Literally, fruit is the seed-bearing part of a plant. It constitutes an important part of the diet in the ancient Near East. Common fruits are olives, grapes, and figs, though many other varieties of fruit are also available, including apples, apricots, peaches, pomegranates, dates, and melons. Fruit trees play a prominent role as a food source in God’s creation and preparation of the garden of Eden (Gen. 1–3). The law prohibits the Israelites from cutting down their enemy’s fruit trees (Deut. 20:19). The abundance of fruit trees characterizes the land that God has prepared for Israel (Deut. 8:8; Neh. 9:25) as well as the final restoration (Ezek. 47:12; Joel 2:22; Rev. 22:2).

One aspect of fruit is that it grows from a plant. This use of the term is often extended to represent what emerges from something else. Thus, fruit may represent offspring, whether human or animal (Deut. 7:13; 28:4), one’s actions (Matt. 7:16–20), the result of one’s actions or choices (Prov. 1:31; 10:16; Jer. 17:10), or words coming from one’s mouth (Prov. 12:14; Heb. 13:15). In the NT especially, producing much fruit symbolizes performing deeds that are pleasing to God (Matt. 3:8; 13:23; Mark 4:20; John 15:16; Rom. 7:4; Col. 1:10). Those who live by the Spirit produce the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23). The apostle Paul speaks of the first converts in a particular region as being firstfruits, probably referring to their conversion as the result of the gospel being preached in the area (Rom. 16:5; 2 Thess. 2:13).

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

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

Rarely is hunger mentioned in the Bible as the simple desire for the next regular meal (Mark 11:12; Acts 10:10; 1 Cor. 11:21, 34). Normally it is a hunger associated with physical weakness from the lack of food and often with long-term hardship such as famine (2 Kings 7:12; Ps. 107:5; Matt. 4:2; Mark 8:3; Luke 15:7; 2 Cor. 11:27). In the ancient world it took much harder work and a large portion of the workforce to produce enough food. And compared to the present, the whole enterprise was much more subject to fluctuating conditions of drought, blight, insects, and disease, in addition to the threat of warfare, whether from the raiding and destroying of crops (Judg. 6:3–4) or from siege (2 Kings 7:12). Hunger is not an inconvenient wait until the next full meal but rather a threat to health and life.

God cares for the hungry (Pss. 107:9; 146:7; Prov. 10:3; Isa. 49:10; Luke 1:53), and it is righteous to do likewise (Isa. 58:7, 10; Ezek. 18:7, 16; Matt. 25:35). Some provision was made for the hungry. While there was a small tax to provide food for certain disadvantaged parties (Levites, aliens, orphans, and widows [Deut. 14:27–29; 26:12–13]), other provision required that harvesters leave certain remains for others to glean (24:17–22). Hunger was not simply a matter of bad luck or victimhood, as it may result from laziness or lack of prudence (Prov. 19:15).

God the Worker

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

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

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

Human Labor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 soft outer flesh that surrounds the mouth. The Hebrew word translated “lip” usually refers to the upper lip, which was often covered by the hand or garment as a sign of sorrow (2 Sam. 19:4). In the OT, the lips are used to describe the demeanor of the person to whom they belong. Lips are often synonymous with speech or language (Job 12:20). For example, lips can be faltering (Exod. 6:30), flattering (Ps. 12:2), deceitful (Ps. 17:1), lying (Prov. 12:22), evil (Prov. 17:4), unclean (Isa. 6:5), honest (Prov. 16:13), truthful (Prov. 12:19), righteous (Prov. 10:21), and joyful (Ps. 71:23).

An English synonym of “wicked,” “perverse” serves as a translation of various Hebrew and Greek words that describe something or someone who deviates from that which is good, just, or upright. In Proverbs, where “perverse” occurs most frequently, perversity is linked to wickedness (2:12), crookedness (8:8), evil (8:13), and deceit (17:20). Conversely, it is contrasted with uprightness (3:32), justice (8:8), righteousness (10:31–32), and blamelessness/integrity (11:20; 19:1; 28:6). “Perverse” was a moral adjective that did not describe merely individuals. A heart could be perverse (Ps. 101:4), as could a tongue and its speech (Prov. 10:31–32; Acts 20:30 NASB). Both Testaments can even speak of a “perverse generation” (Deut. 32:20; Matt. 17:17; Acts 2:40 NASB).

Both the OT and the NT view wealth as ultimately a result of God’s blessing (Prov. 10:22). Abraham shows the right attitude by refusing to accept plunder from the king of Sodom, recognizing God as the sole source of his riches (Gen. 14:23). Solomon’s wealth was seen as God’s favor (1 Kings 3:13). Wealth and riches are said to be in the house of persons “who fear the Lord” (Ps. 112:1–3). However, material success alone is not necessarily an indication of God’s approval, nor is poverty a sign of God’s disfavor. Fundamentally, neither poverty nor wealth can be superficially tied to divine displeasure or favor.

Balanced view. The Bible articulates a balanced view of wealth. It warns against having an arrogant attitude by failing to acknowledge that the source of wealth is God (Deut. 8:17–18). There is danger in trusting in riches (Pss. 52:7; 62:10). The rich are charged not to be haughty, and to set their hopes not on uncertain riches but rather on God (1 Tim. 6:17–18). The love of money is described as the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim. 6:9–10), and it is therefore extremely difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:24). The foolishness of materialism, making riches the center of one’s life, is shown in the parable of the wealthy farmer (Luke 12:15–21). Instead of monetary greed, the spirit of contentment is commended, because even if lacking on the material level, one still has the Lord (Luke 12:15; Phil. 4:11; Heb. 13:5). Material possessions should be gained rightly; effort and diligence are required (Gen. 3:19; Prov. 10:4). Obtaining wealth through dishonesty and ill-gotten gains is denounced and condemned (Prov. 11:26; 13:11; Jer. 17:11; Mic. 6:12).

God-centered perspective. Wealth and material possessions are to be viewed from a God-centered perspective. God is the one who provides everything; thus we should trust him for our daily needs (Matt. 6:25–34; Luke 11:3). Job’s confession in a time of loss, “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised,” shows an admirable attitude to emulate (Job 1:21). God is the owner of all things, and we are simply stewards and administrators of God’s wealth. We need to remember that one day we will be accountable for the use of our wealth (1 Cor. 10:31). Jesus teaches us to seek the kingdom of God first rather than his material blessings (Luke 12:31–33). Anything that draws us away from serving God should be avoided. We cannot serve both God and mammon (Matt. 6:24). Our treasures are to be in heaven, meaning that our central focus should be on matters pertaining to the kingdom: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:32–34).

Responsibility and generosity. With the possession of wealth comes the duty to give generously to those in need (Prov. 11:24; 28:27). Prosperity is given as a means to do good; thus we ought to be rich in good deeds (1 Tim. 6:18). Although it is a duty of the covenant community to take care of the needy in the OT, it still emphasizes the voluntary heart (Deut. 15:5–11). In 2 Cor. 9:7, Paul presents the principle of giving in the NT: “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” It should be not an exaction but a willing gift (9:5).

The Christian should emulate Jesus: “Though he was rich, yet for [our] sake he became poor, so that [we] through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). Therefore, material offerings to Christ should not be a burden (1 Cor. 9:11). Sacrificial giving is an expression of love to the Lord (2 Cor. 9:12). It also generates thanksgiving to God from those who receive it (2 Cor. 9:11). Worldly wealth should also be used for evangelistic purposes (Luke 16:8). If we are faithful in the use of money, we can be trusted with the kingdom’s spiritual riches (Luke 16:12–13). Although riches do not have eternal value in themselves, their proper use has eternal consequences (Luke 12:33; 1 Tim. 6:19). One of the qualifications of a church overseer is to be free from the love of money, and a deacon must not pursue dishonest gain (1 Tim. 3:3, 8). A good name is to be chosen over great riches (Prov. 22:1). James condemns as sinful the attitude of favoring the wealthy over the poor. Nonpreferential love is the answer to prejudicial favoritism (James 2:1–9).

As the son and successor to David, Solomon reigned forty years over the united kingdom of Israel (c. 971–931 BC). Extensive accounts of his reign are provided in 1 Kings 1–11; 2 Chron. 1–9. Solomon, the second son born to Bathsheba, was marked out at birth as “loved by the Lord” (2 Sam. 12:24–25 NIV mg.). He succeeded his father as king, even though he was not David’s oldest living son (1 Kings 2). The building of the temple is the centerpiece of the biblical accounts of Solomon’s reign.

It is common to divide Solomon’s reign into two unequal halves (1 Kings 1–10; 11), with Solomon only becoming apostate due to the influence of foreign wives (1 Kings 11). The earlier chapters, however, are not wholly commendatory. Solomon’s “wisdom” in dealing with Joab and Shimei is vengeful and ruthless (2:6, 9). In 1 Kings 3:1 his palace is mentioned before the temple (because it took precedence in Solomon’s mind?). He spent seven years on the temple but lavished thirteen years on his own house (6:38; 7:1). Behind the picture of his excessive wealth and lucrative trade in horses stand the (unheeded) prohibitions of Deut. 17:14–17. His Egyptian marriage and resort to the high places (1 Kings 3:1–4) foreshadow his overt apostasy (11:1–8). All in all, Solomon proved to be a sad disappointment.

In Chronicles the reigns of David and Solomon are viewed as complementary, such that Solomon completed what David had prepared for. Solomon needed David’s plans and provisions (1 Chron. 28–29), but David needed Solomon to actually build the temple. Just as David brought the ark to Jerusalem, Solomon transferred it to the temple (2 Chron. 5). David organized the cultic officials (1 Chron. 22–27), but Solomon installed them (2 Chron. 8:14–15). Chronicles gives a picture of Solomon’s reign that is very different from the one found in Kings. There is no competition to succeed (cf. 1 Kings 1–2), no apostasy, and no raising up of adversaries (cf. 1 Kings 11:14–40). Solomon enjoyed all Israel’s support throughout his reign. This need not, however, be viewed as whitewashing Solomon. The true explanation is that the focus in Chronicles is almost exclusively on Solomon as temple builder. The Chronicler was also aware of Solomon’s failings (as hinted at in 2 Chron. 9:29; 10:4–15).

The immediate dissolution of the united kingdom after Solomon’s death cannot be simply blamed on the inept handling of the crisis by his son Rehoboam (1 Kings 12). Solomon’s policies put an inordinate economic burden on the north (4:7–19). His conscription of forced labor (5:13–18) and sale of twenty cities in Galilee to Hiram of Tyre (9:10–14) were resented. The raising up of a series of adversaries, including Jeroboam, was a divine judgment (11:9–13). The prophet Ahijah favored Jeroboam (11:29–39). The prophet Shemaiah prevented Rehoboam’s military invasion of the north (12:21–24). The northern tribes wanted relief from Solomon’s harsh policies (“Your father put a heavy yoke on us” [12:4]). Rehoboam was unwilling (or unable?) to compromise. Solomon’s death is reported in 1 Kings 11:41–43, but frequent allusions to him follow (e.g., 12:2, 4, 6, 9), for it was his policies that precipitated the split.

Solomon was largely responsible for the book of Proverbs (Prov. 1:1; 10:1; 25:1). The superscription of the Song of Songs (Song 1:1) associates the book with Solomon, and he is referred to a number of times within it (1:5; 3:7–11; 8:11–12). He is not, however, the lover depicted. The book of Ecclesiastes sometimes is attributed to him, given that the author describes himself as “son of David, king in Jerusalem” (Eccles. 1:1). The author’s reputed wisdom, wealth, and building programs also suggest the figure of Solomon (1:12–2:11). Solomon’s marriages are used as an illustration in a sermon against foreign marriages in Neh. 13:26. In the NT, Solomon’s wealth and wisdom are alluded to in Jesus’ teaching (Matt. 6:29; 12:42). He is also mentioned in relation to the temple (John 10:23; Acts 3:11).

The word “sport” appears infrequently among various English translations and is used with the following specific meanings: (1) In Gen. 26:8 it is a euphemism for consensual sexual activity (KJV: “to sport with”; NIV: “caress”; the Hebrew word forms a wordplay with the name “Isaac,” both coming from the root for “to laugh, mock”). In Gen. 39:14, 17 it expresses the feigned humiliation of Potiphar’s wife and her court at Joseph’s alleged sexual advances (NIV: “to make sport of”). (2) To ridicule, mock, deride, humiliate—for example, “to make sport of” (Ps. 69:11; cf. NRSV, RSV of 1 Sam. 31:4; 1 Chron. 10:4; Job 30:1; Hab. 1:10). (3) Amusement or revelry without a specific athletic connotation—for example, “for sport,” “like sport” (Judg. 16:25, 27; Prov. 10:23; 2 Pet. 2:13 KJV; cf. RSV).

In the Bible, vinegar is wine that during the fermentation process has become acidic and soured. It is mentioned only five times in the OT. Despite its acidity and sourness, it could, mixed with water, be used as a beverage, but primarily for the lower and poorer classes. In Num. 6:3 Nazirites are prohibited from drinking wine or wine vinegar. In Ruth 2:14 vinegar is mentioned as a condiment for dipping bread. Other references, however, point out vinegar’s undesirable qualities (Prov. 10:26; 25:20). In Ps. 69:21 the psalmist complains that his enemies gave him vinegar for his thirst, evidently undiluted, therefore making the gesture cruel and mocking.

All four references to vinegar in the NT are in the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion (Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; Luke 23:36; John 19:29). Matthew and Mark narrate that at an early point in the crucifixion the soldiers had tried to give Jesus wine to drink, but he refused it. Most commentators believe that Jesus refused this drink because of its sedative properties. All four Gospels indicate that at some point later during the crucifixion, they gave Jesus wine vinegar to drink, which this time he accepted. The Gospel narrators almost certainly want the reader to see here a fulfillment of Ps. 69:21.

Payment for the hire of one’s labor, often disbursed daily. The Bible refers to wages in connection with various occupations, including agricultural worker (Gen. 29:15; 30:27–29; Zech. 11:12; Matt. 20:1–16; John 4:36), artisan (1 Kings 5:6; Isa. 46:6), soldier (2 Chron. 25:6; Ezek. 29:18–19; 1 Cor. 9:7), prostitute (Hos. 9:1; Mic. 1:7), priest (Judg. 18:4; Num. 18:31), nurse (Exod. 2:9), and even the beast of burden (Exod. 22:15; Zech. 8:10; 1 Tim. 5:18). Prophets were paid for their work (Amos 7:12), though a late OT and Second Temple period tradition regarded the sin of Balaam as prophecy for hire (Deut. 23:4; Neh. 6:12–13; 13:2; 2 Pet. 2:15; Jude 11). In the NT, the concept of wage labor is extended to the church leader and the apostle (Luke 10:7; 1 Cor. 3:8; 1 Tim. 5:18).

Behind many references in the NT to wages lies the Latin term denarius (Gk. dēnarion) a small silver coin equivalent to a day’s wages (as in Matt. 20:2). Thus, in Mark 6:37 “more than half a year’s wages” (NIV) translates what in Greek is “two hundred denarii” (NRSV) (see also Mark 14:5), and the commodity prices in Rev. 6:6 show massive inflation relative to the day’s wage or denarius. In addition to the payment of wages with money, the Bible attests the payment of wages in kind, including wives (Gen. 29:17), livestock (Gen. 30:32), food (Num. 18:31; 1 Sam. 2:5), and, in the case of soldiers, plunder (Ezek. 29:19).

Several texts regard the fair payment of wages as a basic element of social justice and, conversely, the withholding of wages as an evil. Deuteronomy 24:15 commands the employer to pay workers wages “each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it” (cf. Lev. 19:13; Job 7:2). Likewise, Mal. 3:5 denounces those who defraud workers of wages (cf. Gen. 31:2), a stance continued in the NT (Rom. 4:4; James 5:4).

The reward of righteousness and the punishment of wickedness are described as a wage, as in Rom. 6:23: “The wages of sin is death.” Proverbs 10:16 says, “The wages of the righteous is life, but the earnings of the wicked are sin and death” (cf. Prov. 11:18; Isa. 65:7; 2 Pet. 2:13).

In ancient Israel there were forts, fortification systems (forts protecting routes or borders), and fortified towns/cities. These came in all shapes and sizes (oval, rectangular, square, and rectangular with towers). The question becomes “Is it a fortified city/town, or is it a military outpost (i.e., fort/fortress)?” The answer depends on the size and location of the structure.

There are eight main Hebrew terms used in the Bible to describe a fortress or fortification. However, there is overlap in the use and translation of the terms. The NIV typically translates these words as “fortress,” “stronghold,” “refuge,” or “citadel.” Sometimes the terms are used poetically in a description of God (i.e., God is our “fortress”). The eight Hebrew terms are (1) birah—“fortress, citadel” (2 Chron. 27:4 [NIV: “forts”]; Neh. 2:8; 7:2); (2) birta’—“castle, citadel” (Aramaic word in Ezra 6:2; cf. the Akkadian term birtu, “fortress”); (3) metsurah—“fortress, stronghold” (Nah. 2:1; used with “city,” it can function as an adjective: “fortified city”); (4) misgeret—“stronghold, bulwark” (2 Sam. 22:46; Ps. 18:45; Mic. 7:17 [NIV: “den”]); (5) ma’oz—“stronghold, refuge, fortress” (Judg. 6:26 [NIV: “height”]; Prov. 10:29; Dan. 11:7, 19, 31, 38–39; Nah. 1:7); (6) metsudah—“fastness, stronghold” (1 Sam. 22:4; 2 Sam. 22:2); (7) matsor—“rampart, stronghold” (Zech. 9:3); and (8) misgab—“height, stronghold, fortress” (Pss. 59:16–17; 62:2; Jer. 48:1).

In the tenth century BC the typical smaller fortress was oval, and the larger ones were rectangular, usually with hollow casemate walls with rooms on the inside (e.g., Tel Ein el-Qudeirat, ’Ain Qadeis, and Horvat Ketef Shivta). Many of these oval forts were located in the southern Negev to protect the border and trade routes. Forts usually stood on a height overlooking a trade route, and the local water supply often was a cistern in or near the fortress. Fortresses of the ninth and tenth centuries BC were rectangular, with (and without) corner towers and solid rather than casemate walls (e.g., Tel Arad, Tel Nagila, and Khirbet Abu et-Twein). The seventh- and sixth-century BC fortresses returned to hollow casemate walls for various reasons (e.g., Horvat Radum, Deir Baghl, Tel Ein el-Qudeirat [Kadesh-Barnea]).

In ancient Israel there were forts, fortification systems (forts protecting routes or borders), and fortified towns/cities. These came in all shapes and sizes (oval, rectangular, square, and rectangular with towers). The question becomes “Is it a fortified city/town, or is it a military outpost (i.e., fort/fortress)?” The answer depends on the size and location of the structure.

There are eight main Hebrew terms used in the Bible to describe a fortress or fortification. However, there is overlap in the use and translation of the terms. The NIV typically translates these words as “fortress,” “stronghold,” “refuge,” or “citadel.” Sometimes the terms are used poetically in a description of God (i.e., God is our “fortress”). The eight Hebrew terms are (1) birah—“fortress, citadel” (2 Chron. 27:4 [NIV: “forts”]; Neh. 2:8; 7:2); (2) birta’—“castle, citadel” (Aramaic word in Ezra 6:2; cf. the Akkadian term birtu, “fortress”); (3) metsurah—“fortress, stronghold” (Nah. 2:1; used with “city,” it can function as an adjective: “fortified city”); (4) misgeret—“stronghold, bulwark” (2 Sam. 22:46; Ps. 18:45; Mic. 7:17 [NIV: “den”]); (5) ma’oz—“stronghold, refuge, fortress” (Judg. 6:26 [NIV: “height”]; Prov. 10:29; Dan. 11:7, 19, 31, 38–39; Nah. 1:7); (6) metsudah—“fastness, stronghold” (1 Sam. 22:4; 2 Sam. 22:2); (7) matsor—“rampart, stronghold” (Zech. 9:3); and (8) misgab—“height, stronghold, fortress” (Pss. 59:16–17; 62:2; Jer. 48:1).

In the tenth century BC the typical smaller fortress was oval, and the larger ones were rectangular, usually with hollow casemate walls with rooms on the inside (e.g., Tel Ein el-Qudeirat, ’Ain Qadeis, and Horvat Ketef Shivta). Many of these oval forts were located in the southern Negev to protect the border and trade routes. Forts usually stood on a height overlooking a trade route, and the local water supply often was a cistern in or near the fortress. Fortresses of the ninth and tenth centuries BC were rectangular, with (and without) corner towers and solid rather than casemate walls (e.g., Tel Arad, Tel Nagila, and Khirbet Abu et-Twein). The seventh- and sixth-century BC fortresses returned to hollow casemate walls for various reasons (e.g., Horvat Radum, Deir Baghl, Tel Ein el-Qudeirat [Kadesh-Barnea]).

In ancient Israel there were forts, fortification systems (forts protecting routes or borders), and fortified towns/cities. These came in all shapes and sizes (oval, rectangular, square, and rectangular with towers). The question becomes “Is it a fortified city/town, or is it a military outpost (i.e., fort/fortress)?” The answer depends on the size and location of the structure.

There are eight main Hebrew terms used in the Bible to describe a fortress or fortification. However, there is overlap in the use and translation of the terms. The NIV typically translates these words as “fortress,” “stronghold,” “refuge,” or “citadel.” Sometimes the terms are used poetically in a description of God (i.e., God is our “fortress”). The eight Hebrew terms are (1) birah—“fortress, citadel” (2 Chron. 27:4 [NIV: “forts”]; Neh. 2:8; 7:2); (2) birta’—“castle, citadel” (Aramaic word in Ezra 6:2; cf. the Akkadian term birtu, “fortress”); (3) metsurah—“fortress, stronghold” (Nah. 2:1; used with “city,” it can function as an adjective: “fortified city”); (4) misgeret—“stronghold, bulwark” (2 Sam. 22:46; Ps. 18:45; Mic. 7:17 [NIV: “den”]); (5) ma’oz—“stronghold, refuge, fortress” (Judg. 6:26 [NIV: “height”]; Prov. 10:29; Dan. 11:7, 19, 31, 38–39; Nah. 1:7); (6) metsudah—“fastness, stronghold” (1 Sam. 22:4; 2 Sam. 22:2); (7) matsor—“rampart, stronghold” (Zech. 9:3); and (8) misgab—“height, stronghold, fortress” (Pss. 59:16–17; 62:2; Jer. 48:1).

In the tenth century BC the typical smaller fortress was oval, and the larger ones were rectangular, usually with hollow casemate walls with rooms on the inside (e.g., Tel Ein el-Qudeirat, ’Ain Qadeis, and Horvat Ketef Shivta). Many of these oval forts were located in the southern Negev to protect the border and trade routes. Forts usually stood on a height overlooking a trade route, and the local water supply often was a cistern in or near the fortress. Fortresses of the ninth and tenth centuries BC were rectangular, with (and without) corner towers and solid rather than casemate walls (e.g., Tel Arad, Tel Nagila, and Khirbet Abu et-Twein). The seventh- and sixth-century BC fortresses returned to hollow casemate walls for various reasons (e.g., Horvat Radum, Deir Baghl, Tel Ein el-Qudeirat [Kadesh-Barnea]).

Both the OT and the NT view wealth as ultimately a result of God’s blessing (Prov. 10:22). Abraham shows the right attitude by refusing to accept plunder from the king of Sodom, recognizing God as the sole source of his riches (Gen. 14:23). Solomon’s wealth was seen as God’s favor (1 Kings 3:13). Wealth and riches are said to be in the house of persons “who fear the Lord” (Ps. 112:1–3). However, material success alone is not necessarily an indication of God’s approval, nor is poverty a sign of God’s disfavor. Fundamentally, neither poverty nor wealth can be superficially tied to divine displeasure or favor.

Balanced view. The Bible articulates a balanced view of wealth. It warns against having an arrogant attitude by failing to acknowledge that the source of wealth is God (Deut. 8:17–18). There is danger in trusting in riches (Pss. 52:7; 62:10). The rich are charged not to be haughty, and to set their hopes not on uncertain riches but rather on God (1 Tim. 6:17–18). The love of money is described as the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim. 6:9–10), and it is therefore extremely difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:24). The foolishness of materialism, making riches the center of one’s life, is shown in the parable of the wealthy farmer (Luke 12:15–21). Instead of monetary greed, the spirit of contentment is commended, because even if lacking on the material level, one still has the Lord (Luke 12:15; Phil. 4:11; Heb. 13:5). Material possessions should be gained rightly; effort and diligence are required (Gen. 3:19; Prov. 10:4). Obtaining wealth through dishonesty and ill-gotten gains is denounced and condemned (Prov. 11:26; 13:11; Jer. 17:11; Mic. 6:12).

God-centered perspective. Wealth and material possessions are to be viewed from a God-centered perspective. God is the one who provides everything; thus we should trust him for our daily needs (Matt. 6:25–34; Luke 11:3). Job’s confession in a time of loss, “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised,” shows an admirable attitude to emulate (Job 1:21). God is the owner of all things, and we are simply stewards and administrators of God’s wealth. We need to remember that one day we will be accountable for the use of our wealth (1 Cor. 10:31). Jesus teaches us to seek the kingdom of God first rather than his material blessings (Luke 12:31–33). Anything that draws us away from serving God should be avoided. We cannot serve both God and mammon (Matt. 6:24). Our treasures are to be in heaven, meaning that our central focus should be on matters pertaining to the kingdom: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:32–34).

Responsibility and generosity. With the possession of wealth comes the duty to give generously to those in need (Prov. 11:24; 28:27). Prosperity is given as a means to do good; thus we ought to be rich in good deeds (1 Tim. 6:18). Although it is a duty of the covenant community to take care of the needy in the OT, it still emphasizes the voluntary heart (Deut. 15:5–11). In 2 Cor. 9:7, Paul presents the principle of giving in the NT: “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” It should be not an exaction but a willing gift (9:5).

The Christian should emulate Jesus: “Though he was rich, yet for [our] sake he became poor, so that [we] through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). Therefore, material offerings to Christ should not be a burden (1 Cor. 9:11). Sacrificial giving is an expression of love to the Lord (2 Cor. 9:12). It also generates thanksgiving to God from those who receive it (2 Cor. 9:11). Worldly wealth should also be used for evangelistic purposes (Luke 16:8). If we are faithful in the use of money, we can be trusted with the kingdom’s spiritual riches (Luke 16:12–13). Although riches do not have eternal value in themselves, their proper use has eternal consequences (Luke 12:33; 1 Tim. 6:19). One of the qualifications of a church overseer is to be free from the love of money, and a deacon must not pursue dishonest gain (1 Tim. 3:3, 8). A good name is to be chosen over great riches (Prov. 22:1). James condemns as sinful the attitude of favoring the wealthy over the poor. Nonpreferential love is the answer to prejudicial favoritism (James 2:1–9).

About a third of the OT is poetic. Poetry is a more elevated way of speaking and writing than prose. It is a departure from normal patterns of speech and exhibits a high degree of attention to literary artifice. In poetry, how something is said is as important as what is said. Poetry employs various poetic devices and conventions that are less frequent in or completely absent from ordinary speech. Among these are acrostic, inclusion, chiasm, succinctness, parallelism, and the heightened use of imagery (see also Acrostic).

Hebrew poetry also employs the full range of figures of speech, including metaphor, simile, synecdoche (substituting part for whole or vice versa, such as “set sail” or “lying in wait for blood”), anthimeria (substituting one part of speech for another, such as “let the dry appear”), merism (the whole expressed with two opposites, such as “day and night”), anthropomorphism, personification (“let the rivers clap their hands” [Ps. 98:8]), and so on.

Inclusion and Chiasm

Inclusion (or inclusio) is a structuring device whereby a unit of text begins and ends with the same or a very similar word or phrase. Thus the included material is bounded and defined as a unit of text. For example, Song 2:8–17 begins, “Listen! My beloved! Look! Here he comes, leaping across the mountains, bounding over the hills. My beloved is like a gazelle or a young stag,” and it ends, “Until the day breaks and the shadows flee, turn, my beloved, and be like a gazelle or like a young stag on the rugged hills.” This opening and closing with the same metaphor bounds the enclosed material as a unit of text. Another example is the way Prov. 1:2–7 (NRSV) begins and ends with the words “wisdom,” “instruction,” and “understanding/knowledge,” which delineates these verses as a block of text.

Chiasm (or chiasmus) is a way of organizing material whereby the second half of a text is a mirror image of the first half. “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27 pars.) can be diagrammed as A/B/Bʹ/Aʹ. More and more elaborate chiasms have been proposed for various parts of Scripture, with many elements on each side. The flood narrative, the Abraham cycle, the book of Ruth, and so on may be written to a chiastic structure.

Succinctness and Imagery

One of the characteristics of Hebrew poetry is its succinctness; it says a lot with a few words. One way this is accomplished is through the use of imagery. “The Lord is my rock” (Ps. 18:2) compresses volumes of theology into a single image, thus requiring far less verbosity than if the concept had been stated without imagery. However, the trade-off is that more is required of the reader. The reader must ask, “How is the Lord like a rock?” and fill in the blank. This is true also of other ways that poetry is succinct—for example, its tendency to leave out particles and connectives. For example, “The Lord is my shepherd, / I lack nothing” (Ps. 23:1) leaves out a needed conjunction between the two phrases, which the reader must supply. Is it “The Lord is my shepherd, sooner or later I shall need nothing”? “The Lord is my shepherd, even so I shall need nothing”? Or “The Lord is my shepherd, therefore I shall need nothing.” The reader must decide the correct association between the two lines because the conjunction is purposely left out of the verse. Thus poetry engages the reader and must be read slowly and carefully.

Parallelism

The most recognizable feature of biblical poetry is the phenomenon of parallelism. This is the counterweight to succinctness. While poetry is designed to say much with few words, these words occur in line pairs, the second of which takes the thought further. For example, “Why do the nations conspire / and the peoples plot in vain?” (Ps. 2:1). Obviously, “nations” is parallel with “peoples,” and “conspire” with “plot in vain.” Line A and line B state in essence the same thought with different words, and they state it in the same way. This is called synonymous parallelism. “Lazy hands make for poverty, / but diligent hands bring wealth” (Prov. 10:4). In this verse, the parallel elements are opposites: lazy and diligent, poverty and wealth. This is called antithetical parallelism.

Sometimes, the second line completes the thought of the first line, forming complementary parallelism: “Israel, put your hope in the Lord / both now and forevermore” (Ps. 131:3). When a symbol is set in parallel with the thing symbolized, this is emblematic parallelism: “As the deer pants for streams of water, / so my soul pants for you, my God” (Ps. 42:1). Sometimes line B follows line A in time, forming sequential parallelism: “I call out to the Lord, / and he answers me from his holy mountain” (Ps. 3:4). When line B follows logically from line A, this is consequential parallelism: “In peace I will lie down and sleep, / for you alone, Lord, make me dwell in safety” (Ps. 4:8). Traditionally, when the relation between the lines does not fit into any defined category, the parallelism is called synthetic.

About a third of the OT is poetic. Poetry is a more elevated way of speaking and writing than prose. It is a departure from normal patterns of speech and exhibits a high degree of attention to literary artifice. In poetry, how something is said is as important as what is said. Poetry employs various poetic devices and conventions that are less frequent in or completely absent from ordinary speech. Among these are acrostic, inclusion, chiasm, succinctness, parallelism, and the heightened use of imagery (see also Acrostic).

Hebrew poetry also employs the full range of figures of speech, including metaphor, simile, synecdoche (substituting part for whole or vice versa, such as “set sail” or “lying in wait for blood”), anthimeria (substituting one part of speech for another, such as “let the dry appear”), merism (the whole expressed with two opposites, such as “day and night”), anthropomorphism, personification (“let the rivers clap their hands” [Ps. 98:8]), and so on.

Inclusion and Chiasm

Inclusion (or inclusio) is a structuring device whereby a unit of text begins and ends with the same or a very similar word or phrase. Thus the included material is bounded and defined as a unit of text. For example, Song 2:8–17 begins, “Listen! My beloved! Look! Here he comes, leaping across the mountains, bounding over the hills. My beloved is like a gazelle or a young stag,” and it ends, “Until the day breaks and the shadows flee, turn, my beloved, and be like a gazelle or like a young stag on the rugged hills.” This opening and closing with the same metaphor bounds the enclosed material as a unit of text. Another example is the way Prov. 1:2–7 (NRSV) begins and ends with the words “wisdom,” “instruction,” and “understanding/knowledge,” which delineates these verses as a block of text.

Chiasm (or chiasmus) is a way of organizing material whereby the second half of a text is a mirror image of the first half. “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27 pars.) can be diagrammed as A/B/Bʹ/Aʹ. More and more elaborate chiasms have been proposed for various parts of Scripture, with many elements on each side. The flood narrative, the Abraham cycle, the book of Ruth, and so on may be written to a chiastic structure.

Succinctness and Imagery

One of the characteristics of Hebrew poetry is its succinctness; it says a lot with a few words. One way this is accomplished is through the use of imagery. “The Lord is my rock” (Ps. 18:2) compresses volumes of theology into a single image, thus requiring far less verbosity than if the concept had been stated without imagery. However, the trade-off is that more is required of the reader. The reader must ask, “How is the Lord like a rock?” and fill in the blank. This is true also of other ways that poetry is succinct—for example, its tendency to leave out particles and connectives. For example, “The Lord is my shepherd, / I lack nothing” (Ps. 23:1) leaves out a needed conjunction between the two phrases, which the reader must supply. Is it “The Lord is my shepherd, sooner or later I shall need nothing”? “The Lord is my shepherd, even so I shall need nothing”? Or “The Lord is my shepherd, therefore I shall need nothing.” The reader must decide the correct association between the two lines because the conjunction is purposely left out of the verse. Thus poetry engages the reader and must be read slowly and carefully.

Parallelism

The most recognizable feature of biblical poetry is the phenomenon of parallelism. This is the counterweight to succinctness. While poetry is designed to say much with few words, these words occur in line pairs, the second of which takes the thought further. For example, “Why do the nations conspire / and the peoples plot in vain?” (Ps. 2:1). Obviously, “nations” is parallel with “peoples,” and “conspire” with “plot in vain.” Line A and line B state in essence the same thought with different words, and they state it in the same way. This is called synonymous parallelism. “Lazy hands make for poverty, / but diligent hands bring wealth” (Prov. 10:4). In this verse, the parallel elements are opposites: lazy and diligent, poverty and wealth. This is called antithetical parallelism.

Sometimes, the second line completes the thought of the first line, forming complementary parallelism: “Israel, put your hope in the Lord / both now and forevermore” (Ps. 131:3). When a symbol is set in parallel with the thing symbolized, this is emblematic parallelism: “As the deer pants for streams of water, / so my soul pants for you, my God” (Ps. 42:1). Sometimes line B follows line A in time, forming sequential parallelism: “I call out to the Lord, / and he answers me from his holy mountain” (Ps. 3:4). When line B follows logically from line A, this is consequential parallelism: “In peace I will lie down and sleep, / for you alone, Lord, make me dwell in safety” (Ps. 4:8). Traditionally, when the relation between the lines does not fit into any defined category, the parallelism is called synthetic.

The slothful person or “sluggard” (NIV) is a recurring theme in the book of Proverbs. The Hebrew word, ’atsel, occurs fourteen times in Proverbs and nowhere else in the OT. The sluggard stands in contrast to the diligent or upright person, exemplifying folly by being disinclined to take responsibility for self-provision. This is sometimes stated in an exaggerated manner: “A sluggard buries his hand in the dish; he will not even bring it back to his mouth!” (Prov. 19:24). Sluggards are portrayed as indulging excessively in sleep (6:9), making excuses for inactivity (22:13), and exasperating those who depend on them (10:26). Ultimately, the sluggard’s ways result in self-imposed privation (13:4; 20:4; 24:33–34). Ironically, sluggards think that they are wise (26:16; cf. 14:12).

A general concern for idleness and laziness is found in the wisdom books (Prov. 10:4; Eccles. 10:18) and in Paul’s letters (1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6–7). In the latter, idleness is twice associated with “busybodies” (2 Thess. 3:11; 1 Tim. 5:13), revealing the negative impact that idleness has upon a community (idleness leads to gossip, producing division and strife).

Aside from physical idleness, Heb. 6:12 warns against spiritual sloth, which undermines faith. Jesus warns against indifference to the Son of Man’s appearing, reflected in his condemnation of the squandering of one’s “talents” in the meantime (Matt. 25:14–30 NIV mg.).

God the Worker

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

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

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

Human Labor

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both the OT and the NT view wealth as ultimately a result of God’s blessing (Prov. 10:22). Abraham shows the right attitude by refusing to accept plunder from the king of Sodom, recognizing God as the sole source of his riches (Gen. 14:23). Solomon’s wealth was seen as God’s favor (1 Kings 3:13). Wealth and riches are said to be in the house of persons “who fear the Lord” (Ps. 112:1–3). However, material success alone is not necessarily an indication of God’s approval, nor is poverty a sign of God’s disfavor. Fundamentally, neither poverty nor wealth can be superficially tied to divine displeasure or favor.

Balanced view. The Bible articulates a balanced view of wealth. It warns against having an arrogant attitude by failing to acknowledge that the source of wealth is God (Deut. 8:17–18). There is danger in trusting in riches (Pss. 52:7; 62:10). The rich are charged not to be haughty, and to set their hopes not on uncertain riches but rather on God (1 Tim. 6:17–18). The love of money is described as the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim. 6:9–10), and it is therefore extremely difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:24). The foolishness of materialism, making riches the center of one’s life, is shown in the parable of the wealthy farmer (Luke 12:15–21). Instead of monetary greed, the spirit of contentment is commended, because even if lacking on the material level, one still has the Lord (Luke 12:15; Phil. 4:11; Heb. 13:5). Material possessions should be gained rightly; effort and diligence are required (Gen. 3:19; Prov. 10:4). Obtaining wealth through dishonesty and ill-gotten gains is denounced and condemned (Prov. 11:26; 13:11; Jer. 17:11; Mic. 6:12).

God-centered perspective. Wealth and material possessions are to be viewed from a God-centered perspective. God is the one who provides everything; thus we should trust him for our daily needs (Matt. 6:25–34; Luke 11:3). Job’s confession in a time of loss, “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised,” shows an admirable attitude to emulate (Job 1:21). God is the owner of all things, and we are simply stewards and administrators of God’s wealth. We need to remember that one day we will be accountable for the use of our wealth (1 Cor. 10:31). Jesus teaches us to seek the kingdom of God first rather than his material blessings (Luke 12:31–33). Anything that draws us away from serving God should be avoided. We cannot serve both God and mammon (Matt. 6:24). Our treasures are to be in heaven, meaning that our central focus should be on matters pertaining to the kingdom: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:32–34).

Responsibility and generosity. With the possession of wealth comes the duty to give generously to those in need (Prov. 11:24; 28:27). Prosperity is given as a means to do good; thus we ought to be rich in good deeds (1 Tim. 6:18). Although it is a duty of the covenant community to take care of the needy in the OT, it still emphasizes the voluntary heart (Deut. 15:5–11). In 2 Cor. 9:7, Paul presents the principle of giving in the NT: “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” It should be not an exaction but a willing gift (9:5).

The Christian should emulate Jesus: “Though he was rich, yet for [our] sake he became poor, so that [we] through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). Therefore, material offerings to Christ should not be a burden (1 Cor. 9:11). Sacrificial giving is an expression of love to the Lord (2 Cor. 9:12). It also generates thanksgiving to God from those who receive it (2 Cor. 9:11). Worldly wealth should also be used for evangelistic purposes (Luke 16:8). If we are faithful in the use of money, we can be trusted with the kingdom’s spiritual riches (Luke 16:12–13). Although riches do not have eternal value in themselves, their proper use has eternal consequences (Luke 12:33; 1 Tim. 6:19). One of the qualifications of a church overseer is to be free from the love of money, and a deacon must not pursue dishonest gain (1 Tim. 3:3, 8). A good name is to be chosen over great riches (Prov. 22:1). James condemns as sinful the attitude of favoring the wealthy over the poor. Nonpreferential love is the answer to prejudicial favoritism (James 2:1–9).