For Christians, God is the creator of the cosmos and the redeemer of humanity. He has revealed himself in historical acts—namely, in creation, in the history of Israel, and especially in the person and work of Jesus Christ. There is only one God (Deut. 6:4); “there is no other” (Isa. 45:5). Because “God is spirit” (John 4:24), he must reveal himself through various images and metaphors.

Imagery of God

God’s character and attributes are revealed primarily through the use of imagery, the best and most understandable way to describe the mysterious nature of God. Scripture employs many images to describe God’s being and character. Some examples follow here.

God is compared to the father who shows compassion and love to his children (Ps. 103:13; Rom. 8:15). The father image is also used by the prophets to reveal God’s creatorship (Isa. 64:8). Jesus predominantly uses the language of “Father” in reference to God (Mark 8:38; 13:32; 14:36), revealing his close relationship with the Father. God is also identified as the king of Israel even before the Israelites have a human king (1 Sam. 10:19).

The Psalter exalts Yahweh as the king, acknowledging God’s sovereignty and preeminence (Pss. 5:2; 44:4; 47:6–7; 68:24; 74:12; 84:3; 95:3; 145:1). God is metaphorically identified as the shepherd who takes care of his sheep, his people, to depict his nature of provision and protection (Ps. 23:1–4). The image of the potter is also employed to describe the nature of God, who creates his creatures according to his will (Jer. 18:6; Rom. 9:20–23). In Hos. 2:4–3:5 God is identified as the long-suffering husband of the adulterous wife Israel. In the setting of war, God is depicted as the divine warrior who fights against his enemy (Exod. 15:3).

God is also referred to as advocate (Isa. 1:18), judge (Gen. 18:25), and lawgiver (Deut. 5:1–22). The image of the farmer is also frequently adopted to describe God’s nature of compassionate care, creation, providence, justice, redemption, sanctification, and more (e.g., Isa. 5:1–7; John 15:1–12). God is often referred to as the teacher (Exod. 4:15) who teaches what to do, as does the Holy Spirit in the NT (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit is identified as the counselor, the helper, the witness, and the guide (John 14:16, 26; 15:26). God is often metaphorically compared to various things in nature, such as rock (Ps. 18:2, 31, 46), light (Ps. 27:1), fire (Deut. 4:24; 9:3), lion (Hos. 11:10), and eagle (Deut. 32:11–12). In particular, the Davidic psalms employ many images in nature—rock, fortress, shield, horn, and stronghold (e.g., Ps. 18:2)—to describe God’s perfect protection.

Last, anthropomorphism often is employed to describe God’s activities. Numerous parts of the human body are used to speak of God: face (Num. 6:25–26), eyes (2 Chron. 16:9), mouth (Deut. 8:3), ears (Neh. 1:6), nostrils (Exod. 15:8), hands (Ezra 7:9), arms (Deut. 33:27), fingers (Ps. 8:3), voice (Exod. 15:26), shoulders (Deut. 33:12), feet (Ps. 18:9), and back (Exod. 33:21–22).

Names and Attributes of God

The OT refers to God by many names. One of the general terms used for God, ’el (which probably means “ultimate supremacy”), often appears in a compound form with a qualifying word, as in ’el ’elyon (“God Most High”), ’el shadday (“God Almighty”), and ’el ro’i (“the God who sees me” or “God of my seeing”). These descriptive names reveal important attributes of God and usually were derived from the personal experiences of the people of God in real-life settings; thus, they do not describe an abstract concept of God.

The most prominent personal name of God is yahweh (YHWH), which is translated as “the Lord” in most English Bibles. At the burning bush in the wilderness of Horeb, God first revealed to Moses his personal name in sentence form: “I am who I am” (Exod. 3:13–15). Though debated, the divine name “YHWH” seems to originate from an abbreviated form of this sentence. Yahweh, who was with Moses and his people at the time of exodus, is the God who was with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to Jesus’ testimony, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” is identified as the God “of the living” (Matt. 22:32). Hence, the name “Yahweh” is closely tied to God’s self-revelation as the God of presence and life. (See also Names of God.)

Many of God’s attributes are summarized in Exod. 34:6–7: “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” Below are further explanations of some of the representative attributes of God.

Holiness. The moral excellence of God is the attribute that underlies all other attributes. Thus, all God’s attributes can be modified by the adjective holy: holy love, holy justice, holy mercy, holy righteousness, holy compassion, holy wisdom, and so forth. God is the only supremely holy one (1 Sam. 2:2; Rev. 15:4). God’s name is also holy; those who profane God’s name are condemned as guilty (Exod. 20:7; Lev. 22:32). God is depicted as the one who has concern for his holy name, which the Israelites profaned among the nations; God actively seeks to restore the holiness of his defiled name (Ezek. 36:21–23). God’s holiness is revealed by his righteous action (Isa. 5:16). Not only is God holy, but also he expects his people to be holy (Lev. 11:45; 19:2). All the sacrificial codes of Leviticus represent the moral requirements of holiness for the worshipers. Because of God’s character of holiness, he cannot tolerate sin in the lives of people, and he brings judgment to those who do not repent (Hab. 1:13).

Love and justice. Because “God is love,” no one reaches the true knowledge of God without having love (1 John 4:8). Images of the father and the faithful husband are frequently employed to portray God’s love (Deut. 1:31; Jer. 31:32; Hos. 2:14–20; 11:1–4). God’s love was supremely demonstrated by the giving of his only Son Jesus Christ for his people (John 3:16; Rom. 5:7–8; 1 John 4:9–10). God expects his people to follow the model of Christ’s sacrificial love (1 John 3:16).

God’s justice is the foundation of his moral law and his ways (Deut. 32:4; Job 34:12; Ps. 9:16; Rev. 15:3). It is also seen in his will (Ps. 99:4). God loves justice and acts with justice (Ps. 33:5). God’s justice is demonstrated in judging people according to their deeds—punishing wickedness and rewarding righteousness (Ezek. 18:20; Ps. 58:11; Rev. 20:12–13). God establishes justice by upholding the cause of the oppressed (Ps. 103:6) and by vindicating those afflicted (1 Sam. 25:39). God is completely impartial in implementing justice (Job 34:18–19). As with holiness, God requires his people to reflect his justice (Prov. 21:3).

God keeps a perfect balance between the attributes of love and justice. God’s love never infringes upon his justice, and vice versa. The cross of Jesus Christ perfectly shows these two attributes in one act. Because of his love, God gave his only Son for his people; because of his justice, God punished his Son for the sake of their sins. The good news is that God’s justice was satisfied by the work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:25–26).

Righteousness and mercy. God’s righteousness shows his unique moral perfection. God’s nature, actions, and laws display his character of righteousness (Pss. 19:8–9; 119:137; Dan. 9:14). “Righteousness and justice” are the foundation of God’s throne (Ps. 89:14). God’s righteousness was especially demonstrated in the work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21–22). God’s righteousness will ultimately be revealed in his final judgment (Rev. 19:2; 20–22; cf. Ps. 7:11).

The English word “mercy” renders various words in the original languages: in Hebrew, khesed, khanan, rakham; in Greek, charis, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchnon. English Bibles translate these variously as “mercy,” “compassion,” “grace,” “kindness,” or “love.” The word “mercy” is chosen here as a representative concept (cf. Ps. 86:15). God’s mercy is most clearly seen in his act of forgiving sinners. In the Psalter, “Have mercy on me” is the most common form of expression when the psalmist entreats God’s forgiveness (Pss. 41:4, 10; 51:1). God’s mercy is shown abundantly to his chosen people (Eph. 2:4–8). Because of his mercy, their sins are forgiven (Mic. 7:18), their punishments are withheld (Ezra 9:13), and even sinners’ prayers are heard (Ps. 51:1; Luke 18:13–14). God is “the Father of mercies” (2 Cor. 1:3 NRSV).

God keeps a perfect balance between righteousness and mercy. His righteousness and mercy never infringe upon each other, nor does one operate at the expense of the other. God’s abundant mercy is shown to sinners through Jesus Christ, but if they do not repent of their sins, his righteous judgment will be brought upon them.

Faithfulness. God’s faithfulness is revealed in keeping the covenant that he made with his people. God “is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). God is faithful to his character, his name, and his word (Neh. 9:8; Ps. 106:8; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:13–18). God’s faithfulness is clearly seen in fulfilling his promise (Josh. 23:14). God showed his faithfulness by fulfilling all the promises that he made to Abraham (Gen. 12:2–3; Rom. 9:9; Gal. 4:28; Heb. 6:13–15), by having Solomon build the temple that he promised to David (2 Sam. 7:12–13; 1 Kings 8:17–21), and by sending his people into exile in Babylon and returning them to their homeland (Jer. 25:8–11; Dan. 9:2–3). God’s faithfulness was ultimately demonstrated by sending Jesus Christ, as was promised in the OT (Luke 24:44; Acts 13:32–33; 1 Cor. 15:3–8).

Goodness. Jesus said, “No one is good—except God alone” (Mark 10:18). God demonstrates his goodness in his actions (Ps. 119:68), in his work of creation (1 Tim. 4:4), in his love (Ps. 86:5), and in his promises (Josh. 23:14–15).

Patience. God is “slow to anger” (Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18), which is a favorite expression for his patience (Neh. 9:17; Pss. 86:15; 103:8; Joel 2:13). God is patient with sinful people for a long time (Acts 13:18). Because of his patient character, he delays punishment (Isa. 42:14). For instance, God was patient with his disobedient prophet Jonah and also with the sinful people of Nineveh (Jon. 3:1–10). The purpose of God’s patience is to lead people toward repentance (Rom. 2:4).

God of the Trinity

The Christian God of the Bible is the triune God. God is one but exists in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). The Son is one with the Father (John 10:30); the Holy Spirit is one with God (2 Sam. 23:2–3). All three share the same divine nature; they are all-knowing, holy, glorious, and called “Lord” and “God” (Matt. 11:25; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 3:22; 5:3–4; 10:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 3:17–18; 2 Pet. 1:1). All three share in the same work of creation (Gen. 1:1–3), salvation (1 Pet. 1:2), indwelling (John 14:23), and directing the church’s mission (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 16:6–10; 14:27; 13:2–4).

Retribution refers to “giving what is due,” usually in response to evil. Retribution is an important theological doctrine whose significance is belied by scant use of the term in English translations (ESV 2×; NIV 6×; NRSV 9×). Retribution is driven by the theological conviction that moral order is built into the fabric of the world (Ps. 7:14–16; Prov. 26:27). This moral compass is guaranteed by God’s oversight, meting out justice in judgment and rewards to the righteous, not only on the human-human level, but also on the divine-human level (2 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 6:7). This biblical equation assures that (1) life is not overwhelmed by moral chaos, (2) human actions affect the future, (3) the world is morally uniform, and (4) human revenge is to be avoided (Lev. 19:17–18; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 12:19). With the human community in view, God’s commands are intended to instruct and guide. Not surprisingly, address of retribution is found throughout biblical literature: legal (Deut. 28), narrative (Num. 16), poetic (Pss. 18:20; 94:15), sapiential (Prov. 11:24–25), and prophetic (Hab. 2:2–20).

This poetic justice pervades the OT in the judgment and exile of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:8–24), Cain’s sentence and blood revenge (Gen. 4:15, 24), and the worldwide flood and annihilation (Gen. 6–9) (cf. Exod. 21:20–21; Deut. 30:15–20; Josh. 7; Amos 3:14–15; Mic. 2:1–3). Such stories reveal a sovereign God acting as an external agent who exacts punishment in light of his intentions for creation. For Israel, retribution is the exercise of Yahweh’s legal rights in an attempt to restore covenant fellowship (Lev. 26:40–45). Although serious tensions exist—sometimes the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer—this does not alter the grand scheme of Scripture (Job 33; Jer. 12:1–4). In some scenarios, only the next lifetime will fully bring justice and reward (Ps. 49:5–15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rev. 22:1–5). Deep wisdom, however, embraces mystery and understands the limits of human agency (Gen. 50:19–20; James 1:5).

While the notion of consequence may be too strong, the concept of correspondence is helpful for understanding the concept of retribution. God’s judgments reveal (1) a correspondence between act and effect, (2) accountability to known law, (3) a debt requiring resolve/restitution, and (4) punishment that reenacts elements of the sin itself. God’s roles as divine warrior, judge, and king proclaim his universal rule and preserve it from all who would mock or defy his royal authority (Gen. 3:14–19; Deut. 7:10; 1 Sam. 24:19; 2 Sam. 12:11–12; Ps. 149; Prov. 15:25; Mic. 5:15; 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9; 2 Thess. 1:5–10).

God’s reasons for retribution center on disobedience and injustice, while his purposes are essentially restorative and developmental. Retribution is an application of God’s holiness that purifies the world for his kingdom of peace. In this way, vengeance and deliverance work together (Nah. 1:2, 7). Paradoxically, retribution gives hope to fallen humanity for sin acknowledged and unacknowledged, anticipating the triumph of righteousness (Ps. 58:11). Retribution grants rationality and stability to humanity, promotes closure in crisis, and fosters hope—a forerunner of the ultimate judgment before the throne of God the King.

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).

Righteousness is an important theme in both Testaments of the Bible. The concept includes faithfulness, justice, uprightness, correctness, loyalty, blamelessness, purity, salvation, and innocence. Because the theme is related to justification, it has important implications for the doctrine of salvation (see also Justification).

Old Testament

Divine righteousness. Being careful to avoid imposing Western philosophical categories onto OT texts, we may say that the core idea of righteousness is conformity to God’s person and will in moral uprightness, justness, justice, integrity, and faithfulness. Behind the many and varied uses of righteousness language in the OT stands the presupposition that God himself is righteous in the ultimate sense (e.g., Ezra 9:15; Isa. 45:21; Zeph. 3:5). Righteousness is the expression of his holiness in relationship to others (Isa. 5:16), and all other nuances of righteousness in the biblical texts are derived from this. Either he reveals what is right or demonstrates rightness in his activity. God’s decrees and laws are righteous (Deut. 4:8; Ps. 119); his will is righteous (Deut. 33:21); his acts are righteous (Judg. 5:11; 1 Sam. 12:7; Ps. 71:24); his judgments are righteous (Ps. 7:11); and he always judges with righteousness (Ps. 96:13). In OT texts, divine righteousness is often linked to God’s saving activity, particularly in Psalms (e.g., Ps. 71) and in Isa. 40–66. Divine righteousness is much broader than deliberative justice (i.e., punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous), though it does include it.

Human righteousness. Related to humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite of wickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, where it relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of the world as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). God reigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humans should align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousness can be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “my righteousness” (2 Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “their righteousness” (1 Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found in poetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust are parallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).

It seems likely that the OT understanding of righteousness was more concrete and less absolute than the typical thinking of most contemporary Western Christians. A more absolute way of understanding righteousness might lead one to think that a truly righteous person is sinless. While we do have references to absolute righteousness in the OT (e.g., Ps. 143:2; cf. Job 4:17; 25:4; Isa. 64:6–7), there are many more references to a righteousness grounded in particular or generalized situations (e.g., Pss. 32:11; 64:10). Another way of unpacking this conceptual difference is the helpful distinction between “ordinary” and “absolute” righteousness. Ordinary righteousness reflects the kind of righteousness that we intend when making comments such as “my wife is a righteous woman.” This means, taken in broad perspective, that her life is characterized predominantly by righteousness. This statement is not making a claim of sinlessness, absolute righteousness. The OT offers examples of comparative righteousness between people (e.g., Gen. 38:26; 1 Sam. 24:17; Jer. 3:11). Absolute righteousness is different from this. It is the extraordinary righteousness that we see in the person and work of God; he is righteous and without sin, totally holy in his dealings.

Noncanonical Jewish documents from the intertestamental period, while varying greatly in individual perspective, generally affirm OT views of human and divine righteousness. In these documents righteousness often is associated with mercy, goodness, justness, and concern for the poor and is contrasted with wickedness.

In Greco-Roman society, righteousness was one of the cardinal virtues and thus had an important influence in society. Greco-Roman righteousness did have some measure of abstractness as a kind of external norm, but this abstractness should not obscure the fact that righteousness often had a relational component in Greco-Roman literature and life. Righteous and unrighteous behaviors often were embedded in interpersonal relationships. Unrighteous deeds not only violated “transcendent” standards of righteousness, but also impacted humans.

New Testament

Ordinary human righteousness. Righteousness language is more rare in the Gospels than one might expect in light of OT and Jewish intertestamental usage. These references fit with the Jewish setting: righteousness is required of God’s people, and unrighteousness is to be avoided. Righteousness is proper conduct with respect to God or Torah (Matt. 21:32) in contrast to wickedness (Matt. 13:49). Righteousness could be conceived as one’s own (e.g., Luke 18:9) and has its reward (Matt. 10:41). While the specific terms related to righteousness are infrequent in the Gospels, the broader concept of conformity to God’s will is widely apparent in calls for repentance, personal moral uprightness, mercy, and concern for the marginalized. The NT Epistles continue these general strands of the concept. Righteousness is related to personal conduct (1 Thess. 2:10; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Pet. 2:24) and is contrasted with wickedness (2 Cor. 6:14); it is a matter of doing, not knowing (Rom. 2:13). An example of righteousness in doing is the kindness shown by the prostitute Rahab, who hid the Israelite spies (James 2:25).

The NT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7), Jesus extends the requirements of righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, a shocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners rather than the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitly questions the righteousness of the “righteous.” In similar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness of one’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke 18:9).

Divine righteousness. The NT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to God himself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf. Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commands and laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge (2 Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does not compromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26). The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness and wickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation in righteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g., Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:1, 29). He fulfilled righteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating complete conformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:18). He also fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his saving activity toward humans (e.g., 2 Pet. 1:1).

“The righteousness of God” and extra-ordinary human righteousness. There is a significant OT connection between God’s righteousness and his faithfulness in saving activity (e.g., Psalms; Isa. 40–66). Although there are glimpses of righteousness related to God’s saving activity outside of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (e.g., Matt. 5:10; 6:33), a technical phrase, “the righteousness of God,” is used in three important texts in Romans (1:17; 3:21–22 [2×]; 10:3 [2×]). In the gospel, “the righteousness of God” is revealed, where “righteousness of God” could mean his divine righteousness in some sense, righteousness from God (NIV), God’s saving activity as related to his righteousness in fulfilling his covenant faithfulness (e.g., Psalms), or some combination of these.

The righteousness of God is further discussed in Rom. 3:21: “the righteousness of God” has now been revealed apart from the Mosaic law, though the OT testifies about it (cf. Rom. 4 and Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). This righteousness of God is clarified in that it is by trust in Jesus Christ for all, both Jews and Gentiles. The “righteousness of God” may be distinguished from righteousness as a character quality of God (Rom. 3:25–26). In fact, it must be, for God’s righteousness as a character quality was revealed in the OT, whereas “the righteousness of God” is “apart from the [Mosaic] law” (3:21).

In Rom. 10:3 Paul comments that the Israelites are ignorant of “the righteousness of God”; they are seeking to establish their own righteousness because they are not submitting to “the righteousness of God.” The Israelites certainly knew of God’s righteousness in terms of his character, judgments, and expectations of his people. The lack of submission to “the righteousness of God” occurs in the context of the Jewish rejection of Jesus (e.g., 9:32–33; 10:9–13). And Jesus is the key to understanding “the righteousness of God” in the other texts also.

In Rom. 1:17 the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, which is the power of God for salvation to all who trust in Jesus (1:3–5, 16). The righteousness of God in 3:21–22 is related to trust in Jesus (3:22, 25–26), who as a sacrifice of atonement (3:25) enables the justification and redemption of sinners (3:24, 26). In Jesus we become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). The righteousness of God, then, is God’s saving activity revealed and manifested in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, whereby sinners are justified as both innocent and righteous in Christ.

The Bible depicts war and warlike acts throughout. The arms are both offensive and defensive in nature. The most common types of offensive weapons are swords, axes, spears, bows and arrows, slings, and stones. Defensive weapons include the shield and the helmet. An army’s arsenal was usually kept in a storehouse called an armory (1 Kings 10:17; Isa. 22:8; Neh. 3:19).

Arms

Sword. In the OT, the word “sword” (khereb) appears for the first time in Gen. 3:24 after Adam and Eve have been evicted from the garden of Eden. A flaming sword was placed there “to guard the way to the tree of life.” Thus, the first use of the sword is defensive. Later in Genesis, Jacob’s sons use swords to avenge the rape of their sister Dinah (Gen. 34:25–26). In most cases the word describes the weapon of choice for most of antiquity. Swords were manufactured of iron (1 Sam. 13:19; Joel 3:10). Some were short and easy to maneuver (Judg. 3:16), while others were long and heavy (1 Sam. 21:9). They could be single- or double-edged, and they were worn in a sheath or scabbard (1 Sam. 17:51; 2 Sam. 20:8). The sword was also supported by a girdle made of leather studded with nails (1 Sam. 18:4; 2 Sam. 20:8). Sometimes, the sword was used figuratively to speak of God’s judgment (Lev. 26:6; Isa. 1:20; Jer. 47:6; 50:35–37; Ezek. 21:9, 28; Hos. 11:6). In the NT, the most common word describing a sword is the Greek machaira, which is used to describe the weapons wielded by the mob that came to arrest Jesus (Matt. 26:47, 55; Mark 14:48), as well as the weapon used by Peter to cut off Malchus’s ear (John 18:10). Another Greek word translated “sword” is rhomphaia, which describes a longer sword, generally worn over one’s shoulder (Rev. 1:16; 6:8; 19:21). The word “sword” is also used figuratively in the NT. The word of God is designated as “the sword of the Spirit” (Eph. 6:17) and as a “double-edged sword” (Heb. 4:12).

Spear. Four main words in the Bible are translated as “spear” or “javelin.” The Hebrew word romakh is translated “spear” or “javelin,” and it appears fifteen times in the OT. The spear was made of iron (Joel 3:10), and those who fell prey to it never survived its penetration (Num. 25:7; 1 Kings 18:28). The other Hebrew word used for the spear is khanit, which appears about fifty times in the OT. It is used to describe Goliath’s spear when he fought David (1 Sam. 17:7), Saul’s spear when he hurled it at David (1 Sam. 18:10–11), and the Assyrian-made “glittering” spear (Nah. 3:3). The third word is khidon, which appears about ten times in the OT. It describes a weapon in the arsenals of Joshua (Josh. 8:18, 26), Goliath (1 Sam. 17:6), and the Babylonians (Jer. 6:23). In the NT, the word “spear” (Gk. longchē) occurs only once, referring to the weapon used to pierce Jesus’ side at his crucifixion (John 19:34).

Bow and arrow. The bow and arrow was an important offensive weapon in Israel and the surrounding cultures. In the Bible, bow and arrow, either in combination or individually, appear in both a literal (2 Kings 9:24; Isa. 37:33) and a figurative sense (Pss. 11:2; 64:7; Isa. 49:2; Lam. 3:12; Zech. 9:13). There is extrabiblical evidence suggesting that the Egyptians and the Syrians also used the bow and arrow as part of their military arsenal.

Sling. Primitive but effective, the sling was used not only in Israel but also in Egypt and Babylon. Easy to manufacture, it used stones as ammunition; thus it was the weapon of choice for those lacking raw material to build weapons made of metal. Besides David’s use of the sling in his encounter with Goliath (1 Sam. 17:40), men from the tribe of Benjamin used the sling with remarkable accuracy (Judg. 20:16).

Ax. Besides its primary role for cutting down trees (Deut. 19:5; Judg. 9:48; Jer. 10:3), the ax probably was used in war as well. (See also Ax, Ax Head.)

Armor

Shield. The shield is one of the most ancient defense weapons. Two Hebrew words are used to depict a shield. The magen appears for the first time in Gen. 15:1, where it is used figuratively to speak of God’s protection of Abraham. It is used in the same manner one other time, in Deut. 33:29. It is frequently used as a figure of speech by the psalmists to denote the same idea of divine protection (Pss. 3:3; 7:10; 18:2, 30; 28:7; 33:20; 59:11; 84:9, 11; 115:9–11; 119:114; 144:2). When used literally, the term refers to a shield made of wood and sometimes overlaid with leather. Solomon used gold to manufacture shields (1 Kings 10:17), while Rehoboam manufactured them of bronze (1 Kings 14:27). This type of shield was used as a defensive weapon by the Israelites throughout their history (Judg. 5:8; 1 Chron. 5:18; 2 Chron. 9:16; 14:8; 17:17; 23:9; Neh. 4:16). It was also used by the Syrians (Isa. 22:6), Assyrians (Isa. 37:33), Egyptians (Jer. 46:3), and Persians (Ezek. 27:10). The other Hebrew term translated “shield” is tsinnah. This was larger than the magen and was meant to cover the fighter’s entire body. It was the type of shield carried by Goliath’s shield bearer (1 Sam. 17:7, 41), manufactured by King Solomon (1 Kings 10:16), used by the Gadites who joined David while fleeing from Saul (1 Chron. 12:8), and used by Israel’s army during the reigns of Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:12) and Asa (2 Chron. 14:8). The Greek word thyreos is the LXX rendering of the Hebrew tsinnah, and it appears only once in the NT. Paul uses the word figuratively when speaking about the “shield of faith” (Eph. 6:16).

Helmet. The helmet had the obvious defensive purpose of protecting a combatant’s head. It was made of leather or light metal, such as bronze (1 Sam. 17:5, 38). In both Testaments, salvation is spoken of figuratively as a “helmet” (Isa. 59:17; Eph. 6:17; 1 Thess. 5:8).

Coat of mail. Body armor was used for the protection of the warrior not only in Israel but also in other ancient Near Eastern nations. The Hebrew term shiryon is variously translated as “coat of mail” (ESV, RSV, NRSV), “coat of scale armor” (NIV), or “habergeon” (KJV). Goliath wore this type of body armor (1 Sam. 17:5, 38), and his was manufactured of bronze. Despite wearing a shiryon, Israel’s king Ahab was fatally wounded in battle (1 Kings 22:34). In an attempt to strengthen Judah’s military power, King Uzziah also provided coats of mail for his army (2 Chron. 26:14). It was also used during postexilic times, Nehemiah’s workers having benefited from its protection (Neh. 4:16). Shiryon (Gk. thorax) is used figuratively to speak of a “breastplate” of righteousness and of love (Isa. 59:17; Eph. 6:14; 1 Thess. 5:8).

The Bible depicts war and warlike acts throughout. The arms are both offensive and defensive in nature. The most common types of offensive weapons are swords, axes, spears, bows and arrows, slings, and stones. Defensive weapons include the shield and the helmet. An army’s arsenal was usually kept in a storehouse called an armory (1 Kings 10:17; Isa. 22:8; Neh. 3:19).

Arms

Sword. In the OT, the word “sword” (khereb) appears for the first time in Gen. 3:24 after Adam and Eve have been evicted from the garden of Eden. A flaming sword was placed there “to guard the way to the tree of life.” Thus, the first use of the sword is defensive. Later in Genesis, Jacob’s sons use swords to avenge the rape of their sister Dinah (Gen. 34:25–26). In most cases the word describes the weapon of choice for most of antiquity. Swords were manufactured of iron (1 Sam. 13:19; Joel 3:10). Some were short and easy to maneuver (Judg. 3:16), while others were long and heavy (1 Sam. 21:9). They could be single- or double-edged, and they were worn in a sheath or scabbard (1 Sam. 17:51; 2 Sam. 20:8). The sword was also supported by a girdle made of leather studded with nails (1 Sam. 18:4; 2 Sam. 20:8). Sometimes, the sword was used figuratively to speak of God’s judgment (Lev. 26:6; Isa. 1:20; Jer. 47:6; 50:35–37; Ezek. 21:9, 28; Hos. 11:6). In the NT, the most common word describing a sword is the Greek machaira, which is used to describe the weapons wielded by the mob that came to arrest Jesus (Matt. 26:47, 55; Mark 14:48), as well as the weapon used by Peter to cut off Malchus’s ear (John 18:10). Another Greek word translated “sword” is rhomphaia, which describes a longer sword, generally worn over one’s shoulder (Rev. 1:16; 6:8; 19:21). The word “sword” is also used figuratively in the NT. The word of God is designated as “the sword of the Spirit” (Eph. 6:17) and as a “double-edged sword” (Heb. 4:12).

Spear. Four main words in the Bible are translated as “spear” or “javelin.” The Hebrew word romakh is translated “spear” or “javelin,” and it appears fifteen times in the OT. The spear was made of iron (Joel 3:10), and those who fell prey to it never survived its penetration (Num. 25:7; 1 Kings 18:28). The other Hebrew word used for the spear is khanit, which appears about fifty times in the OT. It is used to describe Goliath’s spear when he fought David (1 Sam. 17:7), Saul’s spear when he hurled it at David (1 Sam. 18:10–11), and the Assyrian-made “glittering” spear (Nah. 3:3). The third word is khidon, which appears about ten times in the OT. It describes a weapon in the arsenals of Joshua (Josh. 8:18, 26), Goliath (1 Sam. 17:6), and the Babylonians (Jer. 6:23). In the NT, the word “spear” (Gk. longchē) occurs only once, referring to the weapon used to pierce Jesus’ side at his crucifixion (John 19:34).

Bow and arrow. The bow and arrow was an important offensive weapon in Israel and the surrounding cultures. In the Bible, bow and arrow, either in combination or individually, appear in both a literal (2 Kings 9:24; Isa. 37:33) and a figurative sense (Pss. 11:2; 64:7; Isa. 49:2; Lam. 3:12; Zech. 9:13). There is extrabiblical evidence suggesting that the Egyptians and the Syrians also used the bow and arrow as part of their military arsenal.

Sling. Primitive but effective, the sling was used not only in Israel but also in Egypt and Babylon. Easy to manufacture, it used stones as ammunition; thus it was the weapon of choice for those lacking raw material to build weapons made of metal. Besides David’s use of the sling in his encounter with Goliath (1 Sam. 17:40), men from the tribe of Benjamin used the sling with remarkable accuracy (Judg. 20:16).

Ax. Besides its primary role for cutting down trees (Deut. 19:5; Judg. 9:48; Jer. 10:3), the ax probably was used in war as well. (See also Ax, Ax Head.)

Armor

Shield. The shield is one of the most ancient defense weapons. Two Hebrew words are used to depict a shield. The magen appears for the first time in Gen. 15:1, where it is used figuratively to speak of God’s protection of Abraham. It is used in the same manner one other time, in Deut. 33:29. It is frequently used as a figure of speech by the psalmists to denote the same idea of divine protection (Pss. 3:3; 7:10; 18:2, 30; 28:7; 33:20; 59:11; 84:9, 11; 115:9–11; 119:114; 144:2). When used literally, the term refers to a shield made of wood and sometimes overlaid with leather. Solomon used gold to manufacture shields (1 Kings 10:17), while Rehoboam manufactured them of bronze (1 Kings 14:27). This type of shield was used as a defensive weapon by the Israelites throughout their history (Judg. 5:8; 1 Chron. 5:18; 2 Chron. 9:16; 14:8; 17:17; 23:9; Neh. 4:16). It was also used by the Syrians (Isa. 22:6), Assyrians (Isa. 37:33), Egyptians (Jer. 46:3), and Persians (Ezek. 27:10). The other Hebrew term translated “shield” is tsinnah. This was larger than the magen and was meant to cover the fighter’s entire body. It was the type of shield carried by Goliath’s shield bearer (1 Sam. 17:7, 41), manufactured by King Solomon (1 Kings 10:16), used by the Gadites who joined David while fleeing from Saul (1 Chron. 12:8), and used by Israel’s army during the reigns of Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:12) and Asa (2 Chron. 14:8). The Greek word thyreos is the LXX rendering of the Hebrew tsinnah, and it appears only once in the NT. Paul uses the word figuratively when speaking about the “shield of faith” (Eph. 6:16).

Helmet. The helmet had the obvious defensive purpose of protecting a combatant’s head. It was made of leather or light metal, such as bronze (1 Sam. 17:5, 38). In both Testaments, salvation is spoken of figuratively as a “helmet” (Isa. 59:17; Eph. 6:17; 1 Thess. 5:8).

Coat of mail. Body armor was used for the protection of the warrior not only in Israel but also in other ancient Near Eastern nations. The Hebrew term shiryon is variously translated as “coat of mail” (ESV, RSV, NRSV), “coat of scale armor” (NIV), or “habergeon” (KJV). Goliath wore this type of body armor (1 Sam. 17:5, 38), and his was manufactured of bronze. Despite wearing a shiryon, Israel’s king Ahab was fatally wounded in battle (1 Kings 22:34). In an attempt to strengthen Judah’s military power, King Uzziah also provided coats of mail for his army (2 Chron. 26:14). It was also used during postexilic times, Nehemiah’s workers having benefited from its protection (Neh. 4:16). Shiryon (Gk. thorax) is used figuratively to speak of a “breastplate” of righteousness and of love (Isa. 59:17; Eph. 6:14; 1 Thess. 5:8).

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.

(1) An African kingdom located along the Nile River to the south of Egypt, in the region that is now part of the country of Sudan. The Hebrew terms “Cush” and “Cushite” occur over fifty times in the OT. Since the Greeks used the term “Ethiopia” in a generic sense to refer to everything south of Egypt, including Cush, and some historians occasionally refer to the Cushite kingdom as Nubia, English Bible versions occasionally translate the Hebrew term “Cush” as “Ethiopia” or “Nubia.” Likewise, the NT character referred to as the “Ethiopian eunuch” (Acts 8:27) was not from modern Ethiopia but rather from this same kingdom on the Nile, south of Egypt, called “Cush” throughout the OT.

Cush is an identifiable political entity as early as 2500 BC, but for most of its early history it was under Egyptian domination. In the late eighth century BC, however, Cush began to grow and expand its influence, and by 710 BC Cush had conquered Egypt and set up its own dynasty of Cushite pharaohs. The Cushites ruled Egypt until 663 BC, when the Assyrians finally drove them out of Egypt.

Cush and the Cushites play several important roles in the Bible. Moses married a Cushite woman (Num. 12:1). Cushites made up a significant part of Egyptian society, so Moses would have had numerous points of contact with Cushites. In the time of the monarchies a Cushite general, Zerah, led an unsuccessful expedition against Israel (2 Chron. 14:9–15). Later in history Cush became a critical part of the historical background of 2 Kings and Isaiah. During this era, the Cushites developed into the superpower to the south of Israel and Judah that contended with Assyria, the superpower to the north. Thus, for much of the time of Isaiah, the Cushites appeared to be allied with Judah against the Assyrians. When the Assyrians attacked Jerusalem in 701 BC, the Cushite king Tirhakah sent an army from Egypt northward to Judah, to attempt to relieve Jerusalem.

The Cushites were particularly famous throughout the ancient Near East as soldiers and mercenaries. Two individual Cushites in the Bible appear in this role: the messenger in David’s army (2 Sam. 18:21) and probably Ebed-Melek (Jer. 38–39).

The OT prophets pronounce judgment on all the surrounding nations for their complicity in the attack on Israel and Judah by the Assyrians and Babylonians. Cush is included among the nations falling under this judgment. However, when the prophets look beyond the destruction to the time of messianic restoration, they paint a picture of people from all nations joining together to worship the true God. The prophets use the Cushites as one of their paradigm groups for this restoration. That is, in the prophetic passages of future restoration, Cush often represents the future Gentile inclusion (Isa. 11:11; 45:14; Zeph. 3:9–10). Ebed-Melek, the Cushite who rescued Jeremiah during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, appears to play a similar role in the narrative of Jer. 38–39. That is, while the entire city of Jerusalem turns against God’s word and his true prophet Jeremiah, it is the Cushite Ebed-Melek (representing the Gentiles) who believes and trusts in God, thus finding deliverance instead of death (Jer. 39:15–18). In the NT, the Ethiopian eunuch (an official from Cush) is similar in several respects to Ebed-Melek in the book of Jeremiah (Acts 8:26–40). At a time when Jerusalem has rejected the message of God and is actively persecuting God’s messengers (Acts 7:1–8:3), it is an Ethiopian (Cushite) official who believes. Thus, in a fashion similar to Ebed-Melek, this Ethiopian (Cushite) probably symbolizes the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God.

(2) The superscription of Ps. 7 (7:1 MT) states that David sang this psalm to God concerning a Benjamite named “Cush,” apparently one of David’s enemies. It is not known why this individual and the Cushi of Zeph. 1:1, who apparently were Hebrews, were so named. Perhaps they were Cushites, or perhaps one of their parents was a Cushite. On the other hand, perhaps they were given the name in honor of a certain Cushite. (See also Cushi.)

(3) Another reference to someone named “Cush” is in the puzzling passage Gen. 10:6–8 (restated in 1 Chron. 1:8–10). Genesis 10, however, is a notoriously difficult chapter to interpret. It consists largely of a genealogy, but the names used in the genealogy include those of individuals, peoples, countries, tribes, and cities. Some scholars think that the chapter is more about geopolitical alliances and geographical locations than about physical descent of individuals. In Gen. 10:6 Cush is said to be the father of Nimrod. Little is known for certain about Nimrod, but in Gen. 10:10–12 he is closely associated with various cities and kingdoms in Mesopotamia. Thus, some scholars associate this reference to Cush with some entity in Mesopotamia, perhaps a people known as the Cassites. On the other hand, in Gen. 10:6 Cush is closely associated with Egypt (Mizraim), as was the historical kingdom of Cush, which was just to the south of Egypt. Likewise, the “sons” of Cush listed in Gen. 10:7 are cities, regions, or individuals normally associated with Arabia, the Red Sea region, or the area south of Egypt (Cush). Consequently, there is no consensus among scholars as to how the term “Cush” is used in Gen. 10:6–8.

(1) An African kingdom located along the Nile River to the south of Egypt, in the region that is now part of the country of Sudan. The Hebrew terms “Cush” and “Cushite” occur over fifty times in the OT. Since the Greeks used the term “Ethiopia” in a generic sense to refer to everything south of Egypt, including Cush, and some historians occasionally refer to the Cushite kingdom as Nubia, English Bible versions occasionally translate the Hebrew term “Cush” as “Ethiopia” or “Nubia.” Likewise, the NT character referred to as the “Ethiopian eunuch” (Acts 8:27) was not from modern Ethiopia but rather from this same kingdom on the Nile, south of Egypt, called “Cush” throughout the OT.

Cush is an identifiable political entity as early as 2500 BC, but for most of its early history it was under Egyptian domination. In the late eighth century BC, however, Cush began to grow and expand its influence, and by 710 BC Cush had conquered Egypt and set up its own dynasty of Cushite pharaohs. The Cushites ruled Egypt until 663 BC, when the Assyrians finally drove them out of Egypt.

Cush and the Cushites play several important roles in the Bible. Moses married a Cushite woman (Num. 12:1). Cushites made up a significant part of Egyptian society, so Moses would have had numerous points of contact with Cushites. In the time of the monarchies a Cushite general, Zerah, led an unsuccessful expedition against Israel (2 Chron. 14:9–15). Later in history Cush became a critical part of the historical background of 2 Kings and Isaiah. During this era, the Cushites developed into the superpower to the south of Israel and Judah that contended with Assyria, the superpower to the north. Thus, for much of the time of Isaiah, the Cushites appeared to be allied with Judah against the Assyrians. When the Assyrians attacked Jerusalem in 701 BC, the Cushite king Tirhakah sent an army from Egypt northward to Judah, to attempt to relieve Jerusalem.

The Cushites were particularly famous throughout the ancient Near East as soldiers and mercenaries. Two individual Cushites in the Bible appear in this role: the messenger in David’s army (2 Sam. 18:21) and probably Ebed-Melek (Jer. 38–39).

The OT prophets pronounce judgment on all the surrounding nations for their complicity in the attack on Israel and Judah by the Assyrians and Babylonians. Cush is included among the nations falling under this judgment. However, when the prophets look beyond the destruction to the time of messianic restoration, they paint a picture of people from all nations joining together to worship the true God. The prophets use the Cushites as one of their paradigm groups for this restoration. That is, in the prophetic passages of future restoration, Cush often represents the future Gentile inclusion (Isa. 11:11; 45:14; Zeph. 3:9–10). Ebed-Melek, the Cushite who rescued Jeremiah during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, appears to play a similar role in the narrative of Jer. 38–39. That is, while the entire city of Jerusalem turns against God’s word and his true prophet Jeremiah, it is the Cushite Ebed-Melek (representing the Gentiles) who believes and trusts in God, thus finding deliverance instead of death (Jer. 39:15–18). In the NT, the Ethiopian eunuch (an official from Cush) is similar in several respects to Ebed-Melek in the book of Jeremiah (Acts 8:26–40). At a time when Jerusalem has rejected the message of God and is actively persecuting God’s messengers (Acts 7:1–8:3), it is an Ethiopian (Cushite) official who believes. Thus, in a fashion similar to Ebed-Melek, this Ethiopian (Cushite) probably symbolizes the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God.

(2) The superscription of Ps. 7 (7:1 MT) states that David sang this psalm to God concerning a Benjamite named “Cush,” apparently one of David’s enemies. It is not known why this individual and the Cushi of Zeph. 1:1, who apparently were Hebrews, were so named. Perhaps they were Cushites, or perhaps one of their parents was a Cushite. On the other hand, perhaps they were given the name in honor of a certain Cushite. (See also Cushi.)

(3) Another reference to someone named “Cush” is in the puzzling passage Gen. 10:6–8 (restated in 1 Chron. 1:8–10). Genesis 10, however, is a notoriously difficult chapter to interpret. It consists largely of a genealogy, but the names used in the genealogy include those of individuals, peoples, countries, tribes, and cities. Some scholars think that the chapter is more about geopolitical alliances and geographical locations than about physical descent of individuals. In Gen. 10:6 Cush is said to be the father of Nimrod. Little is known for certain about Nimrod, but in Gen. 10:10–12 he is closely associated with various cities and kingdoms in Mesopotamia. Thus, some scholars associate this reference to Cush with some entity in Mesopotamia, perhaps a people known as the Cassites. On the other hand, in Gen. 10:6 Cush is closely associated with Egypt (Mizraim), as was the historical kingdom of Cush, which was just to the south of Egypt. Likewise, the “sons” of Cush listed in Gen. 10:7 are cities, regions, or individuals normally associated with Arabia, the Red Sea region, or the area south of Egypt (Cush). Consequently, there is no consensus among scholars as to how the term “Cush” is used in Gen. 10:6–8.

(1) An African kingdom located along the Nile River to the south of Egypt, in the region that is now part of the country of Sudan. The Hebrew terms “Cush” and “Cushite” occur over fifty times in the OT. Since the Greeks used the term “Ethiopia” in a generic sense to refer to everything south of Egypt, including Cush, and some historians occasionally refer to the Cushite kingdom as Nubia, English Bible versions occasionally translate the Hebrew term “Cush” as “Ethiopia” or “Nubia.” Likewise, the NT character referred to as the “Ethiopian eunuch” (Acts 8:27) was not from modern Ethiopia but rather from this same kingdom on the Nile, south of Egypt, called “Cush” throughout the OT.

Cush is an identifiable political entity as early as 2500 BC, but for most of its early history it was under Egyptian domination. In the late eighth century BC, however, Cush began to grow and expand its influence, and by 710 BC Cush had conquered Egypt and set up its own dynasty of Cushite pharaohs. The Cushites ruled Egypt until 663 BC, when the Assyrians finally drove them out of Egypt.

Cush and the Cushites play several important roles in the Bible. Moses married a Cushite woman (Num. 12:1). Cushites made up a significant part of Egyptian society, so Moses would have had numerous points of contact with Cushites. In the time of the monarchies a Cushite general, Zerah, led an unsuccessful expedition against Israel (2 Chron. 14:9–15). Later in history Cush became a critical part of the historical background of 2 Kings and Isaiah. During this era, the Cushites developed into the superpower to the south of Israel and Judah that contended with Assyria, the superpower to the north. Thus, for much of the time of Isaiah, the Cushites appeared to be allied with Judah against the Assyrians. When the Assyrians attacked Jerusalem in 701 BC, the Cushite king Tirhakah sent an army from Egypt northward to Judah, to attempt to relieve Jerusalem.

The Cushites were particularly famous throughout the ancient Near East as soldiers and mercenaries. Two individual Cushites in the Bible appear in this role: the messenger in David’s army (2 Sam. 18:21) and probably Ebed-Melek (Jer. 38–39).

The OT prophets pronounce judgment on all the surrounding nations for their complicity in the attack on Israel and Judah by the Assyrians and Babylonians. Cush is included among the nations falling under this judgment. However, when the prophets look beyond the destruction to the time of messianic restoration, they paint a picture of people from all nations joining together to worship the true God. The prophets use the Cushites as one of their paradigm groups for this restoration. That is, in the prophetic passages of future restoration, Cush often represents the future Gentile inclusion (Isa. 11:11; 45:14; Zeph. 3:9–10). Ebed-Melek, the Cushite who rescued Jeremiah during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, appears to play a similar role in the narrative of Jer. 38–39. That is, while the entire city of Jerusalem turns against God’s word and his true prophet Jeremiah, it is the Cushite Ebed-Melek (representing the Gentiles) who believes and trusts in God, thus finding deliverance instead of death (Jer. 39:15–18). In the NT, the Ethiopian eunuch (an official from Cush) is similar in several respects to Ebed-Melek in the book of Jeremiah (Acts 8:26–40). At a time when Jerusalem has rejected the message of God and is actively persecuting God’s messengers (Acts 7:1–8:3), it is an Ethiopian (Cushite) official who believes. Thus, in a fashion similar to Ebed-Melek, this Ethiopian (Cushite) probably symbolizes the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God.

(2) The superscription of Ps. 7 (7:1 MT) states that David sang this psalm to God concerning a Benjamite named “Cush,” apparently one of David’s enemies. It is not known why this individual and the Cushi of Zeph. 1:1, who apparently were Hebrews, were so named. Perhaps they were Cushites, or perhaps one of their parents was a Cushite. On the other hand, perhaps they were given the name in honor of a certain Cushite. (See also Cushi.)

(3) Another reference to someone named “Cush” is in the puzzling passage Gen. 10:6–8 (restated in 1 Chron. 1:8–10). Genesis 10, however, is a notoriously difficult chapter to interpret. It consists largely of a genealogy, but the names used in the genealogy include those of individuals, peoples, countries, tribes, and cities. Some scholars think that the chapter is more about geopolitical alliances and geographical locations than about physical descent of individuals. In Gen. 10:6 Cush is said to be the father of Nimrod. Little is known for certain about Nimrod, but in Gen. 10:10–12 he is closely associated with various cities and kingdoms in Mesopotamia. Thus, some scholars associate this reference to Cush with some entity in Mesopotamia, perhaps a people known as the Cassites. On the other hand, in Gen. 10:6 Cush is closely associated with Egypt (Mizraim), as was the historical kingdom of Cush, which was just to the south of Egypt. Likewise, the “sons” of Cush listed in Gen. 10:7 are cities, regions, or individuals normally associated with Arabia, the Red Sea region, or the area south of Egypt (Cush). Consequently, there is no consensus among scholars as to how the term “Cush” is used in Gen. 10:6–8.

Retribution refers to “giving what is due,” usually in response to evil. Retribution is an important theological doctrine whose significance is belied by scant use of the term in English translations (ESV 2×; NIV 6×; NRSV 9×). Retribution is driven by the theological conviction that moral order is built into the fabric of the world (Ps. 7:14–16; Prov. 26:27). This moral compass is guaranteed by God’s oversight, meting out justice in judgment and rewards to the righteous, not only on the human-human level, but also on the divine-human level (2 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 6:7). This biblical equation assures that (1) life is not overwhelmed by moral chaos, (2) human actions affect the future, (3) the world is morally uniform, and (4) human revenge is to be avoided (Lev. 19:17–18; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 12:19). With the human community in view, God’s commands are intended to instruct and guide. Not surprisingly, address of retribution is found throughout biblical literature: legal (Deut. 28), narrative (Num. 16), poetic (Pss. 18:20; 94:15), sapiential (Prov. 11:24–25), and prophetic (Hab. 2:2–20).

This poetic justice pervades the OT in the judgment and exile of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:8–24), Cain’s sentence and blood revenge (Gen. 4:15, 24), and the worldwide flood and annihilation (Gen. 6–9) (cf. Exod. 21:20–21; Deut. 30:15–20; Josh. 7; Amos 3:14–15; Mic. 2:1–3). Such stories reveal a sovereign God acting as an external agent who exacts punishment in light of his intentions for creation. For Israel, retribution is the exercise of Yahweh’s legal rights in an attempt to restore covenant fellowship (Lev. 26:40–45). Although serious tensions exist—sometimes the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer—this does not alter the grand scheme of Scripture (Job 33; Jer. 12:1–4). In some scenarios, only the next lifetime will fully bring justice and reward (Ps. 49:5–15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rev. 22:1–5). Deep wisdom, however, embraces mystery and understands the limits of human agency (Gen. 50:19–20; James 1:5).

While the notion of consequence may be too strong, the concept of correspondence is helpful for understanding the concept of retribution. God’s judgments reveal (1) a correspondence between act and effect, (2) accountability to known law, (3) a debt requiring resolve/restitution, and (4) punishment that reenacts elements of the sin itself. God’s roles as divine warrior, judge, and king proclaim his universal rule and preserve it from all who would mock or defy his royal authority (Gen. 3:14–19; Deut. 7:10; 1 Sam. 24:19; 2 Sam. 12:11–12; Ps. 149; Prov. 15:25; Mic. 5:15; 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9; 2 Thess. 1:5–10).

God’s reasons for retribution center on disobedience and injustice, while his purposes are essentially restorative and developmental. Retribution is an application of God’s holiness that purifies the world for his kingdom of peace. In this way, vengeance and deliverance work together (Nah. 1:2, 7). Paradoxically, retribution gives hope to fallen humanity for sin acknowledged and unacknowledged, anticipating the triumph of righteousness (Ps. 58:11). Retribution grants rationality and stability to humanity, promotes closure in crisis, and fosters hope—a forerunner of the ultimate judgment before the throne of God the King.

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 concept of health is translated by no less than twelve different words in the Bible, incorporating the physical, social, and spiritual dimensions of life. Perhaps the most inclusive biblical term for health is the Hebrew word shalom, often translated “peace,” which embraces both the private (health, wholeness, prosperity, deliverance) and public (friendship, absence of war) spheres of life, with the basic sense of wholeness and well-being (e.g., Lev. 26:6; Num. 6:26; Pss. 7:4; 29:11; Prov. 14:30; Lam. 3:17). Shalom is God’s presence and favor toward his people, who share these graces with their neighbors (Matt. 10:13; John 14:26–27).

Physically, a healthy person enjoys fullness of body (Ps. 73:4; Dan. 1:15), without being overweight (Judg. 3:17). John the elder wishes Gaius “good health” (hygiainō) in 3 John 2. Another quality is a sound mind, the ability to produce benefit for others and cope with loss and suffering. Oppression and poverty hinder well-being. Health is also a joyous feeling of restoration after illness (Isa. 38:16). The Greek adjective hygiēs (“whole,” “healthy”) and related verb hygiainō (“be whole/healthy”) are commonly used of the results of healing in the Gospels (e.g., Matt. 12:13; 15:31; Luke 5:31; 7:10; John 5:9, 11).

Scripture also presumes a spiritual component to health (Ps. 38:3; Prov. 3:7–8). Although the Gospels distinguish illness from demonic oppression, the line is not as thick as we find in the works of Hippocrates (c. 460–370 BC), the father of Western medicine, who argues that diseases have natural origins. The gospel unequivocally denies ultimate well-being without reconciliation between the Creator and the creation, source and derivation, God and human being.

The designation “Highest” or “Most High” is commonly used for God. It represents God’s exalted status above all others. It occurs primarily in OT poetic or prophetic passages (e.g., Num. 24:16; Deut. 32:8; Pss. 7:17; 9:2; 18:13), although it occurs in the NT as well (e.g., Mark 5:7; Luke 1:35; Acts 7:48; Heb. 7:1). Melchizedek king of Salem and “priest of God Most High” praises God using the title “God Most High,” which Abram then uses to specifically identify God Most High as “the Lord” (Gen. 14:19–20, 22).

“Kidneys” is the literal translation of the Hebrew term kelayot (always plural). The literal sense is most commonly found in reference to part of the body of a sacrificial animal (e.g., Exod. 29:13, 22; Lev. 3:4, 10, 15; 4:9; 7:4; 8:16, 25; 9:10, 19; Isa. 34:6). The kidneys typically were to be burned, along with fat, and were recognized as the finest part of the animal. The Greek term for “kidney,” nephros, appears only once in the NT, Rev. 2:23, where its usage conforms to OT usage. Because the kidneys are located deep in the body, reference to injuries involving the kidneys emphasizes their severity (e.g., Job 16:13; Lam. 3:13). When used of humans, “kidney” most commonly refers to the mind, in parallel with leb (“heart”), which better corresponds to modern notions of “mind” and even “conscience” (see Pss. 7:9; 26:2; Jer. 11:20; 17:10; 20:12). In a number of passages the kidneys are identified among the organs that God examines in order to judge or test a person (Ps. 7:9; Jer. 11:20; 17:10).

Retribution refers to “giving what is due,” usually in response to evil. Retribution is an important theological doctrine whose significance is belied by scant use of the term in English translations (ESV 2×; NIV 6×; NRSV 9×). Retribution is driven by the theological conviction that moral order is built into the fabric of the world (Ps. 7:14–16; Prov. 26:27). This moral compass is guaranteed by God’s oversight, meting out justice in judgment and rewards to the righteous, not only on the human-human level, but also on the divine-human level (2 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 6:7). This biblical equation assures that (1) life is not overwhelmed by moral chaos, (2) human actions affect the future, (3) the world is morally uniform, and (4) human revenge is to be avoided (Lev. 19:17–18; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 12:19). With the human community in view, God’s commands are intended to instruct and guide. Not surprisingly, address of retribution is found throughout biblical literature: legal (Deut. 28), narrative (Num. 16), poetic (Pss. 18:20; 94:15), sapiential (Prov. 11:24–25), and prophetic (Hab. 2:2–20).

This poetic justice pervades the OT in the judgment and exile of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:8–24), Cain’s sentence and blood revenge (Gen. 4:15, 24), and the worldwide flood and annihilation (Gen. 6–9) (cf. Exod. 21:20–21; Deut. 30:15–20; Josh. 7; Amos 3:14–15; Mic. 2:1–3). Such stories reveal a sovereign God acting as an external agent who exacts punishment in light of his intentions for creation. For Israel, retribution is the exercise of Yahweh’s legal rights in an attempt to restore covenant fellowship (Lev. 26:40–45). Although serious tensions exist—sometimes the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer—this does not alter the grand scheme of Scripture (Job 33; Jer. 12:1–4). In some scenarios, only the next lifetime will fully bring justice and reward (Ps. 49:5–15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rev. 22:1–5). Deep wisdom, however, embraces mystery and understands the limits of human agency (Gen. 50:19–20; James 1:5).

While the notion of consequence may be too strong, the concept of correspondence is helpful for understanding the concept of retribution. God’s judgments reveal (1) a correspondence between act and effect, (2) accountability to known law, (3) a debt requiring resolve/restitution, and (4) punishment that reenacts elements of the sin itself. God’s roles as divine warrior, judge, and king proclaim his universal rule and preserve it from all who would mock or defy his royal authority (Gen. 3:14–19; Deut. 7:10; 1 Sam. 24:19; 2 Sam. 12:11–12; Ps. 149; Prov. 15:25; Mic. 5:15; 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9; 2 Thess. 1:5–10).

God’s reasons for retribution center on disobedience and injustice, while his purposes are essentially restorative and developmental. Retribution is an application of God’s holiness that purifies the world for his kingdom of peace. In this way, vengeance and deliverance work together (Nah. 1:2, 7). Paradoxically, retribution gives hope to fallen humanity for sin acknowledged and unacknowledged, anticipating the triumph of righteousness (Ps. 58:11). Retribution grants rationality and stability to humanity, promotes closure in crisis, and fosters hope—a forerunner of the ultimate judgment before the throne of God the King.

One of the classifications in the superscriptions of the psalms, appearing only in Ps. 7 (cf. Hab. 3:1). Its meaning is uncertain. The root meaning seems to relate to “wandering” or “ranging.” Musically, this could mean that the tune went up and down the scale. It has also been interpreted to mean “fervent,” suggesting a passionate lament. See also Shigionoth.

A word found in the heading to Habakkuk’s prayer (Hab. 3:1), in the place where a stylistic comment might occur in the title of a psalm. Its meaning is uncertain, but it seems to be a plural of “Shiggaion” (cf. Ps. 7 superscription). It perhaps indicates the literary genre of the prayer or a musical style to be used in singing it. See also Shiggaion.