The primary term in Hebrew is ’apar (“loose earth, dust”), which is related to the Hebrew terms for cultivatable “soil” (’adamah [Gen. 3:19]) and “earth” (’erets [Gen. 13:16]). These terms are semantically close enough to be used interchangeably (cf. 1 Sam. 4:12; 2 Sam. 1:2 with Josh. 7:6; Ezek. 27:30).

In the OT, the imagery of dust is used to illustrate notions of quantity and abundance (Num. 23:10; 2 Chron. 1:9; Job 27:16; Ps. 78:27; Isa. 40:12; Zech. 9:3). This stock of imagery is applied to annihilation (2 Sam. 22:43), worthlessness (Zeph. 1:17), humiliation (Isa. 25:12), and mourning (Isa. 2:10; Rev. 18:19). In the OT, ’apar alone is used figuratively over sixty times to refer to judgment. Thus, “to lick the dust” (Ps. 72:9) is a sign of subjugation. The opposite is “to shake off the dust,” a sign of repudiation (Isa. 52:2; Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5; 10:11; Acts 13:51). It is this figurative use of “dust” that facilitates the theological use of ’apar. Yahweh acts to humiliate, debase, destroy, and “cast down” into the dust (Isa. 25:12); and he also restores, “lifting up” to remove the shame (1 Kings 16:2; Ps. 113:7).

The significance of ’apar is powerfully portrayed in the creation of humans. Whereas animals are made from the “earth,” humankind emerges from more refined material, the dust (’apar [Gen. 2:7]). In an etymological pun, the “human” (’adam) rises from the “humus” (’adamah; cf. Ps. 103:14; Job 4:19). Death comes when God withdraws the human’s “breath of life” (cf. Gen. 2:7), causing the groundling to collapse back to the ground like “crushed dust” (cf. Pss. 90:3; 104:29; 146:4). Human life is fragile, dependent, and transitory. This is the teacher’s argument and also the reason that he stresses death as the inevitable end of both human and animal life (Eccles. 3:18–20). However, Daniel knows that “multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake” (Dan. 12:2).

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

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

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

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

The normal foodstuff of livestock in biblical times, grass consisted of various kinds of fast-growing, ground-covering plants (Num. 22:4; 1 Kings 18:5). Several types of grass were native to Israel, including short-lived grasses that sprang up during the rainy season and died down shortly afterward, as well as longer-lasting dune grasses. Dried grass, or hay, does not appear to have been harvested but needed to be removed before the new growth appeared (Prov. 27:25). The various words for “grass” can also indicate other vegetation, some of which was suitable for pasture, and some of which was even used for human consumption (Gen. 3:18; Matt. 13:26).

Because of its shallow roots, grass is quick to grow and quick to wither. This transience provides a suitable metaphor for human mortality (Ps. 90:5–6; Isa. 40:6; 1 Pet. 1:24), in contrast with the permanence of God’s word. It also illustrates the fleeting success of the wicked (Ps. 92:7), in contrast to the security of the righteous. Grass is the quickest indicator of changes in growing conditions, and thus it was also a barometer of God’s blessing on his people (Ps. 72:16). Grass is considered the most mundane of plants, of little value, yet even this plant is valued by God, who is said to clothe the grass with the splendor of lilies (Matt. 6:28–30).

Life is a complex, multifaceted concept in the Bible. Various Hebrew and Greek terms convey the idea of life. Life is described in both a natural and a theological sense.

Life in the Natural Sense

In its natural sense, “life” may convey the following: (1) the vital principle of animals and humans, (2) the length of time that one has life, (3) the complete plot and cast of characters of an individual’s lifetime, or (4) the means for maintaining life.

First, life is the vital principle of animals and humans. This use of the term is its popular sense. It refers to the quality of having an animate existence or the state of being animate. Therefore, it is expressed in terms of ability or power; one who has life has the power to act. On the other hand, “death” is its antonym; one who is dead no longer acts. In the Bible, life in this sense applies to both animals and humans; however, the quality of life differs because humans are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26; 5:1; 9:6). Life is manifested in the breath of life, so that one who no longer has the breath of life no longer has life (Gen. 2:7; 6:17; Job 12:10; 27:3; Rev. 11:11). At the same time, life is seated in the blood. For this reason, blood should not be consumed but should instead be poured out and buried (Gen. 9:3–5; Lev. 17:10–16; Deut. 12:23–25). Although life may cease because of physical causes (whether disease, murder, accident, etc.), God is ultimately the Lord of life. He gives life through his breath of life (Gen. 2:7; Ezek. 37:4–14); he sustains life through his spirit (Ps. 104:29–30; cf. Gen. 6:3; 1 Cor. 15:45); he delivers from death (Gen. 5:24; Ps. 30:3; 1 Cor. 15); he gives life and puts to death (Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6). Life, therefore, is first and foremost a gift from God.

In a discussion of life as the vital principle, it is important to address the question of the afterlife. The Bible affirms the significance of both the material and the immaterial components of a human being. The body is not merely a shell in which the true person is housed. Death is not the soul’s escape from the body’s prison, as evidenced by the resurrection of the dead (Ezek. 37:1–14; Dan. 12:2; Luke 14:14; 1 Cor. 15). Human beings are not created to live a disembodied existence ultimately. The fate for those who experience eternal life is the resurrection of the body made from an incorruptible source (1 Cor. 15, esp. vv. 42–50). For others, their fate lies in eternal death (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:6–15; 21:8).

Second, in both Testaments, “life” may also refer to the duration of animate existence—one’s lifetime. The duration of one’s life in this sense begins at birth and ends at death (Gen. 23:1; 25:7; 47:9, 28; Luke 16:25; Heb. 2:15). This period of time is brief (Ps. 90:10; James 4:14). The Bible describes two ways that one’s lifetime may be extended: first, God gives additional time to a person’s life (2 Kings 20:6; Ps. 61:6; Isa. 38:5); second, one gains longer life by living wisely and honoring God (Prov. 3:2; 4:10; 9:11; 10:27).

Third, sometimes “life” refers to the complete plot and cast of characters of an individual’s lifetime. In other words, “life” may refer to all a person’s activities and relationships (1 Sam. 18:18 KJV; Job 10:1; Luke 12:15; James 4:14).

Fourth, “life” rarely may refer to the means of livelihood (Deut. 24:6; Prov. 27:27; Matt. 6:25; Luke 12:22–23). These passages highlight two aspects of life in this sense: (1) people are responsible to guard life; (2) God gives this life because of his great concern, which exceeds his care for the birds and flowers.

Life as a Theological Concept

Beyond its natural sense, life is developed as a theological concept throughout the Bible.

Old Testament. The first chapters of Genesis set the stage for a rich theological understanding of life. First, God creates all things and prepares them for his purposes. He is the creator of life, and life is a gift from his hand. The pinnacle of his creative activity is the creation of humankind. God blesses the man (Adam) and the woman (Eve) whom he creates. God prepares a special place, a garden, for them, so that they may be able to live in perfect communion with him, under his blessing. At the center of the garden lies the tree of life. The tree of life demonstrates that the garden is both the sphere of God’s provision and the symbol of life itself. At the same time, God commands the man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Gen. 2:17).

At this point, life and death take center stage. What follows in the narrative (Gen. 3) is a presentation of the meaning of life and death as theological concepts. Adam and Eve disobey the divine commandment. As a result, they die. However, their death is not death in the natural sense. Instead, when they disobey God’s commandment, there are three results: (1) a curse is pronounced, (2) they are exiled from the garden away from God, and (3) they are prevented from eating from the tree of life (3:14–24). Death in this case is not ceasing to breathe and move but is curse and exile; in other words, to die is to be removed from the place of God’s presence and blessing and be placed under a curse. Life, then, is the opposite: to live is to be settled in the place of God’s presence and blessing.

It is also important to recognize in this narrative that obedience to God’s commandment leads to life, but disobedience to his commandment leads to death. This principle is picked up throughout the Bible. Its clearest expression is found in Lev. 18:5: “Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them.”

This narrative also draws an important connection taken up in other parts of the Bible, especially Proverbs: the connection between life and wisdom. In the garden there are two trees at the center: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Although there is some question concerning what is precisely meant by the knowledge of good and evil, it is likely that wisdom is in view. Two pieces of evidence support this conclusion: (1) knowledge and wisdom as well as good and evil are central concerns for the book of Proverbs; (2) the narrative associates the tree with wisdom. When Eve considers eating from the tree, she notices that it is like the other trees in that it has a pleasant appearance and is good for food (Gen. 2:9), but it is also distinct from the other trees because it is desirable for making one wise (3:6). By eating the fruit, she and Adam attempt to gain wisdom contrary to God’s command. As a result, this type of wisdom leads to death. However, true wisdom has the opposite effect. It leads to life, being a tree of life itself (esp. Prov. 3:18; also 3:1–2; 4:10–23; 6:23).

Although these themes—life, blessing, obedience, and wisdom—are found in various places throughout the Bible, they come together most explicitly in Deuteronomy. There devotion and obedience to God are viewed as the means of attaining wisdom and understanding (Deut. 4:5–9). Following God leads to living in the land that God had promised and enjoying his blessings there (28:1–14); however, forsaking God leads to all kinds of curses and ultimately to utter defeat and exile from the land (28:15–68). The choice to follow God and obey him or to forsake God and disobey him results in either life or death, good or bad, blessing or curse (30:15–20).

Life as a theological concept therefore has the following characteristics: being in the presence of God rather than exile, and experiencing his blessings rather than his curses. Such life may be attained through devotion and obedience to God and through the wisdom that comes from God.

New Testament. This concept of life forms the background for that of the NT as well. The NT often speaks of eternal life, especially in the writings of John. Eternal life is being in fellowship with God the Father and Jesus Christ (John 17:3). One may experience eternal life before natural death and beyond it into the eternal future (John 3:36; 5:24; 6:54; 10:28). At the same time, eternal life may refer more narrowly only to the time of perfect fellowship with God that lies beyond natural life (Matt. 25:46; Mark 10:30; Rom. 2:7). Because life consists of being in fellowship with God and living in his blessings, John can state that the one who believes in Jesus “has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24). In other words, the person who believes in Jesus has been transferred from God’s curse to his blessing, from death to life. Furthermore, Jesus declares that he is life, and that those who believe in him will live and not die; that is, they will never be removed from his presence and blessing (John 11:25–26).

The typical length of time that a person can be expected to live. Genesis claims remarkably long life spans for the generations immediately after the fall, with the longest life attributed to Methuselah—969 years, essentially a millennium (Gen. 5:27). However, the Bible assumes a general life span of 70 years, and in special cases 80 (Ps. 90:10). Isaiah describes the span as a “king’s life” (Isa. 23:15). Determining the average life span of the typical Israelite is difficult because of a dearth of evidence. However, archaeology suggests that many first-century people did not live past their fortieth birthday. In Rome, sepulchral inscriptions (which are biased in favor of the upper classes) suggest that the median age of death was about 34 years for wives and 46 years for husbands. Children were especially vulnerable to disease, hunger, and violence. About one-third of Roman children died before the age of ten.

Mountains, both literally and metaphorically, play a highly significant role in biblical history, religion, and theology. People are shaped by the geography of the location in which they live, and this was no less the case with the Israelites. Mountains, as permanent and immovable, form natural barriers and borders (Josh. 15), afford protection from invaders (Judg. 6:2; Ps. 125:2), serve as places of refuge (Gen. 14:10; 19:17; 1 Sam. 14:22), and provide bases from which to launch attacks (Judg. 4:14; 9:36). Often in the Bible, mountain imagery is used to describe God as eternal and a strong refuge (Pss. 36:6; 90:2; 121:1–2; 125:2).

But mountains are also places of mystery. In the religious world of the ancient Near East, gods were thought to either live or make their presence known on mountains—portals, as it were, between heaven and earth. The garden of Eden is regarded by Ezekiel as having been located on “the holy mount of God” (Ezek. 28:13–14). God mysteriously reveals himself in a flame of fire to Moses at Mount Horeb (Exod. 3), and then later from that same mountain God gives the law amid thunder, fire, and smoke; the people are not allowed to approach the mountain lest they die (Exod. 19). Moses has another theophany on the same mountain (Exod. 33:17–34:8), and Elijah has a very Moses-like encounter there with God as well (1 Kings 19).

Because of this association between gods and mountains, it was the norm to build temples for deities on mountaintops. Thus, the temple in Jerusalem is built on Mount Zion, which is also the place where Abraham had been ready to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:2; 2 Chron. 3:1). Thus, this mountain is the “mountain of the Lord” (Gen. 22:14), the mountain of God’s “inheritance” (Exod. 15:17), his “holy mountain” (Ps. 48:1). Even the plans for the tabernacle and temples are given on mountaintops (Exod. 25:40; 26:30; 27:8; 2 Sam. 24:18–25; 1 Chron. 21:18–22:1; 28:11–12; Ezek. 40:1–2; Rev. 21:10). It should not escape notice that Israel’s legal tradition and liturgical tradition are both associated with mountains, Sinai and Zion (Jerusalem).

It is no wonder, then, that mountains play such a significant role in the NT and the life of Christ. On top of a high mountain, the devil tempts Jesus to worship him (Matt. 4:8–10). Jesus proclaims the law of the kingdom from a mountain (5:1). On a mountain, Jesus chooses to reveal to his disciples his true glory in the transfiguration (17:1). After his resurrection, Jesus has his disciples meet him at a mountain, from which he makes his declaration of authority and gives the Great Commission (28:16–20). But Jesus and the NT authors also “relocate” the place where people meet with God from any particular location, mountain or otherwise, to the human spirit and to the church (John 4:21–24; Heb. 12:22–23).

For timekeeping, ancients divided the night into three (as in the OT) or four (as in the NT) “watches.” The NT mentions the second, third (Luke 12:38), and fourth (Matt. 14:25; Mark 6:48). The OT mentions watches (Pss. 63:6; 90:4; 119:148; Lam. 2:19), often in military contexts (Exod. 14:24; Judg. 7:19; 1 Sam. 11:11). The OT watches are not numbered but rather are referred to with terms such as “middle” or “last.” This system did not preclude the counting of hours during the night (Acts 23:23).

God’s “repenting” (KJV) or “relenting” (NIV) may seem to be in tension with his sovereignty, but it makes sense on several assumptions. God wills to accomplish certain overall ends, but he retains freedom to modify the path that he takes to achieve them, as needed. This in turn assumes that God’s interaction with humanity involves genuine give-and-take. Therefore, God’s way in history may be recounted as a story with surprise twists and turns that are integral to the plot. We may affirm all this and also uphold divine sovereignty if we understand both human prayer and God’s response as divinely ordained means for God to achieve his purposes.

Texts that speak of God relenting indicate that God is adopting a new course of action, a change of mind. In a sense, divine judgment itself represents a kind of “change of mind” from God’s basic, original intent to bless. Whereas judgment is “his strange work . . . his alien task” (Isa. 28:21), undertaken when necessary, God’s character is to be gracious and compassionate, to relent from sending calamity (Isa. 48:9; Joel 2:13), and to bring restoration after judgment (Gen. 9:11; Isa. 54:7–8; Hos. 2).

Terminology. To portray God relenting, the OT often uses the Hebrew word nakham, which carries a strong emotional content and an element of regret. On certain occasions, it refers to profound grief that God feels in reaction to human sin and calamity (Gen. 6:6–7; Judg. 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:35; 2 Sam. 24:16). This is not to suggest that God is making amends for wrongs or has the same kinds of regret for mistakes that humans have. But we should recognize that when nakham is used to speak of God “relenting,” it means something more than a change in the direction of the wind: it involves the heart of God, engaged deeply with his people’s welfare (cf. Hos. 11:8–9). Conversely, the human cry for God to relent is wrung from experiences of deep crisis (Job 6:29; Pss. 90:13; 106:44–45).

Exodus and Jonah. Two classic OT narratives about divine relenting may be contrasted. In Exod. 32 the Israelites’ idolatry with the golden calf is followed by God’s indictment and intention to destroy them. A dramatic turning point comes with Moses’ intercession, in response to which God relents. The book of Jonah turns this sequence on its head. Here the prophet resists his mission of announcing Nineveh’s doom because he fears that its people may repent, which they do (Jon. 3:5–9), and that God may then relent from bringing on them the judgment that he had sent Jonah to announce, which he does (4:2). The book of Jonah portrays the prophet as an antihero, out of step with the compassion and larger purposes of God, unhappy with the freedom of God. But it preserves the link between human repentance for sin and divine relenting from previously announced judgment, as seen in Exod. 32.

The prophets. Through the OT prophets, God wrestles with Israel, announcing one course of action, judgment, while often holding open the possibility of an alternate ending: if Israel repents (Jer. 18:8; 26:3, 13) or if a prophet (Amos 7:1–6) or a king (Jer. 26:19) intercedes, then God may relent. At the end of the day, relenting remains a move that God chooses to make or not to make (Isa. 57:6; Jer. 7:16–20; Ezek. 24:14), in faithfulness to his own purpose (Ps. 7:10–12; Jer. 23:20; 30:24; Zech. 8:14–15).

In the book of Amos, God does both. Amos 1–2 comprises a cycle of seven judgment speeches against Israel’s neighbors, culminating in the eighth, lengthiest judgment speech against Israel. Each speech opens with the formula “For three sins of X, and for four, I will not turn back [my wrath].” Here God declares that he has committed himself to carrying out judgment. With the use of the verb shub (“to turn, turn back”), any implied question of reprieve is answered immediately: the nation’s condemnation is irrevocable. But in 7:1–6 God is twice said to “relent” (nakham) from sending the locusts and fire that he has just shown Amos in visions. Granting stays from specific forms of punishment is not the same as forgiving Israel’s sin, however, and these temporary measures are followed by a reassertion of God’s determination to spare Israel no longer (7:7–9). Moreover, even though Israel’s doom is sealed, Amos can still urge his hearers to repent and turn to God, on the grounds that God may relent—that is, freely respond with mercy and allow some to survive the nation’s fall (5:4–6, 14–15).

Salvation and judgment. This divine freedom, compassion, and judgment that dovetail in OT accounts of God relenting are embodied in Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom, which signals both salvation and its corollary, judgment. Hence come his summons to “Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15) and the apostolic call for hearers to escape their generation’s doom by repentance and faith in Jesus (Acts 2:40).

Worship of God is a critical dimension of both Testaments. One might argue that it is the very goal for which Israel and the church were formed.

Terminology

Our understanding of worship is informed by the terms, practices, exhortations, and warnings of Scripture. The worship vocabulary in both Testaments provides insight into the personal dispositions and posture associated with worship focused on the person of God. The first set of biblical terms concerns the posture of the worshiper. The Hebrew terminology communicates the idea of bowing down and falling prostrate before the sovereign and worthy God (Ps. 95:6; 1 Chron. 29:20). NT words bear a similar idea of humble acknowledgment of God’s authority with a reverent prostrate position (Matt. 28:9; Rev. 5:14).

The second set of worship terms concerns service. In the OT, the worship of God includes the idea of serving with a view to bringing honor to him (Exod. 3:12; Mal. 3:14, 18). In the NT, worship bears the nuance of serving in the sense of carrying out religious duties (Heb. 12:28). This set of terminology has a priestly connotation to it. The OT priests and the NT believers (1 Pet. 2:5) serve God with their individual lives and their routines of life as acceptable offerings.

The final set of terms describes the attitude or disposition of worship. This word group includes terms such as “fear,” “awe,” and “dread,” which initially seem out of place in the context of worship. However, the terminology serves to inculcate an attitude of genuine respect. Yahweh is the awesome God, who is to be feared (Exod. 3:6; 15:11). Israel is to love and trust who God is and what God says in promise or in warning. The fear that one is to have for God involves a respect for him, a reverence for his divine worth (Col. 3:22; Rev. 11:18).

God as the Object of Worship

The worship terminology sets the focus of worship. The living God is the sole object of worship. He delights in the satisfying joy that his children find in him. The nature of worship is not about servant entertainment or passive observation; it is an active acknowledgment of God’s worth in a variety of humble ways.

A genuine selfless focus on the person and work of God brings about a humble response that affects one’s posture, generates works of service, and stirs up a healthy attitude of fear and respect. Knowledge of God is the foundational element in worship. God is worshiped for who he is and what he does. He is the Eternal One (Ps. 90:1; 1 Tim. 1:17), unique in every way (Isa. 44:8); he is God alone (Deut. 6:4). He is distinguished by his self-existence, the self-reliant quality of his life (Exod. 3:14; Deut. 32:30). The psalmist calls God’s people to shout joyfully to their good, loving, eternal, and faithful Creator (Ps. 100).

God is worshiped as the Creator of all life. This magnificent creative work of God, declared in the opening of Genesis, is a critical focus in worship (Ps. 95:6; Rom. 1:25; Rev. 4:11). Along with this is the companion declaration that God is the redeemer. The redemptive work of God is celebrated in the Song of Moses (Exod. 15:1–18) and in the Song of the Redeemed (Rev. 14:3).

Worship is also associated with the royal aspects of God’s character. It was the desire of the magi to find Jesus the king and worship him (Matt. 2:1–2). The final scenes of history will be characterized by humble submission to and worship of the King of kings (1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16; cf. Rev. 15:3–4). The psalms often draw the reader’s attention to God’s royal character as a basis for worship (Pss. 45:11; 98:6).

Finally, God is worshiped as the Lord of his covenant relationship with the nation of Israel. This covenant theme and metaphor summarize the varied aspects of God’s character and his relationship with Israel. The God who brought Israel into a covenant relationship is to be sincerely and exclusively worshiped (2 Kings 17:35, 38; cf. Deut. 31:20). These confessional statements about the character of God are a glorious weight that moves believers to prostrate themselves, to have an attitude of awe and respect, and to obediently serve.

The Form of Worship

Although the form of worship looks different in each Testament, the essential elements of worship are constant. In the OT, the priests primarily led the worship of God. In addition, the duties of the king (Deut. 17:18–20) and of the prophet (18:14–22) had worship implications and responsibilities. Ideally, these three administrators were to work together to ensure a healthy quality of covenant life for the nation. Worship in both Testaments has both corporate and individual aspects.

OT worship was organized around sacred places such as designated locations (Gen. 3:8; 12:7), the tabernacle (Exod. 29:42), and the temple (1 Kings 8; cf. Rev. 21–22). In addition, there were sacred times in the calendar of Israel for celebration of the appointed feasts (Lev. 23). The three main feasts in Israel’s calendar are Unleavened Bread, Weeks, and Tabernacles (Deut. 16:16; cf. Exod. 34:23). The sacred actions of worship for the nation involved burnt offerings, meal or tribute offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings (Lev. 1–5).

The regulation and routine of OT worship never were intended to be merely dutiful. The routine of worship was to manifest a love for God and for the covenant community (Deut. 6:1–5; Mal. 2:10). The prophets often challenged Israel to have a heart for God and at times called upon them to consider the emptiness of their worship routine (Isa. 1:11). The heart of worship was nurtured in psalms of praise and lament and in the call to remember God (Pss. 42; 77:11).

The form of NT worship is not distinguished with the same externals as in the OT. However, similar core beliefs underlie the form and practice of NT worship. The distinguishing feature in this new era is the final and sufficient work of Christ (Heb. 9–10). As with previous revelation, worship is not anthropocentric; it is joyfully Christocentric, based on the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1–5). Christ and his work replace the OT temple. Jesus is the greater temple that has come (Matt. 12:6). Sacrifice is no longer limited to any particular geographic location, but instead involves the offering of oneself (Rom. 12:1–2) along with the presentation of spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God (1 Pet. 2:4–5). NT worship is regulated by the Spirit and truth (John 4:20–24). This type of worship is distinguished by the word of God, the Spirit, preaching, prayer, Spirit-filled service, and mutual edification. NT worship also includes the regular celebration of the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42–47) within the context of the local church.

The study of human beings, their nature and origins. The Christian understanding of anthropology stems from a biblical view of humankind’s relationship to God.

The Origin of Humankind

According to Genesis, the creation of humankind took place on the sixth day of the creation week. The amount of narrative space allotted to this day (Gen. 1:24–31) testifies to the special importance of what happened. Human beings were made on the same day as the animals. Human beings were not given a day of their own, showing that they have a certain kinship with the animals, although they are far more than highly successful and adaptive mammals. This has implications for the care of animals and of the environment generally. The value of human beings and their special place in the created order is clear in passages such as Pss. 8:5–6; 104:14–15.

Created in the image of God. When it came to the making of human beings, God deliberated over this crucial step (Gen. 1:26). The plural of exhortation in “Let us make man in our image” signals that the decision to make humankind was the most important one that God had made so far. Genesis 1 says that human beings are like God in some way.

Various opinions have been canvassed as to what the “image” is. We cannot totally exclude the physical form of humans, given God’s humanoid form in OT appearances (theophanies; e.g., Isa. 6:1; Ezek. 1:26; Amos 9:1). The image has sometimes been interpreted as a task, the exercising of dominion (Gen. 1:28), with humanity appointed as creation’s king, ruling under God. But the image is better understood as the precondition for rule rather than rule itself. The image shows human worth (Gen. 9:6) and differentiates humans from all other creatures. It is proper for the Bible to use anthropomorphic language for God, for humans are remarkably like God. Both male and female are in the image of God (“in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” [1:27]), so that the divine image is not maleness, nor is sexual differentiation the image. Commonly, the image of God is thought to be some peculiar quality of human beings—for example, rationality, speech, moral sense, personality, humans as relational beings.

Every century has its own view of what is the essence of humanity. However, nothing in the passage allows a choice among such alternatives. The point of the passage is simply the fact of the likeness, with no exact definition being provided. The fact of the image is the basis of the divine prohibition of murder and of the strict penalty applied to the transgressor (9:4–6). The fall into sin affected every aspect of the human constitution, and the Bible does not minimize the fact of human sinfulness (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10–18); nevertheless, humans are still in the image of God (Gen. 5:1–3; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7). God’s plan of salvation is aimed at ridding creation (and especially humanity) of the baneful effects of sin, and this will be achieved through the work of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15–20; Heb. 1:1–3; 2:5–18). The outcome will be the conformity of believers in Christ to his glorious image (Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 3.18).

Place in the created order. God’s purpose in giving human beings the divine image is “so they may rule” (NET [Gen. 1:26b translated as a purpose clause]). The syntax suggests that the image is a presupposition of dominion. It is plain that such a delegated authority makes humans stewards. The vegetarian diet of Gen.1:29 (there was no eating of meat at first) represents a limitation to the human right of dominion. Adam’s naming of the animals was (in part) expressive of his sovereignty over them (2:19). Later, Noah was charged to bring pairs of animals into the ark to preserve them alive (6:19–20), showing care for other creatures. The patriarchs tended flocks (13:2–9; 26:12–14), and Joseph’s relief measures saved the lives of people and animals (47:15–18). The wanton destruction of the Promised Land was expressly forbidden (Deut. 20:19–20). Humanity is accountable to God for the stewardship of the earth. The divine command “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28 NRSV) shows that God’s purpose is that the human race populate the whole earth.

At Gen. 2:7 the biblical narrative becomes thoroughly anthropocentric, picturing the little world that God establishes around the first man, so this account is quite different from the cosmic presentation of Gen. 1. In Gen. 1 humankind is the apex of a pyramid, the last and highest of a series of creatures; in Gen. 2 the man is the center of a circle, everything else made to fit around him, and his connection to the physical earth is emphasized. In either view, a very special place is given to human beings in the created order. The two pictures are complementary, not contradictory.

The “man” (’adam) is formed from the “ground” (’adamah), with the related Hebrew words making a pun. Man’s name reminds him of his earthy origins. He is made from the “dust,” which hints at his coming death. He will return to the dust (Gen. 3:19; cf. Job 10:8–9; Ps. 103:14; Isa. 29:16). The reference to “the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7) is due to the fact that this leaves a person at death (Job 34:14–15; Ps. 104:29–30), so man’s (potential) mortality is implied. Ironically, the making of man is described using the language of death. What is described in Gen. 2 is the making of the first man, from whom the rest of the human race has descended, not the making of humankind, though the word ’adam can mean that in other contexts.

The Nature of Humankind

Body, soul, and spirit. Arguments over whether human nature is bipartite (body and soul) or tripartite (body, soul, spirit) are not to be decided by arbitrary appeal to isolated verses. Verses can be found in apparent support for both the first view (e.g., Matt. 10:28) and the second (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:23), but certainly the first scheme is much more prevalent in the Bible. “Soul” and “spirit” can be used interchangeably (Eccles. 3:21; 12:7; Ezek. 18:31). Death is marked by the parting of soul/spirit and body, but it would be a mistake to think that human beings are made up of separate component parts, or that the physical body is only a dispensable shell and not essential to true humanity. The physicality of human existence in the “body” is owned and celebrated in Scripture, part of that being the positive attitude to sexuality when properly expressed (Song of Songs; 1 Cor. 7) and the nonascetic nature of biblical ethics (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 2:23). The doctrine of the resurrection of the body is the fullest expression of this (1 Cor. 15), in contrast to ancient Greek thought that viewed the body as inherently evil and understood salvation as the immortality of the liberated, disembodied soul.

The different words used in relation to persons are only intended to refer to and at times focus on different aspects of unified human nature. References to the “soul” may stress individual responsibility (e.g., Ezek. 18:4 NASB: “The soul who sins will die”). In Ps. 103:1–2, “O my soul” expresses emphatic self-encouragement to praise God and is in parallel with “all my inmost being”—that is, “my whole being” (an example of synecdoche: a part standing for the whole [cf. Ps. 35:10]). These are ways of referring to oneself as a person who expresses will and intention (cf. Ps. 42:5–6, 11). The “flesh” is used to stress the weakness of mortal humanity (e.g., Isa. 40:6 RSV: “All flesh is grass”). The “heart” is the volitional center of a human being (Prov. 4:23; cf. Mark 7:17–23). The emotional and empathetic reactions of humans are described by reference to the organs: “liver,” “kidneys,” “bowels.”

Morals and responsibility. In Gen. 2 the complexities of the man’s moral relation to God and his relations with the soil, with the animals, and with the woman are explored. God deposited the man in the garden “to work it and take care of it” (2:15). The words chosen to designate the man’s work prior to the fall have an aura of worship about them, for they are later used in the OT for the cultic actions of serving and guarding within the sanctuary. The priests served by offering sacrifices, and the Levites guarded the gates of the sacred precinct. A theology of work as a religious vocation is presented. The man was a kind of king-priest in the garden of God.

The moral responsibility of humanity is signaled from the beginning. God’s command gives permission for the man to eat from “any tree” except one (Gen. 2:16–17) and as such indicates man’s freedom, so that this command is no great restriction. The wording “you are free to eat” reinforces the point about God’s generous provision. The prohibition is embedded in the description of God’s fatherly care for the man and gracious act in placing him in the garden. The divine restriction is slight and not at all overbearing, though the serpent will seek to make it appear mean-spirited (3:1). The command and prohibition are the very first words of God to the man, marking them out as of fundamental importance for the relationship between them. The prohibition (“you must not eat . . .”) is an absolute one in the style of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). What is placed before the man is a test that gives him the opportunity to express his loyalty to God. A relationship of obedience and trust requires the possibility of choice and the opportunity to disobey (if that is what he wants to do). The moral nature and responsibility of individuals is not a late discovery by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 18); rather, it is the presupposition behind the Mosaic law, for the commands of the Decalogue (“you shall not . . .”) are phrased as commands to individuals (as the Hebrew makes clear). On the other hand, the concept of corporate responsibility is also present (e.g., Achan’s punishment in Josh. 7).

Relationships. Human beings are relational by nature, as the creation of the woman as a helper and partner for the first man makes plain (Gen. 2:18–25). Later in Scripture this is put in more general terms, so that friendship and mutual cooperation are shown to be essential to life (Eccles. 4:7–12). The body life of the church reflects the same fact and need (1 Cor. 12). In Psalms, human needs and vulnerability find their answer and fulfillment in God, with the psalmist acknowledging his frailty and his creaturely dependence on God (e.g., Ps. 90). This also shows the folly of sinful human pride, against which the prophets so often inveighed (e.g., Isa. 2:9, 11–17, 22).

The blessings and curses of Scripture are grounded in a worldview that understands the sovereign God to be the ultimate dispenser of each. Blessings and curses are not the outcomes of magicians who attempt to manipulate the gods for personal gain or retribution. Rather, God is the giver of blessing and ultimately the final judge who determines withdrawal or ban. He is the source of every good gift (James 1:17) and the one who gives power and strength to prosper (Deut. 8:17).

Some view the nature of blessing and curse as simply a gift from God, while others see it as an act in which one party transmits power for life to another party. Perhaps the common thread between views is the idea of relationship.

Terminology. In the OT, the key Hebrew terms for blessing are the verb barak and the noun berakah. When the context of their use identifies a person or a living creature as the object of blessing, the basic idea is to provide someone with special power that will ultimately enhance his or her life. The blessing theme is also illuminated by means of words such as “grace,” “favor,” “loyalty,” and “happiness.”

In the NT, the Greek term eulogeō and its cognates are best understood in terms of the impartation of favor, power, and benefits. The makarios word group describes a state or status of being fortunate, happy, or privileged.

The OT curse vocabulary includes the ideas of disgracing, making contemptible, and imprecation. The NT curse terminology comprises the ideas of curse, slander, or consecrated to destruction.

Old Testament. The sovereign God sometimes employs agents of blessing in his creation. The blessing extends to the nations through Abraham (Gen. 12:3), to Jacob through Isaac (Gen. 26–27), and to the people through the priests (Num. 6:24–26).

The theme of blessing/curse is used to structure Deut. 27–28 and Lev. 26 (cf. Josh. 8:34) in the overall covenant format of these books. Scholars have observed that the object of this format is not symmetry or logical unity but fullness. From this perspective, the blessing/curse structure functions to enforce obedience for the purpose of ensuring a relationship. The blessing of Deuteronomy also includes the benefits of prosperity, power, and fertility. The curse, on the other hand, is the lack or withdrawal of benefits associated with the relationship.

The creation narratives are marked with the theme and terminology of blessing (Gen. 1:22, 28; 2:3; cf. 5:2; 9:1). The objects of blessing in Gen. 1:22, 28 (cf. 5:2; 9:1) are the living creatures and human beings created in the image of God. As the revelation progresses, the blessing of God is particularized in the lives of Noah (Gen. 6–8), Abraham (Gen. 12–25) and his descendants, and the nation of Israel and its leadership (Gen. 26–50). In these contexts, the blessing is intended to engender offspring and to prosper recipients in material and physical ways (compare a similar NT emphasis in Acts 17:25; cf. Matt. 5:45; 6:25–33; Acts 14:17).

The blessing of God is also extended to inanimate objects that enhance and prosper one’s quality of life. The seventh day of creation is the object of blessing (Gen. 2:7; Exod. 20:11), perhaps giving it a sense of well-being and health. Objects and activities of life such as baskets and kneading troughs (Deut. 28:5), barns (Deut. 28:8), and work (Job 1:10; Ps. 90:17) are blessed.

God promises to bless those who fear him (Ps. 128:1). Blessing is designed for those who, out of a deep sense of awe of God’s character, love and trust him. The God-fearer confidently embraces God’s promises, obediently serves, and takes seriously God’s warnings. The blessings itemized in Ps. 128 are comparable to those detailed in Deut. 28 relating to productivity and fruitfulness (cf. Ps. 128:2 with Deut. 28:12; Ps. 128:3 with Deut. 28:4, 11). The Deuteronomic concept of blessing and curse is questioned when God-fearers undergo a period of suffering or experience God’s apparent absence (e.g., Joseph, Job; cf. Jesus).

New Testament. In the NT, blessings are not exclusively spiritual. God gives both food and joy (Acts 14:17) and provides the necessities of life (Matt. 6:25–33). The NT does connect blessing with Christ, and it focuses attention on the spiritual quality of the gift that originates from Christ himself and its intended benefit for spiritual individuals.

Regarding curse, the NT explains that Christ bore the curse of the law to free us from its deadening effect (Gal. 3:10–13). Revelation 22:3 anticipates a time when the curse associated with sin will be completely removed and the blessing associated with creation will prevail.

The human body has its origin in the act of creation by God depicted in Gen. 2:7, so that it comes under the heading of the “very good” evaluation at the close of the six days of creation (1:31). In neither the OT nor the NT is the body viewed as evil, in contrast to the ancient Greek view that saw the human body as a prison of the soul and viewed death as a release from this bondage. This contributes to the Bible’s positive view of human sexuality when properly expressed in a committed marriage relationship, one notable example being the mutual admiration of the man and the woman who are deeply in love in Song of Songs, where we find a head-to-toe description of the man’s physique (5:10–16) and a corresponding description of the woman’s body (7:1–8).

Old Testament. In the OT, death is regularly described as a returning of the body to the dust/ground from which it was made (e.g., Gen. 3:19; Ps. 90:3). The dignity of the human body is signaled by the importance of proper burial (Deut. 21:22–23), which is a cultic rather than a health regulation in the OT. The outrage committed by the Philistines on the bodies of Saul and his sons (1 Sam. 31), the deliberate desecration of tombs (2 Kings 23:16; Amos 2:1), and leaving an enemy unburied are ways of expressing utter contempt. The ensuring of proper burial (even of strangers) becomes a mark of Jewish piety, as exemplified in Tob. 2:1–10; 12:11–15.

The Hebrew word nepesh (often translated “soul”) can be used of a dead body (e.g., Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6; 19:13; Hag. 2:13), though this word has a wide range of meaning (sometimes it means “throat”). This usage is not to be taken as signifying that the soul/body distinction is not recognized. On the contrary, in OT teaching “body” (whatever the Hebrew word used) always refers to the physical body, not to the whole human person that is bipartite (body/soul) within an overall psychophysical unity. The reference in Mic. 6:7 (NIV: “the fruit of my body”) is really to the “womb” (cf. Deut. 28:4), and the Hebrew word in question, beten, can refer to a male body insofar as it is involved in procreation (Ps. 132:11).

New Testament. Hebrews insists on the real humanity of Jesus (2:14–18), and the Gospels portray him as having the normal physical requirements of drink, food, and sleep (Mark 4:38; John 4:7–8). To deny that Jesus Christ came “in the flesh” strikes at the heart of the gospel and is the spirit of the antichrist (1 John 4:2–3). For atonement to take place, it was required that Jesus offer himself body and soul to God through death (Heb. 10:5–10, 20). At the Last Supper, when Jesus said, “This is my body” (Matt. 26:26), his meaning was that the bread represented his body, which would be offered on the cross as the sacrifice that makes possible the inauguration of the new covenant (cf. Exod. 24:1–8).

The bodily resurrection of Jesus is evidenced by the empty tomb (Mark 16:4–6) and the appearance of the risen Christ to his followers (e.g., Luke 24:36–43; see the list of witnesses in 1 Cor. 15:5–8). This is a fundamental point of Christian doctrine and gospel proclamation, providing assurance to believers that they too will be physically raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:42–52), a belief found already in the OT (Dan. 12:2). Salvation in the Bible embraces the redemption of the body and the renewal of the physical creation. At the time of Christ’s return, believers will be raised from their graves and meet their returning Lord (1 Thess. 4:13–18).

In what is acknowledged by all to be a difficult passage (2 Cor. 5:1–9), Paul appears to envisage that at the point of death he will not become a disembodied soul but instead will “be clothed with [his] heavenly dwelling” (5:4). The expression “away from the body” (5:8) is not to be taken as an indication of bodiless existence, but rather is explained by “at home with the Lord” and refers to the believer’s state upon leaving this earthly life. The nature of the “spiritual body” in 1 Cor. 15:35–49 is only hinted at by means of analogies (e.g., the seed) or contrasts (between the “perishable” and the “imperishable”), but its physicality (though gloriously transformed) is plain. Perhaps our clearest indication is provided by what we are told of the resurrection body of Jesus, which could pass through grave clothes (Luke 24:12; John 20:5–7), appear and disappear in a closed room (Luke 24:31, 36), and ingest food and be touched (Luke 24:37–43).

Paul made use the “body” analogy for the character of the church as the “body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12–26), viewing it as an organism consisting of different, mutually dependent members or organs. This teaching was designed to rebuke and correct the self-glorifying and self-serving use and abuse of spiritual gifts in the Corinthian church. So too, the reality of the Christian community as a “body” (1 Cor. 10:17; 11:29) showed that their uncaring attitude toward each other manifested at their suppers was totally inappropriate. In the same letter Paul says that the believer’s “body” is united to Christ, making sexual immorality a thing to be shunned (6:12–20). Believers are to glorify God in their bodies. The analogy of the body is used a little differently in Ephesians (1:23; 2:16) and Colossians (1:18, 24), where its point is that Christ is the “head” of the body (the church), which therefore must submit to his direction and rule. Believers are to pre­sent their “bodies” as a living sacrifice, serving the master who redeemed them (Rom. 12:1). The verse that follows gives the other side to the equation: serving God with the mind (12:2). Body and mind together make up the complete human being, who is a psychosomatic unity. See also Gestures.

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

Historical Background

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

Composition

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

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

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

Collection

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

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

Organization and Structure

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

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

I. Book 1 (Pss. 1–41)

II. Book 2 (Pss. 42–72)

III. Book 3 (Pss. 73–89)

IV. Book 4 (Pss. 90–106)

V. Book 5 (Pss. 107–150)

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

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

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

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

Literary Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theological Message

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

Connection to the New Testament and Today

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

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

God’s “repenting” (KJV) or “relenting” (NIV) may seem to be in tension with his sovereignty, but it makes sense on several assumptions. God wills to accomplish certain overall ends, but he retains freedom to modify the path that he takes to achieve them, as needed. This in turn assumes that God’s interaction with humanity involves genuine give-and-take. Therefore, God’s way in history may be recounted as a story with surprise twists and turns that are integral to the plot. We may affirm all this and also uphold divine sovereignty if we understand both human prayer and God’s response as divinely ordained means for God to achieve his purposes.

Texts that speak of God relenting indicate that God is adopting a new course of action, a change of mind. In a sense, divine judgment itself represents a kind of “change of mind” from God’s basic, original intent to bless. Whereas judgment is “his strange work . . . his alien task” (Isa. 28:21), undertaken when necessary, God’s character is to be gracious and compassionate, to relent from sending calamity (Isa. 48:9; Joel 2:13), and to bring restoration after judgment (Gen. 9:11; Isa. 54:7–8; Hos. 2).

Terminology. To portray God relenting, the OT often uses the Hebrew word nakham, which carries a strong emotional content and an element of regret. On certain occasions, it refers to profound grief that God feels in reaction to human sin and calamity (Gen. 6:6–7; Judg. 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:35; 2 Sam. 24:16). This is not to suggest that God is making amends for wrongs or has the same kinds of regret for mistakes that humans have. But we should recognize that when nakham is used to speak of God “relenting,” it means something more than a change in the direction of the wind: it involves the heart of God, engaged deeply with his people’s welfare (cf. Hos. 11:8–9). Conversely, the human cry for God to relent is wrung from experiences of deep crisis (Job 6:29; Pss. 90:13; 106:44–45).

Exodus and Jonah. Two classic OT narratives about divine relenting may be contrasted. In Exod. 32 the Israelites’ idolatry with the golden calf is followed by God’s indictment and intention to destroy them. A dramatic turning point comes with Moses’ intercession, in response to which God relents. The book of Jonah turns this sequence on its head. Here the prophet resists his mission of announcing Nineveh’s doom because he fears that its people may repent, which they do (Jon. 3:5–9), and that God may then relent from bringing on them the judgment that he had sent Jonah to announce, which he does (4:2). The book of Jonah portrays the prophet as an antihero, out of step with the compassion and larger purposes of God, unhappy with the freedom of God. But it preserves the link between human repentance for sin and divine relenting from previously announced judgment, as seen in Exod. 32.

The prophets. Through the OT prophets, God wrestles with Israel, announcing one course of action, judgment, while often holding open the possibility of an alternate ending: if Israel repents (Jer. 18:8; 26:3, 13) or if a prophet (Amos 7:1–6) or a king (Jer. 26:19) intercedes, then God may relent. At the end of the day, relenting remains a move that God chooses to make or not to make (Isa. 57:6; Jer. 7:16–20; Ezek. 24:14), in faithfulness to his own purpose (Ps. 7:10–12; Jer. 23:20; 30:24; Zech. 8:14–15).

In the book of Amos, God does both. Amos 1–2 comprises a cycle of seven judgment speeches against Israel’s neighbors, culminating in the eighth, lengthiest judgment speech against Israel. Each speech opens with the formula “For three sins of X, and for four, I will not turn back [my wrath].” Here God declares that he has committed himself to carrying out judgment. With the use of the verb shub (“to turn, turn back”), any implied question of reprieve is answered immediately: the nation’s condemnation is irrevocable. But in 7:1–6 God is twice said to “relent” (nakham) from sending the locusts and fire that he has just shown Amos in visions. Granting stays from specific forms of punishment is not the same as forgiving Israel’s sin, however, and these temporary measures are followed by a reassertion of God’s determination to spare Israel no longer (7:7–9). Moreover, even though Israel’s doom is sealed, Amos can still urge his hearers to repent and turn to God, on the grounds that God may relent—that is, freely respond with mercy and allow some to survive the nation’s fall (5:4–6, 14–15).

Salvation and judgment. This divine freedom, compassion, and judgment that dovetail in OT accounts of God relenting are embodied in Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom, which signals both salvation and its corollary, judgment. Hence come his summons to “Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15) and the apostolic call for hearers to escape their generation’s doom by repentance and faith in Jesus (Acts 2:40).

The precise and consistent division of time into hours, minutes, and seconds is a feature of modern life first made possible by the widespread use of mechanical clocks in the late Middle Ages. Biblical texts reflect an earlier situation in which timekeeping was primarily a matter of celestial observation. NT references to “hours” fall into two broad categories: first, timekeeping by means of numbered hours; and second, the use of the word “hour” in the sense of “moment,” a short, indefinite period of time (e.g., Matt. 8:13; John 16:2), as the hour was the basic unit of measurable time (see Rev. 9:15).

Jesus observed that the day was divided into twelve hours (John 11:9). Jesus was crucified at the third hour (9 a.m.); it was dark from the sixth hour (noon) until the ninth hour (3 p.m.), at which point Jesus died (Matt. 27:45–46; Mark 15:25, 33; Luke 23:44; John 19:14). In one parable, a landowner hired workers at the third, sixth, ninth, and eleventh hours (Matt. 20:3–12). The book of Acts also reports events occurring at the third, sixth, and ninth hours (Acts 2:15; 3:1; 10:3, 9). Such passages suggest that actual reckoning was often less precise even than the twelve-hour scheme permitted, and that the day was more roughly divided into four parts of three hours each. The Gospel of John provides the most precise time indications, mentioning the tenth hour (4 p.m. [John 1:39]) and the seventh hour (1 p.m. [John 4:52]). One text names an “hour of dinner” (Luke 14:17; see also 22:14), and another indicates that the ninth hour (3 p.m.) was an “hour of prayer” (Acts 3:1; see also 10:30).

The night was divided into three or four “watches,” of which the NT mentions the second, third (Luke 12:38), and fourth (Matt. 14:25; Mark 6:48). The OT mentions nocturnal watches (Pss. 63:6; 90:4; 119:148; Lam. 2:19), including in military contexts (Exod. 14:24; Judg. 7:19; 1 Sam. 11:11), from which the term with the sense of standing guard is derived. The OT watches are not numbered, but are referred to as “middle” or “last.” The system of watches did not preclude the counting of hours during the night, as in Acts 23:23, which refers to the third hour of the night (9 p.m.).

In addition to the numbered hours of the day, the hour is also used to measure the passage of time, as in Acts 19:34, where a crowd riots for two hours (see also Matt. 26:40; Luke 22:59; Acts 5:7; Rev. 17:12). One text refers to a half-hour period (Rev. 8:1).

Numerous texts refer to hours of future trial (Matt. 10:19; Rev. 3:10), including an eschatological or “last hour” (e.g., Mark 13:32; 1 John 2:18). The suffering and death of Jesus is also referred to as his “hour” (e.g., Mark 14:35; 14:41; John 12:23, 27).

Time refers to both the real and the perceived passage of events in sequence. It is important to note that “perceived” and “real” need not be the same. For example, Jacob worked for seven years in order to marry Rebekah, “but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her” (Gen. 29:20 [cf. 2 Pet. 3:8]). Jacob’s perception of time clearly was distinct from the real period of time that passed.

The Biblical Concept of Time

Time, as the sequential ordering of events that occur in space, pervades both human life and the biblical record of God’s dealings with the universe. The Bible recounts God’s plan for his creation, a plan with a beginning and an end, between which elements of the plan unfold in chronological sequence throughout history. The biblical concept of time is distinct from the cyclical concept found in some other religions, both in the ancient Near East and elsewhere. History thus moves toward a divinely predetermined goal through divinely appointed events that occur in sequence at appointed times according to God’s plan. Since God’s purposes for creation are expressed through time, the major points in his plan are apparent in a broad chronological sweep, beginning with creation, ending with judgment and the new creation, and centered upon the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (cf. Mark 1:15).

That God acts within history to bring about his purposes is highlighted by the use of temporal language to make reference to events that have taken place in the past (Exod. 12:1–3) and are yet to take place (in particular through the use of expressions such as “the last day[s]” in, e.g., Isa. 2:2; Jer. 23:20; John 6:39–54). The emphasis therefore is not on some spiritual or otherworldly domain in which specifically religious experiences and events take place, a domain distinct from the physical world in which we live. Rather, the emphasis is on the way in which God directs and shapes history in order to bring about his purposes.

Furthermore, the Bible acknowledges that all events in history fall within the purview of God’s sovereignty through the acknowledgment that there is an appropriate time appointed for them (Eccles. 3:1–11; Ps. 31:15). God’s sovereignty over time extends to the future, and thus the prophets announce the future actions of God at certain times (Isa. 60:22; Ezek. 22:3; 30:3; Dan. 8:17). More specifically, definite times for the end and final judgment are established (Matt. 8:29), although the timing of the end is known only to the Father (Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:33).

Modern science treats time and space as related and essential components of the physical universe and thus of God’s creation. Since, therefore, time is created, it is not thereby immediately clear precisely what God’s relationship to time is, nor is this an issue directly addressed in the Bible. Although it is common to insist that since time is part of creation, God exists outside of time, it is not possible to deduce from this observation alone that God exists without some analogous notion of time within a divine frame of reference. Nor is the question readily resolved by appeal to biblical texts, for although a number of passages reflect upon God’s knowledge of the end from the beginning and speak of God predestining and foreknowing (terms that implicitly have temporal connotations), these can be read as either reflecting God’s interaction with the temporal aspect of the created universe or as divine accommodation to human language in order to communicate correctly with temporal human beings throughout history. Consequently, no definitive answer to these philosophical questions is available, and so proposals relating to the issue cannot be judged to provide certainty in these matters. All that can be said with certainty is that the Bible presents certain propositions that affirm time’s subservience to God.

Measuring Time

The Bible makes reference to a variety of different measurements of periods of time. These include Jubilees (Lev. 25:10), generations (Deut. 2:14), Sabbath years (Lev. 25:4), years, months, days, and hours. There are no shorter periods of time described by any defined measures in the Bible, reflecting a culture in which timekeeping was not dominated by devices that afforded such determinations (although terms for nonspecific short periods of time do exist, such as rega’, a “moment” [Exod. 33:5; Isa. 26:20]).

A number of passages appear to suggest that a day was considered to begin in the morning and end the following morning (e.g., Deut. 28:66–67; 1 Sam. 30:12; Isa. 28:19; Jer. 33:20). However, there are also texts that seem to suggest a different division of days, specifically the creation account of Gen. 1 (but see also Gen. 19:34; Lev. 7:15; Judg. 19:4–9; 1 Sam. 19:11). Nehemiah 13:19 has the day begin at sunset. By NT times, a full day generally was reckoned as beginning at sunset.

Days were also divided into parts. The Mesopotamian system for dividing the night into three watches appears paralleled in Exod. 14:24; Judg. 7:19; 1 Sam. 11:11, although by NT times the night was divided into four watches, paralleling the Roman and Egyptian practice (Matt. 14:25; Mark 13:35). More precise, shorter divisions of time tended to be later innovations; for example, the OT does not typically use an hour as a measure of time. Nonetheless, there were in the ancient world means by which shorter periods could be measured, such as sundials and water clocks, examples of which can be found dating to the second millennium BC in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The only possible reference to such a device in the Bible appears in Isa. 38:8, where the “stairway of Ahaz” is thought by some to have been used to measure time in some way.

When the LXX uses the Greek word hōra, it refers not to a period of sixty minutes, but usually to a point in time (e.g., Exod. 9:18). In other early Greek literature the term can refer to a variety of periods of time, including a season and a year. By the NT period, however, the division of the day into twenty-four hours had become normative (cf. John 11:9), and the NT makes numerous reference to times based on the hour of the day.

The week was a well-established measure of time, reflected in the creation story as well as in the celebration of the Sabbath. Months were based on a lunar calendar (the Hebrew words for “month,” yerakh and khodesh, are also used to refer to the moon) (see Calendar). Beyond years, the Bible also uses generations as a measure of the passage of time. Finally, other measures less readily associated with specific periods of time are used in the Bible, in particular in some apocalyptic prophetic texts such as Daniel.

Eternity

“Eternity” is another time-related concept that occupies an important place in the Bible. The modern scientific realization that time is part of creation has strengthened the notion, long affirmed by various philosophies, that “eternity” represents that which is outside time and apart from it and so is particularly associated with God’s existence. In contrast to this, however, when the Bible makes reference to “eternity,” it invariably has a temporal aspect, referring either to the distant past, the distant future, or else the entire expanse of time from distant past to distant future (e.g., Exod. 15:18; Ps. 9:5; Mic. 4:5). What is clear, however, is that God’s relationship to the temporal aspect of the universe does reflect that of one who is outside the constraints of that time (e.g., Ps. 90:2; 2 Pet. 3:8).

The study of human beings, their nature and origins. The Christian understanding of anthropology stems from a biblical view of humankind’s relationship to God.

The Origin of Humankind

According to Genesis, the creation of humankind took place on the sixth day of the creation week. The amount of narrative space allotted to this day (Gen. 1:24–31) testifies to the special importance of what happened. Human beings were made on the same day as the animals. Human beings were not given a day of their own, showing that they have a certain kinship with the animals, although they are far more than highly successful and adaptive mammals. This has implications for the care of animals and of the environment generally. The value of human beings and their special place in the created order is clear in passages such as Pss. 8:5–6; 104:14–15.

Created in the image of God. When it came to the making of human beings, God deliberated over this crucial step (Gen. 1:26). The plural of exhortation in “Let us make man in our image” signals that the decision to make humankind was the most important one that God had made so far. Genesis 1 says that human beings are like God in some way.

Various opinions have been canvassed as to what the “image” is. We cannot totally exclude the physical form of humans, given God’s humanoid form in OT appearances (theophanies; e.g., Isa. 6:1; Ezek. 1:26; Amos 9:1). The image has sometimes been interpreted as a task, the exercising of dominion (Gen. 1:28), with humanity appointed as creation’s king, ruling under God. But the image is better understood as the precondition for rule rather than rule itself. The image shows human worth (Gen. 9:6) and differentiates humans from all other creatures. It is proper for the Bible to use anthropomorphic language for God, for humans are remarkably like God. Both male and female are in the image of God (“in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” [1:27]), so that the divine image is not maleness, nor is sexual differentiation the image. Commonly, the image of God is thought to be some peculiar quality of human beings—for example, rationality, speech, moral sense, personality, humans as relational beings.

Every century has its own view of what is the essence of humanity. However, nothing in the passage allows a choice among such alternatives. The point of the passage is simply the fact of the likeness, with no exact definition being provided. The fact of the image is the basis of the divine prohibition of murder and of the strict penalty applied to the transgressor (9:4–6). The fall into sin affected every aspect of the human constitution, and the Bible does not minimize the fact of human sinfulness (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10–18); nevertheless, humans are still in the image of God (Gen. 5:1–3; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7). God’s plan of salvation is aimed at ridding creation (and especially humanity) of the baneful effects of sin, and this will be achieved through the work of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15–20; Heb. 1:1–3; 2:5–18). The outcome will be the conformity of believers in Christ to his glorious image (Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 3.18).

Place in the created order. God’s purpose in giving human beings the divine image is “so they may rule” (NET [Gen. 1:26b translated as a purpose clause]). The syntax suggests that the image is a presupposition of dominion. It is plain that such a delegated authority makes humans stewards. The vegetarian diet of Gen.1:29 (there was no eating of meat at first) represents a limitation to the human right of dominion. Adam’s naming of the animals was (in part) expressive of his sovereignty over them (2:19). Later, Noah was charged to bring pairs of animals into the ark to preserve them alive (6:19–20), showing care for other creatures. The patriarchs tended flocks (13:2–9; 26:12–14), and Joseph’s relief measures saved the lives of people and animals (47:15–18). The wanton destruction of the Promised Land was expressly forbidden (Deut. 20:19–20). Humanity is accountable to God for the stewardship of the earth. The divine command “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28 NRSV) shows that God’s purpose is that the human race populate the whole earth.

At Gen. 2:7 the biblical narrative becomes thoroughly anthropocentric, picturing the little world that God establishes around the first man, so this account is quite different from the cosmic presentation of Gen. 1. In Gen. 1 humankind is the apex of a pyramid, the last and highest of a series of creatures; in Gen. 2 the man is the center of a circle, everything else made to fit around him, and his connection to the physical earth is emphasized. In either view, a very special place is given to human beings in the created order. The two pictures are complementary, not contradictory.

The “man” (’adam) is formed from the “ground” (’adamah), with the related Hebrew words making a pun. Man’s name reminds him of his earthy origins. He is made from the “dust,” which hints at his coming death. He will return to the dust (Gen. 3:19; cf. Job 10:8–9; Ps. 103:14; Isa. 29:16). The reference to “the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7) is due to the fact that this leaves a person at death (Job 34:14–15; Ps. 104:29–30), so man’s (potential) mortality is implied. Ironically, the making of man is described using the language of death. What is described in Gen. 2 is the making of the first man, from whom the rest of the human race has descended, not the making of humankind, though the word ’adam can mean that in other contexts.

The Nature of Humankind

Body, soul, and spirit. Arguments over whether human nature is bipartite (body and soul) or tripartite (body, soul, spirit) are not to be decided by arbitrary appeal to isolated verses. Verses can be found in apparent support for both the first view (e.g., Matt. 10:28) and the second (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:23), but certainly the first scheme is much more prevalent in the Bible. “Soul” and “spirit” can be used interchangeably (Eccles. 3:21; 12:7; Ezek. 18:31). Death is marked by the parting of soul/spirit and body, but it would be a mistake to think that human beings are made up of separate component parts, or that the physical body is only a dispensable shell and not essential to true humanity. The physicality of human existence in the “body” is owned and celebrated in Scripture, part of that being the positive attitude to sexuality when properly expressed (Song of Songs; 1 Cor. 7) and the nonascetic nature of biblical ethics (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 2:23). The doctrine of the resurrection of the body is the fullest expression of this (1 Cor. 15), in contrast to ancient Greek thought that viewed the body as inherently evil and understood salvation as the immortality of the liberated, disembodied soul.

The different words used in relation to persons are only intended to refer to and at times focus on different aspects of unified human nature. References to the “soul” may stress individual responsibility (e.g., Ezek. 18:4 NASB: “The soul who sins will die”). In Ps. 103:1–2, “O my soul” expresses emphatic self-encouragement to praise God and is in parallel with “all my inmost being”—that is, “my whole being” (an example of synecdoche: a part standing for the whole [cf. Ps. 35:10]). These are ways of referring to oneself as a person who expresses will and intention (cf. Ps. 42:5–6, 11). The “flesh” is used to stress the weakness of mortal humanity (e.g., Isa. 40:6 RSV: “All flesh is grass”). The “heart” is the volitional center of a human being (Prov. 4:23; cf. Mark 7:17–23). The emotional and empathetic reactions of humans are described by reference to the organs: “liver,” “kidneys,” “bowels.”

Morals and responsibility. In Gen. 2 the complexities of the man’s moral relation to God and his relations with the soil, with the animals, and with the woman are explored. God deposited the man in the garden “to work it and take care of it” (2:15). The words chosen to designate the man’s work prior to the fall have an aura of worship about them, for they are later used in the OT for the cultic actions of serving and guarding within the sanctuary. The priests served by offering sacrifices, and the Levites guarded the gates of the sacred precinct. A theology of work as a religious vocation is presented. The man was a kind of king-priest in the garden of God.

The moral responsibility of humanity is signaled from the beginning. God’s command gives permission for the man to eat from “any tree” except one (Gen. 2:16–17) and as such indicates man’s freedom, so that this command is no great restriction. The wording “you are free to eat” reinforces the point about God’s generous provision. The prohibition is embedded in the description of God’s fatherly care for the man and gracious act in placing him in the garden. The divine restriction is slight and not at all overbearing, though the serpent will seek to make it appear mean-spirited (3:1). The command and prohibition are the very first words of God to the man, marking them out as of fundamental importance for the relationship between them. The prohibition (“you must not eat . . .”) is an absolute one in the style of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). What is placed before the man is a test that gives him the opportunity to express his loyalty to God. A relationship of obedience and trust requires the possibility of choice and the opportunity to disobey (if that is what he wants to do). The moral nature and responsibility of individuals is not a late discovery by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 18); rather, it is the presupposition behind the Mosaic law, for the commands of the Decalogue (“you shall not . . .”) are phrased as commands to individuals (as the Hebrew makes clear). On the other hand, the concept of corporate responsibility is also present (e.g., Achan’s punishment in Josh. 7).

Relationships. Human beings are relational by nature, as the creation of the woman as a helper and partner for the first man makes plain (Gen. 2:18–25). Later in Scripture this is put in more general terms, so that friendship and mutual cooperation are shown to be essential to life (Eccles. 4:7–12). The body life of the church reflects the same fact and need (1 Cor. 12). In Psalms, human needs and vulnerability find their answer and fulfillment in God, with the psalmist acknowledging his frailty and his creaturely dependence on God (e.g., Ps. 90). This also shows the folly of sinful human pride, against which the prophets so often inveighed (e.g., Isa. 2:9, 11–17, 22).

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

Historical Background

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

Composition

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

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

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

Collection

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

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

Organization and Structure

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

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

I. Book 1 (Pss. 1–41)

II. Book 2 (Pss. 42–72)

III. Book 3 (Pss. 73–89)

IV. Book 4 (Pss. 90–106)

V. Book 5 (Pss. 107–150)

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

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

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

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

Literary Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theological Message

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

Connection to the New Testament and Today

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

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

A heading applied to the beginning of some psalms. These superscriptions may refer to people, historical circumstances, musical aspects, or classifications. The precise meaning of many of the terms in the superscriptions is unclear.

Fifty-five psalms are said to be for the music director and are also identified as a psalm of David, of Asaph, or of the sons of Korah (e.g., Pss. 11; 44; 75). Other persons mentioned by name include Solomon, Moses, Ethan, Heman, and possibly Jeduthun (Pss. 39; 62; 72; 77; 88; 89; 90; 127). These associations do not necessarily indicate authorship. Historical references suggest a background for understanding a psalm, but they are not necessarily original. The main classifications are “song” (shir), “psalm” (mizmor), and maskil (translation uncertain). Additionally, they may have information about tunes, styles, or instruments, though the specifics are now unknown.