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

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

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

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

The term “avenger” occurs sixteen times in the NIV, usually in the phrase “avenger of blood” (  go’el haddam). The Hebrew word go’el may be translated “redeemer,” “avenger,” or “near relative” and referred to a kinsman who acted on behalf of a close relative. The term was used of one who avenged (repaid) the death of a murdered relative (Num. 35:12), received restitution for crimes against a deceased relative (Num. 5:7–8), bought back family property that had been sold (Lev. 25:25), purchased a relative who had been sold into slavery (Lev. 25:48–49), or married a relative’s widow in order to raise up heirs for her deceased husband (levirate marriage) (Deut. 25:5–10). The “avenger of blood” refers specifically to the first of these functions, a murder victim’s near relative who would exact justice by executing the murderer. This was in line with the OT principle of “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth” (Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21). Punishment was to be in proportion to the degree and severity of a crime. In the NT, this role of justice is assigned to government authorities (Rom. 13:4).

This procedure for justice for the avenger of blood is found in Num. 35:9–27; Deut. 19:11–13; Josh. 20. If a person was found guilty of intentional murder on the testimony of two or three witnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:15), the avenger of blood served as executioner.

In cases of accidental manslaughter, the accused could flee to one of six cities of refuge, where the city assembly would judge the case and provide protection from the avenger of blood (Num. 35:6–34; Deut. 4:41–43; 19:1–14; Josh. 20:1–9). Numbers 35:12 designates that “they will be places of refuge from the avenger, so that anyone accused of murder may not die before they stand trial before the assembly” (cf. Josh. 20:9). Deuteronomy 19:4–7 explains the necessity of this protection: the avenger may be filled with rage and take revenge without concern for whether the death was accidental or intentional. If the accused left the city of refuge, the avenger of blood could take his life (Num. 35:27). This held true until the death of the high priest, at which time the accused could leave the city without fear of reprisal. The primary purpose of the laws related to the avenger of blood was to provide consistent justice and so reduce blood feuds and continued cycles of retaliation and revenge.

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

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

The term “government” may refer to the philosophy that shapes a nation or people’s institutions, customs, and laws or, more specifically, to actual offices and structures to enact this philosophy. Generally speaking, government serves to bring order and direction to a people. This can be accomplished through the rule of one, or a few, or many. As a constituent portion of bringing order, some sort of entity for enforcement and protection must be created. This usually takes the form of a military or police force.

The biblical worldview emphasizes the rule of God over everything, inherent in his position as the Creator. Since, however, God did imbue humanity with authority over creation and with the capacity for relationship, his government can find expression in the actions and decisions of human beings (1 Sam. 8:7–9; Rom. 13:1–4). The successful ruler will be the individual who understands his or her place before God and who desires to lead God’s people with humility and justice (1 Kings 3:7–9).

Before the Monarchy

Clan. The earliest forms of governmental relations apparently were in the extended family or clan. The progenitor of the clan normally was the patriarch, who led several families, all of which were to some degree related to him. The patriarch was responsible for land allotments and maintenance of the family’s spiritual life and well-being (Gen. 13:8–9; 31:22–35; Job 1:4–5). He was responsible for forming contractual agreements under which the family functioned, in relation both to land acquisitions and to marriages (Gen. 21:22–34; 24:1–11; 26:26–33). He alone decided to whom the patriarchy passed when he died, and his power was almost absolute (Gen. 27), though there is some indication that God desired a husband’s first responsibility to be to his spouse rather than to his father (Gen. 2:24).

Tribe. Beyond the clan, the next larger societal unit was the tribe. Although tribes were for the most part still related genetically, the distance of the relationship permitted the inclusion of persons from outside the family. This may have been the case with Caleb, who is identified both as a member of the tribe of Judah (Num. 13:6) and as a descendant of the Kenizzites, who were Edomites (Gen. 36:9–11; Num. 32:12). If modern nomadic tribes are any indication, the governmental structure of the related tribes was a type of confederation coming together for defensive purposes. The decisions would have been made by a group of elders from the various clans. Like the clan chief of the smaller structures, the tribal elders could make covenants and were responsible for keeping order in the tribe (Deut. 21:19; Ruth 4:1–12; 2 Sam. 5:3).

During the period following the exodus and before the time of the judges, Israel’s tribal structure was maintained, though with a single leader. The leadership of Moses and Joshua was in many ways a precursor to the offices of both judge and king. The men had considerable power, and opposition to their leadership often was dealt with harshly (Num. 12; 16). Yet, their rule was established through presence of the Spirit of God rather than physical lineage. The weight of leading such a large body of people had its difficulties, and it is related that Moses delegated some of his authority to judges who rendered decisions for the people (Exod. 18).

Judges. The period of the judges witnessed a devolution of sorts in the governmental structures of Israel. The relationship between the various tribes was somewhat strained, and it seems clear from the narrative that no judge ever led more than a handful of tribes. Although these judges were like Moses and Joshua in that they were imbued with power by the Spirit of God, their focus was almost solely military in nature, and the everyday aspects of governance seem to have been left to the individual tribes. There was little sense of ordered society, and lawlessness and anarchy seem to have been the order of the day. In two cases, those of Gideon and Abimelek, attempts were made to found petty kingdoms (Judg. 8:22–23, 30–31; 9:1–21). Similarly, Jephthah seems to have established a minor kingdom east of the Jordan, in Gilead (Judg. 11:6–11). However, these attempts were transitory in nature and lacked the stability that grows out of a unified identity. Indeed, one of the roles of the judges seems to have been to solidify the people’s resolve for permanent leadership in the form of a monarch, which they hoped would raise them to greatness and standing in the world (1 Sam. 8:1–6).

The Monarchy

The period of the monarchy represented a strong centralized government invested in the mind and decisions of a single man. The term “king” was applied symbolically to any great leader, but above all it was applied to God, to whom Israel’s throne rightfully belonged (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23; Ps. 2). With the office of the king came a bureaucracy designed to increase efficiency, but which sometimes involved corruption.

Establishing the monarchy. The first ruler called “king” was Saul, son of Kish, though he is often referred to as a prince or a chieftain rather than a king (1 Sam. 13:13–14). It is difficult to say whether this related specifically to the level of office that he possessed or if it was a sort of disparaging comparison to David, who was viewed by the biblical writer as a true king. As king, David took possession of the great fortress of Jerusalem. In many ways, he combined the ecclesiastical and the military headship of the nation through the movement of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem and the purchase of the threshing floor for the temple. Solomon attempted to further break down the old tribal divisions by dividing the whole country into administrative districts (1 Kings 4:7), not according to tribal divisions, but instead after the pattern established during the Egyptian hegemony of Canaan that had existed several centuries earlier. The kingdom was divided into two separate kingdoms at the death of Solomon, but for the people of God the monarchy had become the standard of government through which God ruled. This monarchial expectation found expression in the messianic hope of Israel (Ezek. 47).

The role of the king. The chief duty of the king was to act as the commander in chief of the army. With the establishment of a monarchy, the people gained a standing army that could be kept in the field for protection of the nation (1 Sam. 13:2). The king was also intimately connected with the religious organization of the people. He was considered a central component of the cult, so that major moments in his life were cause for worship (Pss. 2; 45; 110). It is certain that the king, especially after David, performed priestly functions. David wore an ephod (1 Chron. 15:27), and Solomon addressed the people in the temple (1 Kings 8:14). Indeed, the coronation itself identified the king as both priest and king (Ps. 110:4). The fact that Solomon built the temple and played a significant role in its dedication shows the intimate relation that the king had with the national sanctuary, which was attached to his palace. The king also served as judge (1 Kings 3:16–28; 7:7) over his people, and he determined the economic structures of the society, including taxes, monetary weights, and covenants with other nations. The king did not hold absolute authority, however, and like the rest of Israel, he was subject to the law (Deut. 17:14–20).

Successors and officers. Once the kingship had been established, the hereditary principle arose naturally. Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth maintained a small kingship of northern tribes for some time after Saul’s death (2 Sam. 2:8–10). Still, the king appears to have had the right to select which of his descendants would be his successor (1 Kings 1). When the decision was made, the people often proclaimed their satisfaction at the result (1 Kings 1:25; 2 Kings 14:21), and a ceremony of anointing took place. Sometimes the anointing was a private affair (2 Kings 9:6), but the presence of certain psalms related to the ceremony itself suggests that, generally speaking, it was a national event and time of worship (Ps. 2:2).

The bureaucracy that came with the king meant the installation of several new offices. The chief officer of the king was the commander of his army (2 Sam. 2:8; 8:16). Another high-ranking military officer was the captain of the bodyguard, who was not placed under the orders of the commander of the army (2 Sam. 8:18; 23:22–23). The king also had more domestic officers, such as the officer over the household (2 Kings 18:18), the court historian, the court secretary, various deputies and advisers, and the king’s friend (2 Sam. 8:16–18; 1 Kings 4:1–6).

Revenue. The means of sustaining the state varied by era and king. While it is true that the king had his own flocks and land (1 Sam. 8:15–17; 1 Chron. 27:25–28), he could also, depending on how strong he was, raise revenue through gifts from vassals (1 Kings 4:21; 10:25) and through the spoils of war (2 Chron. 27:5). Starting with the control and regulation of trade routes during the reign of Solomon, the king maintained a stream of revenue through taxation of merchants moving through the land and trade with other nations.

After the Exile

The period following the exile witnessed a transition in the government of Israel. Apart from a very short period from about 160 to 60 BC, Israel was under the control of foreign powers. These various empires ruled with a variety of methods, determined by their own philosophy of government.

Persian rule. The Persians established a rule based largely on a sort of benevolent dictatorship, though there are multiple accounts of vicious responses to any notion of rebellion from its vassals. In 539 BC Cyrus permitted the Jews to return from their captivity in Babylon to Jerusalem and showed them certain favors. One of his successors, Darius I (r. 522–486 BC), continued the liberal policy of Cyrus toward the Jews and played a major role in the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem (Ezra 5:13–17; 6:1–15). He also organized the Persian Empire to facilitate the easy collection of tribute from subject nations. He ultimately divided the kingdom into twenty provinces ruled by governors, a system maintained through the remainder of his dynastic line. Another important development during this period was the increase in power of the Jewish priesthood. With no Jewish monarchy in place, governmental power in Israel became concentrated in the office of the high priest.

Greek and Roman rule. Alexander the Great and his successors brought Hellenism into the Jewish experience. His acquisition of power was distinctly different because it was not simply a political one. Its cultural and spiritual influence was much more significant. The people were subjected to new language, art, thought, and philosophy. The struggle that ensued divided the Jewish population into competing groups, one dedicated to the preservation of the old ways and one more receptive to the Hellenistic life.

The coming of the Romans brought with it a more complex balance of power, with authority shifting between the high priest, vassal kings appointed by the Romans, and Roman governors called “prefects” and “procurators.” Among the kings of this period, Herod the Great was the most successful and important. Herod gained control of the region with the help of Augustus Caesar and Marc Antony, being invested with the office by the Roman senate and then winning an important military victory over Jerusalem in 37 BC. Herod was hated by the Jews because of his pagan commitments, his cruelty, and his desire to Hellenize Judea. His children did not enjoy his success or his power, however, and following his death Roman influence and intervention in Judea became more direct and significant.

The priestly class also held significant power in the office of the high priest and in the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin addressed issues such as legal procedure, verdicts, and decrees of a political nature and also dealt with questions relating to the temple, priesthood, and sacrifices. The Sanhedrin was in many respects the highest political authority (although its control was always mitigated by Roman power and presence). It could deal with most criminal cases, though its authority was limited in capital cases.

The Roman presence in the region was represented by the governance of prefects and procurators. These governors were appointed by Rome over Judea after the removal of Archelaus in AD 6, and over all of Palestine at the death of Herod Agrippa. Prefects and procurators were the highest power in their province, but they answered to the legate and ultimately to Caesar. They lived primarily in Caesarea, but they traveled to Jerusalem for high festivals or in the case of civil unrest. They tended to have as little contact as possible with the Jews unless their own personal interest demanded it. Decisions concerning everyday life were left to the Jewish authorities. With Roman citizens living in their areas, the procurators had direct influence; however, such citizens could go over the procurator’s head and appeal to Caesar if they did not receive the sentence that they desired.

In the ancient world, shame and honor are two binary opposites used to depict one’s status or behavior, which a culture approves or disapproves. The system of honor and shame serves as a primary means of social control. Thus, knowing how to act to conform to the code of social behavior expected by one’s group is essential to the maintenance of that community.

In the Bible, the noun “honor” is represented by kabod (from the verb “to be heavy”) in the OT, and by timē (from the verb “to honor”) in the NT. The reverse of honor is shame, which is represented by a variety of Hebrew and Greek terms, such as boshet in the OT, and aischynē in the NT.

In Israel, the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26; cf. Num. 5:2–3; 8:6–7, 14–15) is comparable to the code of honor and shame. As a covenant community, Israel has the obligation to abide by the sanction imposed by God to attain honor (Deut. 4:6–8; 26:18–19; Pss. 34:5, 8–9; 37:18–19; 127:5; cf. 2 Chron. 26:18; Pss. 8:5; 62:7; 84:11; Rom. 2:7–11). Israel is honored (Exod. 32:11–12; Deut. 32:26–27) before the nations when God’s honor is upheld (Exod. 7:5; 10:1–2; 14:4, 17–18). Violation of covenantal stipulations—for example, deceptions in trading (Deut. 25:16), acts of “abomination” (Lev. 18:17, 22–23, 26–29), idolatry (Deut. 31:20; 32:15–17), and failure to perform duties prescribed in the law (Deut. 25:7–10)—results in disgrace before others (Exod. 32:25) and God (Deut. 28:25–26, 37).

The status of honor can be ascribed to an individual. A person is more honorable who is the firstborn (Gen. 49:3), comes from an esteemed family (Ps. 45:9), or is married into a dignified family (Gen. 41:45; Ruth 4:5). This worth will last a lifetime unless the reputation of the family is compromised, either because of economics (Ruth 1:1–21) or violation of the codes of conduct, such as adultery and incest (Exod. 20:14; Lev. 18:20; 20:10–21; Deut. 5:18; 22:22; Prov. 6:32–33), though not necessarily divorce (Deut. 24:1–4). Certain groups of people are honored because of special privilege granted to them (Prov. 8:15–16; Dan. 2:21; Rom. 13:1–5)—for example, priests (Exod. 28:2, 40; Ps. 110:4; Heb. 7:21), kings (Ps. 2:7), sages (Prov. 3:35), Israel (Exod. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; 8:11–9:7; 26:16–19), and the church (1 Pet. 2:9).

Wealth symbolizes one’s status and claims respect for its owners (Gen. 12:10–20; 14:21–24; 1 Kings 3:13; Prov. 3:16; 8:18; 22:4; Ps. 49:16; Isa. 61:6, 12) but does not equate the state of being poor with shame (cf. Ps. 12:5) unless it is a result of moral lassitude (Prov. 13:18). Parts of the human body symbolize worth and value. Certain parts of the body are less honorable than others, and to expose them is to invite disgrace (2 Sam. 10:4–5; 1 Chron. 19:4; Isa. 20:4; 1 Cor. 12:23–24).

The status of honor can also be achieved by an individual’s merits (cf. Rom. 2:7–11). Certain types of behavior are honorable—for example, humility (Prov. 15:33; 18:12; 29:23), taking care of one’s master (Prov. 27:18), honoring parents (Exod. 20:12; 21:15; 22:28; Prov. 19:26; Mal. 1:6; Matt. 15:4; Eph. 6:2), good service (Gen. 45:13), military exploits (2 Sam. 23:19–23; cf. 2 Chron. 32:21), almsgiving and justice (Prov. 21:21). One important aspect of achieving honor is the pursuit of wisdom. The ways of wisdom are honorable (Prov. 3:16–17; 4:8; 8:18), preserving a person from dishonor (Prov. 3:16–17, 31–33, 35; 24:14), but the ways of folly, such as injustice (Prov. 1:22; 14:31) and dishonoring parents (Prov. 30:17; cf. Exod. 20:12; 21:15; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16), are a disgrace (Prov. 20:3; 26:1). The failure to perform one’s duty (Gen. 40:1–3) or a defeat in battle (Isa. 23:9; Lam. 1:8; Nah. 3:10) results in shame and, accordingly, loss of social status (Isa. 16:14; 23:9; Jer. 46:12; Lam. 1:6, 8; Hos. 4:7). An ultimate form of disgrace is to be hanged for public viewing (Deut. 21:22–23; Esther 5:14; 7:7–10; Matt. 27:32–44; Mark 15:22–32; Luke 23:33–43; John 19:17–24; 1 Cor. 1:18–25). In a patriarchal society, the status of women is obtained through their sexual exclusiveness. Their chastity (Gen. 38:24; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:13–21; cf. 2 Sam. 13:13; Song 8:8–9) and fertility (Gen. 16:2; 30:2; 1 Sam. 1:3–8) become indicators of family and social worth.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestiality (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); homosexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestiality (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); homosexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

The term “avenger” occurs sixteen times in the NIV, usually in the phrase “avenger of blood” (  go’el haddam). The Hebrew word go’el may be translated “redeemer,” “avenger,” or “near relative” and referred to a kinsman who acted on behalf of a close relative. The term was used of one who avenged (repaid) the death of a murdered relative (Num. 35:12), received restitution for crimes against a deceased relative (Num. 5:7–8), bought back family property that had been sold (Lev. 25:25), purchased a relative who had been sold into slavery (Lev. 25:48–49), or married a relative’s widow in order to raise up heirs for her deceased husband (levirate marriage) (Deut. 25:5–10). The “avenger of blood” refers specifically to the first of these functions, a murder victim’s near relative who would exact justice by executing the murderer. This was in line with the OT principle of “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth” (Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21). Punishment was to be in proportion to the degree and severity of a crime. In the NT, this role of justice is assigned to government authorities (Rom. 13:4).

This procedure for justice for the avenger of blood is found in Num. 35:9–27; Deut. 19:11–13; Josh. 20. If a person was found guilty of intentional murder on the testimony of two or three witnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:15), the avenger of blood served as executioner.

In cases of accidental manslaughter, the accused could flee to one of six cities of refuge, where the city assembly would judge the case and provide protection from the avenger of blood (Num. 35:6–34; Deut. 4:41–43; 19:1–14; Josh. 20:1–9). Numbers 35:12 designates that “they will be places of refuge from the avenger, so that anyone accused of murder may not die before they stand trial before the assembly” (cf. Josh. 20:9). Deuteronomy 19:4–7 explains the necessity of this protection: the avenger may be filled with rage and take revenge without concern for whether the death was accidental or intentional. If the accused left the city of refuge, the avenger of blood could take his life (Num. 35:27). This held true until the death of the high priest, at which time the accused could leave the city without fear of reprisal. The primary purpose of the laws related to the avenger of blood was to provide consistent justice and so reduce blood feuds and continued cycles of retaliation and revenge.

The term “avenger” occurs sixteen times in the NIV, usually in the phrase “avenger of blood” (  go’el haddam). The Hebrew word go’el may be translated “redeemer,” “avenger,” or “near relative” and referred to a kinsman who acted on behalf of a close relative. The term was used of one who avenged (repaid) the death of a murdered relative (Num. 35:12), received restitution for crimes against a deceased relative (Num. 5:7–8), bought back family property that had been sold (Lev. 25:25), purchased a relative who had been sold into slavery (Lev. 25:48–49), or married a relative’s widow in order to raise up heirs for her deceased husband (levirate marriage) (Deut. 25:5–10). The “avenger of blood” refers specifically to the first of these functions, a murder victim’s near relative who would exact justice by executing the murderer. This was in line with the OT principle of “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth” (Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21). Punishment was to be in proportion to the degree and severity of a crime. In the NT, this role of justice is assigned to government authorities (Rom. 13:4).

This procedure for justice for the avenger of blood is found in Num. 35:9–27; Deut. 19:11–13; Josh. 20. If a person was found guilty of intentional murder on the testimony of two or three witnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:15), the avenger of blood served as executioner.

In cases of accidental manslaughter, the accused could flee to one of six cities of refuge, where the city assembly would judge the case and provide protection from the avenger of blood (Num. 35:6–34; Deut. 4:41–43; 19:1–14; Josh. 20:1–9). Numbers 35:12 designates that “they will be places of refuge from the avenger, so that anyone accused of murder may not die before they stand trial before the assembly” (cf. Josh. 20:9). Deuteronomy 19:4–7 explains the necessity of this protection: the avenger may be filled with rage and take revenge without concern for whether the death was accidental or intentional. If the accused left the city of refuge, the avenger of blood could take his life (Num. 35:27). This held true until the death of the high priest, at which time the accused could leave the city without fear of reprisal. The primary purpose of the laws related to the avenger of blood was to provide consistent justice and so reduce blood feuds and continued cycles of retaliation and revenge.

Taxes in Scripture encompass both religious obligation to God to meet the funding requirements of the temple and payments to secular authorities, foreign and domestic. Several words and phrases express the concept in the Bible. In the OT these include the following: (1) Ransom was the temple tax commanded by God, based on a census of Israel (Exod. 30:11–16). It resulted in atonement for the taxpayer and avoidance of a plague on Israel. (2) Tribute was a divinely commanded offering in support of the cultic priesthood. The example in Num. 31:28–30 specifically addresses spoils of war. (3) Levy was a monetary assessment of silver and gold imposed by a superior authority (e.g., Pharaoh Necho) to a subjugated one (e.g., Israel) (see 2 Kings 23:33–35). (4) Tax was a compulsory payment to an authority. The example in 2 Chron. 24:6, 9 refers to the aforementioned ransom. A second usage of the underlying Hebrew, appearing in Amos 5:11, refers to taxes on the poor by corrupt leaders in the northern kingdom.

Additionally, four different words in Aramaic, the original language of Ezra, indicate governmental revenues (Ezra 4:13, 20; 6:8; 7:24). These words are variously translated as “taxes,” “tribute,” “duty,” “revenue.” The shades of difference in meaning among them are unclear.

The NT discusses taxes in several passages. The most comprehensive is Matt. 17:24–27, Jesus’ discussion of the temple tax with Peter, ending with the account of the four-drachma coin in the mouth of the caught fish. Here, three of the four NT Greek words for taxes are employed. (1) Didrachmon in v. 24 is the “temple tax” (NIV, NRSV), the OT “ransom to the Lord” defined above. By the first century AD, the amount was fixed at two drachmas, equivalent to wages for two long days of common labor. (2) Telos comes first in the word pair translated “duty and taxes” in v. 25 and is the generic word in the NT for taxes. It also occurs in Rom. 13:7, where it is translated “revenue.” (3) Kēnsos occurs second in the same word pair in v. 25 and refers to the direct poll tax on male adults. It also appears in Mark 12:14; Matt. 22:17–19, both addressing the question of paying taxes to Caesar. (4) The remaining Greek word, phoros, is found in Luke 20:22; 23:2; Rom. 13:6–7. This term refers specifically to a tribute tax paid by a subjugated nation to a superior authority—for example, the tax owed by Israelites to Caesar.

Today, vengeance normally is understood as retaliation for a suffered wrong, an action arising from vindictiveness and antipathy toward its object. Such an understanding runs counter to the biblical concept of vengeance. Indeed, the negative individual vengefulness associated with the term is either unequivocally forbidden or shown to be wrongheaded (Exod. 23:4–5; Lev. 19:18; Ezek. 25:12–16; Jer. 20:10–11; 1 Pet. 3:9). Thus, the term is better understood by considering the Hebrew term naqam (or its synonyms baqash and gemul [Josh. 22:23; 1 Sam. 20:16; 2 Sam. 4:11; Ps. 94:2; Isa. 59:18; Obad. 15]) and the Greek term ekdikēsis. A close study of the biblical terms suggests that vengeance has to do with the administration of justice: the rendition of appropriate sanctions against a violator of established norms, and the provision of justice or vindication to the victimized or oppressed. One recurrent motif in the incidences of God’s vengeance is its function in stopping or recompensing injustice (Isa. 59:14–18). The prerogative of such a solemn task rests with someone with legitimate authority. Such authority is ultimately God’s (Deut. 32:35, 39; cf. Ps. 94:1–3; Prov. 20:22; Rom. 12:19). Indeed, the subject of four out of every five occurrences of “vengeance” in the Bible is God.

In that capacity, God combines, almost indistinguishably, the roles of a sovereign, supreme judge, and warrior in his execution of vengeance on the errant (Exod. 15:1–7; Ps. 89:6–18; Isa. 51:4–5; 52:10; Jer. 20:12). He sometimes delegates this function to angels (Gen. 18–19; Exod. 12:23; 2 Kings 19:35; Acts 12:23); nations, or national armies (Deut. 28:45–50; Isa. 10:5; Jer. 50:9–15); Israel (Deut. 9:1–5; 7:1; 20:16–17; Josh. 6:17–25; 8:24); kings, political leaders, and judicial officers (Deut. 25:1; Jer. 27:6; Rom. 13:1–4; 1 Pet. 2:13–14); and nonintelligent beings or elements of nature (Exod. 23:28–30; Amos 4:6–11).

God’s vengeance has its moorings in his holiness (Jer. 50:28–29; cf. Deut. 32:4). The violation of his holiness arouses his justice, which demands just retribution for the offense (2 Sam. 12:1–12; Jer. 50:6–7; Ezek. 31:3–11). Put differently, God’s righteousness is the obverse of his vengeance. One’s experience of either is contingent upon one’s relationship with God. In other words, his vengeance flows from his justice (Ps. 89:31–32; Nah. 1:3). God’s justice is counterbalanced by his love (cf. James 2:13). For that reason, his vengeance on his covenant people is often more corrective than punitive and anticipates their repentance, redemption, and restoration (Isa. 1:24–26; Jer. 3:1–17; 46:28). Ultimately, he forgives his people, whom he disciplines (Pss. 89:19–33; 99:8; Zeph. 3:7; Rom. 5:6–11).

Therefore, there always is a close link between God’s vengeance on the wicked and the salvation of his people (Isa. 34:8; 49:26; 61:1–3; Jer. 51:36). This is why the nations that he uses to punish Israel end up being punished themselves because of their hubris and overreaching attempts to annihilate his covenant people (Isa. 47:1–11; Jer. 46:10; 50–51), their failure to recognize the God who has prospered them, and their opposition to him (Deut. 32:26; Mic. 5:14). Thus, God’s people come to expect or even call for God’s vengeance on their enemies (Ps. 94:1–7; Jer. 11:20; 15:15; Lam. 3:60–66; Hab. 1:2–4). Such expectation is usually futuristic and parallels Israelite hope for the impending “day of the Lord” (Isa. 13:9–11; Jer. 46:10; Luke 21:20–24; 2 Thess. 1:6–8). Thus, the cries of God’s people for his vengeance on their enemies represent the abandonment of personal revenge in favor of God’s acts of justice and vindication—petitions for the rule of God’s law over mere human justice (Pss. 58:11; 79:10; Rev. 6:10).

The words “wrath” and “anger” are used in Bible translations for a variety of Hebrew and Greek words that refer to the disposition of someone (including God) toward persons (including oneself [Gen. 45:5]) or situations considered to be seriously displeasing. There may be degrees of anger (Zech. 1:15), and it may be accompanied by other sentiments such as distress (Gen. 45:5), hatred (Job 16:9), jealousy (Rom. 10:19), grief (Mark 3:5), and vengeance (Mic. 5:15).

Anger may be a proper response to sin or a sin-distorted world, as seen in, for example, Moses’ reaction to the golden calf (Exod. 32:19). Paul envisages an anger that does not necessarily involve sin (Eph. 4:26). Jesus is said to display anger at the willful stubbornness of his contemporaries (Mark 3:5), and his response to the mourning for Lazarus (John 11:33) might be rendered as “outrage,” an anger directed not so much at the mourners as at the ugliness of death, the consequence of sin, and with thoughts, perhaps, of his own impending death necessitated by this fallen world.

On the other hand, a display of anger may be the result of distorted perceptions or values (Gen. 4:5–6). A tendency to anger in oneself needs to be kept in check (James 1:19) and in others needs to be handled prudently (Prov. 15:1). Unchecked, anger may lead to violence and murder (Gen. 49:6). In several NT lists anger is associated with such other sinful behavior as quarreling, jealousy, selfishness, slander, malice, gossip, conceit, strife, idolatry, sorcery, and bitterness (2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8).

In Ps. 76:10 NLT (cf. ESV, NASB, NRSV) God is said to cause human anger to bring him praise (but see NIV, NET, where it is God’s wrath against human beings that brings him praise). Perhaps an instance of this is seen in Rom. 13:4–5, where the wrath of the civil authority serves to maintain justice under God.

Ancient court systems reflected the needs, values, and structures of the broader society. Not surprisingly, the court systems in nomadic and urban societies are quite different. Nomadic courts were more informal, based more on custom than law. The context of nomadic justice was located primarily within the family and clan. Those with disputes sought out elders and wise leaders to settle them. Urban court systems used more-fixed institutions of judges under the supervision of priests and kings. Even in an urban system the court functioned on a case-by-case basis and drew little or no distinction between criminal and civil offenses. Cases dealt primarily with an injury and the compensation for the injury. The basic process involved stating a case before a judge, each side calling witnesses, and the judge giving a judgment.

Old Testament

Courts in ancient Israel reflected features of both nomadic and urban court systems as well as the broader judicial practices of the ancient Near East. In ancient Israel a case could be tried by the elders, a judge, a priest, or the king. The elders were heads of families and leading citizens. They sat at the city gate (Prov. 31:23), where they heard cases (Ruth 4:1–12), oversaw property transactions (Gen. 23:10–20), settled disputes, and imposed penalties (Deut. 22:18–19). As Israelite society developed, judges were appointed from each tribe and town to administer justice (Deut. 16:18). If a case was too difficult, the judge could transfer the case to a higher court and judge (Exod. 18:21–22). Once a higher court gave a verdict, the participants and lower courts were bound by the decision (Deut. 17:8–13). Priests distinguished between the holy and the common, between clean and unclean (Lev. 10:10). However, they could judge all types of cases, not just religious ones (Deut. 21:5; Ezek. 44:23–24).

With the establishment of the monarchy, the king became the highest judge, and the elders and priests became minor judges. David appointed judges from the Levites over all Israel to administer justice (1 Chron. 26:29), but he also heard cases himself. Solomon provided the quintessential example of a wise judge as he settled the case of the two women and the one remaining child (1 Kings 3:16–28). Solomon moved the court from the city gate to the “Hall of Justice” in his palace (1 Kings 7:7). Jehoshaphat reformed Judah’s court system and established two courts, one over cases concerning God, the other over cases concerning the king (2 Chron. 19:5–11).

The OT does not provide a detailed description of the Israelite court procedures; however, glimpses into the procedures can be pieced together from several passages. Whether at the city gate, sanctuary, or palace, a private person who appeared as a plaintiff initiated the judicial action (Deut. 25:7–8). The parties stood before the judge, while the judge was seated (Deut. 19:17). However, the judge stood to pronounce judgment (Isa. 3:13). The plaintiff was the satan, “accuser” or “adversary” (Ps. 109:6). The accusation could be given orally (Isa. 41:21) or in writing (Job 31:35–36). There was no public prosecutor or defender. Each party brought its own case and witnesses. A conviction required at least two witnesses (Num. 35:30; Deut. 19:15). Witnesses accepted responsibility for the sentence, which is why they had to throw the first stones when such a penalty was in order (Deut. 17:7; John 8:7). If they provided false testimony, they faced the punishment for the crime about which they testified. Each side could produce physical evidence to make its case (Deut. 22:13–17). If a case lacked sufficient evidence or witnesses, an oath or an ordeal could be undertaken to support one’s case (Exod. 22:6–10). At times, lots were cast to select a guilty individual (Josh. 7:14–15) or to end a quarrel (Prov. 18:18). After everything had been examined, the judge acquitted the innocent and condemned the guilty (Deut. 25:1). Depending upon the crime, the penalty could be a fine, compensation, bodily punishment, or even death. Jail was primarily used for those awaiting trial and not as a punishment. If evidence and witnesses were lacking and a murder went unsolved, then a sacrifice was made to declare the community’s innocence and to atone for the community (Deut. 21:1–8).

Ideally, judges were just, righteous, fair, and defenders of the weak (Deut. 16:18–20). Unfortunately, multiple examples exist of false witnesses (Deut. 19:18) and corrupt judges who accepted bribes, perverted justice, and showed favoritism (Exod. 23:3, 8; Mic. 3:11). Ultimately, God was the supreme judge of all, protector of the weak, just, and no respecter of persons.

New Testament

During the NT period numerous lesser Sanhedrins, or councils, administered justice in Jewish communities. The lesser Sanhedrins consisted of twenty-three members, but the one in Jerusalem, the Great Sanhedrin, consisted of the high priest and seventy members comprised of priests, scribes, elders, and laity from among the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Great Sanhedrin was the supreme legislative and judicial body, and it wielded its own police force (Acts 5:24–26). The Romans allowed the Great Sanhedrin broad authority over internal and religious matters, but they limited its ability to exercise capital punishment (John 18:31). The deaths of Stephen and James were probably lynchings rather than formal executions. Clearly, the Great Sanhedrin had the authority to administer corporal punishment (2 Cor. 11:24).

The Mishnah provides insight into the Great Sanhedrin’s judicial procedure. However, several of the procedures stand in tension with the procedures described in the Gospels concerning Jesus’ trial. Cases were to be heard only during the day, but at least a hearing into the charges facing Jesus occurred at night. The proceedings against Jesus were held at the high priest’s palace instead of properly at the court (John 18:13). Capital cases could not be heard the day before the Sabbath or a festival, but Jesus was condemned on Friday during Passover.

The trials of Jesus and Paul fit well with what is known about Roman law. Roman regional rulers heard cases involving public order but usually left smaller issues in the hands of local courts. For example, Pilate, a prefect, initially wanted to release Jesus, and Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, refused to hear the charges against Paul. Such officials could also delay a decision for extended periods of time. Hoping to receive a bribe, the procurator Felix held Paul for two years without a judgment (Acts 24:26). Roman officials also had the discretion to send defendants to their home province. Pilate sent Jesus to Herod because Jesus was from Galilee, and Felix inquired about Paul’s home in Cilicia. When hearing a case, the Roman official gave the defendant and the accuser opportunities to make their respective cases and to call witnesses. Pilate gave Jesus an opportunity to defend himself, and Festus explained that it is “not the Roman custom” to condemn someone who has not yet faced the accusers and put on a defense against their charges (Acts 25:16). As a Roman citizen, Paul was afforded rights in the court system. When Paul was imprisoned and beaten without trial, he demanded an apology from the Philippian officials (16:37). Paul’s Roman citizenship also gave him the right to appeal to Caesar (25:11).

Paul expected Christians to abide by the decisions of the courts (Rom. 13:1–3), but he also encouraged Christians to avoid taking other Christians to court (1 Cor. 6:1–11) because they should be able to settle disputes within the church.

The words “wrath” and “anger” are used in Bible translations for a variety of Hebrew and Greek words that refer to the disposition of someone (including God) toward persons (including oneself [Gen. 45:5]) or situations considered to be seriously displeasing. There may be degrees of anger (Zech. 1:15), and it may be accompanied by other sentiments such as distress (Gen. 45:5), hatred (Job 16:9), jealousy (Rom. 10:19), grief (Mark 3:5), and vengeance (Mic. 5:15).

Anger may be a proper response to sin or a sin-distorted world, as seen in, for example, Moses’ reaction to the golden calf (Exod. 32:19). Paul envisages an anger that does not necessarily involve sin (Eph. 4:26). Jesus is said to display anger at the willful stubbornness of his contemporaries (Mark 3:5), and his response to the mourning for Lazarus (John 11:33) might be rendered as “outrage,” an anger directed not so much at the mourners as at the ugliness of death, the consequence of sin, and with thoughts, perhaps, of his own impending death necessitated by this fallen world.

On the other hand, a display of anger may be the result of distorted perceptions or values (Gen. 4:5–6). A tendency to anger in oneself needs to be kept in check (James 1:19) and in others needs to be handled prudently (Prov. 15:1). Unchecked, anger may lead to violence and murder (Gen. 49:6). In several NT lists anger is associated with such other sinful behavior as quarreling, jealousy, selfishness, slander, malice, gossip, conceit, strife, idolatry, sorcery, and bitterness (2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8).

In Ps. 76:10 NLT (cf. ESV, NASB, NRSV) God is said to cause human anger to bring him praise (but see NIV, NET, where it is God’s wrath against human beings that brings him praise). Perhaps an instance of this is seen in Rom. 13:4–5, where the wrath of the civil authority serves to maintain justice under God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greco-Roman and Jewish Backgrounds

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

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

Jesus’ Kingship

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

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

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

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

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

The protection of individual freedoms against government restriction, such as the freedom of expression, press, religion, and assembly (cf. the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution). Those who champion these rights often ground them in liberal ideology, enshrining individual autonomy over against collectivism. However, a Christian worldview better establishes these freedoms and avoids idolizing the self. While God ordains civil authorities as his earthly representatives to restrain evil and administer justice (Rom. 13:1–7; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13), only Jesus Christ reigns as Lord and as judge of the living and the dead (2 Cor. 5:10). Civil liberties are therefore those matters of conscience that a government should leave between individuals and God (Acts 4:19; 5:29). These include how, or whether, they worship him (religious freedom) and reflect the divine image in which they were created (expressive freedom; cf. Gen. 1:26). Thus, by violating civil liberties a government commits a greater sin than restraining personal autonomy: it assumes Christ’s office for itself.

A person exempted from military training and service on the basis of deeply held religious convictions against participating in warfare.

Jesus’ call to “not resist an evil person” and to “turn to them the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39; Luke 6:29–36) makes the clearest case for Christian conscientious objection. Jesus also blessed peacemakers (Matt. 5:9), commanded love of enemy and neighbor (Matt. 5:44; 22:39; Mark 12:31), and refused to build his kingdom by force (John 6:15; 18:36). Beyond violence, war may violate the Christian’s conscience because it often necessitates deception and breeds fear, hatred, greed, and pride, be it individual, national, ethnic, or otherwise.

Conversely, Christians are obligated to obey civil authorities (Rom. 13:1–6; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13–14), for whom Scripture reserves the right to wield the sword (Rom. 13:4). Some argue that these verses allow or oblige believers to fight when called to duty. Furthermore, this sinful world may require loving one’s neighbors by using violence to protect them. If Christians enjoy the freedoms and well-being defended by a military, should they not contribute to it in combat, provided the war is just?

If Jesus condemns violence, however, the conscientious objector may invoke Peter’s claim, “We must obey God rather than human beings!” (Acts 5:29; cf. 4:19). Many nonviolent forms of resistance exist, so conscientious objectors may still help defend their country by serving in the military or elsewhere in noncombatant roles.

Ancient court systems reflected the needs, values, and structures of the broader society. Not surprisingly, the court systems in nomadic and urban societies are quite different. Nomadic courts were more informal, based more on custom than law. The context of nomadic justice was located primarily within the family and clan. Those with disputes sought out elders and wise leaders to settle them. Urban court systems used more-fixed institutions of judges under the supervision of priests and kings. Even in an urban system the court functioned on a case-by-case basis and drew little or no distinction between criminal and civil offenses. Cases dealt primarily with an injury and the compensation for the injury. The basic process involved stating a case before a judge, each side calling witnesses, and the judge giving a judgment.

Old Testament

Courts in ancient Israel reflected features of both nomadic and urban court systems as well as the broader judicial practices of the ancient Near East. In ancient Israel a case could be tried by the elders, a judge, a priest, or the king. The elders were heads of families and leading citizens. They sat at the city gate (Prov. 31:23), where they heard cases (Ruth 4:1–12), oversaw property transactions (Gen. 23:10–20), settled disputes, and imposed penalties (Deut. 22:18–19). As Israelite society developed, judges were appointed from each tribe and town to administer justice (Deut. 16:18). If a case was too difficult, the judge could transfer the case to a higher court and judge (Exod. 18:21–22). Once a higher court gave a verdict, the participants and lower courts were bound by the decision (Deut. 17:8–13). Priests distinguished between the holy and the common, between clean and unclean (Lev. 10:10). However, they could judge all types of cases, not just religious ones (Deut. 21:5; Ezek. 44:23–24).

With the establishment of the monarchy, the king became the highest judge, and the elders and priests became minor judges. David appointed judges from the Levites over all Israel to administer justice (1 Chron. 26:29), but he also heard cases himself. Solomon provided the quintessential example of a wise judge as he settled the case of the two women and the one remaining child (1 Kings 3:16–28). Solomon moved the court from the city gate to the “Hall of Justice” in his palace (1 Kings 7:7). Jehoshaphat reformed Judah’s court system and established two courts, one over cases concerning God, the other over cases concerning the king (2 Chron. 19:5–11).

The OT does not provide a detailed description of the Israelite court procedures; however, glimpses into the procedures can be pieced together from several passages. Whether at the city gate, sanctuary, or palace, a private person who appeared as a plaintiff initiated the judicial action (Deut. 25:7–8). The parties stood before the judge, while the judge was seated (Deut. 19:17). However, the judge stood to pronounce judgment (Isa. 3:13). The plaintiff was the satan, “accuser” or “adversary” (Ps. 109:6). The accusation could be given orally (Isa. 41:21) or in writing (Job 31:35–36). There was no public prosecutor or defender. Each party brought its own case and witnesses. A conviction required at least two witnesses (Num. 35:30; Deut. 19:15). Witnesses accepted responsibility for the sentence, which is why they had to throw the first stones when such a penalty was in order (Deut. 17:7; John 8:7). If they provided false testimony, they faced the punishment for the crime about which they testified. Each side could produce physical evidence to make its case (Deut. 22:13–17). If a case lacked sufficient evidence or witnesses, an oath or an ordeal could be undertaken to support one’s case (Exod. 22:6–10). At times, lots were cast to select a guilty individual (Josh. 7:14–15) or to end a quarrel (Prov. 18:18). After everything had been examined, the judge acquitted the innocent and condemned the guilty (Deut. 25:1). Depending upon the crime, the penalty could be a fine, compensation, bodily punishment, or even death. Jail was primarily used for those awaiting trial and not as a punishment. If evidence and witnesses were lacking and a murder went unsolved, then a sacrifice was made to declare the community’s innocence and to atone for the community (Deut. 21:1–8).

Ideally, judges were just, righteous, fair, and defenders of the weak (Deut. 16:18–20). Unfortunately, multiple examples exist of false witnesses (Deut. 19:18) and corrupt judges who accepted bribes, perverted justice, and showed favoritism (Exod. 23:3, 8; Mic. 3:11). Ultimately, God was the supreme judge of all, protector of the weak, just, and no respecter of persons.

New Testament

During the NT period numerous lesser Sanhedrins, or councils, administered justice in Jewish communities. The lesser Sanhedrins consisted of twenty-three members, but the one in Jerusalem, the Great Sanhedrin, consisted of the high priest and seventy members comprised of priests, scribes, elders, and laity from among the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Great Sanhedrin was the supreme legislative and judicial body, and it wielded its own police force (Acts 5:24–26). The Romans allowed the Great Sanhedrin broad authority over internal and religious matters, but they limited its ability to exercise capital punishment (John 18:31). The deaths of Stephen and James were probably lynchings rather than formal executions. Clearly, the Great Sanhedrin had the authority to administer corporal punishment (2 Cor. 11:24).

The Mishnah provides insight into the Great Sanhedrin’s judicial procedure. However, several of the procedures stand in tension with the procedures described in the Gospels concerning Jesus’ trial. Cases were to be heard only during the day, but at least a hearing into the charges facing Jesus occurred at night. The proceedings against Jesus were held at the high priest’s palace instead of properly at the court (John 18:13). Capital cases could not be heard the day before the Sabbath or a festival, but Jesus was condemned on Friday during Passover.

The trials of Jesus and Paul fit well with what is known about Roman law. Roman regional rulers heard cases involving public order but usually left smaller issues in the hands of local courts. For example, Pilate, a prefect, initially wanted to release Jesus, and Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, refused to hear the charges against Paul. Such officials could also delay a decision for extended periods of time. Hoping to receive a bribe, the procurator Felix held Paul for two years without a judgment (Acts 24:26). Roman officials also had the discretion to send defendants to their home province. Pilate sent Jesus to Herod because Jesus was from Galilee, and Felix inquired about Paul’s home in Cilicia. When hearing a case, the Roman official gave the defendant and the accuser opportunities to make their respective cases and to call witnesses. Pilate gave Jesus an opportunity to defend himself, and Festus explained that it is “not the Roman custom” to condemn someone who has not yet faced the accusers and put on a defense against their charges (Acts 25:16). As a Roman citizen, Paul was afforded rights in the court system. When Paul was imprisoned and beaten without trial, he demanded an apology from the Philippian officials (16:37). Paul’s Roman citizenship also gave him the right to appeal to Caesar (25:11).

Paul expected Christians to abide by the decisions of the courts (Rom. 13:1–3), but he also encouraged Christians to avoid taking other Christians to court (1 Cor. 6:1–11) because they should be able to settle disputes within the church.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestiality (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); homosexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestiality (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); homosexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestiality (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); homosexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Terminology

“Deacon” is an English translation of the Greek word diakonos. Generically, this term refers to one who serves, and the word is used with this sense repeatedly throughout the NT (e.g., Matt. 20:26; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43). Matthew 22:13 speaks specifically of those who serve by doing the bidding of a king. John 2:9 refers to the servants who draw the water at the wedding in Cana. Various other passages use diakonos in a religious context with reference to ministers or those who serve God or Christ in some way (Rom. 13:4; 2 Cor. 6:4; Eph. 6:21; Col. 1:7; 1 Tim. 4:6). This broad usage of the term to indicate general service, including table service, is also quite common in the secular Greek literature of the first century.

As the early church grew and developed, the word diakonos came to designate the specific church office of deacon. Although often cited, Acts 6 is inconclusive regarding the office of deacon. The noun diakonos does not appear in this text, but the related verb form diakoneō (“to wait on” [Acts 6:2]) is used in reference to the ministry of distributing food. Some interpreters find in this the precursor or establishment of the diaconate, but others argue that the use of diakoneō to speak of table service need not imply that the role of deacon had developed at this early stage of the church. Only two passages in the NT, Phil. 1:1 and 1 Tim. 3:8–12, clearly use diakonos in the sense of an established church office, and here the NIV rightly translates it as “deacon.”

The Office of Deacon

Paul’s address to the believers in Philippi is unique within the Pauline corpus in its singling out of two church offices. While directing his words to the saints at Philippi, Paul specifically makes mention of the “overseers” (Gk. episkopos) and deacons in their midst (Phil. 1:1). This greeting provides evidence of the existence of such ecclesiastical structure from the early AD 60s at the latest.

The most detailed information in the NT related to the office of deacon occurs in 1 Tim. 3:8–12. Immediately following a discussion of “overseers” (Gk. episkopos) in 1 Tim. 3:1–7, this text shifts its focus to the office of deacon and provides a description of the requirements for the one occupying the role. The one fit to serve as a deacon should have a character worthy of respect, and the passage calls for the demonstration of this character in the areas of drink, money (v. 8), and family (v. 12). A deacon should display a commitment to Christian truth (v. 9), and a candidate should be tested before officially being allowed to serve in this office (v. 10).

Deaconesses in the Early Church

Significant discussion surrounds the issue of whether the NT limits the role of deacon to men or whether it provides evidence of women serving as deacons, frequently designated with the feminized term “deaconess.” At issue is the translation of gynaikes in 1 Tim. 3:11. The NIV renders it as “women”; also within its range of meaning are the translations “wives” (ESV) and “women deacons.” The context of the passage must dictate whether the qualifications listed in 1 Tim. 3:11 apply to the wives of those men who wish to be deacons or whether they are the standard for those women who themselves desire to serve in the office of deacon. On the one hand, the subsequent clear address of a male deacon as needing to be “faithful to his wife” (1 Tim. 3:12) makes a reference to female deacons in 1 Tim. 3:11 an illogical interruption. However, those who see in 1 Tim. 3:11 a reference to female deacons cite the use of diakonos to describe Phoebe in Rom. 16:1 as evidence that she served as a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea. Alternatively, Rom. 16:1 may be speaking only of Phoebe’s great service to the church in that locale without implying that she occupied an official church office.

Whether or not 1 Tim. 3:11 and Rom. 16:1 have in mind the role of deaconess, it is clear that an order of deaconesses existed in the church after the first century. The most significant early evidence includes the Didaskalia Apostolorum (Syria, early third century AD), which describes the female deacon in the Eastern church as one who ministered by assisting women with their baptism, provided instruction to the recently baptized women, visited women who were ill, and provided service for women in need. The fourth-century Syrian Apostolic Constitutions affirms their function in similar activities and identifies additional duties, including maintaining the separation of the sexes during worship. It also describes their ordination by means of the laying on of hands and prayer.

Various levels of financial responsibility are recognized in the Bible: to one’s own household, the church, the state, and the poor. It is the responsibility of the head of a household to provide for its members, including immediate and extended family, servants, and slaves. This provision encompasses members of the wider family who have been left without independent means, such as widows and orphans. Paul instructs Timothy to ensure that children and grandchildren extend this care to their widowed mothers or grandmothers. Failure to provide for one’s family and household is a grievous sin (1 Tim. 5:4, 8, 16).

Financial provision for those whose lives are dedicated to ministry is the responsibility of the church. In the OT, the Levites, who were allocated no tribal land of their own to provide for their needs, received the tithe of the rest of the nation. In turn, they were to present a tithe of what they received in offering to God (Num. 18:26; Josh. 18:7). Similarly in the NT, the church has financial responsibility to provide for its ministers (2 Thess. 3:8–9; 1 Tim. 5:17–18).

Christians are also responsible for paying their taxes to the state, since this authority is also instituted by God to administer justice (Rom. 13:1–7).

The responsibility to provide for the poor rests with all righteous men and women. Although the church has a special responsibility to care for its own poor (2 Cor. 8:1–5; 1 Tim. 5:16), such charity is not restricted to the Christian poor but is extended to all who are in need (Prov. 14:31; 19:17).

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both Testaments proclaim, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it” (Ps. 24:1; 1 Cor. 10:26). Only the Lord and Creator of the universe can rightfully claim ownership over anything, be it physical, spiritual, or moral (Job 41:11). Thus, “every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights” (James 1:17). He even owns human beings themselves. In a biblical worldview, God alone exercises ownership. People, however, exercise stewardship over what he has given.

Scripture guides and regulates human relationships with respect to owning property. While people are ultimately only stewards, they must never wrongly take or desire what God has entrusted to others. Therefore God commands, “You shall not steal” (Exod. 20:15) and “You shall not covet” (20:17). The book of Proverbs explains how to wisely dispose of one’s goods (Prov. 3:9, 10; 11:25; 22:9), as does Jesus’ parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14–30). Numerous passages teach that human “ownership” should be earned through work, if possible (Jer. 29:5–7; 2 Thess. 3:10). People should acknowledge their possessions as gifts from God by giving to the poor (Eph. 4:28) and to God’s appointed leaders, both secular and Christian: “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17 [cf. Rom. 13:6; 1 Tim. 5:18]).

In fact, the whole Bible can be read as the drama of the divine owner relating to his human stewards. At creation, God charges Adam and Eve “to work . . . and take care of” the garden (Gen. 2:15), thereby entrusting all creation to human care. In disobedience they abuse their stewardship, as will their offspring. In the fall, humankind forfeits God’s benefits in paradise (Gen. 3); he disowns his unfaithful stewards. The rest of Scripture relates how God redeems a people for himself, adopting the disinherited back into his household. He begins by promising Abraham that his offspring, Israel, will possess a land, Canaan (Gen. 17:8), which will be a kind of new paradise (Exod. 3:8). The Israelites conquer the territory, but over time they prove to be unfaithful stewards. After breaking God’s covenant, they lose the land in exile.

Jesus’ parable of the landowner in Matt. 21:33–44 is basically a capsule version of this grand biblical story. Both come to a climax when God sends his Son, Jesus Christ. He comes to “buy back” his people from their sins as the one faithful servant (Mark 10:45), even unto death on a cross (Phil. 2:8). Jesus pays for his elect’s adoption with his blood, so now believers partake in God’s ownership over all things. “All things are yours, whether . . . the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God” (1 Cor. 3:21–23).

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

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

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

In the ancient world, shame and honor are two binary opposites used to depict one’s status or behavior, which a culture approves or disapproves. The system of honor and shame serves as a primary means of social control. Thus, knowing how to act to conform to the code of social behavior expected by one’s group is essential to the maintenance of that community.

In the Bible, the noun “honor” is represented by kabod (from the verb “to be heavy”) in the OT, and by timē (from the verb “to honor”) in the NT. The reverse of honor is shame, which is represented by a variety of Hebrew and Greek terms, such as boshet in the OT, and aischynē in the NT.

In Israel, the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26; cf. Num. 5:2–3; 8:6–7, 14–15) is comparable to the code of honor and shame. As a covenant community, Israel has the obligation to abide by the sanction imposed by God to attain honor (Deut. 4:6–8; 26:18–19; Pss. 34:5, 8–9; 37:18–19; 127:5; cf. 2 Chron. 26:18; Pss. 8:5; 62:7; 84:11; Rom. 2:7–11). Israel is honored (Exod. 32:11–12; Deut. 32:26–27) before the nations when God’s honor is upheld (Exod. 7:5; 10:1–2; 14:4, 17–18). Violation of covenantal stipulations—for example, deceptions in trading (Deut. 25:16), acts of “abomination” (Lev. 18:17, 22–23, 26–29), idolatry (Deut. 31:20; 32:15–17), and failure to perform duties prescribed in the law (Deut. 25:7–10)—results in disgrace before others (Exod. 32:25) and God (Deut. 28:25–26, 37).

The status of honor can be ascribed to an individual. A person is more honorable who is the firstborn (Gen. 49:3), comes from an esteemed family (Ps. 45:9), or is married into a dignified family (Gen. 41:45; Ruth 4:5). This worth will last a lifetime unless the reputation of the family is compromised, either because of economics (Ruth 1:1–21) or violation of the codes of conduct, such as adultery and incest (Exod. 20:14; Lev. 18:20; 20:10–21; Deut. 5:18; 22:22; Prov. 6:32–33), though not necessarily divorce (Deut. 24:1–4). Certain groups of people are honored because of special privilege granted to them (Prov. 8:15–16; Dan. 2:21; Rom. 13:1–5)—for example, priests (Exod. 28:2, 40; Ps. 110:4; Heb. 7:21), kings (Ps. 2:7), sages (Prov. 3:35), Israel (Exod. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; 8:11–9:7; 26:16–19), and the church (1 Pet. 2:9).

Wealth symbolizes one’s status and claims respect for its owners (Gen. 12:10–20; 14:21–24; 1 Kings 3:13; Prov. 3:16; 8:18; 22:4; Ps. 49:16; Isa. 61:6, 12) but does not equate the state of being poor with shame (cf. Ps. 12:5) unless it is a result of moral lassitude (Prov. 13:18). Parts of the human body symbolize worth and value. Certain parts of the body are less honorable than others, and to expose them is to invite disgrace (2 Sam. 10:4–5; 1 Chron. 19:4; Isa. 20:4; 1 Cor. 12:23–24).

The status of honor can also be achieved by an individual’s merits (cf. Rom. 2:7–11). Certain types of behavior are honorable—for example, humility (Prov. 15:33; 18:12; 29:23), taking care of one’s master (Prov. 27:18), honoring parents (Exod. 20:12; 21:15; 22:28; Prov. 19:26; Mal. 1:6; Matt. 15:4; Eph. 6:2), good service (Gen. 45:13), military exploits (2 Sam. 23:19–23; cf. 2 Chron. 32:21), almsgiving and justice (Prov. 21:21). One important aspect of achieving honor is the pursuit of wisdom. The ways of wisdom are honorable (Prov. 3:16–17; 4:8; 8:18), preserving a person from dishonor (Prov. 3:16–17, 31–33, 35; 24:14), but the ways of folly, such as injustice (Prov. 1:22; 14:31) and dishonoring parents (Prov. 30:17; cf. Exod. 20:12; 21:15; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16), are a disgrace (Prov. 20:3; 26:1). The failure to perform one’s duty (Gen. 40:1–3) or a defeat in battle (Isa. 23:9; Lam. 1:8; Nah. 3:10) results in shame and, accordingly, loss of social status (Isa. 16:14; 23:9; Jer. 46:12; Lam. 1:6, 8; Hos. 4:7). An ultimate form of disgrace is to be hanged for public viewing (Deut. 21:22–23; Esther 5:14; 7:7–10; Matt. 27:32–44; Mark 15:22–32; Luke 23:33–43; John 19:17–24; 1 Cor. 1:18–25). In a patriarchal society, the status of women is obtained through their sexual exclusiveness. Their chastity (Gen. 38:24; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:13–21; cf. 2 Sam. 13:13; Song 8:8–9) and fertility (Gen. 16:2; 30:2; 1 Sam. 1:3–8) become indicators of family and social worth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestiality (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); homosexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestiality (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); homosexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.