individual culpability predominates in the biblical corpus, abolishing the notion of vicarious punishment advocated in extrabiblical legislation. Each offender pays the consequences of his or her behavior. Each person, created by God and enjoying equal status with all others, receives fair and equitable treatment.

The Law and the New Testament

The contemporary significance of the Torah is recognized in the NT by Jesus’ declaration that his incarnation served to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17). He affirms the continued legitimacy of the law (Matt. 5:19) and appeals to the law as the governing authority for proper practice and behavior (Matt. 12:6, 42; Luke 4:1–11; Mark 7:9–12; 10:17–19).

The relationship between gospel and law in both Testaments demonstrates far greater continuity than is recognized by many Christians. Covenant theologians affirm that the Mosaic law described a “covenant of works,” which functions differently from the NT’s “covenant of grace,” while dispensationalists often teach that grace supersedes and abolishes the demands of the law. The conditional nature of the Mosaic covenant differs from that of the Abrahamic covenant, since the unconditional promise of the Abrahamic covenant suggests that the blessings promised to Abraham and his seed would be realized not because of human obedience but rather through divine fidelity (Gal. 3:15–27). The Mosaic covenant, or covenant of law, is not contrary to the promises of God (Gal. 3:21); instead, God graciously entered into relationship with the people of Israel, redeemed them from Egypt, and then gave them the law so that they would respond in humble obedience to his redeeming work. Thus, Mosaic law provided through a mediator a way for God to reveal himself to Israel. Consequently, the idea that Israelite religion was legalistic is mistaken. It did not teach that one could earn salvation by “keeping the law”; rather, an individual entered into the covenant with God by grace. When God established the covenant with his people, he forgave their sins. He did not demand a certain level of attainment as a prerequisite for entering into that relationship, nor did Israel have to obey the law perfectly in order to achieve salvation. Instead, the covenantal arrangement instituted a means of forgiveness through the sacrificial system, making the removal of the barrier of sin available to the people. Israel’s obedience to the law was a response to God’s gracious and redeeming work. Law and covenant were complementary.

Ongoing discussions explore the question concerning the relevance of the law for Christians today. Many scholars from past centuries, such as Martin Luther, claimed that the believer is freed entirely from the law of Moses, including its moral requirements. The OT law is binding only insofar as it agrees with the NT and mirrors natural law. John Calvin, on the other hand, maintained that the moral laws of the OT are obligatory for the believer, and he asserts that this is the principal function of law. Calvin’s sense of keeping the moral law does not compromise the message of grace, for keeping the moral law, as opposed to the ceremonial or civil law, does not earn salvation but instead forms the acceptable response of the believer to God’s grace. Other Reformation scholars suggested that the law was abolished with the coming of Christ, and, as a result, while the moral norms remain in effect, the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled with the coming of Christ. Although the penalties originally prescribed for disobedience are no longer effective, keeping the moral law reflects the proper outcome of a life lived by the Spirit of God. See also Ten Commandments; Torah.

While the English word “charm” is derived from a Latin word for “incantation,” the Hebrew word often translated as “charm” (lakhash) refers to a whisper, like that of a snake charmer. In fact, the word frequently conjured up the image of enchanted serpents. For example, Eccles. 10:11 draws upon the image of a snake-bitten charmer whose skill, consequently, has been rendered futile. Further, in Jer. 8:17 God threatens to send out serpents that cannot be enchanted. Moreover, in Ps. 58:5 the psalmist likens wicked people to a cobra that refuses to be tamed. A progression of thought that associated serpents with demons eventually led people to seek magical charms, such as wearing amulets, to protect them from evil. However, Isaiah insists that such charms stand impotent before the evil about to destroy Babylon (Isa. 47:11); likewise, he warns that Israel’s religious experts in charms and even their women adorned with amulets will be taken away in judgment (Isa. 3:3, 20). In Prov. 31:30 most English versions translate “graceful appearance” (khen) metaphorically as “charm” in order to contrast a woman who has seemingly magical power over a man with a woman who fears God; so also, many translators take license with the precious stone (’eben-khen) in Prov. 17:8 to imply that a bribe can “work like a charm.” However, any original connotation of actual enchantment in these proverbs is doubtful. See also Magic Charm.

The custom of cutting the foreskin of the male genitalia as a religious rite. The earliest attestation of circumcision is on depictions of West Semitic Syrian warriors unearthed in Syria and Egypt and dating to the third millennium BC. In addition, an Egyptian stela describing a ceremony in which 120 were circumcised has been dated to the twenty-third century BC. Egyptians practiced circumcision, as did the Ammonites, Edomites, Moabites, and nomadic Arabians (Jer. 9:25–26). Philistines, Assyrians, and Gentiles in general were uncircumcised (Judg. 14:3; Ezek. 32:17–32; Eph. 2:11).

Circumcision is first mentioned in the Bible as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Gen. 17:10). God commanded that every male be circumcised at eight days old (Gen. 17:12; cf. 21:4; Lev. 12:3; Luke 1:59; 2:21). Circumcision was required for a male to participate in the Passover (Exod. 12:48) or worship in the temple (Ezek. 44:9; cf. Acts 21:28–29).

Simeon and Levi used circumcision as a ruse to obtain revenge for the rape of their sister Dinah (Gen. 34:13–31). Zipporah redeemed Moses by circumcising her son on their journey back to Egypt (Exod. 4:24–26). At Gilgal, Joshua circumcised the sons of the Israelites who had disbelieved that God could bring them into the Promised Land (Josh. 5:2–8). The sons had not been circumcised during the journey through the wilderness (5:7). Saul demanded a dowry of one hundred Philistine foreskins before David could marry his daughter Michal (1 Sam. 18:25). David doubled the bride-price by providing two hundred (18:27).

Metaphorically, circumcision goes beyond the physical sign (Rom. 2:28). Ultimately, the enemies of God, whether circumcised or not, will be slain and laid in the grave with the uncircumcised (Ezek. 32:32). Physical circumcision is of no avail if the heart remains “uncircumcised” (Jer. 9:25–26; cf. Rom. 2:25). Circumcision of the heart is accomplished when one loves God completely (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Rom. 2:29), but uncircumcised ears are disobedient (Acts 7:51). The circumcision accomplished by Christ occurs when the sinful nature is rejected (Col. 2:11). In him neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value; what counts “is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal. 5:6).

Controversy began in the NT church over whether Gentile believers should be circumcised (Acts 15:1–12). Evidently, a group existed that demanded circumcision (Acts 15:1; Titus 1:10). Paul argued that circumcision was not essential to Christian faith and fellowship (Gal. 6:15; Col. 3:11).

The KJV uses the name of this mythical snakelike monster to translate the related Hebrew words tsif’oni (Isa. 11:8; 59:5; Jer. 8:17) and tsefa’ (Isa. 14:29). However, these words denote a real snake and in modern versions are more commonly translated “cobra,” “adder,” or “viper” (as the KJV does in Prov. 23:32).

In Isa. 38:14; Jer. 8:7 many versions translate the Hebrew word ’agur as “crane” (NIV: “thrush”), a tall, storklike bird, with a noisy cry, that migrates over Israel in huge flocks for a few days each spring and fall.

The rock dove (Heb. yonah; Gk. peristera) was domesticated throughout the ancient Near East and used for carrying messages long before Roman times. It breeds prolifically, and its homing instinct brings it swiftly back to its dovecote (Isa. 60:8; Hos. 11:11) or the buildings or crevices where it nests (Jer. 48:28). Israel also has three species of turtledove (Heb. tor; Gk. trygōn), one being a summer migrant (Song 2:12; Jer. 8:7).

In Israel, the dove was considered clean for food and designated for sacrifice, often as a poor person’s substitute for a lamb (Gen. 15:9; Lev. 1:14; 5:7, 11; 12:6, 8; 14:22, 30; 15:14, 29; Num. 6:10; Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 2:24; John 2:14, 16). The dove is first mentioned in Scripture when Noah sends out a dove from the ark (Gen. 8:8–12). In the NT, the dove is an image of purity (Matt. 10:16) and also symbolizes the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32), but in the Song of Songs, where the beloved, and in particular the beloved’s eyes, are likened to doves (1:15; 2:14; 4:1; 5:2, 12; 6:9), it may also connote fertility.

The dove is also, however, mournful (Isa. 38:14; 59:11; Ezek. 7:16; Nah. 2:7), vulnerable (Ps. 74:19), and easily deceived (Hos. 7:11). When frightened, it takes flight to lonely places (Ps. 55:6; Isa. 60:8), which perhaps adds interest to the fact that Jonah’s name literally means “dove.”

The KJV uses “dragon” twenty-one times in the OT to translate the Hebrew word tannin, tannim. In Deut. 32:33 the term is used in parallel with peten (“adder” or “cobra”), indicating that it probably refers to a snake of some type. The term is rendered inconsistently by the KJV, so that elsewhere the translation is “whale” (Gen. 1:21; Job 7:12; Ezek. 32:2–3) or “serpent” (Exod. 7:9–10, 12). There is also some confusion in the KJV of tannim with the plural of the noun tan, which means “jackal” (Job 30:29; Ps. 44:19; Isa. 13:22; 34:13; 35:7; 43:20; Jer. 9:11; 10:22; 14:6; 49:3; 51:37; Mic. 1:8; see also Lam. 4:3; Mal. 1:3).

In many passages the LXX uses the term drakōn, which again refers to a serpent. This term is used in the NT only in Revelation, where, as in the OT, the writer probably envisioned not the fire-breathing winged monster familiar to most modern readers but rather something more directly resembling a serpent (note Rev. 12:9, where the “great dragon” is also described as the “ancient serpent” and identified as “the devil, or Satan”). Revelation 12:3 elaborates by describing it as possessing “seven heads and ten horns.” Hence, the dragon of Revelation is linked directly to the serpent in the garden of Eden (Gen. 3), which is ultimately subject to defeat and eternal punishment (Rev. 20:7–10).

The law warns against those who claim to speak for God but whose words are not from God. Such false prophets are exposed when their predictions go unfulfilled, but even a prophet who makes true predictions is false if he or she encourages idolatry. False prophets must be put to death (Deut. 13:1–5; 18:20–22).

During the monarchy, some false prophets blatantly promoted Baalism (1 Kings 18:19; Jer. 2:8; 23:13). Others seemed orthodox but, motivated by greed (Jer. 6:13; 8:10; Mic. 3:5, 11; cf. Luke 6:26), actually said whatever people wanted to hear (1 Kings 22:6; cf. 2 Chron. 18:5; 28; Isa. 30:10; Jer. 5:31; Ezek. 22:27–28). A frequent mark of these prophets was that they stressed God’s faithfulness to promises of blessing while ignoring his faithfulness to promises of judgment. According to them, Israel would never be defeated, however much the people sinned (Jer. 6:14; 8:11; 23:17; Ezek. 13:10, 16; Mic. 2:6); the false prophets themselves set an example of licentiousness (Isa. 28:7; Jer. 23:14–15). Ironically, the complacency that this engendered increased Israel’s danger (Jer. 14:13–16; 23:19–22; 27:9–18; Lam. 2:14; Ezek. 13:5).

Often direct confrontations took place between true and false prophets (e.g., 1 Kings 18; Neh. 6:14; Jer. 20:1–6; 26:8–11; 28–29; Mic. 2:6). The true prophets pleaded with Israel to reject false prophecy (Jer. 23:16; 29:8–9). They pronounced judgment on both the prophets and their followers (Isa. 9:14–15; Jer. 2:26; 4:9; 8:1; 13:13; 23:33–39; 50:36; Ezek. 13; Zeph. 3:4; Zech. 13:2–6). False prophets would become blind to the truth they denied and become unable to prophesy at all (Isa. 29:10; Ezek. 7:26; Mic. 3:6). Their false predictions would be frustrated (Isa. 44:25; Jer. 37:19), and in particular the exile that they said would never happen was now inevitable (Jer. 14:15–18).

False prophecy was as much a danger in the NT era as it was in the OT. Jesus warned that “wolves in sheep’s clothing” would continue to lead many astray. Some would either promote the worship of false messiahs or even pretend to be the Messiah (Matt. 24:23–24; Mark 13:21–22), but, as ever, they could be identified by their “fruit” (Matt. 7:15–23; 24:11).

Paul said that any so-called prophet who opposed his own teaching, or who taught error while claiming that the teaching came from Paul himself, was false (1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Thess. 2:2; cf. 2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:8). Luke called Elymas the sorcerer, who opposed Paul, a false prophet (Acts 13:6–12). More generally, Peter saw all heretical teachers as direct successors of the false prophets of the OT, denying the Lord and exploiting the people for gain (2 Pet. 2:1). They replicate the error of Balaam (2 Pet. 2:15–16). For John, the particular mark of the false prophet was the denial that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 4:1–3). The third figure in the bestial false trinity in John’s Revelation is called “the false prophet” (Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10) and entices men and women to worship the dragon rather than Jesus.

The foreskin (prepuce) is removed from the male reproductive organ, usually of infants (Gen. 21:4; Lev. 12:3), in a ceremonial operation, circumcision. Other ancient cultures that practiced this rite include Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, and Moab (Jer. 9:25–26). In similar fashion, Egyptian priests slit the foreskin and let it hang free.

Archaeology shows that Syrian warriors practiced circumcision around 3000 BC, but circumcision became central to Jewish faith. The rite lent itself to the powerful metaphor of “heart circumcision,” which designates a heart that is committed rather than stubborn (Deut. 10:16; cf. Lev. 26:41; Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4). However, the avoidance of circumcision in Hellenistic culture led some Jews to “hide” their circumcision through epispasm, an operation that restored the foreskin to its uncircumcised form (1 Macc. 1:15; 1 Cor. 7:18; Josephus, Ant. 12.237–41). See also Circumcision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The harvest was a major event on the yearly calendar of Israel’s agrarian society (Lev. 25:11; Judg. 15:1; Ruth 1:22; 2 Sam. 21:9–10). Life was dependent on the harvest. As a result, God set certain rules with respect to the harvest to help the Israelites keep proper priorities. Every seven years and every fiftieth year, the people were to give the land a rest (Exod. 23:10; Lev. 25:20–22). The people were to rest on the Sabbath, even during the harvesttime (Exod. 34:21). Some portions of crops were to be left in the field so that the poor might have food (Lev. 19:9; 23:22; Deut. 24:21). The people were to acknowledge God as the source of the harvest by offering the first of the produce (Lev. 23:10). Celebrating the harvest was commanded (Exod. 23:16; Deut. 16:15; Isa. 9:3). Planning for the harvest was a mark of wisdom (Prov. 6:8; 10:5; 20:4). Even as a good harvest was the blessing of God (Ps. 67:6; Isa. 62:9), so a bad harvest was a curse from God and the plight of a fool (1 Sam. 12:17; Job 5:5; Prov. 26:1; Isa. 18:4–5; Jer. 8:13, 20; Joel 3:12; Mic. 6:15). Failure to acknowledge God for the harvest was a sin (Jer. 5:24).

The harvest is often used in Scripture as an analogy. The prophets talk about the negative harvest of idolatry (Isa. 17:11). Israel is called the firstfruits of God’s harvest (Jer. 2:3). Hosea uses the idea of harvest to indicate that God’s people have a future (Hos. 6:11). In the Gospels, the harvest is used as an analogy for those needing to hear the good news (Matt. 9:37–38), for the end times (Matt. 13:24–30; Rev. 14:15), and for a lesson about unfaithful leadership (Matt. 21:33–46; 25:24). In the remainder of the NT, the harvest analogy usually refers to Christian growth and salvation (Rom. 1:13; 1 Cor. 9:10–11; 2 Cor. 9:10; Gal. 6:9; Heb. 12:11; James 3:18).

The restoration to full health of one who has been ill or injured. The Bible makes a few brief references to standard “medical” attempts to heal people. For example, Jeremiah mentions a balm of Gilead (Jer. 8:22; 46:11), and Isaiah orders a “poultice of figs” to be applied to a boil on King Hezekiah (Isa. 38:21). But medical treatment in the biblical world was primitive and often based more on superstition than on understanding. Before the advent of modern medicine, most injuries and sicknesses were quite serious; treatments and therapies were rarely effective. Most of the healing mentioned in the Bible, therefore, is of a miraculous nature and associated with divine empowerment.

Old Testament. In the OT, the occurrences of healing miracles, as well as other miracles, are not evenly distributed throughout Israel’s history but instead are concentrated in two time periods: that of the exodus, and that of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17–2 Kings 13). During these two eras, miracles in general, and healing in particular, authenticated God’s prophets and leaders and authenticated the word of God spoken by these prophets and leaders.

The OT prophets, Jeremiah in particular, frequently use the imagery of wounds and sickness to describe the apostasy and the terrible spiritual situation of Israel and Judah. In his first twenty-nine chapters, while Jeremiah is bemoaning the fact that the people of Judah have turned to other gods and refuse to repent, he regularly uses imagery of sickness and wounds. He declares that Israel/Judah is wounded and/or sick, but that there is no healing for them, only judgment. He asks, for example, “Is there no balm in Gilead? . . . Why then is there no healing for the wound of my people?” (Jer. 8:22). This theme is repeated in the book (8:15; 10:19; 14:19; 15:18).

In Jer. 30–33, however, Jeremiah turns to the glorious restoration brought about by the coming Messiah. Part of this glorious restoration, Jeremiah declares, will be a drastic reversal from a time of sickness with no healing (symbolizing sin and defiance) to a time characterized by healing and health. For example, in 30:12–15 God uses physical sickness and wounds in his imagery to describe the serious, incurable spiritual sickness in Jerusalem. Yet in stark contrast to statements like these, in the passages that follow God looks to the messianic future and proclaims, “But I will restore you to health and heal your wounds” (30:17). Isaiah uses similar imagery, but he expands it by adding that people will ultimately be healed through the suffering and the wounds (i.e., the death) of the coming Messiah (Isa. 53:4–5).

New Testament. In the Gospels, healing is a significant component of Jesus’ ministry. Although the prophets used sickness/healing imagery primarily in a metaphorical sense to describe the spiritual condition of Israel and Judah, Jesus actually fulfills their prophecies both figuratively and literally. That is, not only does Jesus heal people spiritually, providing forgiveness and restoration to wholeness, but also he frequently heals people physically (blindness, leprosy, paralysis, etc.), ironically fulfilling figurative prophecies in a literal manner. The Greek word for “to save” (sōzō) can also mean “to heal,” thus adding to this dual idea of literal healing that is also figurative of spiritual salvation. For example, when Jesus turns to the bleeding woman who touches him in faith, he declares to her, “Your faith has healed [sōzō] you” (Mark 5:34). Here the word sōzō can indicate either physical healing (her bleeding had stopped) or spiritual healing (forgiveness of sins and deliverance from judgment).

Jesus frequently heals people throughout his ministry here on earth. His acts of healing authenticate him as the fulfillment of specific OT messianic prophecies and also highlight the fact that he comes in great power, a power that identifies him with the Lord, the great healer in the OT. In addition, Jesus’ acts of healing announce and characterize the inbreaking of the kingdom of God, underscoring that in the ultimate consummation of the kingdom all sickness (as well as blindness, leprosy, lameness, etc.) will be eliminated. This theme is continued at the end of the book of Revelation as John depicts the tree of life growing on both sides of the river of the water of life. The leaves from this tree, John concludes, “are for the healing of the nations” (22:1–2).

About the size of a large dog, the wolflike golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a scavenging predator native to Israel, still widely found there. Jackals are primarily but not exclusively carnivorous. They consume carrion, dig dens, are aggressive, and have a distinctive howl (Mic. 1:8). Jackals prowl in packs, favoring dry, barren terrain. They are strongly associated with ruins in the OT (Isa. 13:22; 34:13; Jer. 9:11). The NT does not specifically refer to jackals.

In the OT, the English translation “jackal” generally represents one of two Hebrew words: tan is consistently translated “jackal,” while shu’al is usually translated “fox” but can also mean “jackal.” Instances of the latter include Ps. 63:10; Lam. 5:18; Ezek. 13:4. Jackals and foxes can occupy the same general area, but foxes are loners and prefer a wooded habitat. Thus, it has been argued that the foxes of Judg. 15:4–5 are better understood to have been jackals.

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

Mishpat and Tsedaqah

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

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

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

God as the Source and Model of Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

The word “law,” often referred to as “Torah,” occurs 220 times in the OT and derives from a Hebrew root that means “to teach or instruct.” Biblical law is the body of instructions or teachings that serve to govern and maintain the covenant relationship between God and Israel. The distinctive relationship that Israel enjoyed with God was unparalleled in the ancient Near East. Unlike the Gentile nations, Israel received from Yahweh an instrument outlining his expectations of them, a set of guidelines by which to sustain that covenant relationship (Deut. 4:6–8). Outside the OT, the “Torah” or “Law” often refers to the first five books of the Bible, called the “Pentateuch” (Matt. 5:17–18; Luke 2:22). Second Temple Judaism commonly referred to the Pentateuch in this way.

The term “Torah” is not limited to cultic or ceremonial practice, but embraces civil and social law. In addition, the Torah refers to the prophetic word and more broadly incorporates the idea of parental instruction. The Hebrew word torah is employed in a variety of expressions, variously rendered in English versions: “the law” (Deut. 1:5; 4:8, 44; 2 Kings 23:24), the “Book of the Law” (Deut. 28:61; 29:21; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 22:8), the “Book of the Law of Moses” (Josh. 8:31; 23:6), the “law of Moses” (Josh. 8:32; 1 Kings 2:3), the “Book of the Law of God” (Josh. 24:26), and the “law of the Lord” (2 Kings 10:31)—all of these indicate the divine origin of the instructions or reinforce the association of the Torah with Moses as Israel’s mediator. The OT notes that Moses “wrote a Book of the Law,” which was placed by the ark for reference (Deut. 31:26) and read aloud every seven years, during the Feast of Tabernacles, to all the assembly (Deut. 31:9–13). The book is not mentioned again until its discovery in the temple during the reign of King Josiah (2 Kings 22:8). The discovery of the book initiated a religious reform by Josiah that focused on the centralization of worship and the destruction of idols.

The OT employs a number of close synonyms for “law,” including “commandments,” “testimony,” “judgments,” “statutes,” “ordinances,” “decrees,” and “precepts.” Each of these terms reflects varying nuances or particular aspects of the divine instruction. Unfortunately, all these words as translated into English subtly misrepresent the “law” as an odious external set of rules that inhibit human freedom and require punishment for disobedience. This perspective suggests that obedience to the divine law was coerced by the threat of divine judgment. Contrary to this misconception, the people of Israel rejoiced in following Yahweh’s instructions because their greatest desire was to please and live in harmony with him. Yahweh’s people enjoyed the privilege of receiving divine revelation consisting of directions that assured divine favor. Although perfect adherence to these instructions proved to be an impossible task, Yahweh’s covenant stipulations provided an ideal toward which his people were expected to make progress as they constantly strived to fulfill that ideal. The Torah in its broadest sense reflects a verbal expression of the character, nature, and will of God.

Types of Law

In general, Torah may be subdivided into three categories: judicial, ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlap with the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah” with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19–23) following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt, though some body of customary legislation existed before this time (Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation in other pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24, indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code of conduct and worship for Israel not only during its wilderness wanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan following the conquest.

More specifically, the word “law” often denotes the Ten Commandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “ten words”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered to Moses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandments reflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided into two parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which they were first recorded: the first four address the individual’s relationship to God, and the last six focus on instructions concerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplistic expression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelines extends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any and all incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thing forbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing the prohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice its opposite good in order to be in compliance.

Judicial law. The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), closely associated with the Ten Commandments, immediately follows the Decalogue and may be subdivided into casuistic, or “case,” law (21:2–22:17) and a variety of miscellaneous laws, many which are apodictic, or absolute, commands. The divine instructions cannot address an infinite range of circumstances; consequently, the casuistic laws describe the judicial process in light of general situations, which form the precedence upon which future specific judgments can be made. Apodictic instructions, generally identified by imperatives or volitional forms, set forth a strict prohibition followed by the consequences of disobedience. Government in early Israelite history revolved around the authoritative decisions of judges, who declared a verdict based on custom or precedent (Exod. 18:13–27). The moral emphasis of the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant provides the underlying theological reasons for obeying God’s law and forms an important part of the ethical foundation of pentateuchal discussions and elaborations of law.

Ceremonial law. Ceremonial, or cultic, law includes the instructions guiding the construction and preparation of the tabernacle for worship combined with the Levitical guidelines dictating the proper execution of ritual sacrifice and cultic practice. The significance of the tabernacle as a portable sanctuary of Yahweh and its integral connection with God’s promise to dwell among the Israelites are reinforced by the tabernacle’s association with the appearance of Yahweh at Sinai and the inauguration of the covenant. The tabernacle becomes the place where the people meet God through a mediator and seek continued divine favor through ritual purification, sacrifice, and atonement.

Leviticus systematically outlines the procedure for priestly selection and succession, details the consecration of cultic vessels and priests, describes conditions for participation and the celebration of sacred festivals (Lev. 16; 23–25), and addresses other issues such as blasphemy, sexual behavior, and false prophecy. The sacrificial regulations cover sin offerings (6:25), guilt offerings (7:1, 7), burnt offerings (6:9), grain offerings (6:14), and fellowship offerings (7:11). The book of Leviticus also provides extensive instruction concerning the designation of “clean” (consecrated) and “unclean” (profane), reinforcing the separateness of God’s chosen people (e.g., 11:46; 12:7; 13:59; 14:2, 32; 15:32–33). Uncircumcised foreigners were excluded from participation in Israel’s sacred assemblies.

Moral law. Economic hardship presented numerous challenges in Israelite society that were resolved through laws concerning debt and slavery. A series of laws sought to protect the property and rights of those indebted to creditors (Exod. 22:25–27; Deut. 24:6, 10–13; 2 Kings 4:1; Amos 2:8). Those who were enslaved in order to compensate for their debts had to be released after six years of service (Exod. 21:2, 11; Deut. 15:12–18). Property and persons who were turned over to creditors could often be redeemed (Lev. 25:25–28, 47–55). Those who harvested crops were instructed to leave the corners of fields and the remnants of crops for gleaning by the poor (Deut. 24:19–22; Ruth 2:2–6). The systematic mistreatment of the marginalized in society led to widespread corruption among the judiciary, angering Yahweh and leading to the exile (Isa. 1:15–17; Amos 2:6–7; 11–13). It is clear that this type of law was reenacted during the postexilic period (Neh. 5:1–13; Jer. 34:8–16).

Torah in Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

OT wisdom literature develops the concept of Torah as human instruction for daily living, underscoring the dynamic character of the law and its permeation of all areas of life. Vigilant obedience to the law results in wise and godly conduct. In Proverbs, the son is admonished by the father to obey the Torah (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 6:23), and the pupil is instructed by the teacher to respect the law (13:13) and to resist the company of those who do not obey the Torah (28:4), with such observance resulting in God’s blessings (29:18) and answers to prayer (28:9). The wise woman familiarizes herself with the Torah because the responsibility for instruction of her household lies with her (31:26).

The book of Psalms contains three compositions typically classified as Torah psalms (1; 19; 119). In Ps. 1 continual reflection on the Torah manifests itself in the prosperity and the wisdom of the obedient. Psalm 19 celebrates the benefits of keeping the Torah, including wisdom, joy, enlightenment, life, and moral discernment. In a lengthy acrostic arranged according to the Hebrew alphabet, Ps. 119 exploits the attitudes, effects, and practicality of the Torah as exemplified in the life of the faithful.

In the prophetic material, Torah refers to teaching administered in the name of Yahweh, either by the priests or the prophets. Moral decline, manifested by the social injustice of Israel’s leader-ship coupled with idolatry and syncretistic worship, was directly attributed to the failure of the priests to uphold the Torah and their negligence in instructing the community (Jer. 2:8; 8:8; Ezek. 7:26; 22:26; Hos. 8:1–12; Amos 2:4). The prophetic emphasis on justice and righteousness as characteristic qualities of God’s people highlights the importance placed on fair and equitable treatment (e.g., Isa. 5:23–24; 26:1–11; 48:17–19; 58:6–9; 59:9–14). The Torah provided the authoritative point of departure in the composition of prophetic messages and teachings, undergirding the authority and genuineness of the prophetic proclamations and exhortations to the contemporary audience. The messages of the prophets were in fact not new, but were simply the adaptation and transformation of pentateuchal texts already generally accepted by the community as authoritative.

Biblical Law and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

Biblical law did not develop in isolation from other legal systems; rather, it appears to follow long-established, widespread, and standardized patterns of Mesopotamian law. A persuasive number of parallels between customs and familial relationships addressed in the Nuzi tablets and archaic elements in the patriarchal narratives seem to suggest that the patriarchs operated under Hurrian law. The Nuzi tablets clarify the subjects of adoption, marriage, and economic transactions, apparently exerting an influence on the lives of the early OT patriarchs. The wife-sister accounts of Abram and Isaac, in which the marriage eligibility of Sarai and Rebekah arise (Gen. 12; 26), as well as Abraham’s proposed adoption of his servant Eliezer as an heir (Gen. 15:2–4) and his siring of Ishmael through Sarai’s servant Hagar (Gen. 16), reflect customary practice described in these documents.

A vast range of legal documents regulating judicial procedures provides material for comparative analysis with biblical texts. Included among these discoveries are a number of law collections, generally named after the ruler who commissioned them. Archaeologists have uncovered evidence, from as early as the twenty-first century BC, of two surviving Sumerian legal collections affirming the ancient origins of societal governance. The Laws of King Ur-Nammu, recorded during the last great period of Sumerian literacy (2111–2095 BC), are preserved in scribal copies from Nippur dated between 1800 and 1700 BC and consist of a fragment and two partial stone tablets. Written in a casuistic format, the texts attest to twenty-nine stipulations, including legislation addressing weights and measures; protections for widows, orphans, and the impoverished; sexual offenses; marital laws; slavery; false testimony; and property abuses.

A second Sumerian law collection dating from the nineteenth century BC, that of King Lipit-Ishtar, the fifth ruler of the Isin dynasty in lower Mesopotamia, consists of a prologue, thirty-eight wholly or partially restored laws, and an epilogue. These laws, bequeathed to Lipit-Ishtar by the Sumerian deities Anu and Enlil in order to “establish justice in the land,” represent civil laws governing business practices, slavery, property, family, and inadvertent injury to an individual. What appear to be an additional thirty-eight laws, comprising the second half of the code, have been destroyed along with part of the prologue. All these laws were recorded in a casuistic format.

The Laws of Eshnunna, written in Akkadian, consist of two tablets containing approximately sixty different laws. The authorship and date of origin remain unknown, but historians suggest that this law collection, which has no prologue or epilogue, was contemporary with the Code of Hammurabi (1728–1686 BC). Though written in a casuistic format, this artifact assigns penalties on the basis of social status.

The Code of Hammurabi, named for the sixth of eleven kings of the Old Babylonian dynasty, is perhaps the most famous and most complete of the ancient Mesopotamian collections. In 1902, French archaeologists discovered the code on a black diorite stela, nearly eight feet tall, in what was ancient Susa. Multiple copies of the code have been preserved. Written in Akkadian cuneiform, the law collection consists of 282 legal paragraphs created to promote public welfare and the cause of justice. The format of the code, which includes a prologue, an epilogue, and a category of cursings for disobedience and blessings for obedience, closely mirrors the structure of the book of Deuteronomy. The casuistic format addresses laws governing public order and individual private law. The penalties prescribed for capital offenses, of which there were thirty, were harsh and often cruel, including bodily mutilation, multiple punishments, and vicarious punishment. Retaliatory consequences for the protection of private property were exceptionally cruel, taking the form of torture or excessive fines. Often, those who were presumed guilty would be thrown into the river; survival indicated innocence, while drowning demonstrated guilt. A predominant feature was the lex talionis (the law of retaliation, or measure for measure), whereby a corresponding penalty was exacted against the offender based on the crime. For instance, if a child was killed, the death of the offender’s child was required. Capital crimes included theft of property and adultery. Contrary to biblical law, Hammurabi’s code made financial provision for the loss of life, whereas in the OT the value of life was immeasurable.

The argument from silence suggests that in the absence of a full biblical law code, legal instructions and stipulations in the biblical text consist primarily of codicil emendations, that is, additions and innovations to already existing laws. For example, the discussion on divorce in Deut. 21 describes the execution of a document without giving details concerning the content or form of such a document. The passage also mentions a yet undiscovered “book of divorce.” The absence of legal material on commercial and business law as well as specifics concerning inheritance and other common subjects points to a more comprehensive body of unwritten law reflecting preexisting societal norms. Israelite society was therefore indebted to its Mesopotamian predecessors for its implementation of law as a means of protecting citizens, and for many legal provisions eventually adapted by the biblical text.

The Character of Biblical Law

Although Israelite law was in some ways influenced by the legal codes of other ancient Near Eastern cultures, biblical law retained a distinct identity centered on the relationship between Yahweh and his chosen people. Law in the OT is presented not as secular instruction but rather as divine pronouncement, receiving its authority as an expression of the divine will. The entirety of the divine instruction originates with God, and he is both author and guarantor of the covenant with his people. The people of Israel, then, are held responsible to God for their actions and not just to a legislative body or human ruler. The will of the Israelite is wholly surrendered to the will of God to such a degree that every aspect of an individual’s life is inextricably connected to the divine teachings. God assigns the stipulations and requirements of the law to the entire corporate body of Israel. The responsibility for covenant fidelity does not lie solely with the community leadership; rather, it is shared by every individual in the community, whose dual role includes ensuring both the fair execution of justice in the community and personal observance of the law. God’s instructions are proclaimed publicly and apply equally to all social strata without distinction, apart from specific direction concerning slaves.

Torah becomes the corpus of teaching directed toward the entire community. The didactic purpose of the law is evident by the motive clauses appended to many apodictic and casuistic instructions that elaborate on the ethical, religious, or historical reasons for covenant faithfulness. The pedagogical aim serves to appeal to the Israelite conscience as a means of motivating obedience. In addition, the teaching that humanity is created in the divine image reinforces the sacredness of human life as a foundational concern of the law. Religious rather than economic values prevail, eliminating the death penalty for all property crimes. Individual culpability predominates in the biblical corpus, abolishing the notion of vicarious punishment advocated in extrabiblical legislation. Each offender pays the consequences of his or her behavior. Each person, created by God and enjoying equal status with all others, receives fair and equitable treatment.

The Law and the New Testament

The contemporary significance of the Torah is recognized in the NT by Jesus’ declaration that his incarnation served to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17). He affirms the continued legitimacy of the law (Matt. 5:19) and appeals to the law as the governing authority for proper practice and behavior (Matt. 12:6, 42; Luke 4:1–11; Mark 7:9–12; 10:17–19).

The relationship between gospel and law in both Testaments demonstrates far greater continuity than is recognized by many Christians. Covenant theologians affirm that the Mosaic law described a “covenant of works,” which functions differently from the NT’s “covenant of grace,” while dispensationalists often teach that grace supersedes and abolishes the demands of the law. The conditional nature of the Mosaic covenant differs from that of the Abrahamic covenant, since the unconditional promise of the Abrahamic covenant suggests that the blessings promised to Abraham and his seed would be realized not because of human obedience but rather through divine fidelity (Gal. 3:15–27). The Mosaic covenant, or covenant of law, is not contrary to the promises of God (Gal. 3:21); instead, God graciously entered into relationship with the people of Israel, redeemed them from Egypt, and then gave them the law so that they would respond in humble obedience to his redeeming work. Thus, Mosaic law provided through a mediator a way for God to reveal himself to Israel. Consequently, the idea that Israelite religion was legalistic is mistaken. It did not teach that one could earn salvation by “keeping the law”; rather, an individual entered into the covenant with God by grace. When God established the covenant with his people, he forgave their sins. He did not demand a certain level of attainment as a prerequisite for entering into that relationship, nor did Israel have to obey the law perfectly in order to achieve salvation. Instead, the covenantal arrangement instituted a means of forgiveness through the sacrificial system, making the removal of the barrier of sin available to the people. Israel’s obedience to the law was a response to God’s gracious and redeeming work. Law and covenant were complementary.

Ongoing discussions explore the question concerning the relevance of the law for Christians today. Many scholars from past centuries, such as Martin Luther, claimed that the believer is freed entirely from the law of Moses, including its moral requirements. The OT law is binding only insofar as it agrees with the NT and mirrors natural law. John Calvin, on the other hand, maintained that the moral laws of the OT are obligatory for the believer, and he asserts that this is the principal function of law. Calvin’s sense of keeping the moral law does not compromise the message of grace, for keeping the moral law, as opposed to the ceremonial or civil law, does not earn salvation but instead forms the acceptable response of the believer to God’s grace. Other Reformation scholars suggested that the law was abolished with the coming of Christ, and, as a result, while the moral norms remain in effect, the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled with the coming of Christ. Although the penalties originally prescribed for disobedience are no longer effective, keeping the moral law reflects the proper outcome of a life lived by the Spirit of God. See also Ten Commandments; Torah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A cry characteristic of a horse (see Jer. 8:16). It is used in a figurative sense in Jer. 5:8 (cf. 13:27) to depict Judah’s lust.

Poisons in the OT generally derived from reptiles, insects, or other animals and caused inflammation, fever, and frequently death. Various poisonous snakes were found in Palestine (Num. 21:6; Deut. 8:15; 32:24, 33; Job 20:14, 16; Pss. 58:4; 140:3; Prov. 23:32; Isa. 14:29; Jer. 8:17; Mark 16:18; cf. Acts 28:1–6 [on Malta]). Several plants were known to be poisonous, though few are mentioned in Scripture (Deut. 29:18; Hos. 10:4). Job 6:4 refers to the use of poison-tipped arrows to increase potency of the weapon, probably used both in hunting and combat.

Poisons in the OT generally derived from reptiles, insects, or other animals and caused inflammation, fever, and frequently death. Various poisonous snakes were found in Palestine (Num. 21:6; Deut. 8:15; 32:24, 33; Job 20:14, 16; Pss. 58:4; 140:3; Prov. 23:32; Isa. 14:29; Jer. 8:17; Mark 16:18; cf. Acts 28:1–6 [on Malta]). Several plants were known to be poisonous, though few are mentioned in Scripture (Deut. 29:18; Hos. 10:4). Job 6:4 refers to the use of poison-tipped arrows to increase potency of the weapon, probably used both in hunting and combat.

Poisons in the OT generally derived from reptiles, insects, or other animals and caused inflammation, fever, and frequently death. Various poisonous snakes were found in Palestine (Num. 21:6; Deut. 8:15; 32:24, 33; Job 20:14, 16; Pss. 58:4; 140:3; Prov. 23:32; Isa. 14:29; Jer. 8:17; Mark 16:18; cf. Acts 28:1–6 [on Malta]). Several plants were known to be poisonous, though few are mentioned in Scripture (Deut. 29:18; Hos. 10:4). Job 6:4 refers to the use of poison-tipped arrows to increase potency of the weapon, probably used both in hunting and combat.

In metallurgy, to separate pure metal from impurities. The process of refining is used figuratively in the Bible in reference to God purifying his people from their sin (Jer. 9:7; Zech. 13:9; Mal. 3:3).

Both the OT and the NT use several words that fall into the category of sorrow. Sorrow may be felt to different degrees as fits the severity of the circumstances. Likewise, it may be expressed in many ways, such as crying or weeping (Jer. 4:8; Joel 1:18), hiring professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Mark 5:38), tearing one’s clothes (2 Sam. 13:19), wearing sackcloth (2 Sam. 3:31; Jer. 4:8), sitting in dust and ashes (Job 2:8; Luke 10:13), throwing dust over one’s head (Job 2:12), fasting (Esther 4:3), shaving one’s head or beard (Job 1:20; Jer. 41:5), and beating one’s chest (Isa. 32:12; Luke 18:13).

Because of sin and the curse, pain is inescapable and sorrow appropriate. Although people may respond negatively, sorrow can be a positive part of repentance, developing character (2 Cor. 7:10–11) or demonstrating sympathy to others (Rom. 12:15) as a response to their difficulties. The reality of pain highlights joy and anticipation of Christ’s return (John 16:19–22; Rev. 21:4; cf. Jer. 31:13).

While sorrow may first come from the circumstances or threat of punishment, it is an important component of repentance, as regret over wrongdoing can lead one to change behavior.

A long-legged, long-necked, long-billed bird, over three feet tall, that nests high up in trees or on ledges (Ps. 104:17). The stork is a strong flyer (Job 39:13; Zech. 5:9), and two species, the white stork and the black stork, migrate over Israel (Jer. 8:7). Job 39:13–17 could also refer to the stork’s care for its young; the Hebrew word for “stork,” khasidah, may be derived from khesed, “kindness” or “faithfulness.” Storks are listed as unclean birds (Lev. 11:19; Deut. 14:18).

The Hebrew word for “swift,” sus, may also include swallows and martins. Like them, swifts are fast, agile flyers that nest under ledges. Apart from one species of martin, all birds of this type found in Israel are migratory (Jer. 8:7). The swift’s calls include twittering and a high-pitched scream (Isa. 38:14).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The custom of cutting the foreskin of the male genitalia as a religious rite. The earliest attestation of circumcision is on depictions of West Semitic Syrian warriors unearthed in Syria and Egypt and dating to the third millennium BC. In addition, an Egyptian stela describing a ceremony in which 120 were circumcised has been dated to the twenty-third century BC. Egyptians practiced circumcision, as did the Ammonites, Edomites, Moabites, and nomadic Arabians (Jer. 9:25–26). Philistines, Assyrians, and Gentiles in general were uncircumcised (Judg. 14:3; Ezek. 32:17–32; Eph. 2:11).

Circumcision is first mentioned in the Bible as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Gen. 17:10). God commanded that every male be circumcised at eight days old (Gen. 17:12; cf. 21:4; Lev. 12:3; Luke 1:59; 2:21). Circumcision was required for a male to participate in the Passover (Exod. 12:48) or worship in the temple (Ezek. 44:9; cf. Acts 21:28–29).

Simeon and Levi used circumcision as a ruse to obtain revenge for the rape of their sister Dinah (Gen. 34:13–31). Zipporah redeemed Moses by circumcising her son on their journey back to Egypt (Exod. 4:24–26). At Gilgal, Joshua circumcised the sons of the Israelites who had disbelieved that God could bring them into the Promised Land (Josh. 5:2–8). The sons had not been circumcised during the journey through the wilderness (5:7). Saul demanded a dowry of one hundred Philistine foreskins before David could marry his daughter Michal (1 Sam. 18:25). David doubled the bride-price by providing two hundred (18:27).

Metaphorically, circumcision goes beyond the physical sign (Rom. 2:28). Ultimately, the enemies of God, whether circumcised or not, will be slain and laid in the grave with the uncircumcised (Ezek. 32:32). Physical circumcision is of no avail if the heart remains “uncircumcised” (Jer. 9:25–26; cf. Rom. 2:25). Circumcision of the heart is accomplished when one loves God completely (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Rom. 2:29), but uncircumcised ears are disobedient (Acts 7:51). The circumcision accomplished by Christ occurs when the sinful nature is rejected (Col. 2:11). In him neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value; what counts “is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal. 5:6).

Controversy began in the NT church over whether Gentile believers should be circumcised (Acts 15:1–12). Evidently, a group existed that demanded circumcision (Acts 15:1; Titus 1:10). Paul argued that circumcision was not essential to Christian faith and fellowship (Gal. 6:15; Col. 3:11).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of the more than thirty types of snakes in Israel, six poisonous species are implied in the biblical references to vipers, many of which are metaphors for an enemy (Gen. 49:17; Ps. 140:3; Prov. 23:32; Isa. 14:29). Although God warned of vipers as punishment (Jer. 8:17), there will be a day when they are no longer a threat (Isa. 11:8). When John and Jesus condemned the Pharisees and the Sadducees, they called them a “brood of vipers,” implying that they were lethal foes (Matt. 3:7; 12:34; 23:33).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Numbers 5:11–31 describes a judicial ordeal for determining whether a wife has been unfaithful. In the course of the ritual, the wife suspected of wrongdoing is to drink water mixed with dirt from the floor of the tabernacle, thus made “bitter” (Heb. mar; Num. 5:18), and in which a scroll containing curses has been washed (so that the water also contains the ink of the scroll). In the event that the woman was guilty of unfaithfulness, this concoction was intended to transfer to her body the curses against her. Deuteronomy 21:1–9 may represent a second judicial ordeal involving water, though bitterness is not involved. The names “En Mishpat” (“spring of judgment” [Gen. 14:7]) and “En Rogel” (“spring of inquiry” [e.g., Josh. 15:7]) may also refer to the use of water for divination or ordeal.

Shortly after crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites came to Marah (“bitterness”), where the waters were bitter and not potable. Moses was divinely instructed to throw a piece of wood in the water, rendering it sweet and drinkable (Exod. 15:23–25), the first of several divine provisions of drinking water in the desert. Revelation 8:11 depicts apocalyptic divine judgment in terms of bitter or poisoned water. In both of these passages, bitterness is effected or removed by the combination of wood and water: “wormwood” (Gk. apsinthos, a bitter substance derived from the wood of a particular shrub). The image of Rev. 8:11 recalls a similar divine threat in Jer. 9:15; 23:15.

A broad designation for certain regions in Israel, typically rocky, although also plains, with little rainfall. These areas generally are uninhabited, and most often “wilderness” refers to specific regions surrounding inhabited Israel. A fair amount of Scripture’s focus with respect to the wilderness concerns Israel’s forty-year period of wandering in the wilderness after the exodus (see also Wilderness Wandering).

Geography

More specifically, the geographical locations designated “wilderness” fall into four basic categories: the Negev (south), Transjordan (east), Judean (eastern slope of Judean mountains), and Sinai (southwest).

The Negev makes up a fair amount of Israel’s southern kingdom, Judah. It is very rocky and also includes plateaus and wadis, which are dry riverbeds that can bloom after rains. Its most important city is Beersheba (see Gen. 21:14, 22–34), which often designates Israel’s southernmost border, as in the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” (e.g., 2 Sam. 17:11).

Transjordan pertains to the area east of the Jordan River, the area through which the Israelites had to pass before crossing the Jordan on their way from Mount Sinai to Canaan. (Israel was denied direct passage to Canaan by the Edomites and Amorites [see Num. 20:14–21; 21:21–26]). Even though this region lay outside the promised land of Canaan, it was settled by the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh after they had fulfilled God’s command to fight alongside the other tribes in conquering Canaan (Num. 32:1–42; Josh. 13:8; 22:1–34).

The Judean Desert is located on the eastern slopes of the Judean mountains, toward the Dead Sea. David fled there for refuge from Saul (1 Sam. 21–23). It was also in this area that Jesus was tempted (Luke 4:1–13).

The Sinai Desert is a large peninsula, with the modern-day Gulf of Suez to the west and the Gulf of Aqaba to the east. In the ancient Near Eastern world, both bodies of water often were referred to as the “Red Sea,” which is the larger sea to the south. In addition to the region traditionally believed to contain the location of Mount Sinai (its exact location is unknown), the Sinai Desert is further subdivided into other areas known to readers of the OT: Desert of Zin (northeast, contains Kadesh Barnea), Desert of Shur (northwest, near Egypt), Desert of Paran (central).

Wilderness in the Bible

Wilderness is commonly mentioned in the Bible, and although it certainly can have neutral connotations (i.e., simply describing a location), the uninhabited places often entail both positive (e.g., as a place of solitude) and negative (e.g., as a place of wrath) connotations, both in their actual geological properties and as metaphors. The very rugged and uninhabited nature of the wilderness easily lent itself to being a place of death (e.g., Deut. 8:15; Ps. 107:4–5; Jer. 2:6). It was also a place associated with Israel’s rebellions and struggles with other nations. Upon leaving Egypt, Israel spent forty years wandering the wilderness before entering Canaan, encountering numerous military conflicts along the way. This forty-year period was occasioned by a mass rebellion (Num. 14), hence casting a necessarily dark cloud over that entire period, and no doubt firming up subsequent negative connotations of “wilderness.” Similarly, “wilderness” connotes notions of exile from Israel, as seen in the ritual of the scapegoat (lit., “goat of removal” [see Lev. 16]). On the Day of Atonement, one goat was sacrificed to atone for the people’s sin, and another was sent off, likewise to atone for sin. The scapegoat was released into the desert, where it would encounter certain death, either by succumbing to the climate or through wild animals.

On the other hand, it is precisely in this uninhabited land that God also showed his faithfulness to his people, despite their prolonged punishment. He miraculously supplied bread (manna) and meat (quail) (Exod. 16; Num. 11), as well as water (Exod. 15:22–27; 17:1–7; Num. 20:1–13; 21:16–20). God’s care for Israel is amply summarized in Deut. 1:30–31: “The Lord your God, who is going before you, will fight for you, as he did for you in Egypt, before your very eyes, and in the wilderness. There you saw how the Lord your God carried you, as a father carries his son, all the way you went until you reached this place.”

The harsh realities of the wilderness also made it an ideal place to seek sanctuary and protection. David fled from Saul to the wilderness, the Desert of Ziph (1 Sam. 23:14; 26:2–3; cf. Ps. 55:7). Similarly, Jeremiah sought a retreat in the desert from sinful Israel (Jer. 9:2).

Related somewhat to this last point is Jesus’ own attitude toward the wilderness. It was there that he retreated when he could no longer move about publicly (John 11:54). John the Baptist came from the wilderness announcing Jesus’ ministry (Matt. 3:1–3; Mark 1:2–4; Luke 3:2–6; John 1:23; cf. Isa. 40:3–5). It was also in the desert that Jesus went to be tempted but also overcame that temptation.

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

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

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

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

Burial can refer to the ritual, body preparation, or interment.

Burial rites. Genesis in particular uses some formulaic phrases: “died and was gathered to his people” and “rest with [one’s] fathers/ancestors” (25:8; 35:29; 47:30; 49:33; cf. Job 14:10). In Abraham’s death (Gen. 25:8), this “gathering” does not refer to his actual burial, since it occurs between his death and burial; nor was Abraham ever buried with his ancestors (cf. Num. 20:26 [Aaron]; Deut. 32:50 [Moses]). This idiom refers to joining one’s ancestors in the realm of the dead. With communal notions, the phrase also refers to elements of family burial (similarly, “gathered to your people” [Num. 27:13]; “gathered to their ancestors” [Judg. 2:10]).

In Jacob’s obituary he “gathered up” his feet and then was “gathered” to his people (Gen. 49:33 KJV), rich imagery because he had “gathered” his sons (cf. 49:1). This expression is also used of depositing the human remains in a collective family burial site (Judg. 2:10; 2 Kings 22:20; cf. Jer. 25:33).

In the genealogically sensitive books of Kings and Chronicles a formula is used for the kings: “X rested with his ancestors and was buried in Y.” Here, “Y” can denote a place such as the City of David (1 Kings 2:10; 11:43; 14:31; 2 Chron. 16:13–14). Authors depart from this formula in order to describe a person’s desecration, such as Jezebel; the dogs consumed her except for her skull, hands, and feet (2 Kings 9:37; cf. 1 Kings 21:23–24).

Jacob and Joseph receive specialized Egyptian embalming. Embalming preserved a more holistic persona through use of special fluids and wrappings for seventy days (Gen. 50:2–3, 26). Death usually required immediate burial, even for criminals (Deut. 21:1–9, 22–23; 1 Kings 13:24–30). Outside Israel, the inclusion of grave utensils (e.g., juglets, cooking pots, bowls, and jewelry) with the deceased was indicative of a person’s status and needs in the afterlife. The OT prophets forbade certain practices of mourning such as self-mutilation (Lev. 21:1–6; cf. Amos 6:6–7).

In the NT, burial could include treatment with spices for odorific and purification reasons (Luke 23:56; John 19:40). Placed on a bench (mishkab, “resting place”), the body was covered in wrappings and a special facecloth (John 11:44). Familial respect required demonstration of grief with laments (Acts 8:2; cf. 1 Kings 13:29–30; Jer. 9:17–22).

Specific locations. In the OT, burial occurred in cemeteries, shaft tombs, rock-hewn tombs, or natural caves. The wealthy procured burial sites for their posterity (Gen. 23:3–20). Middle and Late Bronze Age (2200–1200 BC) examples have been excavated at Jericho, Gibeon, and Hazor. In a process known as secondary burial, older remains were moved to a repository in the rear of the cave to clear room for a new corpse (cf. Matt. 8:21–22). Only Rachel was not buried in the cave of Machpelah (Gen. 35:19–20). Her “stone pillar” may be a rock cairn, in which the body is interred beneath a mound of stones. Well-known landmarks, such as trees, identified the graves of others (Gen. 35:8 [Deborah]; 1 Sam. 31:11–13 [Saul]).

Iron Age I sites (1200–1000 BC) could mark tribal territories (Judg. 8:32), like Joseph’s bones at Shechem (Josh. 24:32). Iron Age II sites (1000–586 BC) show the royal tombs of kings in their capitals or ancestral areas, be it a special garden or Samaria (2 Kings 21:18, 26; 13:13). An inscription was found along the Kidron naming the owner, Shebna (Isa. 22:15–16). Such tombs often included a charnel pit. Here, older bones were placed as more recent corpses were laid out on the bench above the pit. The poor usually were consigned to public cemeteries. The Hellenistic period (332–53 BC) saw the use of shaft tombs. With a sloping entry into a burial chamber, a shaft tomb often contained perpendicular niches (kokhim) for individual bodies. These tombs were common along the coastal plain and sites such as Dor, Gezer, and Lachish.

In the intertestamental period, elaborate structures, arcosolia, were built above or adjacent to the entry, such as Jason’s tomb in southwestern Jerusalem. The loculus was a second type with a central chamber and three sprawling kokhim. The Herodian period employed a strategic entrance guarded with a rolling stone four to five feet in diameter, like that used for Jesus. During the Roman period (37 BC–AD 367), stone sarcophagi (lit., “flesh eaters”) were used, and such have been excavated at Beth She’arim and Jerusalem. Later, bones were placed in ossuaries (boxes for bones) after the corpse had decayed in the burial niche.

Burial can refer to the ritual, body preparation, or interment.

Burial rites. Genesis in particular uses some formulaic phrases: “died and was gathered to his people” and “rest with [one’s] fathers/ancestors” (25:8; 35:29; 47:30; 49:33; cf. Job 14:10). In Abraham’s death (Gen. 25:8), this “gathering” does not refer to his actual burial, since it occurs between his death and burial; nor was Abraham ever buried with his ancestors (cf. Num. 20:26 [Aaron]; Deut. 32:50 [Moses]). This idiom refers to joining one’s ancestors in the realm of the dead. With communal notions, the phrase also refers to elements of family burial (similarly, “gathered to your people” [Num. 27:13]; “gathered to their ancestors” [Judg. 2:10]).

In Jacob’s obituary he “gathered up” his feet and then was “gathered” to his people (Gen. 49:33 KJV), rich imagery because he had “gathered” his sons (cf. 49:1). This expression is also used of depositing the human remains in a collective family burial site (Judg. 2:10; 2 Kings 22:20; cf. Jer. 25:33).

In the genealogically sensitive books of Kings and Chronicles a formula is used for the kings: “X rested with his ancestors and was buried in Y.” Here, “Y” can denote a place such as the City of David (1 Kings 2:10; 11:43; 14:31; 2 Chron. 16:13–14). Authors depart from this formula in order to describe a person’s desecration, such as Jezebel; the dogs consumed her except for her skull, hands, and feet (2 Kings 9:37; cf. 1 Kings 21:23–24).

Jacob and Joseph receive specialized Egyptian embalming. Embalming preserved a more holistic persona through use of special fluids and wrappings for seventy days (Gen. 50:2–3, 26). Death usually required immediate burial, even for criminals (Deut. 21:1–9, 22–23; 1 Kings 13:24–30). Outside Israel, the inclusion of grave utensils (e.g., juglets, cooking pots, bowls, and jewelry) with the deceased was indicative of a person’s status and needs in the afterlife. The OT prophets forbade certain practices of mourning such as self-mutilation (Lev. 21:1–6; cf. Amos 6:6–7).

In the NT, burial could include treatment with spices for odorific and purification reasons (Luke 23:56; John 19:40). Placed on a bench (mishkab, “resting place”), the body was covered in wrappings and a special facecloth (John 11:44). Familial respect required demonstration of grief with laments (Acts 8:2; cf. 1 Kings 13:29–30; Jer. 9:17–22).

Specific locations. In the OT, burial occurred in cemeteries, shaft tombs, rock-hewn tombs, or natural caves. The wealthy procured burial sites for their posterity (Gen. 23:3–20). Middle and Late Bronze Age (2200–1200 BC) examples have been excavated at Jericho, Gibeon, and Hazor. In a process known as secondary burial, older remains were moved to a repository in the rear of the cave to clear room for a new corpse (cf. Matt. 8:21–22). Only Rachel was not buried in the cave of Machpelah (Gen. 35:19–20). Her “stone pillar” may be a rock cairn, in which the body is interred beneath a mound of stones. Well-known landmarks, such as trees, identified the graves of others (Gen. 35:8 [Deborah]; 1 Sam. 31:11–13 [Saul]).

Iron Age I sites (1200–1000 BC) could mark tribal territories (Judg. 8:32), like Joseph’s bones at Shechem (Josh. 24:32). Iron Age II sites (1000–586 BC) show the royal tombs of kings in their capitals or ancestral areas, be it a special garden or Samaria (2 Kings 21:18, 26; 13:13). An inscription was found along the Kidron naming the owner, Shebna (Isa. 22:15–16). Such tombs often included a charnel pit. Here, older bones were placed as more recent corpses were laid out on the bench above the pit. The poor usually were consigned to public cemeteries. The Hellenistic period (332–53 BC) saw the use of shaft tombs. With a sloping entry into a burial chamber, a shaft tomb often contained perpendicular niches (kokhim) for individual bodies. These tombs were common along the coastal plain and sites such as Dor, Gezer, and Lachish.

In the intertestamental period, elaborate structures, arcosolia, were built above or adjacent to the entry, such as Jason’s tomb in southwestern Jerusalem. The loculus was a second type with a central chamber and three sprawling kokhim. The Herodian period employed a strategic entrance guarded with a rolling stone four to five feet in diameter, like that used for Jesus. During the Roman period (37 BC–AD 367), stone sarcophagi (lit., “flesh eaters”) were used, and such have been excavated at Beth She’arim and Jerusalem. Later, bones were placed in ossuaries (boxes for bones) after the corpse had decayed in the burial niche.

Burial can refer to the ritual, body preparation, or interment.

Burial rites. Genesis in particular uses some formulaic phrases: “died and was gathered to his people” and “rest with [one’s] fathers/ancestors” (25:8; 35:29; 47:30; 49:33; cf. Job 14:10). In Abraham’s death (Gen. 25:8), this “gathering” does not refer to his actual burial, since it occurs between his death and burial; nor was Abraham ever buried with his ancestors (cf. Num. 20:26 [Aaron]; Deut. 32:50 [Moses]). This idiom refers to joining one’s ancestors in the realm of the dead. With communal notions, the phrase also refers to elements of family burial (similarly, “gathered to your people” [Num. 27:13]; “gathered to their ancestors” [Judg. 2:10]).

In Jacob’s obituary he “gathered up” his feet and then was “gathered” to his people (Gen. 49:33 KJV), rich imagery because he had “gathered” his sons (cf. 49:1). This expression is also used of depositing the human remains in a collective family burial site (Judg. 2:10; 2 Kings 22:20; cf. Jer. 25:33).

In the genealogically sensitive books of Kings and Chronicles a formula is used for the kings: “X rested with his ancestors and was buried in Y.” Here, “Y” can denote a place such as the City of David (1 Kings 2:10; 11:43; 14:31; 2 Chron. 16:13–14). Authors depart from this formula in order to describe a person’s desecration, such as Jezebel; the dogs consumed her except for her skull, hands, and feet (2 Kings 9:37; cf. 1 Kings 21:23–24).

Jacob and Joseph receive specialized Egyptian embalming. Embalming preserved a more holistic persona through use of special fluids and wrappings for seventy days (Gen. 50:2–3, 26). Death usually required immediate burial, even for criminals (Deut. 21:1–9, 22–23; 1 Kings 13:24–30). Outside Israel, the inclusion of grave utensils (e.g., juglets, cooking pots, bowls, and jewelry) with the deceased was indicative of a person’s status and needs in the afterlife. The OT prophets forbade certain practices of mourning such as self-mutilation (Lev. 21:1–6; cf. Amos 6:6–7).

In the NT, burial could include treatment with spices for odorific and purification reasons (Luke 23:56; John 19:40). Placed on a bench (mishkab, “resting place”), the body was covered in wrappings and a special facecloth (John 11:44). Familial respect required demonstration of grief with laments (Acts 8:2; cf. 1 Kings 13:29–30; Jer. 9:17–22).

Specific locations. In the OT, burial occurred in cemeteries, shaft tombs, rock-hewn tombs, or natural caves. The wealthy procured burial sites for their posterity (Gen. 23:3–20). Middle and Late Bronze Age (2200–1200 BC) examples have been excavated at Jericho, Gibeon, and Hazor. In a process known as secondary burial, older remains were moved to a repository in the rear of the cave to clear room for a new corpse (cf. Matt. 8:21–22). Only Rachel was not buried in the cave of Machpelah (Gen. 35:19–20). Her “stone pillar” may be a rock cairn, in which the body is interred beneath a mound of stones. Well-known landmarks, such as trees, identified the graves of others (Gen. 35:8 [Deborah]; 1 Sam. 31:11–13 [Saul]).

Iron Age I sites (1200–1000 BC) could mark tribal territories (Judg. 8:32), like Joseph’s bones at Shechem (Josh. 24:32). Iron Age II sites (1000–586 BC) show the royal tombs of kings in their capitals or ancestral areas, be it a special garden or Samaria (2 Kings 21:18, 26; 13:13). An inscription was found along the Kidron naming the owner, Shebna (Isa. 22:15–16). Such tombs often included a charnel pit. Here, older bones were placed as more recent corpses were laid out on the bench above the pit. The poor usually were consigned to public cemeteries. The Hellenistic period (332–53 BC) saw the use of shaft tombs. With a sloping entry into a burial chamber, a shaft tomb often contained perpendicular niches (kokhim) for individual bodies. These tombs were common along the coastal plain and sites such as Dor, Gezer, and Lachish.

In the intertestamental period, elaborate structures, arcosolia, were built above or adjacent to the entry, such as Jason’s tomb in southwestern Jerusalem. The loculus was a second type with a central chamber and three sprawling kokhim. The Herodian period employed a strategic entrance guarded with a rolling stone four to five feet in diameter, like that used for Jesus. During the Roman period (37 BC–AD 367), stone sarcophagi (lit., “flesh eaters”) were used, and such have been excavated at Beth She’arim and Jerusalem. Later, bones were placed in ossuaries (boxes for bones) after the corpse had decayed in the burial niche.

Cosmetics were well known to the ancient Near Eastern world, as both men and women used various substances to care for their skin, make themselves more attractive, and cover up odor. The most common forms of cosmetics were ointments or oils, though many types of applicators and containers have been found in the archaeological remnants of the ancient societies.

The sources of the various ointments and pigments ranged from the use of minerals to the manipulation of by-products from agricultural wares. Different clays rich in iron oxide could be manipulated through the application of heat or water to produce colors, including yellow, red, brown, and purple. The clay was mined and then washed, dried, and heated to enhance the color. Other minerals that provided color included lead carbonate (white), malachite (green), lead sulphate (black), and manganese (shades of violet). Agricultural products such as seeds, olives, nuts, gourds, trees, and plant leaves provided a source for oils and ointments, as did animal and fish fats. Fragrances were collected from flowers, herbs, seeds, and leaves.

The containers for the various substances were as varied as the essences themselves. Powder perfumes were kept in boxes, and the liquid forms were kept in alabaster jars or glass bottles. Small bowls with wide rims or flat palettes made of clay or stone were used for pigments. Flasks could be made from ivory, bronze, wood, or bone. Applicators used these same items, as well as hair from various animals.

Cosmetics also played an important role in perceptions of wealth because many of them had to be imported from foreign lands. At times perfumes and cosmetics rivaled even silver and gold in value. The kings of Judah kept them in their treasure houses (2 Kings 20:13), and part of the tribute from the Queen of Sheba to Solomon included spices probably intended to be used for cosmetic purposes (1 Kings 10:2, 10). The cosmetics mentioned in the Bible and the instruments related to them were imported from Syria, Arabia, Egypt, Africa, Mesopotamia, and farther east into Persia.

Ointments served a dual purpose: protecting the skin in the harsh arid conditions of the Near East and providing hygiene. Part of Naomi’s instructions to Ruth as she prepared to go and meet Boaz was to put on oil (Ruth 3:3), and Esther reports that application of such oils was part of the beauty treatments that the king’s harem received (Esther 2:12). Apparently because of the refreshment that it provided (Prov. 27:9), in NT times application of ointment and oils was considered a sign of hospitality (Luke 7:37–50).

Although painting one’s eyes could be viewed as a sign of a woman with low morals (Ezek. 23:40), the purpose of such paints was more generally beautification (Jer. 4:30), and other ancient texts suggest that the practice had the added feature of discouraging flies from landing around moist areas of the eyes. Imagery from antiquity indicates the use of black, green, yellow, and red pigments to adorn the eyes.

The close relationship between the activities of anointing for purposes of hygiene and beauty and anointing for service should not be missed. Being sanctified to God often carried with it the imagery of being a pleasing aroma. Furthermore, the act of anointing was seen to have a cleansing purpose as well (Matt. 6:17). Perfumes played a role in worship (Exod. 30:34–38; Ps. 141:2; Isa. 60:6), and the imagery of cosmetics was sometimes used as a representation of God’s forgiveness and grace (Jer. 8:22).

The Bible contains two kinds of statements related to proper conduct. Some of them describe the nature of God, the sort of world he created, and what he has done for particular groups of people. It also contains statements telling us what we ought to do, both as creatures of this God and, in some instances, as the unique beneficiaries of his redemptive activity. Consequently, the Bible sets forth a moral viewpoint or ethical system, supported by reasons that justify its content and urgency. The writers of Scripture were not moral philosophers, outlining their position in technical detail; nevertheless, they intended to reveal what pleases our God and Savior, so that the saints are “thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). The Bible, therefore, is the foundational resource for moral discernment, the definitive statement of what Christians must do and who they must become.

The Sources of Moral Knowledge

Scripture identifies two sources of moral knowledge. First, all human beings have the law of God “written on their hearts” (Rom. 2:15). We have a conscience, a God-given awareness of right and wrong that acquits or convicts us, depending on how we respond to it. The fall of humankind has damaged this source of knowledge, and our consciences can become “seared” through chronic disobedience and doctrinal treason (1 Tim. 4:2). We do not, therefore, see infallibly what our duties are. Nevertheless, the apostle Paul argues that every human being knows enough of God’s law—and indeed, enough about his nature as God—to eliminate every defense on judgment day (Rom. 1:18–20). No one will be able to say to God in that hour, “I had no idea who you were and no hint of what you expected of me.”

Second, as noted above, we have the Bible as a source of knowledge, this one being fully adequate and sufficiently clear to guide our choices. Knowing Scripture is necessary for Christian ethics because it offers a high-definition view of what conscience can (even in its best moments) scarcely grasp. The Bible proclaims not only what the church must do, often in straightforward, concrete terms, but also (at least, in many cases) why God’s will has its particular content and why obedience is an emergency, not a safely deferred, improvement project. The Bible does not, and really could not, answer every ethical question put to it in unambiguous detail. New technologies and cultural shifts have created dilemmas unimagined in the first century or any previous age. But the church can be assured that a faithful reading of and response to Scripture will, by the grace of God, please him even today, whatever our particular circumstances.

The Logic of Biblical Morality

The moral teaching of Scripture has an identifiable structure consisting of duties and final objectives. When we obey God’s commandments, which is our duty, his ultimate goals or objectives in creating us are realized. In this sense, biblical morality is complete and informative compared to systems derived from other worldviews. It explains what life is all about, but also what we must do from day to day. This entire picture emerges from Scripture because its theological statements are always practically applied and never presented with merely theoretical interest.

The objectives of biblical morality. The objectives of an ethical system are its final ends or purposes: the results that obedience is supposed to yield. In the Bible, two objectives have this ultimate significance, one being the anticipated side effect of the other.

To glorify God. The biblical writers proclaim the spectacular goodness of God. He is maximally excellent in all ways as the Creator, including wisdom, power, justice, and love. He is the holy God who, almost in spite of that fact, loves us and gave his Son, Jesus, to suffer for our sins so that we might live eternally in his presence. In these respects, God stands alone, not simply in experience but necessarily so. No one ever has, and no one ever could, be like him. Thus, the final objective of all human striving must be to glorify this God—to know him, to praise him, and to value what he values. Our actions must testify to his excellence, honoring him and encouraging others to do likewise. Obedience treasures what God treasures, shuns what he abhors, and allows his power to work in our lives, causing us to live in unity with our fellow believers. These patterns of behavior define what it means to glorify God.

To be happy in God’s presence. The second goal or objective of biblical morality is to be happy in ways that are proper for God’s creatures. In this sense, the Christian system of ethics differs from moral theories that either reject happiness altogether, viewing it as an unworthy goal, or else reduce it to a merely practical necessity—that is, we sinners need our incentives. On the contrary, the God of Scripture plainly desires our happiness and often presents himself as the final source of it when calling his people to obedience. This tendency follows from the perfect goodness of God and his freedom in creating all things. He did not have to make anything else, but he did so; and because he has no needs, his purposes must have been selfless rather than selfish. He created in order to give rather than to get, and the very best he desires for any of us is the happiness that results from our glorifying him together, as one body in Christ. Likewise, then, biblical morality differs from ethical systems that make human happiness an intrinsic good, so that any means to it is acceptable. God wants us to be happy, but our happiness must come from bringing him glory. All other forms of happiness are deceptive and transitory. The heavenly scenes of the book of Revelation show the church what happiness God has in store for them if they overcome the trials of this life (so, e.g., Rev. 4–5; 7; 21–22; cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; Heb. 12:2).

The means of biblical morality. Not surprisingly, the Bible also shows us how to glorify God—how to reflect his majesty in our daily lives, how to praise him, and how to value what he values. Within the whole of this teaching, several major themes can be discerned, five leading examples of which appear below, allowing some overlap between them.

Trusting in God’s promises. Biblical faith is the confidence that God will do for us what he has promised. We believe that he can and will meet our needs and not allow us to endure pointless suffering. When we trust him, we proclaim his greatness and acknowledge our own dependence upon him. Both Rom. 4 and Heb. 11 make this point in ways that reflect upon OT history with an application to the present Christian life. The gospel is a promise concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; and faith assures us that God will reckon these events to our account. Conversely, we often violate God’s commandments because we doubt that he will give us what we need when we need it (so, e.g., Abraham’s capitulation to Sarah in Gen. 16, with its corresponding negative results).

Keeping holiness and impurity separated. God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect Creator of the universe. All things depend on him for their existence, and he is extreme both in his commitment to justice and his desire to love. Consequently, God’s creatures encounter him as “holy,” as the ominously transcendent or dangerously perfect deity. He stands alone, apart from everything else, and life in his presence cannot entail business as usual. The shorthand way of expressing this duty is to say that we ourselves must be holy, as he is holy, by shunning all forms of impurity. In this way, for example, the ancient Israelites prepared themselves to enter Yahweh’s presence and gave him public honor (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; Ps. 24:3–4; Isa. 6:1–5; cf. 1 Pet. 1:15–16).

In Scripture, the distinction between the pure and the impure, or the holy and the unholy, is sometimes intrinsic and sometimes pedagogical. Breaking any of the Ten Commandments makes one intrinsically impure. It is always evil, everywhere, for anyone to have other gods, make idols, and disrespect parents. It is evil to lie, steal, and murder. Even breaking the Sabbath is wrong if it expresses unbelief in God’s ability and willingness to provide. But some lines between purity and impurity—or, in other cases, just between the sacred and the common—seem to be drawn by God for instructional purposes only. They do not separate good from evil as such, but they compel the Israelites to “practice Yahweh’s presence” by honoring boundaries imposed on domestic life. It is not evil to eat pork, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and permitted in the NT (Lev. 11:7; Mark 7:19). It is not evil to wear blended cloth, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and passed over in the NT (Lev. 19:19). Therefore, as suggested, Levitical rules of this kind must have had some instrumental purpose, serving an objective beyond themselves. They impose the holiness of Yahweh on everyday choices, as the Holy Spirit now presses the claims of God upon his church. This separation of impurity and holiness is, in any case, a constant theme in the OT, and it carries over into the NT as well, where it informs the question “What must I do to be saved?” (cf. Acts 16:30).

Imitating God/Christ. The biblical writers also construe the moral life as an imitation of God and/or Christ, especially when the virtues of mercy, humility, and endurance are at stake. In the OT, Yahweh’s behavior toward people becomes the standard for Israel’s own conduct. So, for example, he says, “But let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight” (Jer. 9:24). In the NT, similar inferences appear, as when Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matt. 5:9), the son being one who follows in his father’s footsteps. We must love our enemies, so that we may be “children of (our) Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:44–45). We must “be perfect,” as he is perfect (Matt. 5:48). Jesus commands his disciples to wash one another’s feet, after his own example (John 13:14–15). They must love each other as he has loved them (John 15:12). The new commandment to love one another, following the Lord’s example, puts on display his character and their own relationship to him (13:34–35). Jesus prays that his disciples will be “one,” just as the Father and the Son are one (17:22). Paul’s hymn in Phil. 2:5–11 serves this purpose: we must imitate the humility that surrendered all, even to the point of crucifixion. Hebrews 12:1–2 holds up Christ as one who “for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame,” resulting in his glory.

Living out our unique identity. Scripture defines the moral ideal for all persons, whoever they are, because its perspective is not relativistic. Murder, idolatry, and lying are not wrong for some and right for others. Nevertheless, most of the Bible’s moral teaching has a target audience, so that it often contains inferences to this effect: “You shall do X (or doing X is urgent for you), either (a) because you belong to God in a special way or (b) because he has done this special thing for you.” In the OT, the target audience is Israel; in the NT, the corresponding group is the church. In both Testaments, however, the same ethical particularism operates, thereby giving the moral exhortations of Paul and Peter, to cite two clear examples, a recognizably “Jewish” structure or theme.

The linkage between gift and task, or supernatural identity and behavior, is the basic structure of the Sinai covenant itself. The text moves from prologue, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt,” to moral exhortation, beginning with, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:1–3; Deut. 5:6–7). Echoes of this prologue also occur frequently in the OT as motive clauses. God will say, in effect, “You shall do X, for I am the Lord your God,” or “You shall not do Y, for I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt.” In some cases, the motive clause identifies the people themselves, as in, “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Deut. 7:6). Or again, “You are the children of the Lord your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, for you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession” (Deut. 14:1–2). In some cases, God refers to the people’s unique condition to shame them, as in, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me” (Hos. 11:1–2). Loyalty was especially urgent, given Israel’s experience of God’s particular love.

In the NT, the mandate to live out one’s special identity appears often, especially (though not exclusively) in the writings of Paul and Peter. In Rom. 6 those who have been emancipated from sin must resist its waning influence. In Rom. 8 those who are under the Holy Spirit’s new management must walk in accordance with him and shun the mind-set of the flesh. The Corinthians have become an unleavened batch of dough; therefore, they must “Get rid of the old yeast,” which tolerates extraordinary sin (1 Cor. 5). The members of Christ’s one body are to function as one new humanity (1 Cor. 12:12–31). If the Galatians live by the Spirit, they must also walk by the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). Peter tells his readers to love one another because they have been “born again” of “imperishable seed” (1 Pet. 1:22–23). They are a “chosen race,” a “royal priesthood,” and a “holy nation”; therefore, they must proclaim his excellence and abstain from carnal passions (1 Pet. 2:9–11). Jesus himself says that because he is the vine and we are the branches, we must abide in him (John 15:1–11). In all these cases, the target audience has a special relationship to God that imposes on them corresponding duties or priorities, so that they reflect his holiness, value what he values, and attain the goals that he has set before them.

Living in unity with one another. The first sin separated God from humankind and damaged all other relationships (Gen. 3). From that point onward, Adam and Eve would live in tension (Gen. 3:16), and their son Cain kills his brother Abel (Gen. 4:8). Disunity results from sin; and in some cases, God scatters sinners as judgment on their wickedness (e.g., Gen. 11:1–9; 1 Kings 11). It is “good and pleasant” when “God’s people live together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), and obedience to OT teaching would make them do so. Nevertheless, sin stands between Yahweh and his people, and it stands between one Israelite and another. Disunity, in all these dimensions, is the unfinished business of the OT story.

The NT presents unity as both an effect and a duty (or a gift and a task) of the new life in Christ. We are one in Christ, and we must live in unity of fellowship with one another. Jews and Gentiles—indeed, people from all walks of life—become one body, a new kind of people, defined by relationships that are “thicker than blood,” so to speak, as blood is thicker than water. Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, enforces this theme throughout his letters, so that his exhortations concentrate on the church, in the first instance, rather than the individual. Christians must display the social virtues of love and humility, resisting selfish ambition and pride, both of which separate believer from believer and each from the head of the church, who is Christ. Romans and Ephesians make a positive case for Christian unity among Jews and Gentiles, while Philippians (perhaps, in a broader sense, also Galatians and Colossians) confronts a divisive tendency. The essential vice denounced in 1–2 Corinthians is arrogant grandstanding, which rejects Paul’s “message of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18) and subdivides the church into cults of personality. Worldly forces are centrifugal, leading us away from one another and into competition for influence, wealth, and public honor. In contrast, the Holy Spirit’s force is centripetal, creating unity where no one would expect it and leading each person to self-sacrifice so that others in the body of Christ might be built up in him.

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

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

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

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

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

A compound of aromatic spices closely related to the daily life of Israel. It became synonymous with “frankincense” at a later time. Aromatic spices were used in Israel for cosmetics (Prov. 7:17; Song 5:5) and for medical (Jer. 8:22; 46:11; 51:8) purposes but occupied a special place in Israelite worship when used as incense. Incense was professionally compounded (Exod. 30:34–35) and was offered on the golden altar by the high priest twice a day (Exod. 30:7–8; cf. Luke 1:8–11) and on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:12–13; cf. 10:1–2). As the incense burned, its sweet fragrance filled the sanctuary, forming an atmospheric curtain to protect the sanctuary and to characterize it as God’s private domain (Isa. 6:4). Prayers offered with the smoke of the incense guaranteed acceptance by God (Deut. 33:10; cf. Gen. 8:21; Exod. 29:18; Ezek. 20:41). In Ps. 141:2, prayers are said to ascend to God like incense, providing a background to the book of Revelation, where incense represents the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8; 8:3–4).

Terminology

The word “law,” often referred to as “Torah,” occurs 220 times in the OT and derives from a Hebrew root that means “to teach or instruct.” Biblical law is the body of instructions or teachings that serve to govern and maintain the covenant relationship between God and Israel. The distinctive relationship that Israel enjoyed with God was unparalleled in the ancient Near East. Unlike the Gentile nations, Israel received from Yahweh an instrument outlining his expectations of them, a set of guidelines by which to sustain that covenant relationship (Deut. 4:6–8). Outside the OT, the “Torah” or “Law” often refers to the first five books of the Bible, called the “Pentateuch” (Matt. 5:17–18; Luke 2:22). Second Temple Judaism commonly referred to the Pentateuch in this way.

The term “Torah” is not limited to cultic or ceremonial practice, but embraces civil and social law. In addition, the Torah refers to the prophetic word and more broadly incorporates the idea of parental instruction. The Hebrew word torah is employed in a variety of expressions, variously rendered in English versions: “the law” (Deut. 1:5; 4:8, 44; 2 Kings 23:24), the “Book of the Law” (Deut. 28:61; 29:21; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 22:8), the “Book of the Law of Moses” (Josh. 8:31; 23:6), the “law of Moses” (Josh. 8:32; 1 Kings 2:3), the “Book of the Law of God” (Josh. 24:26), and the “law of the Lord” (2 Kings 10:31)—all of these indicate the divine origin of the instructions or reinforce the association of the Torah with Moses as Israel’s mediator. The OT notes that Moses “wrote a Book of the Law,” which was placed by the ark for reference (Deut. 31:26) and read aloud every seven years, during the Feast of Tabernacles, to all the assembly (Deut. 31:9–13). The book is not mentioned again until its discovery in the temple during the reign of King Josiah (2 Kings 22:8). The discovery of the book initiated a religious reform by Josiah that focused on the centralization of worship and the destruction of idols.

The OT employs a number of close synonyms for “law,” including “commandments,” “testimony,” “judgments,” “statutes,” “ordinances,” “decrees,” and “precepts.” Each of these terms reflects varying nuances or particular aspects of the divine instruction. Unfortunately, all these words as translated into English subtly misrepresent the “law” as an odious external set of rules that inhibit human freedom and require punishment for disobedience. This perspective suggests that obedience to the divine law was coerced by the threat of divine judgment. Contrary to this misconception, the people of Israel rejoiced in following Yahweh’s instructions because their greatest desire was to please and live in harmony with him. Yahweh’s people enjoyed the privilege of receiving divine revelation consisting of directions that assured divine favor. Although perfect adherence to these instructions proved to be an impossible task, Yahweh’s covenant stipulations provided an ideal toward which his people were expected to make progress as they constantly strived to fulfill that ideal. The Torah in its broadest sense reflects a verbal expression of the character, nature, and will of God.

Types of Law

In general, Torah may be subdivided into three categories: judicial, ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlap with the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah” with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19–23) following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt, though some body of customary legislation existed before this time (Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation in other pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24, indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code of conduct and worship for Israel not only during its wilderness wanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan following the conquest.

More specifically, the word “law” often denotes the Ten Commandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “ten words”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered to Moses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandments reflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided into two parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which they were first recorded: the first four address the individual’s relationship to God, and the last six focus on instructions concerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplistic expression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelines extends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any and all incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thing forbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing the prohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice its opposite good in order to be in compliance.

Judicial law. The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), closely associated with the Ten Commandments, immediately follows the Decalogue and may be subdivided into casuistic, or “case,” law (21:2–22:17) and a variety of miscellaneous laws, many which are apodictic, or absolute, commands. The divine instructions cannot address an infinite range of circumstances; consequently, the casuistic laws describe the judicial process in light of general situations, which form the precedence upon which future specific judgments can be made. Apodictic instructions, generally identified by imperatives or volitional forms, set forth a strict prohibition followed by the consequences of disobedience. Government in early Israelite history revolved around the authoritative decisions of judges, who declared a verdict based on custom or precedent (Exod. 18:13–27). The moral emphasis of the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant provides the underlying theological reasons for obeying God’s law and forms an important part of the ethical foundation of pentateuchal discussions and elaborations of law.

Ceremonial law. Ceremonial, or cultic, law includes the instructions guiding the construction and preparation of the tabernacle for worship combined with the Levitical guidelines dictating the proper execution of ritual sacrifice and cultic practice. The significance of the tabernacle as a portable sanctuary of Yahweh and its integral connection with God’s promise to dwell among the Israelites are reinforced by the tabernacle’s association with the appearance of Yahweh at Sinai and the inauguration of the covenant. The tabernacle becomes the place where the people meet God through a mediator and seek continued divine favor through ritual purification, sacrifice, and atonement.

Leviticus systematically outlines the procedure for priestly selection and succession, details the consecration of cultic vessels and priests, describes conditions for participation and the celebration of sacred festivals (Lev. 16; 23–25), and addresses other issues such as blasphemy, sexual behavior, and false prophecy. The sacrificial regulations cover sin offerings (6:25), guilt offerings (7:1, 7), burnt offerings (6:9), grain offerings (6:14), and fellowship offerings (7:11). The book of Leviticus also provides extensive instruction concerning the designation of “clean” (consecrated) and “unclean” (profane), reinforcing the separateness of God’s chosen people (e.g., 11:46; 12:7; 13:59; 14:2, 32; 15:32–33). Uncircumcised foreigners were excluded from participation in Israel’s sacred assemblies.

Moral law. Economic hardship presented numerous challenges in Israelite society that were resolved through laws concerning debt and slavery. A series of laws sought to protect the property and rights of those indebted to creditors (Exod. 22:25–27; Deut. 24:6, 10–13; 2 Kings 4:1; Amos 2:8). Those who were enslaved in order to compensate for their debts had to be released after six years of service (Exod. 21:2, 11; Deut. 15:12–18). Property and persons who were turned over to creditors could often be redeemed (Lev. 25:25–28, 47–55). Those who harvested crops were instructed to leave the corners of fields and the remnants of crops for gleaning by the poor (Deut. 24:19–22; Ruth 2:2–6). The systematic mistreatment of the marginalized in society led to widespread corruption among the judiciary, angering Yahweh and leading to the exile (Isa. 1:15–17; Amos 2:6–7; 11–13). It is clear that this type of law was reenacted during the postexilic period (Neh. 5:1–13; Jer. 34:8–16).

Torah in Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

OT wisdom literature develops the concept of Torah as human instruction for daily living, underscoring the dynamic character of the law and its permeation of all areas of life. Vigilant obedience to the law results in wise and godly conduct. In Proverbs, the son is admonished by the father to obey the Torah (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 6:23), and the pupil is instructed by the teacher to respect the law (13:13) and to resist the company of those who do not obey the Torah (28:4), with such observance resulting in God’s blessings (29:18) and answers to prayer (28:9). The wise woman familiarizes herself with the Torah because the responsibility for instruction of her household lies with her (31:26).

The book of Psalms contains three compositions typically classified as Torah psalms (1; 19; 119). In Ps. 1 continual reflection on the Torah manifests itself in the prosperity and the wisdom of the obedient. Psalm 19 celebrates the benefits of keeping the Torah, including wisdom, joy, enlightenment, life, and moral discernment. In a lengthy acrostic arranged according to the Hebrew alphabet, Ps. 119 exploits the attitudes, effects, and practicality of the Torah as exemplified in the life of the faithful.

In the prophetic material, Torah refers to teaching administered in the name of Yahweh, either by the priests or the prophets. Moral decline, manifested by the social injustice of Israel’s leader-ship coupled with idolatry and syncretistic worship, was directly attributed to the failure of the priests to uphold the Torah and their negligence in instructing the community (Jer. 2:8; 8:8; Ezek. 7:26; 22:26; Hos. 8:1–12; Amos 2:4). The prophetic emphasis on justice and righteousness as characteristic qualities of God’s people highlights the importance placed on fair and equitable treatment (e.g., Isa. 5:23–24; 26:1–11; 48:17–19; 58:6–9; 59:9–14). The Torah provided the authoritative point of departure in the composition of prophetic messages and teachings, undergirding the authority and genuineness of the prophetic proclamations and exhortations to the contemporary audience. The messages of the prophets were in fact not new, but were simply the adaptation and transformation of pentateuchal texts already generally accepted by the community as authoritative.

Biblical Law and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

Biblical law did not develop in isolation from other legal systems; rather, it appears to follow long-established, widespread, and standardized patterns of Mesopotamian law. A persuasive number of parallels between customs and familial relationships addressed in the Nuzi tablets and archaic elements in the patriarchal narratives seem to suggest that the patriarchs operated under Hurrian law. The Nuzi tablets clarify the subjects of adoption, marriage, and economic transactions, apparently exerting an influence on the lives of the early OT patriarchs. The wife-sister accounts of Abram and Isaac, in which the marriage eligibility of Sarai and Rebekah arise (Gen. 12; 26), as well as Abraham’s proposed adoption of his servant Eliezer as an heir (Gen. 15:2–4) and his siring of Ishmael through Sarai’s servant Hagar (Gen. 16), reflect customary practice described in these documents.

A vast range of legal documents regulating judicial procedures provides material for comparative analysis with biblical texts. Included among these discoveries are a number of law collections, generally named after the ruler who commissioned them. Archaeologists have uncovered evidence, from as early as the twenty-first century BC, of two surviving Sumerian legal collections affirming the ancient origins of societal governance. The Laws of King Ur-Nammu, recorded during the last great period of Sumerian literacy (2111–2095 BC), are preserved in scribal copies from Nippur dated between 1800 and 1700 BC and consist of a fragment and two partial stone tablets. Written in a casuistic format, the texts attest to twenty-nine stipulations, including legislation addressing weights and measures; protections for widows, orphans, and the impoverished; sexual offenses; marital laws; slavery; false testimony; and property abuses.

A second Sumerian law collection dating from the nineteenth century BC, that of King Lipit-Ishtar, the fifth ruler of the Isin dynasty in lower Mesopotamia, consists of a prologue, thirty-eight wholly or partially restored laws, and an epilogue. These laws, bequeathed to Lipit-Ishtar by the Sumerian deities Anu and Enlil in order to “establish justice in the land,” represent civil laws governing business practices, slavery, property, family, and inadvertent injury to an individual. What appear to be an additional thirty-eight laws, comprising the second half of the code, have been destroyed along with part of the prologue. All these laws were recorded in a casuistic format.

The Laws of Eshnunna, written in Akkadian, consist of two tablets containing approximately sixty different laws. The authorship and date of origin remain unknown, but historians suggest that this law collection, which has no prologue or epilogue, was contemporary with the Code of Hammurabi (1728–1686 BC). Though written in a casuistic format, this artifact assigns penalties on the basis of social status.

The Code of Hammurabi, named for the sixth of eleven kings of the Old Babylonian dynasty, is perhaps the most famous and most complete of the ancient Mesopotamian collections. In 1902, French archaeologists discovered the code on a black diorite stela, nearly eight feet tall, in what was ancient Susa. Multiple copies of the code have been preserved. Written in Akkadian cuneiform, the law collection consists of 282 legal paragraphs created to promote public welfare and the cause of justice. The format of the code, which includes a prologue, an epilogue, and a category of cursings for disobedience and blessings for obedience, closely mirrors the structure of the book of Deuteronomy. The casuistic format addresses laws governing public order and individual private law. The penalties prescribed for capital offenses, of which there were thirty, were harsh and often cruel, including bodily mutilation, multiple punishments, and vicarious punishment. Retaliatory consequences for the protection of private property were exceptionally cruel, taking the form of torture or excessive fines. Often, those who were presumed guilty would be thrown into the river; survival indicated innocence, while drowning demonstrated guilt. A predominant feature was the lex talionis (the law of retaliation, or measure for measure), whereby a corresponding penalty was exacted against the offender based on the crime. For instance, if a child was killed, the death of the offender’s child was required. Capital crimes included theft of property and adultery. Contrary to biblical law, Hammurabi’s code made financial provision for the loss of life, whereas in the OT the value of life was immeasurable.

The argument from silence suggests that in the absence of a full biblical law code, legal instructions and stipulations in the biblical text consist primarily of codicil emendations, that is, additions and innovations to already existing laws. For example, the discussion on divorce in Deut. 21 describes the execution of a document without giving details concerning the content or form of such a document. The passage also mentions a yet undiscovered “book of divorce.” The absence of legal material on commercial and business law as well as specifics concerning inheritance and other common subjects points to a more comprehensive body of unwritten law reflecting preexisting societal norms. Israelite society was therefore indebted to its Mesopotamian predecessors for its implementation of law as a means of protecting citizens, and for many legal provisions eventually adapted by the biblical text.

The Character of Biblical Law

Although Israelite law was in some ways influenced by the legal codes of other ancient Near Eastern cultures, biblical law retained a distinct identity centered on the relationship between Yahweh and his chosen people. Law in the OT is presented not as secular instruction but rather as divine pronouncement, receiving its authority as an expression of the divine will. The entirety of the divine instruction originates with God, and he is both author and guarantor of the covenant with his people. The people of Israel, then, are held responsible to God for their actions and not just to a legislative body or human ruler. The will of the Israelite is wholly surrendered to the will of God to such a degree that every aspect of an individual’s life is inextricably connected to the divine teachings. God assigns the stipulations and requirements of the law to the entire corporate body of Israel. The responsibility for covenant fidelity does not lie solely with the community leadership; rather, it is shared by every individual in the community, whose dual role includes ensuring both the fair execution of justice in the community and personal observance of the law. God’s instructions are proclaimed publicly and apply equally to all social strata without distinction, apart from specific direction concerning slaves.

Torah becomes the corpus of teaching directed toward the entire community. The didactic purpose of the law is evident by the motive clauses appended to many apodictic and casuistic instructions that elaborate on the ethical, religious, or historical reasons for covenant faithfulness. The pedagogical aim serves to appeal to the Israelite conscience as a means of motivating obedience. In addition, the teaching that humanity is created in the divine image reinforces the sacredness of human life as a foundational concern of the law. Religious rather than economic values prevail, eliminating the death penalty for all property crimes. Individual culpability predominates in the biblical corpus, abolishing the notion of vicarious punishment advocated in extrabiblical legislation. Each offender pays the consequences of his or her behavior. Each person, created by God and enjoying equal status with all others, receives fair and equitable treatment.

The Law and the New Testament

The contemporary significance of the Torah is recognized in the NT by Jesus’ declaration that his incarnation served to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17). He affirms the continued legitimacy of the law (Matt. 5:19) and appeals to the law as the governing authority for proper practice and behavior (Matt. 12:6, 42; Luke 4:1–11; Mark 7:9–12; 10:17–19).

The relationship between gospel and law in both Testaments demonstrates far greater continuity than is recognized by many Christians. Covenant theologians affirm that the Mosaic law described a “covenant of works,” which functions differently from the NT’s “covenant of grace,” while dispensationalists often teach that grace supersedes and abolishes the demands of the law. The conditional nature of the Mosaic covenant differs from that of the Abrahamic covenant, since the unconditional promise of the Abrahamic covenant suggests that the blessings promised to Abraham and his seed would be realized not because of human obedience but rather through divine fidelity (Gal. 3:15–27). The Mosaic covenant, or covenant of law, is not contrary to the promises of God (Gal. 3:21); instead, God graciously entered into relationship with the people of Israel, redeemed them from Egypt, and then gave them the law so that they would respond in humble obedience to his redeeming work. Thus, Mosaic law provided through a mediator a way for God to reveal himself to Israel. Consequently, the idea that Israelite religion was legalistic is mistaken. It did not teach that one could earn salvation by “keeping the law”; rather, an individual entered into the covenant with God by grace. When God established the covenant with his people, he forgave their sins. He did not demand a certain level of attainment as a prerequisite for entering into that relationship, nor did Israel have to obey the law perfectly in order to achieve salvation. Instead, the covenantal arrangement instituted a means of forgiveness through the sacrificial system, making the removal of the barrier of sin available to the people. Israel’s obedience to the law was a response to God’s gracious and redeeming work. Law and covenant were complementary.

Ongoing discussions explore the question concerning the relevance of the law for Christians today. Many scholars from past centuries, such as Martin Luther, claimed that the believer is freed entirely from the law of Moses, including its moral requirements. The OT law is binding only insofar as it agrees with the NT and mirrors natural law. John Calvin, on the other hand, maintained that the moral laws of the OT are obligatory for the believer, and he asserts that this is the principal function of law. Calvin’s sense of keeping the moral law does not compromise the message of grace, for keeping the moral law, as opposed to the ceremonial or civil law, does not earn salvation but instead forms the acceptable response of the believer to God’s grace. Other Reformation scholars suggested that the law was abolished with the coming of Christ, and, as a result, while the moral norms remain in effect, the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled with the coming of Christ. Although the penalties originally prescribed for disobedience are no longer effective, keeping the moral law reflects the proper outcome of a life lived by the Spirit of God. See also Ten Commandments; Torah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A translation of various words in the Bible that describe the use of oil or other semisolid salves that are applied to the body and specifically not used for cooking. The NIV translators tend to prefer the words “oil,” “balm,” or “perfume” rather than “ointment,” but all these words can be used to describe the same substance.

Varieties and Value

Almost all the ointments prepared and used in the ancient Near East had an olive oil base. Exceptions to an olive oil base include oils made from a myrrh plant, cinnamon, or aloe. Often an olive oil base, which could be used by itself, was mixed by a perfumer with other spices, herbs, aromatic or medicinal plants, and/or tree products (Exod. 30:23–25). Occasionally, animals, especially sea animals, might also be used to create ointments. The actual process followed for making ointments is not completely known, although boiling often was part of the process of scent extraction (Job 41:31). Usually the perfume or ointment was carefully stored in either alabaster or lead and placed in a cool place to preserve its aromatic and medicinal qualities. The job of perfuming was, at times, considered woman’s work, as is the case when Samuel told the Israelites not to ask for a king (1 Sam. 8:13). However, the Bible records at least one male perfumer, Hananiah, who helped Nehemiah repair part of Jerusalem’s wall (Neh. 3:8).

Ointments often were used as a trading commodity and generally were considered very valuable and a special luxury item (Song 3:6–7), the exception, perhaps, being plain olive oil. The traders who bought Joseph before taking him to Egypt were trading, among other things, ointments and perfume (Gen. 37:25). King Hezekiah included ointments in his display to the envoys from Babylon when they came to see his wealth (Isa. 39:2). The prophet Amos equated the use of oil (NIV: “lotions”) to being wealthy (Amos 6:6). Ecclesiastes 7:1 regards ointment as something to be treasured. When Mary anointed Jesus’ feet with ointment, Judas Iscariot complained about the money being wasted with this action (John 12:3–6). In Mark’s Gospel a similar anointing event is recorded, with the vial of perfume valued at over three hundred denarii (Mark 14:3–5). A single denarius was roughly the equivalent of a day’s wages. Thus, the NIV translates the price as being the equivalent to a year’s pay.

Uses

There were numerous uses for ointment in the ancient Near East, including medicinal, cosmetic, religious, and burial preparation.

Probably the most common use for ointment was medicinal. Medicinal ointments were used to treat many ailments, including creating a barrier to protect wounds from infection and relieving minor skin irritations (see Isa. 1:6). The prophet Jeremiah metaphorically says that there will be no healing balm of Gilead for the people of Jerusalem after God has his way with them (Jer. 8:22; 46:11). Although it has not been confirmed in ancient documents or the archaeological record, the city of Gilead apparently was noted for its industry of making healing ointments.

Another common use for ointment was cosmetic. Esther, for example, was put on a regimen of ointment treatments (oil of myrrh) for six months and then perfume treatments for another six months (Esther 2:12). Ruth used perfume or ointment to prepare herself to see Boaz (Ruth 3:3). The use of ointment was not limited to women; men used it as well. For example, after David had finished mourning for his son, he put on ointment and resumed normal life (2 Sam. 12:20). In Eccles. 9:8 the writer advises, as part of enjoying life, “Always anoint your head with oil.”

Ointments also had many different uses within the religious life of the Israelites. For example, ointments had a special role in tabernacle worship. Exodus details the instructions for making the ointment to be used in consecration ceremonies when anointing the high priests and the furniture of the tabernacle (and later the temple). This ointment included 500 shekels of myrrh, 250 shekels of cinnamon, 250 shekels of cane, 500 shekels of cassia, and a hin of olive oil (Exod. 30:22–25). A shekel equaled somewhere between nine and sixteen ounces; thus 500 shekels was approximately 500 pounds. A hin was likely the equivalent of about one liquid gallon. The exact process for mixing the ingredients together is not given, but it must have followed a fairly standard method of preparation for it not to be detailed in the text. Interestingly, the perfumer also mixed the dry incense used in the tabernacle. Furthermore, the recipes for these special ointments were set aside and prohibited for general use by the population.

Throughout the book of Leviticus, the high priest is referred to as the “anointed priest,” which denotes the fact that the sacred ointment had been put on him and consecrated him for service to God (Lev. 4:16; 6:22; 8:12). The Hebrew term meshiakh (“messiah”) also indicates someone who has been anointed. This term, generally applied to kings, was not limited to Jewish kings; for example, Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians, was considered anointed (Isa. 45:1). Prophets too were considered anointed by God (Ps. 105:15).

Ointments were also used in the preparation of a corpse for burial. Given the humid conditions of Palestine and the lack of sophisticated embalming methods, it was necessary to add ointments to the body in preparation for burial. This was also done to honor the deceased. For example, after Jesus died, the women who first discovered his resurrection had come to anoint his body with spices and ointment (Mark 16:1).

In the NT, anointing with oil took on symbolic meaning. The oil came to represent the Holy Spirit or the presence of God. For example, in Acts 10:38 it is said that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit” (cf. 4:27). James prescribes that church elders anoint the sick with oil when praying over them (James 5:14).

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

Reception and Delivery of Oracles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Oracles

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

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

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

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

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

Means of Oracles

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

Oracles against the Foreign Nations

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

New Testament Usage

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

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

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

Terminology. The modern scientific category of reptiles (air-breathing, cold-blooded vertebrates) has no precise equivalent in the biblical vocabulary. The Hebrews described creatures by the way they moved, as “crawling things” (zakhal [Deut. 32:24; Mic. 7:17]), “creeping things” (remes [Gen. 1:25–26]), and “swarming things” (sherets [Gen. 7:21]). All these terms, which probably overlapped, included both reptiles and small mammals.

Nakhash (e.g., Gen. 3) is the commonest general term for snakes and other reptiles. Rarer terms are tannin (translated “snake” in Exod. 7:9, but more usually meaning a mythical “dragon”) and sarap (used, on its own or qualifying nakhash, of the fiery serpents in Num. 21:6, 8; Isa. 14:29; 30:6). In Greek, herpeton (Acts 10:12; 11:6; Rom. 1:23; James 3:7) includes snakes and lizards, while the generic word for snake is ophis (e.g., Matt. 7:10).

Besides these general terms, Scripture mentions the following: (1) the crocodile (liwyatan) found in Egypt and Israel and sometimes portrayed in poetry as a mythical monster (Job 3:8; 41:1; Pss. 74:14; 104:26; Isa. 27:1); (2) a variety of lizards, probably including geckos, skinks, and chameleons (Lev. 11:29, 30; Prov. 30:28); (3) a variety of poisonous snakes, including the cobra, or asp (Deut. 32:33; Rom. 3:13), and the viper, or adder (Isa. 59:5; Acts 28:3).

Although tortoises are common in the Middle East, the KJV translation of the Hebrew word tsab as “tortoise” in Lev. 11:29 almost certainly is wrong. However, since at least eighty kinds of reptile are found in Israel, precise identifications beyond this are difficult.

Reptiles in the Bible. The snake is an important image in Scripture. It is a snake that tempts Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:1; 2 Cor. 11:3), and in the first promise of salvation God says that the seed of woman will crush the snake’s head (Gen. 3:15). From that moment, the snake is condemned to crawl on its belly and eat dust (Gen. 3:14; Isa. 65:25).

All such crawling creatures were unclean in OT law (Lev. 11:29–31). Although some Middle Eastern snakes are nonpoisonous, the OT always portrays snakes as harmful as well as unclean (Deut. 8:15; 32:24, 33; Job 20:14, 16; Eccles. 10:8, 11; Isa. 30:6; Amos 5:19; Matt. 7:10; Luke 11:11). Because the venom was associated with the snake’s tongue, the snake was a symbol of treacherous, lying speech as well as of physical danger (Gen. 49:17; Pss. 58:4; 140:3; Prov. 23:32; Isa. 14:29; Jer. 8:17; 51:34; Matt. 23:33; Rev. 9:19), shrewdness (Matt. 10:16), and degradation (Mic. 7:17). For snakes to be rendered harmless was a sign of divine intervention (Ps. 91:13) and of the messianic age (Isa. 11:8; Luke 10:19; Mark 16:18). Paul and John identify the snake in Eden with Satan and look forward to his total destruction in the last days (Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:9–17; 20:2–3).

Snakes feature three times in biblical miracles. First, Aaron’s rod was transformed into a serpent that, when Pharaoh’s magicians replicated the feat, devoured the magicians’ serpents (Exod. 7:10–15; cf. 4:3–4). This would have impressed Pharaoh all the more because the snake was a symbol of the pharaoh’s power. Second, when God sent poisonous snakes to punish the Israelites, who repented, God told Moses to set up a bronze snake on a pole; anyone who looked at the bronze snake (which only much later became an object of idolatry) was saved (Num. 21:6–9; 2 Kings 18:4). This prefigured the cross, on which Christ became a curse for us (John 3:14; 1 Cor. 10:9; Gal. 3:10). Third, Paul was bitten by a snake and suffered no harm (Acts 28:3–6).

The KJV uses “dragon” twenty-one times in the OT to translate the Hebrew word tannin, tannim. In Deut. 32:33 the term is used in parallel with peten (“adder” or “cobra”), indicating that it probably refers to a snake of some type. The term is rendered inconsistently by the KJV, so that elsewhere the translation is “whale” (Gen. 1:21; Job 7:12; Ezek. 32:2–3) or “serpent” (Exod. 7:9–10, 12). There is also some confusion in the KJV of tannim with the plural of the noun tan, which means “jackal” (Job 30:29; Ps. 44:19; Isa. 13:22; 34:13; 35:7; 43:20; Jer. 9:11; 10:22; 14:6; 49:3; 51:37; Mic. 1:8; see also Lam. 4:3; Mal. 1:3).

In many passages the LXX uses the term drakōn, which again refers to a serpent. This term is used in the NT only in Revelation, where, as in the OT, the writer probably envisioned not the fire-breathing winged monster familiar to most modern readers but rather something more directly resembling a serpent (note Rev. 12:9, where the “great dragon” is also described as the “ancient serpent” and identified as “the devil, or Satan”). Revelation 12:3 elaborates by describing it as possessing “seven heads and ten horns.” Hence, the dragon of Revelation is linked directly to the serpent in the garden of Eden (Gen. 3), which is ultimately subject to defeat and eternal punishment (Rev. 20:7–10).

While the English word “charm” is derived from a Latin word for “incantation,” the Hebrew word often translated as “charm” (lakhash) refers to a whisper, like that of a snake charmer. In fact, the word frequently conjured up the image of enchanted serpents. For example, Eccles. 10:11 draws upon the image of a snake-bitten charmer whose skill, consequently, has been rendered futile. Further, in Jer. 8:17 God threatens to send out serpents that cannot be enchanted. Moreover, in Ps. 58:5 the psalmist likens wicked people to a cobra that refuses to be tamed. A progression of thought that associated serpents with demons eventually led people to seek magical charms, such as wearing amulets, to protect them from evil. However, Isaiah insists that such charms stand impotent before the evil about to destroy Babylon (Isa. 47:11); likewise, he warns that Israel’s religious experts in charms and even their women adorned with amulets will be taken away in judgment (Isa. 3:3, 20). In Prov. 31:30 most English versions translate “graceful appearance” (khen) metaphorically as “charm” in order to contrast a woman who has seemingly magical power over a man with a woman who fears God; so also, many translators take license with the precious stone (’eben-khen) in Prov. 17:8 to imply that a bribe can “work like a charm.” However, any original connotation of actual enchantment in these proverbs is doubtful. See also Magic Charm.

A screen-like implement used in biblical times to separate grain from debris such as pebbles (i.e., to sift). In two prophetic passages (Isa. 30:28; Amos 9:9), divine judgment against Israel and the nations is compared to the use of the sieve. This image can be compared to several other descriptions of divine judgment or military action in terms of agriculture (threshing in Isa. 27:12; Amos 1:3; Matt. 3:12; plowing in Mic. 3:12; reaping in Jer. 9:22) or viticulture (pruning in Isa. 18:5).

In the Bible, words for “spice” include the Hebrew bosem (NIV: “spice, perfume, fragrance”) and sam (NIV: “fragrant incense, fragrant spice”) and the Greek arōma and amōmon (NIV: “spice”). Aromatic vegetable products were used either to season food or as perfuming agents, and sometimes as both. The Greek term amōmon occurs only in Rev. 18:13, in this context probably referring to a spice from India. The term arōma occurs only in Mark 16:1; Luke 23:56; 24:1; John 19:40, where it is not technically part of an embalming process, since it does not stop decomposition, but rather is intended to offset the odor of death. If a funeral pyre is not intended in 2 Chron. 16:14, the spices there serve this same function. The Hebrew term sam occurs most frequently in Exodus in connection with the incense to be burned before God (Exod. 25:6; 30:7, 34; 31:11; 35:8, 15, 28; 37:29; 39:38; 40:27; cf. Lev. 4:7; 16:12; Num. 4:16; 2 Chron. 13:11). The term bosem occurs more widely throughout the OT with reference to both fragrances (e.g., Isa. 3:24) and spices (e.g., 1 Kings 10:10) and can modify the name of specific spices, as in Exod. 30:23: “cinnamon spice” (NIV: “fragrant cinnamon”) and “cane spice” (NIV: “fragrant calamus”).

Spices were in high demand, making food and living more enjoyable, especially for the wealthy. They were used in food (implicit in Ezek. 24:10) and drink (Song 8:2). The spice trade forged the earliest routes from northern India to Sumer, Akkad, and Egypt (cf. Gen. 37:25). Trade led to cultural exchange and, in the time of Solomon, to national wealth from tolls collected on such shipments. Ezekiel 27:22 and Rev. 18:13 show the value associated with this trade, and 2 Kings 20:13 places spices among King Hezekiah’s “treasures.” The sensual luxury of spices could be erotic (e.g., Esther 2:12; Song 5:1; 6:2; 8:14); indeed, Song of Songs, though short, uses the word bosem more than any other book in the OT. Some spices, such as frankincense, were important to worship rituals in ancient Israel, being used in offerings (Lev. 24:7) and in the anointing oil and incense (Exod. 25:6; 30:22–38). Producing the right mixtures required skilled individuals (Exod. 30:25; 1 Chron. 9:29–30).

The list below includes a number of spices named in the Bible.

Aloe (Heb. ’ahalim, ’ahalot; Gk. aloē). In the OT this probably refers to Aquilaria agallocha, a spice derived from the eaglewood tree and used to perfume cloth (Ps. 45:8; Prov. 7:17; Song 4:14). In the NT, it refers to the juice from Aloe vera leaves (John 19:39).

Balm (Heb. tsori). Apparently native to Gilead, the plant is now unknown. The earliest association is with stacte (Commiphora gilea-densis), which does not currently grow in Gilead. Noted for its healing benefit to wounds (Jer. 8:22; 46:11; 51:8), balm was exported (Gen. 37:25; 43:11; Ezek. 27:17).

Calamus (Heb. qaneh). Also known as sweet flag (Acorus calamus), calamus was used for its aroma and as a tonic and stimulant (Song 4:14; Isa. 43:24; Jer. 6:20; Ezek. 27:19).

Caraway (Heb. qetsakh). The seeds of this plant (Nigella sativa) were used as a condiment and to ease intestinal gas. A light beating freed the seeds without crushing them (Isa. 28:25, 27).

Cassia (Heb. qiddah, qetsi’ah). These Hebrew terms probably refer to an aromatic similar to cinnamon, like the bark of the Cinnamomum aromaticum, or more likely the Cinnamomum iners of Arabia and Ethiopia (Exod. 30:24; Ps. 45:8; Ezek. 27:19).

Cinnamon (Heb. qinnamon; Gk. kinna-mōmon). A local variety of cinnamon, or “true cinnamon” (Cinnamomum zeylanicum) imported from Sri Lanka (Exod. 30:23; Prov. 7:17; Song 4:14; Rev. 18:13). Loosely related may be the “spice” (Gk. amōmon) of Rev. 18:13; the word often appears alongside “cardamom” in extrabiblical writings; it perhaps indicates black cardamom.

Coriander (Heb. gad). Also known as cilantro, this has long been used as a food seasoning; it also served as a medicine to aid digestion and sleep (Exod. 16:31; Num. 11:7).

Cumin (Heb. kammon; Gk. kyminon). Cuminum cyminum, which is similar to caraway in taste and appearance, has long been cultivated in Palestine as a seasoning. Like caraway, it is threshed to keep the seeds intact (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23).

Dill (Gk. anēthon). Used for seasoning, this herb (Anethum graveolens) was among those tithed by the Pharisees (Matt. 23:23).

Frankincense (Heb. lebonah; Gk. libanos). This fragrant resin from trees of the genus Bos-wellia was used in worship (Exod. 30:34; Lev. 24:7) and was among the gifts brought to Jesus at his birth (Matt. 2:11).

Gum resin (Heb. natap). Also known as stacte, this ingredient of the holy incense (Exod. 30:34) was derived from either Commiphora gileadensis (balm of Gilead) or Styrax officinale.

Mint (Gk. hēdyosmon). Most likely Mentha longifolia, it was tithed by the Pharisees (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).

Myrrh (Heb. mor, lot; Gk. smyrna, cf. myron). A resin exuded from incisions in the branches of trees such as Commiphora myrrha and Commiphora kataf and useful for its fragrance and antiseptic properties (Exod. 30:23; Ps. 45:8; Prov. 7:17; Song 1:13; 3:6; Esther 2:12). Hebrew lot (Gen. 37:25; 43:11) probably refers to labdanum.

Nard (Heb. nerd; Gr. nardos). In the OT (Song 1:12; 4:13–14), camel grass (Cymbopogon schoenanthus) from northern Africa and Arabia probably is in view, but in the NT (Mark 14:3; John 12:3), Nardostachys jatamansi from Nepal is suggested. Nard was used as an ointment or perfume.

Rue (Gk. pēganon). Mentioned only in Luke 11:42, Ruta chalepensis was cultivated to flavor food and was thought to have medicinal value.

Saffron (Heb. karkom). Produced from the flowers of the Crocus sativus, native to Greece and Asia Minor, this expensive spice was used not only for culinary purposes but also as an antispasmodic and emmenagogue (Song 4:14).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Numbers 5:11–31 describes a judicial ordeal for determining whether a wife has been unfaithful. In the course of the ritual, the wife suspected of wrongdoing is to drink water mixed with dirt from the floor of the tabernacle, thus made “bitter” (Heb. mar; Num. 5:18), and in which a scroll containing curses has been washed (so that the water also contains the ink of the scroll). In the event that the woman was guilty of unfaithfulness, this concoction was intended to transfer to her body the curses against her. Deuteronomy 21:1–9 may represent a second judicial ordeal involving water, though bitterness is not involved. The names “En Mishpat” (“spring of judgment” [Gen. 14:7]) and “En Rogel” (“spring of inquiry” [e.g., Josh. 15:7]) may also refer to the use of water for divination or ordeal.

Shortly after crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites came to Marah (“bitterness”), where the waters were bitter and not potable. Moses was divinely instructed to throw a piece of wood in the water, rendering it sweet and drinkable (Exod. 15:23–25), the first of several divine provisions of drinking water in the desert. Revelation 8:11 depicts apocalyptic divine judgment in terms of bitter or poisoned water. In both of these passages, bitterness is effected or removed by the combination of wood and water: “wormwood” (Gk. apsinthos, a bitter substance derived from the wood of a particular shrub). The image of Rev. 8:11 recalls a similar divine threat in Jer. 9:15; 23:15.