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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The phrase “finger of God” occurs as an indicator that an action comes from God and not some other source. In Luke 11:20 Jesus uses this expression to reinforce the idea that his ability to cast out demons is a product of God’s power rather than of the devil’s power. The phrase may also indicate effortlessness on God’s part. In Exod. 8:19 the phrase indicates that Pharaoh’s magicians know that the power displayed is from God and not a trick of Moses. Likewise, in Exod. 31:18 and Deut. 9:10 the phrase attributes the authorship of the Decalogue directly to God.

God the Worker

A biblical theology of work starts with God as the creator of all things. In the OT, the verb bara’ (“to create”) is used only with God as subject. The first verb in the Bible (Gen. 1:1), it occurs also in many other texts that describe God accomplishing what only God can do. Other terms such as yatsar (“to form, fashion”) and ’asah (“to make, do”) are used numerous times throughout the OT with either God or humans as subjects.

These three terms reinforce the portrayal of God as worker in Gen. 1–2 (cf. Isa. 45:7). God creates light and darkness; sky and earth; sun, moon, and stars; land and sea; plant and animal life; and humankind—in sum, all that is. He forms the “man” (Heb. ’adam) from the dust of the ground, bringing him to life by breathing into him the breath of life.

Elsewhere in the OT God is said to build, build up, or rebuild/restore (Heb. banah [e.g., Pss. 102:16; 147:2; Jer. 24:6; Amos 9:11]). Interestingly, God takes a rib from the man, which he then makes (lit., “builds into” [Heb. banah + le]) a woman (Gen. 2:22). He founds (Heb. kun) the earth (Isa. 45:18) and stretches out (Heb. natah) the heavens (Zech. 12:1). Further, wisdom is God’s “craftsman” (Heb. ’amon), taking part in the world’s creation (Prov. 8:30). The NT reveals Christ as the one through whom God creates all things (John 1:1–3; Col. 1:16). This brief sketch suggests the range of ways in which God’s work is described.

Human Labor

Ideally, work is performed as service to God (Col. 3:17, 22–24). Work is one way we express the divine image. God’s creation mandate to fill, subdue, and rule the earth implies work (Gen. 1:26–28), and God places the man in the garden “to work it and take care of it” (Gen. 2:15). The importance of work for human dignity as well as survival undergirds the laws of gleaning that make provision for the poor to gather their own food (e.g., Deut. 24:19–22). The expansion of human technologies and occupations (mela’kah [see Exod. 12:16]) reflects that dignity and God’s own diverse workmanship. Job 28 celebrates human industry and achievement while subordinating all to the prevailing value of wisdom, rooted in “the fear of the Lord.” Given the indispensable role of work within the limits of human life, diligence is commended (Eccles. 3:9–10), idleness condemned (Prov. 10:4; 12:24; 21:5; 2 Thess. 3:6–10). Work is essentially God’s good gift to us in creation.

But work now has negative aspects. In response to Adam’s sin, God curses the ground, introducing “painful toil” into the work cycle (Gen. 3:17–19; 5:29). We now eke out our living by hardship, finding frustration instead of bounty—a lifelong reminder that we are made of dust and will return to dust. The book of Ecclesiastes echoes this note of futility and raises sharp questions about the lasting value of human labor (1:2–3, 14; 2:4–11, 17–23; 3:9; 4:4–6; 8:16–17). Sin and death haunt the unfolding occupations in Gen. 4, and the episode of the tower of Babel in Gen. 11 signals God’s judgment on human pretension (cf. James 4:13–16). Excessive toil (workaholism) is a pitfall, not a virtue, for it expresses reliance on self rather than on God, who builds, protects, and gives rest (Ps. 127:1–2). Oppressive, unjust working conditions are cause for lament, and they incur God’s judgment (Exod. 5:6–19; Prov. 14:31; James 5:4–6).

Thus, Israel’s labor policy is to reflect God’s covenant faithfulness, generosity, and concern for the vulnerable. Moses’ law places limits on employers/masters to protect employees, slaves, and foreign workers from exploitation. The primary limit is God’s command that Israel keep the Sabbath holy by a complete cessation of labor (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). This move prioritizes God’s covenant above human labor and sets a rhythm of work and rest. Exodus grounds the Sabbath in God’s rest from his work of creation on the seventh day. Deuteronomy ties it to Israel’s history of slavery in Egypt and deliverance by God; by keeping the Sabbath, Israel shows gratitude to God and guards against replicating Egypt’s oppressive policies.

Exodus 31–32 portrays work in its best and worst lights. The proper interplay of work and rest is seen in chapter 31, which narrates the divinely empowered work on the tabernacle, followed by a strong reminder to keep the Sabbath as a “sign” between God and Israel. In contrast, chapter 32 portrays artisanship put to the worst use, the making of a golden idol. Aaron fashions gold with a tool and makes the calf image, but later he tells Moses, “I threw [their gold jewelry] into the fire, and out came this calf!” (32:24). This remark anticipates the prophets’ later mockery of idol-makers (e.g., Isa. 44:9–20) and raises the issue of personal responsibility for the outcome of one’s labor: Aaron seeks to avoid being implicated in Israel’s idolatry by concealing his own role in the project.

Public labor issues increase in complexity when Israel adopts human kingship and engages in international trade (e.g., 1 Sam. 8; 1 Kings 9:15–23). Babylon deals a decisive blow to Judah’s statehood by deporting leaders and skilled workers. Many of these establish such viable, productive new lives in Babylon that when Cyrus later allows the exiled Judeans to return, they choose to remain.

The NT assumes the legitimacy of work and adopts the OT’s view that within proper limits work is a good gift of God. Jesus, however, has come to do his Father’s “work” (John 5:16–18), which entails calling some people away from their normal occupations to follow him, as well as a new approach to Sabbath observance (Mark 2:21–27; 3:4). These moves signal the urgency and newness of the kingdom of God. Consequently, the apostles are “co-workers in God’s service” (1 Cor. 3:9), and Christians are “God’s handiwork” (Eph. 2:10). In light of the resurrection, we offer to God work (Gk. ergon) and labor (Gk. kopos), not in futility but in hope (1 Cor. 15:58; cf. Rev. 14:13).

God’s people were to observe the Sabbath on the seventh day of each week by resting from normal daily work. It is first explicitly introduced in Exod. 16:23–30, where God provides twice as much manna for the Israelites in the desert on the sixth day so that they might enjoy his provision for them on the seventh day without having to gather it on that day.

The Sabbath command is incorporated into the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:8–11). The motivation given in Exodus for keeping the Sabbath is the fact that God made the world in six days and rested on the seventh (cf. Gen. 2:2–3)—hence sometimes it is considered a “creation ordinance.” God’s rest was his enjoyment of a world that met his expectations, and thus the weekly celebration might look to a time when the world would once again truly enjoy such “rest.” In Deut. 5:12–15 the motivation is given as the new creation event, the redemption of Israel from slavery in Egypt.

The week, marked off by its Sabbath, is closely associated with the new moon as a quarter of that natural cycle (1 Chron. 23:31; Isa. 1:13). The people of Mesopotamia observed a lunar festival shabbatu, but we do not know of any people independently of Israel observing a weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath is a communal rather than an individual observance, including even “any foreigner residing in your towns” (Exod. 20:10; Neh. 13:15–22), a sign of Israel’s covenant relationship with God (Exod. 31:13–17; Isa. 56:6).

Although religious worship is not prominent in the Sabbath injunctions in the OT, there was to be a gathering of God’s people on that day with special offerings (Lev. 23:3; Ezek. 46:3–5), and it was a day when a visit to a prophet might be more likely (2 Kings 4:23). Psalm 92 is identified as a psalm for the Sabbath.

The terms “Sabbath” or “sabbath rest” could also be applied to special days, such as the Day of Atonement, which did not fall on the seventh day (Lev. 16:31). In an extension of the sabbatical system, the land was to enjoy a Sabbath of rest every seven years (Lev. 25:4–7).

By NT times, regular gatherings were held at local synagogues on the Sabbath wherever a sufficient number of observant Jews resided. Jesus offended Pharisaic sensitivities with regard to Sabbath observance, using it to alleviate human suffering and presenting himself as the true representative of humanity, for whom the Sabbath was designed (Matt. 12:1–13; John 5:9–10). The healings on the Sabbath day draw attention to the realization of God’s creative and redemptive purposes for the world.

The writer to the Hebrews treats the Sabbath as a foretaste of the ultimate rest God provides for those who persevere in faith and obedience (Heb. 4:1–11).

Paul regards the victory of Christ as bringing a freedom “with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day” (Col. 2:16 [cf. Gal. 4:10]). Some Christians understand this as denying continuity of the Sabbath principle of a weekly day of rest. Others understand it in a way similar to Jesus’ remarks on Pharisaic restrictions imposed on the day and see a continuity of Sabbath observance, perhaps with a change of day, to make it a celebration of the Lord’s resurrection on the first day of the week.

The word “sign” usually is a translation of the Hebrew word ’ot or the Greek word sēmeion. Signs are visible, typically being an object, a mark, an event, or a custom. In addition, signs are symbolic, pointing to things not seen. Signs often reveal or share some quality with the unseen reality to which they point, and so they are a token of that reality. In the Bible, signs typically are caused or instituted by God, and in many cases they are miraculous. However, in a few cases signs are set forth as the work of other gods (as in Deut. 13:1–2) or as being instituted by merely human design (as in Num. 2:2). In summary, a sign may be defined as something seen that points to something unseen, and that is instituted or created to do so by someone’s intention.

Several examples support this definition. Keeping the Sabbath is a sign of God’s rest after creating the world (Exod. 31:15); the Sabbath rest itself imitates God’s rest. Circumcision is a sign of God’s promise to both Abraham and his descendants; circumcision is also a physical mark that is related to human fertility (Gen. 17:11). The rainbow is a sign of God’s promise not to destroy the world by water and rain; rainbows appear only with rain (Gen. 9:13). (In the original Hebrew text, both the custom of circumcision and the rainbow that appears after the great flood are called “signs.”) The early Passover plagues both bring and warn of judgment, while the healing miracles of Jesus both bring and promise blessing. While signs point to unseen realities, these realities do not diminish the value or importance of the visible world. Instead, the unseen realities themselves are ultimately expressed in the visible world.

Divine Intervention

The word “sign” usually refers to an event that cannot be plausibly explained by natural or human causes but is consistent with intervention by God or by some other divine power. An important example of this occurs in the book of Exodus. In Exodus, Moses predicts each kind of plague that will occur and the time of its occurrence. Many of those plagues, such as the plague of locusts (Exod. 10:14–15), are events that could occur naturally. However, the merely natural occurrence of so many plagues in such a short time is quite improbable. It is likewise improbable that Moses could simply guess beforehand the type and timing of all these plagues.

Ultimately, a merely natural explanation for these plagues does not prove credible to the Egyptians. However, the plagues are consistent with acts of divine intervention, provided one does not rule out that possibility beforehand. They are consistent because Moses gives a plausible explanation of why God would intervene at this time, even though God had not intervened within living memory. All these evidences together are considered sufficient to infer that some god has caused the signs. The signs are portrayed as objectively known events. When Pharaoh refuses to admit that Moses can bring plagues, Pharaoh’s own officials say that he should know better (Exod. 10:7). The officials believe in the reality of the signs even though they do not follow the faith or God of Moses.

Throughout the Bible, signs give evidence of God’s direct action and identity, but they are not given as evidence for God’s existence. God’s existence is to be known by other means; for example, Paul writes that the existence of the Creator is “clearly seen” from the created world (Rom. 1:20).

Miracles and Faith

Miraculous signs often are given to validate a prophet and his message. Signs are especially frequent when that prophetic message is a covenant from God that has life-or-death consequences. Both the Mosaic covenant (Deut. 30:15–20) and the new covenant of Jesus (Luke 22:15–20; John 5:24–29) warn of life and death. In the OT, signs occur most prolifically at the hands of Moses. The signs manifested on behalf of Moses are explicitly given so that people will believe in Moses and follow God’s covenant (Exod. 4:1–9; 19:9).

Signs occur even more frequently and prominently in the NT. Jesus makes the lame walk, heals the blind, and even raises the dead (John 5:1–9; 9:1–7; 11:1–44). Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is characterized as performing many signs, and the signs are cited as one reason to believe in Jesus (John 20:30–31). The signs are characteristic of Jesus’ ministry and later of his apostles’ ministries. The tradition that Jesus performed signs is interwoven throughout the four Gospels as we have them, even in portions often thought to reflect earlier sources. The most important sign in the NT is the resurrection of Jesus, since this is the ultimate validation of Jesus by God, and the Christian faith hangs upon the truth of Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1–20).

Although signs are given to elicit faith, human nature and desires are such that reasonable belief does not always take root. As with Pharaoh, many others throughout the OT do not believe despite seeing signs (e.g., Num. 14:11; Ps. 78:11). In the Gospels, many will not believe any reports about miraculous signs. They instead demand to see signs personally (Mark 8:11–12; John 4:48; 6:30; 9:27–41; 20:29) or attribute them to Satan. The Passover signs were to be remembered and credited by later generations (Exod. 12:26–27). Similarly, the signs performed by Jesus were intended by the evangelists to be credited by readers who had not seen them (John 20:29–31). Belief is not expected without inquiry (John 4:39–42; Acts 17:11); however, unbelief in the face of evidence is seen as a human failing (John 11:37–40).

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

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

The Function and Locations of the Ark

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ark and the Holiness of God

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

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

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

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

The Function and Locations of the Ark

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ark and the Holiness of God

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

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

The ax is an edge tool com­prising a heavy end with a sharpened blade attached to a wooden handle, and it is used for chopping into trees and logs (Judg. 9:48; Isa. 10:34). The ax is one of a complement of metal tools, along with the hammer, saw, plowshare, sickle, pickax, and goad (cf. 1 Kings 6:7). Similar items are the knife, sword, and spear.

The earliest metallic ax heads were copper and date as far back as 4000 BC. As the material culture of the Near East advanced, copper implements were replaced by bronze and finally iron. Bronze Age axes had a bronze hollow cylinder that slid over the wood shaft, with a short mass of bronze off to one side that widened and flattened into a sharp blade. They were dangerous to use. So many accidental injuries and deaths occurred due to the head slipping off the shaft that Israel’s law used it as an example of unintentional death (Deut. 19:5).

In 1 Sam. 13:19–20 the Philistines are shown to be controlling metallurgical technology. To prevent Israel from fashioning “modern” weapons of war, they would not permit Israel to work any metal for agricultural or other uses. Thus, Saul and his son Jonathan were the only Israelites of that time to have swords. Much later, well into the Iron Age, the premium value placed on a good iron ax head is seen in the anecdote in which an ax head fell off the handle and into the water, and the workman lamented to God’s prophet Elisha that the item was borrowed (2 Kings 6:1–6). Such was its worth that the prophet miraculously restored it.

The ax has symbolic value in the Bible. Axes cut, and “cutting off” is a common theme in the law. Those who break the covenant are “cut off” from the people (Exod. 31:14). Thus, John the Baptist cried, “The ax is already at the root of the trees” to cut off unrepentant Israelites (Matt. 3:10).

The ax is an edge tool com­prising a heavy end with a sharpened blade attached to a wooden handle, and it is used for chopping into trees and logs (Judg. 9:48; Isa. 10:34). The ax is one of a complement of metal tools, along with the hammer, saw, plowshare, sickle, pickax, and goad (cf. 1 Kings 6:7). Similar items are the knife, sword, and spear.

The earliest metallic ax heads were copper and date as far back as 4000 BC. As the material culture of the Near East advanced, copper implements were replaced by bronze and finally iron. Bronze Age axes had a bronze hollow cylinder that slid over the wood shaft, with a short mass of bronze off to one side that widened and flattened into a sharp blade. They were dangerous to use. So many accidental injuries and deaths occurred due to the head slipping off the shaft that Israel’s law used it as an example of unintentional death (Deut. 19:5).

In 1 Sam. 13:19–20 the Philistines are shown to be controlling metallurgical technology. To prevent Israel from fashioning “modern” weapons of war, they would not permit Israel to work any metal for agricultural or other uses. Thus, Saul and his son Jonathan were the only Israelites of that time to have swords. Much later, well into the Iron Age, the premium value placed on a good iron ax head is seen in the anecdote in which an ax head fell off the handle and into the water, and the workman lamented to God’s prophet Elisha that the item was borrowed (2 Kings 6:1–6). Such was its worth that the prophet miraculously restored it.

The ax has symbolic value in the Bible. Axes cut, and “cutting off” is a common theme in the law. Those who break the covenant are “cut off” from the people (Exod. 31:14). Thus, John the Baptist cried, “The ax is already at the root of the trees” to cut off unrepentant Israelites (Matt. 3:10).

The biblical corpus known as the Pentateuch consists of the first five books of the OT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The word “Pentateuch” comes from two Greek words (penta [“five”] and teuchos [“scroll case, book”]) and is a designation attested in the early church fathers. The collection is also commonly known as the “Five Books of Moses,” “the Law of Moses,” or simply the “Law,” reflecting the traditional Jewish name “Torah,” meaning “law” or “instruction.” The Torah is the first of three major sections that comprise the Hebrew Bible (Torah, Nebiim, Ketubim [Law, Prophets, Writings]); thus for both Jewish and Christian traditions it represents the introduction to the Bible as a whole as well as its interpretive foundation.

The English names for the books of the Pentateuch came from the Latin Vulgate, based on the Greek Septuagint. These appellations are mainly descriptive of their content. Genesis derives from “generations” or “origin,” Exodus means “going out,” Leviticus represents priestly (Levitical) service, Numbers refers to the censuses taken in the book, and Deuteronomy indicates “second law” because of Moses’ rehearsal of God’s commands (see Deut. 17:18). The Hebrew designations derive from opening words in each book. Bereshit (Genesis) means “in the beginning”; Shemot (Exodus), “[these are] the names”; Wayyiqra’ (Leviticus), “and he called”; Bemidbar (Numbers), “in the desert”; and Debarim (Deuteronomy), “[these are] the words.”

Referring to the Pentateuch as “Torah” or the “Law” reflects the climactic reception of God’s commands at Mount Sinai, which were to govern Israel’s life and worship in the promised land, including their journey to get there. However, calling the Pentateuch the “Law” can be a bit misleading because there are relatively few passages that simply list a set of commands, and all law passages are set within a broad narrative. The Pentateuch is a grand story that begins on a universal scale with the creation of the cosmos and ends on the plains of Moab as the reader anticipates the fulfillment of God’s plan to redeem a fallen world through his chosen people. The books offer distinct qualities and content, but they are also inherently dependent upon one another, as the narrative remains unbroken through the five volumes. Genesis ends with Jacob’s family in Egypt, and, though many years have passed, this is where Exodus begins. Leviticus outlines cultic life at the tabernacle (constructed at the end of Exodus) and even begins without a clear subject (“And he called . . .”), which requires the reader to supply “the Lord” from the last verse of Exodus. Numbers begins with an account of Israel’s fighting men as the nation prepares to leave Sinai, and Deuteronomy is Moses’ farewell address to the nation on the cusp of the promised land.

Authorship and Composition

Although the Pentateuch is technically an anonymous work, Jewish and Christian tradition attributes its authorship to Moses, the main figure of the story from Exodus to Deuteronomy. The arguments for attributing the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses come from internal evidence within both Testaments. That Moses is responsible for at least portions of the Pentateuch is suggested by references to his explicit literary activity reflected within the narrative itself (Exod. 17:14; 24:4; 34:28; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9, 22, 24), if not implied in various literary formulas such as “the Lord said to Moses” (e.g., Exod. 39:1, 7, 21; Lev. 4:1; 11:1; 13:1; Num. 1:1; 2:1). Mosaic authorship receives support from the historical books, which use terms such as “the Book of the Law of Moses” in various forms and references in the preexilic history (Josh. 8:30–35; 23:6; 2 Kings 14:6) as well as the postexilic history (e.g., 2 Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1). The same titles are used by NT authors (e.g., Mark 12:26; Luke 24:44; John 1:45), even referring to the Pentateuch simply by the name “Moses” at various points (e.g., Luke 16:29; 24:27; 2 Cor. 3:15).

Even with these examples, nowhere does the text explicitly state that Moses is responsible for the entire compilation of the Pentateuch or that he penned it with his own hand. Rather, a number of factors point to a later hand at work: Moses’ death and burial are referenced (Deut. 34), the conquest of Canaan is referred to as past (Deut. 2:12), and there is evidence that the names of people and places were updated and explained for later generations (e.g., “Dan” in Gen. 14:14; cf. Josh. 19:47; Judg. 18:28b–29). Based on these factors, it is reasonable to believe that the Pentateuch underwent editorial alteration as it was preserved within Jewish life and took its final shape after Moses’ lifetime.

Over the last century, the Documentary Hypothesis has dominated academic discussion of the Pentateuch’s composition. This theory was crystallized by Julius Wellhausen in his Prolegomena to the History of Israel in the late nineteenth century and posits that the Pentateuch originated from a variety of ancient sources derived from distinct authors and time periods that have been transmitted and joined through a long and complex process. Traditionally these documents are identified as J, E, D, and P. The J source is a document authored by the “Yahwist” (German, Jahwist) in Judah around 840 BC and is so called because the name “Yahweh” is used frequently in its text. The E source stands for “Elohist” because of its preference for the divine title “Elohim” and was composed in Israel around 700 BC. The D source stands for “Deuteronomy” because it reflects material found in that book; it was composed sometime around Josiah’s reform in 621 BC. The P document reflects material that priests would be concerned with in the postexilic time period, approximately 500 BC. This theory and its related forms stem from the scholarly concern over various literary characteristics such as the use of divine names; doublets and duplications in the text; observable patterns of style, terminology, and themes; and alleged discrepancies in facts, descriptions, and geographic or historical perspective.

Various documentary theories of composition have flourished over the last century of pentateuchal scholarship and still have many adherents. However, lack of scholarly agreement about the dating and character of the sources and the rise of other literary approaches to the text have many conservative and liberal scholars calling into question the accuracy and even interpretive benefit of the source theories. Moreover, if the literary observations used to create source distinctions can be explained in other ways, then the Documentary Hypothesis is significantly undermined.

In its canonical form, the pentateuchal narrative combines artistic prose, poetry, and law to tell a dramatic history spanning thousands of years. One could divide the story into six major sections: primeval history (Gen. 1–11), the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50), liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18), Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10), wilderness journey (Num. 10:11–36:13), and Moses’ farewell (Deuteronomy).

Primeval History (Gen. 1–11)

It is possible to divide Genesis into two parts based upon subject matter: the origin of creation and humankind’s call, fall, and punishment (chaps 1–11), and the origin of a family that would become God’s conduit of salvation and blessing for the world (chaps. 12–50).

The primeval history comprises essentially the first eleven chapters of Genesis, ending with the genealogy of Abraham in 11:26. Strictly speaking, 11:27 begins the patriarchal section with the sixth instance of the toledot formula found in Genesis, referencing Abraham’s father, Terah. The Hebrew phrase ’elleh toledot (“these are the generations of”) occurs in eleven places in Genesis and reflects a deliberate structural marker that one may use to divide the book into distinct episodes (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2).

Genesis as we know it exhibits two distinct creation accounts in its first two chapters. Although critical scholars contend that the differing accounts reflect contradictory stories and different authors, it is just as convenient to recognize that the two stories vary in style and some content because they attempt to accomplish different aims. The first account, 1:1–2:3, is an artistic, poetic, symmetrical, and “heavenly” view of creation by a transcendent God, who spoke creation into being. In the second account, 2:4–25, God is immanently involved with creation as he is present in a garden, breathes life into Adam’s nostrils, dialogues and problem-solves, fashions Eve from Adam’s side, and bestows warnings and commands. Both perspectives are foundational for providing an accurate view of God’s interaction with creation in the rest of Scripture.

As one progresses through chapters 1–11, the story quickly changes from what God has established as “very good” to discord, sin, and shame. Chapter 3 reflects the “fall” of humanity as Adam and Eve sin in eating from the forbidden tree in direct disobedience to God. The serpent shrewdly deceives the first couple, and thus all three incur God’s curses, which extend to unlimited generations. Sin that breaks the vertical relationship between God and humanity intrinsically leads to horizontal strife between humans. Sin and disunity on the earth only intensify as one moves from the murder story of Cain and Abel in chapter 4 to the flood in chapters 5–9. Violence, evil, and disorder have so pervaded the earth that God sends a deluge to wipe out all living things, save one righteous man and his family, along with an ark full of animals. God makes the first covenant recorded in the biblical narrative with Noah (6:18), promising to save him from the flood as he commands Noah to build an ark and gather food for survival. Noah fulfills all that God has commanded (6:22; 7:5), and God remembers his promise (8:1). This is the prototypical salvation story for the rest of Scripture.

Chapter 9 reflects a new start for humanity and all living things as the creation mandate to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it,” first introduced in 1:28, is restated along with the reminder that humankind is made in God’s image (1:27). Bearing the image involves new responsibilities and stipulations in the postdiluvian era (9:2–6). There will be enmity between humans and animals, animals are now appropriate food, and yet lifeblood will be specially revered. God still requires accountability for just and discriminate shedding of blood and orderly relationships, as he has proved in the deluge, but now he relinquishes this responsibility to humankind. In return, God promises never to destroy all flesh again, and he will set the rainbow in the sky as a personal reminder. Like the covenant with Noah in 6:18, the postdiluvian covenant involves humankind fulfilling commands (9:1–7) and God remembering his covenant (9:8–17), specially termed “everlasting” (9:16).

The primeval commentary on humankind’s unabating sinful condition (e.g., 6:5; 8:21) proves true as Noah becomes drunk and naked and his son Ham (father of Canaan) shames him by failing to conceal his father’s negligence. Instead of multiplying, filling, and subduing the earth as God has intended, humankind collaborates to make a name for itself by building a sort of stairway to heaven within a special city (11:4). God foils such haughty plans by scattering the people across the earth and confusing their language. Expressed in an orderly chiastic structure, the story of the tower of Babel demonstrates that God condescends (11:5) to set things straight with humanity.

Patriarchs (Gen. 12–50)

Although the primeval history is foundational for understanding the rest of the Bible, more space in Genesis is devoted to the patriarchal figures Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In general, the Abrahamic narrative spans chapters 12–25, the story of Isaac serves as a transition to the Jacob cycle of chapters 25–37, and the Joseph narrative finishes the book of Genesis in chapters 37–50.

The transition from the primeval history to the patriarchs (11:27–32) reveals how Abraham, the father of Israel, moves from the east and settles in Harran as the family ventures to settle in Canaan. In Harran, Abraham receives the call of God’s redemptive plan, which reverberates through Scripture. God will bless him with land, make him a great nation, grant him special favor, and use him as a conduit of blessings to the world (12:1–3). In 11:30 is the indication that the barrenness of Abraham’s wife (Sarah) relates to the essence of God’s magnificent promises. How one becomes great in name and number, secures enemy territory, and is to bless all peoples without a descendant becomes the compelling question of the Abrahamic narrative. The interchange between Abraham’s faith in God and his attempts to contrive covenant fulfillment colors the entire narrative leading up to chapter 22. It is there that Abraham’s faith is ultimately put to the test as God asks him to sacrifice the promised son, Isaac. Abraham passes God’s faith test, and a ram is provided to take Isaac’s place. This everlasting covenant that was previously sealed by the sign of circumcision is climactically procured for future generations through Abraham’s exemplary obedience (22:16–18; cf. 15:1–21; 17:1–27).

The patriarchal stories that follow show that the Abrahamic promises are renewed with subsequent generations (see 26:3–4; 28:13–14) and survive various threats to fulfillment. The story of Isaac serves mainly as a bridge to the Jacob cycle, as he exists primarily as a passive character in relation to Abraham and Jacob.

Deception, struggle, rivalry, and favoritism characterize the Jacob narrative, as first exemplified in the jostling of twin boys in Rebekah’s womb (25:22). Jacob supplants his twin brother, Esau, for the firstborn’s blessing and birthright. He flees to Paddan Aram (northern Mesopotamia), marries two sisters, takes their maidservants as concubines, and has eleven children, followed by a falling-out with his father-in-law. Jacob’s struggle for God’s blessing that began with Esau comes to a head in his wrestling encounter with God at Peniel. Ultimately, Jacob emerges victorious and receives God’s blessing and a name change, “Israel” (“one who struggles with God”). Throughout the Jacob story, God demonstrates his faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant and reiterates the promises to Jacob, most notably at Bethel (chaps. 28; 35). The interpersonal strife of Jacob’s life is thus enveloped within a message of reconciliation not just with Esau (chap. 33) but ultimately with God. The reader learns from the episodes in Jacob’s life that although God works through the lives of weak and failing people, his promises for Israel remain secure.

Although Jacob and his family are already living in Canaan, God intends for them to move to Egypt and grow into a powerful nation before fulfilling their conquest of the promised land (see 15:13–16). The story of Joseph explains how the family ends up in Egypt at the close of Genesis. Joseph is specially loved by his father, which elicits significant jealousy from his brothers, who sell him off to some nomads and fabricate the alibi that he has been killed by a wild beast. Joseph winds up in Pharaoh’s household and eventually becomes his top official. When famine strikes Canaan years later, Joseph’s brothers go to Egypt to purchase food from the royal court, and Joseph reveals his identity to them in an emotional reunion. Jacob’s entire family moves to Egypt to live for a time in prosperity under Joseph’s care. The Joseph story illustrates the mysterious relationship of human decision and divine sovereignty (50:20).

Liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18)

Genesis shows how Abraham develops into a large family. Exodus shows how this family becomes a nation—enslaved, freed, and then taught the ways of God. Although it appears that Exodus continues a riveting story of God’s chosen people, it is actually the identity and power of God that take center stage.

Many years have passed since Joseph’s family arrived in Egypt. The Hebrews’ good standing in Egypt has also diminished as their multiplication and fruitfulness during the intervening period—just as God had promised Abraham (Gen. 17:4–8)—became a national threat to the Egyptians. Abraham’s family will spend time in Egyptian slavery before being liberated with many possessions in hand (cf. Gen. 15:13–14).

In the book of Exodus the drama of suffering and salvation serves as the vehicle for God’s self-disclosure to a single man, Moses. Moses is an Israelite of destiny even from birth, as he providentially avoids infant death and rises to power and influence in Pharaoh’s household. Moses never loses his passion for his own people, and he kills an Egyptian who was beating a fellow Hebrew. Moses flees to obscurity in the desert, where he meets God and his call to lead his people out of Egypt and to the promised land (3:7–8; 6:8). Like the days of Noah’s salvation, God has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs and responded to the groans of his people in Egypt (2:24; 6:4–5; cf. Gen. 8:1). God reveals himself, and his personal name “Yahweh” (“I am”), to Moses in the great theophany of the burning bush at Mount Horeb (Sinai), the same place where later he will receive God’s law. Moses doubts his own ability to carry out the task of confronting Pharaoh and leading the exodus, but God foretells that many amazing signs and wonders not only will make the escape possible but also will ultimately reveal the mighty nature of God to the Hebrews, Egypt, and presumably the world (6:7; 7:5).

This promise of creating a nation of his people through deliverance is succinctly conveyed in the classic covenant formula that finds significance in the rest of the OT: “I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God” (6:7). Wielding great power over nature and at times even human decision, God “hardens” Pharaoh’s heart and sends ten plagues to demonstrate his favor for his own people and wrath against their enemy nation. The tenth plague on the firstborn of all in Egypt provides the context for the Passover as God spares the firstborn of Israel in response to the placement of sacrificial blood on the doorposts of their homes. Pharaoh persists in the attempt to overtake the Israelites in the desert, where the power of God climaxes in parting the Red Sea (or Sea of Reeds). The Israelites successfully pass through, but the Egyptian army drowns in pursuit. This is the great salvation event of the OT.

The song of praise for God’s deliverance (15:1–21) quickly turns to cries of groaning in the seventy days following the exodus as the people of the nation, grumbling about their circumstances in the desert, quickly demonstrate their fleeting trust in the one who has saved them (Exod. 15:22–18:27). When a shortage of water and food confronts the people, their faith in God’s care proves shallow, and they turn on Moses. Even though the special marks of God’s protection have been evident in the wilderness through the pillars of cloud and fire, the angel of God, the provision of manna and quail, water from the rock, and the leadership of Moses, the nation continually fails God’s tests of trust and obedience (16:4; cf. 17:2; 20:20). Yet God continues to endure with his people through the leadership of Moses.

Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10)

Most of the pentateuchal narrative takes place at Mount Sinai. It is there that Israel receives national legislation and prescriptions for the tabernacle, the priesthood, feasts and festivals, and other covenantal demands for living as God’s chosen people. The eleven-month stay at Sinai takes the biblical reader through the center of the Pentateuch, covering approximately the last half of Exodus, all of Leviticus, and the first third of Numbers, before the nation leaves this sacred site and sojourns in the wilderness. Several key sections of the Pentateuch fall within the Sinai story: the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17), the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), the tabernacle prescriptions (Exod. 25–31), the tabernacle construction (Exod. 35–40), the manual on ritual worship (Lev. 1–7), and the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–27).

The events and instruction at Sinai are central to the Israelite religious experience and reflect the third eternal covenant that God establishes in the Pentateuch—this time with Israel, whereby the Sabbath is the sign (Exod. 31:16; cf. Noahic/rainbow covenant [Gen. 9:16] and the Abrahamic/circumcision covenant [Gen. 17:7, 13, 19]). The offices of prophet and priest develop into clear view in this portion of the Pentateuch. Moses exemplifies the dual prophetic function of representing the people when speaking with God and, in turn, God when speaking to the people. The priesthood is bestowed upon Aaron and his descendants in Exodus and inaugurated within one of the few narrative sections of Leviticus (Lev. 8–10). The giving of the law, the ark, the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the Sabbath are all a part of God’s making himself “known” to Israel and the world, which is a constant theme in Exodus (see, e.g., 25:22; 29:43, 46; 31:13).

The Israelites’ stay at Sinai opens with one of the greatest theophanies of the Bible: God speaks aloud to the people (Exod. 19–20) and then is envisioned as a consuming fire (Exod. 24). After communicating the Ten Commandments (“ten words”) directly to the people (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4), Moses mediates the rest of the detailed obligations that will govern the future life of the nation. The covenant is ratified in ceremonial fashion (Exod. 24), and the Israelites vow to fulfill all that has been spoken. God expects Israel to be a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) with whom he may dwell, but Moses descends Sinai only to find that the Israelites have already violated the essence of the Decalogue by fashioning a golden calf to worship as that which delivered them from Egypt (Exod. 32). This places Israel’s future and calling in jeopardy, but Moses intercedes for his people, and God graciously promises to preserve the nation and abide with it in his mercy, even while punishing the guilty. This becomes prototypical of God’s relationship with his people in the future (Exod. 34:6–7).

Exodus ends with the consecration of the tabernacle and the descent of God’s presence there. With the tent of worship in order, the priesthood and its rituals can be officially established. Leviticus reflects divine instructions for how a sinful people may live safely in close proximity to God. Holy living involves dealing with sin and minimizing the need for atonement, purification, and restitution. The sacrificial and worship system established in Leviticus is based on a worldview of order, perfection, and purity, which should characterize a people who are commanded, “Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy’ (Lev. 19:2; cf. 11:44–45; 20:26). With these rules in place, the Israelites can make final preparations to depart Sinai and move forward on their journey. Numbers 1–10 spans a nineteen-day period of such activities as the Israelites begin to focus on dispossessing their enemies. These chapters reflect a census of fighting men, the priority of purity, the dedication of the tabernacle, and the observance of the Passover before commencing the quest to Canaan.

Wilderness Journey (Num. 10:11–36:13)

The rest of the book of Numbers covers the remainder of a forty-year stretch of great peaks and valleys in the faith and future of the nation. Chapters 11–25 recount the various events that show the exodus generation’s lack of trust in God. Chapters 26–36 reveal a more positive section whereby a new generation prepares for the conquest. With the third section of Numbers framed by episodes involving the inheritance rights of Zelophehad’s daughters (27:1–11; 36:1–13), it is clear that the story has turned to the future possession of the land.

After the departure from Sinai, the narrative consists of a number of Israelite complaints in the desert. The Israelites have grown tired of manna and ironically crave the food of Egypt, which they recall as free fish, fruits, and vegetables. Having forgotten the hardship of life in slavery, about which they had cried out to God, now the nation is crying out for a lifestyle of old. Moses becomes so overwhelmed with the complaints of the people that God provides seventy elders, who, to help shoulder the leadership burden, will receive the same prophetic spirit given to Moses.

In chapters 13–14 twelve spies are sent out from Kadesh Barnea to peruse Canaan, but the people’s lack of faith to procure the land from the mighty people there proves costly. This final example of distrust moves God to punish and purify the nation. The unbelieving generation will die in the wilderness during a forty-year period of wandering.

The discontent in the desert involves not only food and water but also leadership status. Moses’ own brother and sister resent his special relationship with God and challenge his exclusive authority. Later, Aaron’s special high priesthood is threatened as another Levitical family (Korah) vies for preeminence. Through a sequence of signs and wonders, God makes it clear that Moses and Aaron have exclusive roles in God’s economy. Due to the deaths related to Korah’s rebellion and the fruitless staffs that represent the tribes of Israel, the nation’s concern about sudden extinction in the presence of a holy God is appeased through the eternal covenant of priesthood granted to Aaron’s family (chap. 18). He and the Levites, at the potential expense of their own lives and as part of their priestly service, will be held accountable for keeping the tabernacle pure of encroachers.

Even after the people’s significant rebellion and punishment, God continues to prove his faithfulness to his word. Hope is restored for the nation as the Abrahamic promises of blessing are rehearsed from the mouth of Balaam, a Mesopotamian seer. The Israelites will indeed one day be numerous (23:10), enjoy the presence of God (23:21), be blessed and protected (24:9), and have a kingly leader (24:17). This wonderful mountaintop experience of hope for the exodus generation is tragically countered by an even greater event of apostasy in the subsequent scene. Reminiscent of the incident of the golden calf, when pagan revelry in the camp had foiled Moses’ interaction with God on Sinai, apostasy at the tabernacle undermines Balaam’s oracles of covenant fulfillment. Fornication with Moabite women not only joins the nation to a foreign god but also betrays God’s holiness at his place of dwelling. If not for the zeal of Aaron’s grandson Phinehas, who puts an end to the sin, the ensuing plague could have finished the nation. For his righteous action, Phinehas is awarded an eternal priesthood and ensures a future for the nation and Aaron’s priestly lineage.

In chapter 26 a second census of fighting men indicates that the old, unbelieving exodus generation has officially died off (except for Joshua and Caleb), and God is proceeding with a new people. God dispossesses the enemies of the new generation; reinstates the tribal boundaries of the land; reinstates rules concerning worship, service, and bloodshed; and places Joshua at the helm of leadership. Chapters 26–36 mention no deaths or rebellions as the nation optimistically ends its journey in Moab, just east of the promised land.

Moses’ Farewell (Deuteronomy)

Although one could reasonably move into the historical books at the end of Numbers, much would be lost in overstepping Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy presents Moses’ farewell speeches as his final words to a nation on the verge of Caanan. Moses’ speeches are best viewed as sermons motivating his people to embrace the Sinai covenant, love their God, and choose life over death and blessings over cursings (30:19). Moses reviews the desert experience since Mount Horeb/Sinai (chaps. 1–4) and recapitulates God’s expectations for lawful living in the land (chaps. 5–26). The covenant code is recorded on a scroll, is designated the “Book of the Law” (31:24–26), and is to be read and revered by the future king. Finally, Moses leads the nation in covenant renewal (chaps. 29–32) before the book finishes with an account of his death (chaps. 33–34), including tributes such as “since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (34:10).

Deuteronomy reflects that true covenant faithfulness is achieved from a right heart for God. If there were any previous doubts about the essence of covenant keeping, Moses eliminates such in Deuteronomy with the frequent use of emotive terms. Loving God involves committing to him alone and spurning idols and foreign gods. The Ten Commandments (chap. 5) are not a list of stale requirements; they reflect the great Shema with the words “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (6:5–6). God desires an unrivaled love from the nation, not cold and superficial religiosity.

Obedience by the Israelites will incur material and spiritual blessing, whereas disobedience ends in the loss of both. Although Moses strongly commends covenant obedience, and the nation participates in a covenant-renewal ceremony (chap. 27), it is clear that in the future the Israelites will fail to uphold their covenant obligations and will suffer the consequences (29:23; 30:1–4; 31:16–17). Yet Moses looks to a day when the command for circumcised hearts (10:16) will be fulfilled by the power of God himself (30:6). In the future a new king will arise from the nation (17:14–20) as well as a prophet like Moses (18:15–22). Deuteronomy thus underscores the extent of God’s own devotion to his patriarchal promises despite the sinful nature of his people.

For much of the middle and end of the twentieth century, Deuteronomy has received a significant amount of attention for its apparent resemblance in structure and content to ancient Hittite and Assyrian treaties. Scholars debate the extent of similarity, but it is possible that Deuteronomy reflects a suzerain-vassal treaty form between Israel and God much like the common format between nations in the ancient Near East. Although comparative investigation of this type can be profitable for interpretation, it is prudent to be conservative when outlining direct parallels, since Deuteronomy is not a legal document but rather a dramatic narrative of God’s redemptive interaction with the world.

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.

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

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

The Function and Locations of the Ark

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ark and the Holiness of God

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

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

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.

Law, more properly labeled “Torah,” is instruction. In the Bible, Moses is portrayed as the lawgiver par excellence, dispensing God’s Torah from Sinai (Exod. 20:1–17) and delegating legal matters to others (18:24–26). The Ten Commandments are distinct from other forms of Torah in that they are described as having been given by “the finger of God” (Exod. 31:18). That is, Moses functions as an agent of God, the true lawgiver. Unlike law in the broader cultural environment, Torah came to Israel with God’s authority. Yet even this authority had to be recast for each generation (Deut. 29:1; Num. 36:13).

Jesus’ instruction in the Sermon on the Mount includes the important statement “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17). Although some of his detractors have perceived him as antinomian, Jesus assures his listeners that his teaching is in continuity with OT law. Indeed, the OT law finds its eschatological climax in the instruction by Jesus, who, like Moses, dispenses law from the mountainside.

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The biblical corpus known as the Pentateuch consists of the first five books of the OT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The word “Pentateuch” comes from two Greek words (penta [“five”] and teuchos [“scroll case, book”]) and is a designation attested in the early church fathers. The collection is also commonly known as the “Five Books of Moses,” “the Law of Moses,” or simply the “Law,” reflecting the traditional Jewish name “Torah,” meaning “law” or “instruction.” The Torah is the first of three major sections that comprise the Hebrew Bible (Torah, Nebiim, Ketubim [Law, Prophets, Writings]); thus for both Jewish and Christian traditions it represents the introduction to the Bible as a whole as well as its interpretive foundation.

The English names for the books of the Pentateuch came from the Latin Vulgate, based on the Greek Septuagint. These appellations are mainly descriptive of their content. Genesis derives from “generations” or “origin,” Exodus means “going out,” Leviticus represents priestly (Levitical) service, Numbers refers to the censuses taken in the book, and Deuteronomy indicates “second law” because of Moses’ rehearsal of God’s commands (see Deut. 17:18). The Hebrew designations derive from opening words in each book. Bereshit (Genesis) means “in the beginning”; Shemot (Exodus), “[these are] the names”; Wayyiqra’ (Leviticus), “and he called”; Bemidbar (Numbers), “in the desert”; and Debarim (Deuteronomy), “[these are] the words.”

Referring to the Pentateuch as “Torah” or the “Law” reflects the climactic reception of God’s commands at Mount Sinai, which were to govern Israel’s life and worship in the promised land, including their journey to get there. However, calling the Pentateuch the “Law” can be a bit misleading because there are relatively few passages that simply list a set of commands, and all law passages are set within a broad narrative. The Pentateuch is a grand story that begins on a universal scale with the creation of the cosmos and ends on the plains of Moab as the reader anticipates the fulfillment of God’s plan to redeem a fallen world through his chosen people. The books offer distinct qualities and content, but they are also inherently dependent upon one another, as the narrative remains unbroken through the five volumes. Genesis ends with Jacob’s family in Egypt, and, though many years have passed, this is where Exodus begins. Leviticus outlines cultic life at the tabernacle (constructed at the end of Exodus) and even begins without a clear subject (“And he called . . .”), which requires the reader to supply “the Lord” from the last verse of Exodus. Numbers begins with an account of Israel’s fighting men as the nation prepares to leave Sinai, and Deuteronomy is Moses’ farewell address to the nation on the cusp of the promised land.

Authorship and Composition

Although the Pentateuch is technically an anonymous work, Jewish and Christian tradition attributes its authorship to Moses, the main figure of the story from Exodus to Deuteronomy. The arguments for attributing the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses come from internal evidence within both Testaments. That Moses is responsible for at least portions of the Pentateuch is suggested by references to his explicit literary activity reflected within the narrative itself (Exod. 17:14; 24:4; 34:28; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9, 22, 24), if not implied in various literary formulas such as “the Lord said to Moses” (e.g., Exod. 39:1, 7, 21; Lev. 4:1; 11:1; 13:1; Num. 1:1; 2:1). Mosaic authorship receives support from the historical books, which use terms such as “the Book of the Law of Moses” in various forms and references in the preexilic history (Josh. 8:30–35; 23:6; 2 Kings 14:6) as well as the postexilic history (e.g., 2 Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1). The same titles are used by NT authors (e.g., Mark 12:26; Luke 24:44; John 1:45), even referring to the Pentateuch simply by the name “Moses” at various points (e.g., Luke 16:29; 24:27; 2 Cor. 3:15).

Even with these examples, nowhere does the text explicitly state that Moses is responsible for the entire compilation of the Pentateuch or that he penned it with his own hand. Rather, a number of factors point to a later hand at work: Moses’ death and burial are referenced (Deut. 34), the conquest of Canaan is referred to as past (Deut. 2:12), and there is evidence that the names of people and places were updated and explained for later generations (e.g., “Dan” in Gen. 14:14; cf. Josh. 19:47; Judg. 18:28b–29). Based on these factors, it is reasonable to believe that the Pentateuch underwent editorial alteration as it was preserved within Jewish life and took its final shape after Moses’ lifetime.

Over the last century, the Documentary Hypothesis has dominated academic discussion of the Pentateuch’s composition. This theory was crystallized by Julius Wellhausen in his Prolegomena to the History of Israel in the late nineteenth century and posits that the Pentateuch originated from a variety of ancient sources derived from distinct authors and time periods that have been transmitted and joined through a long and complex process. Traditionally these documents are identified as J, E, D, and P. The J source is a document authored by the “Yahwist” (German, Jahwist) in Judah around 840 BC and is so called because the name “Yahweh” is used frequently in its text. The E source stands for “Elohist” because of its preference for the divine title “Elohim” and was composed in Israel around 700 BC. The D source stands for “Deuteronomy” because it reflects material found in that book; it was composed sometime around Josiah’s reform in 621 BC. The P document reflects material that priests would be concerned with in the postexilic time period, approximately 500 BC. This theory and its related forms stem from the scholarly concern over various literary characteristics such as the use of divine names; doublets and duplications in the text; observable patterns of style, terminology, and themes; and alleged discrepancies in facts, descriptions, and geographic or historical perspective.

Various documentary theories of composition have flourished over the last century of pentateuchal scholarship and still have many adherents. However, lack of scholarly agreement about the dating and character of the sources and the rise of other literary approaches to the text have many conservative and liberal scholars calling into question the accuracy and even interpretive benefit of the source theories. Moreover, if the literary observations used to create source distinctions can be explained in other ways, then the Documentary Hypothesis is significantly undermined.

In its canonical form, the pentateuchal narrative combines artistic prose, poetry, and law to tell a dramatic history spanning thousands of years. One could divide the story into six major sections: primeval history (Gen. 1–11), the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50), liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18), Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10), wilderness journey (Num. 10:11–36:13), and Moses’ farewell (Deuteronomy).

Primeval History (Gen. 1–11)

It is possible to divide Genesis into two parts based upon subject matter: the origin of creation and humankind’s call, fall, and punishment (chaps 1–11), and the origin of a family that would become God’s conduit of salvation and blessing for the world (chaps. 12–50).

The primeval history comprises essentially the first eleven chapters of Genesis, ending with the genealogy of Abraham in 11:26. Strictly speaking, 11:27 begins the patriarchal section with the sixth instance of the toledot formula found in Genesis, referencing Abraham’s father, Terah. The Hebrew phrase ’elleh toledot (“these are the generations of”) occurs in eleven places in Genesis and reflects a deliberate structural marker that one may use to divide the book into distinct episodes (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2).

Genesis as we know it exhibits two distinct creation accounts in its first two chapters. Although critical scholars contend that the differing accounts reflect contradictory stories and different authors, it is just as convenient to recognize that the two stories vary in style and some content because they attempt to accomplish different aims. The first account, 1:1–2:3, is an artistic, poetic, symmetrical, and “heavenly” view of creation by a transcendent God, who spoke creation into being. In the second account, 2:4–25, God is immanently involved with creation as he is present in a garden, breathes life into Adam’s nostrils, dialogues and problem-solves, fashions Eve from Adam’s side, and bestows warnings and commands. Both perspectives are foundational for providing an accurate view of God’s interaction with creation in the rest of Scripture.

As one progresses through chapters 1–11, the story quickly changes from what God has established as “very good” to discord, sin, and shame. Chapter 3 reflects the “fall” of humanity as Adam and Eve sin in eating from the forbidden tree in direct disobedience to God. The serpent shrewdly deceives the first couple, and thus all three incur God’s curses, which extend to unlimited generations. Sin that breaks the vertical relationship between God and humanity intrinsically leads to horizontal strife between humans. Sin and disunity on the earth only intensify as one moves from the murder story of Cain and Abel in chapter 4 to the flood in chapters 5–9. Violence, evil, and disorder have so pervaded the earth that God sends a deluge to wipe out all living things, save one righteous man and his family, along with an ark full of animals. God makes the first covenant recorded in the biblical narrative with Noah (6:18), promising to save him from the flood as he commands Noah to build an ark and gather food for survival. Noah fulfills all that God has commanded (6:22; 7:5), and God remembers his promise (8:1). This is the prototypical salvation story for the rest of Scripture.

Chapter 9 reflects a new start for humanity and all living things as the creation mandate to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it,” first introduced in 1:28, is restated along with the reminder that humankind is made in God’s image (1:27). Bearing the image involves new responsibilities and stipulations in the postdiluvian era (9:2–6). There will be enmity between humans and animals, animals are now appropriate food, and yet lifeblood will be specially revered. God still requires accountability for just and discriminate shedding of blood and orderly relationships, as he has proved in the deluge, but now he relinquishes this responsibility to humankind. In return, God promises never to destroy all flesh again, and he will set the rainbow in the sky as a personal reminder. Like the covenant with Noah in 6:18, the postdiluvian covenant involves humankind fulfilling commands (9:1–7) and God remembering his covenant (9:8–17), specially termed “everlasting” (9:16).

The primeval commentary on humankind’s unabating sinful condition (e.g., 6:5; 8:21) proves true as Noah becomes drunk and naked and his son Ham (father of Canaan) shames him by failing to conceal his father’s negligence. Instead of multiplying, filling, and subduing the earth as God has intended, humankind collaborates to make a name for itself by building a sort of stairway to heaven within a special city (11:4). God foils such haughty plans by scattering the people across the earth and confusing their language. Expressed in an orderly chiastic structure, the story of the tower of Babel demonstrates that God condescends (11:5) to set things straight with humanity.

Patriarchs (Gen. 12–50)

Although the primeval history is foundational for understanding the rest of the Bible, more space in Genesis is devoted to the patriarchal figures Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In general, the Abrahamic narrative spans chapters 12–25, the story of Isaac serves as a transition to the Jacob cycle of chapters 25–37, and the Joseph narrative finishes the book of Genesis in chapters 37–50.

The transition from the primeval history to the patriarchs (11:27–32) reveals how Abraham, the father of Israel, moves from the east and settles in Harran as the family ventures to settle in Canaan. In Harran, Abraham receives the call of God’s redemptive plan, which reverberates through Scripture. God will bless him with land, make him a great nation, grant him special favor, and use him as a conduit of blessings to the world (12:1–3). In 11:30 is the indication that the barrenness of Abraham’s wife (Sarah) relates to the essence of God’s magnificent promises. How one becomes great in name and number, secures enemy territory, and is to bless all peoples without a descendant becomes the compelling question of the Abrahamic narrative. The interchange between Abraham’s faith in God and his attempts to contrive covenant fulfillment colors the entire narrative leading up to chapter 22. It is there that Abraham’s faith is ultimately put to the test as God asks him to sacrifice the promised son, Isaac. Abraham passes God’s faith test, and a ram is provided to take Isaac’s place. This everlasting covenant that was previously sealed by the sign of circumcision is climactically procured for future generations through Abraham’s exemplary obedience (22:16–18; cf. 15:1–21; 17:1–27).

The patriarchal stories that follow show that the Abrahamic promises are renewed with subsequent generations (see 26:3–4; 28:13–14) and survive various threats to fulfillment. The story of Isaac serves mainly as a bridge to the Jacob cycle, as he exists primarily as a passive character in relation to Abraham and Jacob.

Deception, struggle, rivalry, and favoritism characterize the Jacob narrative, as first exemplified in the jostling of twin boys in Rebekah’s womb (25:22). Jacob supplants his twin brother, Esau, for the firstborn’s blessing and birthright. He flees to Paddan Aram (northern Mesopotamia), marries two sisters, takes their maidservants as concubines, and has eleven children, followed by a falling-out with his father-in-law. Jacob’s struggle for God’s blessing that began with Esau comes to a head in his wrestling encounter with God at Peniel. Ultimately, Jacob emerges victorious and receives God’s blessing and a name change, “Israel” (“one who struggles with God”). Throughout the Jacob story, God demonstrates his faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant and reiterates the promises to Jacob, most notably at Bethel (chaps. 28; 35). The interpersonal strife of Jacob’s life is thus enveloped within a message of reconciliation not just with Esau (chap. 33) but ultimately with God. The reader learns from the episodes in Jacob’s life that although God works through the lives of weak and failing people, his promises for Israel remain secure.

Although Jacob and his family are already living in Canaan, God intends for them to move to Egypt and grow into a powerful nation before fulfilling their conquest of the promised land (see 15:13–16). The story of Joseph explains how the family ends up in Egypt at the close of Genesis. Joseph is specially loved by his father, which elicits significant jealousy from his brothers, who sell him off to some nomads and fabricate the alibi that he has been killed by a wild beast. Joseph winds up in Pharaoh’s household and eventually becomes his top official. When famine strikes Canaan years later, Joseph’s brothers go to Egypt to purchase food from the royal court, and Joseph reveals his identity to them in an emotional reunion. Jacob’s entire family moves to Egypt to live for a time in prosperity under Joseph’s care. The Joseph story illustrates the mysterious relationship of human decision and divine sovereignty (50:20).

Liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18)

Genesis shows how Abraham develops into a large family. Exodus shows how this family becomes a nation—enslaved, freed, and then taught the ways of God. Although it appears that Exodus continues a riveting story of God’s chosen people, it is actually the identity and power of God that take center stage.

Many years have passed since Joseph’s family arrived in Egypt. The Hebrews’ good standing in Egypt has also diminished as their multiplication and fruitfulness during the intervening period—just as God had promised Abraham (Gen. 17:4–8)—became a national threat to the Egyptians. Abraham’s family will spend time in Egyptian slavery before being liberated with many possessions in hand (cf. Gen. 15:13–14).

In the book of Exodus the drama of suffering and salvation serves as the vehicle for God’s self-disclosure to a single man, Moses. Moses is an Israelite of destiny even from birth, as he providentially avoids infant death and rises to power and influence in Pharaoh’s household. Moses never loses his passion for his own people, and he kills an Egyptian who was beating a fellow Hebrew. Moses flees to obscurity in the desert, where he meets God and his call to lead his people out of Egypt and to the promised land (3:7–8; 6:8). Like the days of Noah’s salvation, God has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs and responded to the groans of his people in Egypt (2:24; 6:4–5; cf. Gen. 8:1). God reveals himself, and his personal name “Yahweh” (“I am”), to Moses in the great theophany of the burning bush at Mount Horeb (Sinai), the same place where later he will receive God’s law. Moses doubts his own ability to carry out the task of confronting Pharaoh and leading the exodus, but God foretells that many amazing signs and wonders not only will make the escape possible but also will ultimately reveal the mighty nature of God to the Hebrews, Egypt, and presumably the world (6:7; 7:5).

This promise of creating a nation of his people through deliverance is succinctly conveyed in the classic covenant formula that finds significance in the rest of the OT: “I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God” (6:7). Wielding great power over nature and at times even human decision, God “hardens” Pharaoh’s heart and sends ten plagues to demonstrate his favor for his own people and wrath against their enemy nation. The tenth plague on the firstborn of all in Egypt provides the context for the Passover as God spares the firstborn of Israel in response to the placement of sacrificial blood on the doorposts of their homes. Pharaoh persists in the attempt to overtake the Israelites in the desert, where the power of God climaxes in parting the Red Sea (or Sea of Reeds). The Israelites successfully pass through, but the Egyptian army drowns in pursuit. This is the great salvation event of the OT.

The song of praise for God’s deliverance (15:1–21) quickly turns to cries of groaning in the seventy days following the exodus as the people of the nation, grumbling about their circumstances in the desert, quickly demonstrate their fleeting trust in the one who has saved them (Exod. 15:22–18:27). When a shortage of water and food confronts the people, their faith in God’s care proves shallow, and they turn on Moses. Even though the special marks of God’s protection have been evident in the wilderness through the pillars of cloud and fire, the angel of God, the provision of manna and quail, water from the rock, and the leadership of Moses, the nation continually fails God’s tests of trust and obedience (16:4; cf. 17:2; 20:20). Yet God continues to endure with his people through the leadership of Moses.

Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10)

Most of the pentateuchal narrative takes place at Mount Sinai. It is there that Israel receives national legislation and prescriptions for the tabernacle, the priesthood, feasts and festivals, and other covenantal demands for living as God’s chosen people. The eleven-month stay at Sinai takes the biblical reader through the center of the Pentateuch, covering approximately the last half of Exodus, all of Leviticus, and the first third of Numbers, before the nation leaves this sacred site and sojourns in the wilderness. Several key sections of the Pentateuch fall within the Sinai story: the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17), the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), the tabernacle prescriptions (Exod. 25–31), the tabernacle construction (Exod. 35–40), the manual on ritual worship (Lev. 1–7), and the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–27).

The events and instruction at Sinai are central to the Israelite religious experience and reflect the third eternal covenant that God establishes in the Pentateuch—this time with Israel, whereby the Sabbath is the sign (Exod. 31:16; cf. Noahic/rainbow covenant [Gen. 9:16] and the Abrahamic/circumcision covenant [Gen. 17:7, 13, 19]). The offices of prophet and priest develop into clear view in this portion of the Pentateuch. Moses exemplifies the dual prophetic function of representing the people when speaking with God and, in turn, God when speaking to the people. The priesthood is bestowed upon Aaron and his descendants in Exodus and inaugurated within one of the few narrative sections of Leviticus (Lev. 8–10). The giving of the law, the ark, the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the Sabbath are all a part of God’s making himself “known” to Israel and the world, which is a constant theme in Exodus (see, e.g., 25:22; 29:43, 46; 31:13).

The Israelites’ stay at Sinai opens with one of the greatest theophanies of the Bible: God speaks aloud to the people (Exod. 19–20) and then is envisioned as a consuming fire (Exod. 24). After communicating the Ten Commandments (“ten words”) directly to the people (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4), Moses mediates the rest of the detailed obligations that will govern the future life of the nation. The covenant is ratified in ceremonial fashion (Exod. 24), and the Israelites vow to fulfill all that has been spoken. God expects Israel to be a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) with whom he may dwell, but Moses descends Sinai only to find that the Israelites have already violated the essence of the Decalogue by fashioning a golden calf to worship as that which delivered them from Egypt (Exod. 32). This places Israel’s future and calling in jeopardy, but Moses intercedes for his people, and God graciously promises to preserve the nation and abide with it in his mercy, even while punishing the guilty. This becomes prototypical of God’s relationship with his people in the future (Exod. 34:6–7).

Exodus ends with the consecration of the tabernacle and the descent of God’s presence there. With the tent of worship in order, the priesthood and its rituals can be officially established. Leviticus reflects divine instructions for how a sinful people may live safely in close proximity to God. Holy living involves dealing with sin and minimizing the need for atonement, purification, and restitution. The sacrificial and worship system established in Leviticus is based on a worldview of order, perfection, and purity, which should characterize a people who are commanded, “Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy’ (Lev. 19:2; cf. 11:44–45; 20:26). With these rules in place, the Israelites can make final preparations to depart Sinai and move forward on their journey. Numbers 1–10 spans a nineteen-day period of such activities as the Israelites begin to focus on dispossessing their enemies. These chapters reflect a census of fighting men, the priority of purity, the dedication of the tabernacle, and the observance of the Passover before commencing the quest to Canaan.

Wilderness Journey (Num. 10:11–36:13)

The rest of the book of Numbers covers the remainder of a forty-year stretch of great peaks and valleys in the faith and future of the nation. Chapters 11–25 recount the various events that show the exodus generation’s lack of trust in God. Chapters 26–36 reveal a more positive section whereby a new generation prepares for the conquest. With the third section of Numbers framed by episodes involving the inheritance rights of Zelophehad’s daughters (27:1–11; 36:1–13), it is clear that the story has turned to the future possession of the land.

After the departure from Sinai, the narrative consists of a number of Israelite complaints in the desert. The Israelites have grown tired of manna and ironically crave the food of Egypt, which they recall as free fish, fruits, and vegetables. Having forgotten the hardship of life in slavery, about which they had cried out to God, now the nation is crying out for a lifestyle of old. Moses becomes so overwhelmed with the complaints of the people that God provides seventy elders, who, to help shoulder the leadership burden, will receive the same prophetic spirit given to Moses.

In chapters 13–14 twelve spies are sent out from Kadesh Barnea to peruse Canaan, but the people’s lack of faith to procure the land from the mighty people there proves costly. This final example of distrust moves God to punish and purify the nation. The unbelieving generation will die in the wilderness during a forty-year period of wandering.

The discontent in the desert involves not only food and water but also leadership status. Moses’ own brother and sister resent his special relationship with God and challenge his exclusive authority. Later, Aaron’s special high priesthood is threatened as another Levitical family (Korah) vies for preeminence. Through a sequence of signs and wonders, God makes it clear that Moses and Aaron have exclusive roles in God’s economy. Due to the deaths related to Korah’s rebellion and the fruitless staffs that represent the tribes of Israel, the nation’s concern about sudden extinction in the presence of a holy God is appeased through the eternal covenant of priesthood granted to Aaron’s family (chap. 18). He and the Levites, at the potential expense of their own lives and as part of their priestly service, will be held accountable for keeping the tabernacle pure of encroachers.

Even after the people’s significant rebellion and punishment, God continues to prove his faithfulness to his word. Hope is restored for the nation as the Abrahamic promises of blessing are rehearsed from the mouth of Balaam, a Mesopotamian seer. The Israelites will indeed one day be numerous (23:10), enjoy the presence of God (23:21), be blessed and protected (24:9), and have a kingly leader (24:17). This wonderful mountaintop experience of hope for the exodus generation is tragically countered by an even greater event of apostasy in the subsequent scene. Reminiscent of the incident of the golden calf, when pagan revelry in the camp had foiled Moses’ interaction with God on Sinai, apostasy at the tabernacle undermines Balaam’s oracles of covenant fulfillment. Fornication with Moabite women not only joins the nation to a foreign god but also betrays God’s holiness at his place of dwelling. If not for the zeal of Aaron’s grandson Phinehas, who puts an end to the sin, the ensuing plague could have finished the nation. For his righteous action, Phinehas is awarded an eternal priesthood and ensures a future for the nation and Aaron’s priestly lineage.

In chapter 26 a second census of fighting men indicates that the old, unbelieving exodus generation has officially died off (except for Joshua and Caleb), and God is proceeding with a new people. God dispossesses the enemies of the new generation; reinstates the tribal boundaries of the land; reinstates rules concerning worship, service, and bloodshed; and places Joshua at the helm of leadership. Chapters 26–36 mention no deaths or rebellions as the nation optimistically ends its journey in Moab, just east of the promised land.

Moses’ Farewell (Deuteronomy)

Although one could reasonably move into the historical books at the end of Numbers, much would be lost in overstepping Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy presents Moses’ farewell speeches as his final words to a nation on the verge of Caanan. Moses’ speeches are best viewed as sermons motivating his people to embrace the Sinai covenant, love their God, and choose life over death and blessings over cursings (30:19). Moses reviews the desert experience since Mount Horeb/Sinai (chaps. 1–4) and recapitulates God’s expectations for lawful living in the land (chaps. 5–26). The covenant code is recorded on a scroll, is designated the “Book of the Law” (31:24–26), and is to be read and revered by the future king. Finally, Moses leads the nation in covenant renewal (chaps. 29–32) before the book finishes with an account of his death (chaps. 33–34), including tributes such as “since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (34:10).

Deuteronomy reflects that true covenant faithfulness is achieved from a right heart for God. If there were any previous doubts about the essence of covenant keeping, Moses eliminates such in Deuteronomy with the frequent use of emotive terms. Loving God involves committing to him alone and spurning idols and foreign gods. The Ten Commandments (chap. 5) are not a list of stale requirements; they reflect the great Shema with the words “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (6:5–6). God desires an unrivaled love from the nation, not cold and superficial religiosity.

Obedience by the Israelites will incur material and spiritual blessing, whereas disobedience ends in the loss of both. Although Moses strongly commends covenant obedience, and the nation participates in a covenant-renewal ceremony (chap. 27), it is clear that in the future the Israelites will fail to uphold their covenant obligations and will suffer the consequences (29:23; 30:1–4; 31:16–17). Yet Moses looks to a day when the command for circumcised hearts (10:16) will be fulfilled by the power of God himself (30:6). In the future a new king will arise from the nation (17:14–20) as well as a prophet like Moses (18:15–22). Deuteronomy thus underscores the extent of God’s own devotion to his patriarchal promises despite the sinful nature of his people.

For much of the middle and end of the twentieth century, Deuteronomy has received a significant amount of attention for its apparent resemblance in structure and content to ancient Hittite and Assyrian treaties. Scholars debate the extent of similarity, but it is possible that Deuteronomy reflects a suzerain-vassal treaty form between Israel and God much like the common format between nations in the ancient Near East. Although comparative investigation of this type can be profitable for interpretation, it is prudent to be conservative when outlining direct parallels, since Deuteronomy is not a legal document but rather a dramatic narrative of God’s redemptive interaction with the world.

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 Sabbatical Year was part of a wider pattern of six periods of work followed by one of rest. God instituted a seventh year of rest (Exod. 23:10–11; Lev. 25:1–7; Deut. 15:1–17), calling it a “sabbath of rest” (shabbat shabbaton), a term also used with regard to the weekly Sabbath (Exod. 31:15; 35:2; Lev. 23:3) and the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:31; 23:32). This year was environmentally beneficial, providing rest for the land, as the Israelites were not to sow seed, prune vines, or harvest crops. There is no indication in the historical books that the law was actually practiced, and when the Israelites were taken into exile, the land finally enjoyed its Sabbath rests (2 Chron. 36:21).

The Sabbatical Year had sociological implications. Because the land was not harvested, the poor could avail themselves of whatever it produced. It was a year for canceling debts and freeing slaves, who were not to be sent away empty-handed. These instructions were based on a paradigm of redemption: just as the Israelites were slaves in Egypt and God redeemed them, so they were to free slaves and provide for them. Those who had means were not to refuse essential loans just because the seventh year was coming. These practices would have kept the Israelites from developing a permanent underclass. The seventh year was also a time for public and corporate reading of Torah during the Feast of Tabernacles (Deut. 31:10–13).

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

God the Worker

A biblical theology of work starts with God as the creator of all things. In the OT, the verb bara’ (“to create”) is used only with God as subject. The first verb in the Bible (Gen. 1:1), it occurs also in many other texts that describe God accomplishing what only God can do. Other terms such as yatsar (“to form, fashion”) and ’asah (“to make, do”) are used numerous times throughout the OT with either God or humans as subjects.

These three terms reinforce the portrayal of God as worker in Gen. 1–2 (cf. Isa. 45:7). God creates light and darkness; sky and earth; sun, moon, and stars; land and sea; plant and animal life; and humankind—in sum, all that is. He forms the “man” (Heb. ’adam) from the dust of the ground, bringing him to life by breathing into him the breath of life.

Elsewhere in the OT God is said to build, build up, or rebuild/restore (Heb. banah [e.g., Pss. 102:16; 147:2; Jer. 24:6; Amos 9:11]). Interestingly, God takes a rib from the man, which he then makes (lit., “builds into” [Heb. banah + le]) a woman (Gen. 2:22). He founds (Heb. kun) the earth (Isa. 45:18) and stretches out (Heb. natah) the heavens (Zech. 12:1). Further, wisdom is God’s “craftsman” (Heb. ’amon), taking part in the world’s creation (Prov. 8:30). The NT reveals Christ as the one through whom God creates all things (John 1:1–3; Col. 1:16). This brief sketch suggests the range of ways in which God’s work is described.

Human Labor

Ideally, work is performed as service to God (Col. 3:17, 22–24). Work is one way we express the divine image. God’s creation mandate to fill, subdue, and rule the earth implies work (Gen. 1:26–28), and God places the man in the garden “to work it and take care of it” (Gen. 2:15). The importance of work for human dignity as well as survival undergirds the laws of gleaning that make provision for the poor to gather their own food (e.g., Deut. 24:19–22). The expansion of human technologies and occupations (mela’kah [see Exod. 12:16]) reflects that dignity and God’s own diverse workmanship. Job 28 celebrates human industry and achievement while subordinating all to the prevailing value of wisdom, rooted in “the fear of the Lord.” Given the indispensable role of work within the limits of human life, diligence is commended (Eccles. 3:9–10), idleness condemned (Prov. 10:4; 12:24; 21:5; 2 Thess. 3:6–10). Work is essentially God’s good gift to us in creation.

But work now has negative aspects. In response to Adam’s sin, God curses the ground, introducing “painful toil” into the work cycle (Gen. 3:17–19; 5:29). We now eke out our living by hardship, finding frustration instead of bounty—a lifelong reminder that we are made of dust and will return to dust. The book of Ecclesiastes echoes this note of futility and raises sharp questions about the lasting value of human labor (1:2–3, 14; 2:4–11, 17–23; 3:9; 4:4–6; 8:16–17). Sin and death haunt the unfolding occupations in Gen. 4, and the episode of the tower of Babel in Gen. 11 signals God’s judgment on human pretension (cf. James 4:13–16). Excessive toil (workaholism) is a pitfall, not a virtue, for it expresses reliance on self rather than on God, who builds, protects, and gives rest (Ps. 127:1–2). Oppressive, unjust working conditions are cause for lament, and they incur God’s judgment (Exod. 5:6–19; Prov. 14:31; James 5:4–6).

Thus, Israel’s labor policy is to reflect God’s covenant faithfulness, generosity, and concern for the vulnerable. Moses’ law places limits on employers/masters to protect employees, slaves, and foreign workers from exploitation. The primary limit is God’s command that Israel keep the Sabbath holy by a complete cessation of labor (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). This move prioritizes God’s covenant above human labor and sets a rhythm of work and rest. Exodus grounds the Sabbath in God’s rest from his work of creation on the seventh day. Deuteronomy ties it to Israel’s history of slavery in Egypt and deliverance by God; by keeping the Sabbath, Israel shows gratitude to God and guards against replicating Egypt’s oppressive policies.

Exodus 31–32 portrays work in its best and worst lights. The proper interplay of work and rest is seen in chapter 31, which narrates the divinely empowered work on the tabernacle, followed by a strong reminder to keep the Sabbath as a “sign” between God and Israel. In contrast, chapter 32 portrays artisanship put to the worst use, the making of a golden idol. Aaron fashions gold with a tool and makes the calf image, but later he tells Moses, “I threw [their gold jewelry] into the fire, and out came this calf!” (32:24). This remark anticipates the prophets’ later mockery of idol-makers (e.g., Isa. 44:9–20) and raises the issue of personal responsibility for the outcome of one’s labor: Aaron seeks to avoid being implicated in Israel’s idolatry by concealing his own role in the project.

Public labor issues increase in complexity when Israel adopts human kingship and engages in international trade (e.g., 1 Sam. 8; 1 Kings 9:15–23). Babylon deals a decisive blow to Judah’s statehood by deporting leaders and skilled workers. Many of these establish such viable, productive new lives in Babylon that when Cyrus later allows the exiled Judeans to return, they choose to remain.

The NT assumes the legitimacy of work and adopts the OT’s view that within proper limits work is a good gift of God. Jesus, however, has come to do his Father’s “work” (John 5:16–18), which entails calling some people away from their normal occupations to follow him, as well as a new approach to Sabbath observance (Mark 2:21–27; 3:4). These moves signal the urgency and newness of the kingdom of God. Consequently, the apostles are “co-workers in God’s service” (1 Cor. 3:9), and Christians are “God’s handiwork” (Eph. 2:10). In light of the resurrection, we offer to God work (Gk. ergon) and labor (Gk. kopos), not in futility but in hope (1 Cor. 15:58; cf. Rev. 14:13).

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.

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenants in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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