Sermon and Worship Resources (2024)

There are numerous relationships in the OT that could be characterized as following a servant-master model. These included service to the monarchy (2Sam. 9:2), within households (Gen. 16:8), in the temple (1Sam. 2:15), or to God himself (Judg. 2:8). We also see extensive slavery laws in passages such as Exod. 21:111; Lev. 25:39–55; Deut. 15:12–18. The slavery laws were concerned with the proper treatment of Hebrew slaves and included guidelines for their eventual release and freedom. For example, Hebrew slaves who had sold themselves to others were to serve for a period of six years. On the seventh year, known also as the Sabbath Year, they were to be released. Once released, they were not to be sent away empty-handed, but rather were to be supported from the owner’s “threshing floor” and “winepress.” Slaves also had certain rights that gave them special privileges and protection from their masters. Captured slaves, for example, were allowed rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10) and during special holidays (Deut. 16:11, 14). They could also be freed if their master permanently hurt or crippled them (Exod. 21:26–27). Also, severe punishment was imposed on a person who beat a slave to death (Exod. 21:20–21).

Slavery was very common in the first century AD, and there were many different kinds of slaves. For example, slaves might live in an extended household (oikos) in which they were born, or they might choose to sell themselves into this situation (1Pet. 2:18–25). Although slavery was a significant part of society in the first century AD, we never see Jesus or the apostles encourage slavery. Instead, both Paul and Peter encouraged godly character and obedience for slaves within this system (Eph. 6:5–8; Col. 3:22–25; 1Tim. 6:1–2; Philemon; 1Pet. 2:18–21). Likewise, masters were encouraged to be kind and fair to their slaves (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Later in the NT, slave trading was condemned by the apostle Paul as contrary to “sound doctrine” and “the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God” (1Tim. 1:10–11).

Jesus embodied the idea of a servant in word and deed. He fulfilled the role of the “Servant of the Lord,” the Suffering Servant predicted by the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 42:1–4; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12). He also took on the role of a servant in the Gospels, identifying himself as the Son of Man who came to serve (Mark 10:45) and washing the disciples’ feet (John 13:4–5). Paul says that in the incarnation Jesus took on “the very nature of a servant” (Phil. 2:7).

The special relationship between Jesus and his followers is captured in the servant-master language of the NT Epistles, especially in Paul’s letters (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1). This language focuses not so much on the societal status of these servants as on the allegiance and honor owed to Christ Jesus.

Love for those who suffer. The OT often refers to God’s compassion, especially toward those who, because of their sinfulness, deserve the opposite treatment. In Exod. 33:19 Yahweh takes pity on the Israelites after they have rebelled, making an idol for themselves and praising it for their deliverance. He renews his covenant with them, but he reminds them of his sovereignty in doing so: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (cf. Rom. 9:15).

The NT points to God’s compassion at significant junctures in the Gospels and the Epistles. Jesus himself has compassion for the crowds who “were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). He takes pity on the crowds, healing their sick and feeding them miraculously (14:1421; cf. 15:32). The same connection between compassion and healing occurs in Matt. 20:34; Mark 1:41, this time on an individual level. The apostle Paul underscores this attribute of God, raising it to a title of sorts. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is “the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort” (2Cor. 1:3). James says that the Lord is “full of compassion and mercy” (5:11), and John depicts God as one who will wipe away every tear caused by persecution and trial (Rev. 7:17; 21:4). Because God is always dealing with broken sinners, his compassion for them coincides with his love (see Ps. 145:8); and this rescuing of the guilty sets an example for his people. They must go and do likewise, loving the unlovely, unwise, and even unrighteous.

Primarily, the Israelite community united by a common bond to (or in covenant with) their God (Deut. 33:4; Josh. 8:35; 18:1; 1Kings 8:5).

The terms also refer to Israelite gatherings for special purposes such as worship, war, lawcourt, and councils. They also refer to the assemblage of other peoples or beings such as divine beings, evildoers or enemies, beasts, and bees.

The NT uses both ekklēsia and synagōgē to refer to synagogue gatherings (Acts 7:38; 13:43). English versions translate both terms as either “congregation” or “assembly.” These translations render the ekklēsia in Heb. 2:12 as either “assembly” or “congregation,” whereas they translate synagōgē in James 2:2 as “assembly” or “meeting.” See also Church.

A pact/compact or an agreement (Heb. berit). The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legal disposition of personal goods.”

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

Some covenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties); others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties), between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife (Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of society implies a solemn commitment to a relationship.

The most significant covenant relationship in the biblical material is the one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surrounding nations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:89. Although Yahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for his own personal care; he established a relationship with the nation independent of and prior to the nation’s association with his land.

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

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

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

The second king of Israel (r. 1010970 BC), founder of a dynasty that continued with his son Solomon (r. 970–931 BC), who ruled all of Israel; subsequently the remaining “sons of David” ruled the southern kingdom, Judah, until 586 BC.

Human kingship is a late development in Israel, but a number of ancient texts anticipate the establishment of the institution (Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:14–20) and specifically the rise of a king from Judah (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:17). Thus, it is surprising that the first king of Israel is not from Judah, but from Benjamin. When the people ask Samuel for a king, he anoints Saul (1Sam. 8–12), who proves to be a tremendous disappointment. He forfeits the establishment of his dynasty when he shows a lack of confidence in God by rashly offering prebattle sacrifices (13:13–14). God then rejects Saul as king because he does not execute God’s full judgment against the Amalekites as he knows he should (15:23).

Eventually Saul’s moment of judgment comes. Saul’s final battle is against the Philistines, the major foreign force still inside the borders of the promised land. Both Saul and Jonathan meet their end on Mount Gilboa, and David sings songs that express his sadness over their deaths (1Sam. 31–2Sam. 1).

Even with Saul out of the way, David’s rise to kingship is not easy. He is immediately crowned king of Judah (2Sam. 2:1–7), but the northern tribes choose to follow Ish-Bosheth, the son of Saul. War erupts between the two kingdoms. Eventually, though, the powerful general Abner abandons his support of Saul’s son, sealing the end of that dynasty. Ish-Bosheth is killed by his own men, and soon David becomes king over all Israel (5:1–5).

David’s kingship leads to significant victories that, in essence, complete the conquest of Canaan by finally subduing all the internal enemies. His men take the city of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, and he makes it his capital (2Sam. 5:6–16). He also defeats the Philistines, who have been a thorn in the side of Israel for years (2Sam. 5:17–25; for other victories, see 8:1–14). In celebration, David brings the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2Sam. 6).

The David narrative reaches its apex when God enters into a covenant with him that establishes his dynasty (2Sam. 7; 1Chron. 17). After David dies, his son will succeed him, and indeed his dynasty lasts for many hundreds of years (see below).

David is a good king, but not a perfect king. A turning point in his reign comes in 2Sam. 11. Up to this point, David has been content with what God has given him. He does not grasp for anything that does not belong to him. However, when he sees the beautiful Bathsheba bathing, he sends messengers to bring her to his house, where the two have sexual intercourse and she becomes pregnant. In an attempt to conceal this sin of adultery, he orders the death of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Thus, he adds the crime of murder to that of adultery.

David thinks that the sin is secret, but nothing is hidden from God, who sends his prophet Nathan to confront David (2Sam. 12; cf. Ps. 51). The difference between Saul and David is not that the latter is perfect but rather that David, as opposed to Saul, repents when he sins. Thus, God allows his reign to continue. Even so, David feels the consequences of his sin. First, the son that Bathsheba bears from her illicit union with David is struck with illness and dies. And ever afterward, David’s family life is troubled, with great impact on the political life of Israel. Son is pitted against son (Amnon and Absalom [2Sam. 13]), as well as son against father (Absalom and David [2Sam. 15–18]). Absalom temporarily deposes his father from the throne, but David eventually regains the kingship, though at the cost of the heartbreaking loss of his son.

Even at the very end, there is conflict within David’s house. When David has grown old, another son, Adonijah, attempts to take the throne, with support from powerful people such as Joab and Abiathar. At the instigation of Bathsheba and Nathan, however, David places the son of his choosing, Solomon, on the throne (1Kings 1). David then dies after a reign of forty-one years, seven in Hebron and the rest over all Israel (1Kings 2:10–12).

David’s greatest legacy is the dynasty that bears his name. Beginning with Solomon, however, his successors do not continue his spiritual legacy. Although a number of kings do some good, only Hezekiah (r. 727–698 BC) and Josiah (r. 639–609 BC) are given unqualified approval. Eventually, the Davidic rule comes to an end in Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians (586 BC). But God is not done with his redemptive purposes, and his promise to David is that he will have a ruler on the throne “forever” (2Sam. 7:16). The NT recognizes that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of this promise. He is the greater son of David, the one who is the Christ or Messiah, the anointed king. Jesus is the one who reigns forever in heaven. The life and the rule of David foreshadow the messianic rule of Jesus Christ.

A broad designation for certain regions in Israel, typically rocky, although also plains, with little rainfall. These areas generally are uninhabited, and most often “wilderness” refers to specific regions surrounding inhabited Israel. A fair amount of Scripture’s focus with respect to the wilderness concerns Israel’s forty-year period of wandering in the wilderness after the exodus (see also Wilderness Wandering).

More specifically, the geographical locations designated “wilderness” fall into four basic categories: the Negev (south), Transjordan (east), Judean (eastern slope of Judean mountains), and Sinai (southwest).

The Negev makes up a fair amount of Israel’s southern kingdom, Judah. It is very rocky and also includes plateaus and wadis, which are dry riverbeds that can bloom after rains. Its most important city is Beersheba (see Gen. 21:14, 22 34), which often designates Israel’s southernmost border, as in the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” (e.g., 2Sam. 17:11).

Transjordan pertains to the area east of the Jordan River, the area through which the Israelites had to pass before crossing the Jordan on their way from Mount Sinai to Canaan. (Israel was denied direct passage to Canaan by the Edomites and Amorites [see Num. 20:14–21; 21:21–26].) Even though this region lay outside the promised land of Canaan, it was settled by the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh after they had fulfilled God’s command to fight alongside the other tribes in conquering Canaan (Num. 32:1–42; Josh. 13:8; 22:1–34).

The Judean Desert is located on the eastern slopes of the Judean mountains, toward the Dead Sea. David fled there for refuge from Saul (1Sam. 21–23). It was also in this area that Jesus was tempted (Luke 4:1–13).

The Sinai Desert is a large peninsula, with the modern-day Gulf of Suez to the west and the Gulf of Aqaba to the east. In the ancient Near Eastern world, both bodies of water often were referred to as the “Red Sea,” which is the larger sea to the south. In addition to the region traditionally believed to contain the location of Mount Sinai (its exact location is unknown), the Sinai Desert is further subdivided into other areas known to readers of the OT: Desert of Zin (northeast, contains Kadesh Barnea), Desert of Shur (northwest, near Egypt), Desert of Paran (central).

Wilderness is commonly mentioned in the Bible, and although it certainly can have neutral connotations (i.e., simply describing a location), the uninhabited places often entail both positive (e.g., as a place of solitude) and negative (e.g., as a place of wrath) connotations, both in their actual geological properties and as metaphors. The very rugged and uninhabited nature of the wilderness easily lent itself to being a place of death (e.g., Deut. 8:15; Ps. 107:4–5; Jer. 2:6). It was also a place associated with Israel’s rebellions and struggles with other nations. Upon leaving Egypt, Israel spent forty years wandering the wilderness before entering Canaan, encountering numerous military conflicts along the way. This forty-year period was occasioned by a mass rebellion (Num. 14), hence casting a necessarily dark cloud over that entire period, and no doubt firming up subsequent negative connotations of “wilderness.” Similarly, “wilderness” connotes notions of exile from Israel, as seen in the ritual of the scapegoat (lit., “goat of removal” [see Lev. 16]). On the Day of Atonement, one goat was sacrificed to atone for the people’s sin, and another was sent off, likewise to atone for sin. The scapegoat was released into the desert, where it would encounter certain death, either by succumbing to the climate or through wild animals.

On the other hand, it is precisely in this uninhabited land that God also showed his faithfulness to his people, despite their prolonged punishment. He miraculously supplied bread (manna) and meat (quail) (Exod. 16; Num. 11), as well as water (Exod. 15:22–27; 17:1–7; Num. 20:1–13; 21:16–20). God’s care for Israel is amply summarized in Deut. 1:30–31: “The Lord your God, who is going before you, will fight for you, as he did for you in Egypt, before your very eyes, and in the wilderness. There you saw how the Lord your God carried you, as a father carries his son, all the way you went until you reached this place.”

The harsh realities of the wilderness also made it an ideal place to seek sanctuary and protection. David fled from Saul to the wilderness, the Desert of Ziph (1Sam. 23:14; 26:2–3; cf. Ps. 55:7). Similarly, Jeremiah sought a retreat in the desert from sinful Israel (Jer. 9:2).

Related somewhat to this last point is Jesus’ own attitude toward the wilderness. It was there that he retreated when he could no longer move about publicly (John 11:54). John the Baptist came from the wilderness announcing Jesus’ ministry (Matt. 3:1–3; Mark 1:2–4; Luke 3:2–6; John 1:23; cf. Isa. 40:3–5). It was also in the desert that Jesus went to be tempted but also overcame that temptation.

Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:1213).

Israel’s promised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen. 13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing, fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orienting points for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise, “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27). Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity and judgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationship with God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; this could ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits” people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).

For Israel, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen. 15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithful obedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1Kings 2:1–4). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen. 18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was the supreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance” to give (1Sam. 26:19; 2Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). The Levites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did the other tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20; Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter and to occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3). Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when they accused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however, no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance” (Josh. 13:1).

Egypt is one of the earliest ancient civilizations. The first development of writing took place simultaneously in both Egypt and ancient Sumer around 3000 BC.

Ancient Sumer and Egypt were river valley cultures. Sumer was located in Mesopotamia (southeast Iraq), Egypt in the Nile Valley (northeast Africa). The Nile Valley was well suited for long-term growth and cultural success for three reasons. First, the annual flooding of the Nile (July to October) brought sediment and nutrients from up river to the fields of the Nile Valley. The water also washed the salts out of the soil. These brought great fertility to the valley and allowed the same fields to be farmed year after year for millennia without exhausting the land. Second, the Nile provided a central highway for transporting people and goods across Egypt, thus facilitating internal trade and communication. Third, Egypt was surrounded by a buffer zone of desert regions to the east, west, and south, which hindered foreign invasion. Ancient Egyptians called the fertile land of the Nile Valley the “black land” and the desert regions the “red land.” They also divided the land into “upper” and “lower” Egypt. Upper Egypt (from the first cataract northward to Memphis) was in the higher southern elevations of the Nile River (the Nile flows from south to north). Lower Egypt was made up of the Nile Delta region. Only a pharaoh who controlled and unified both could take the epithet “king of upper and lower Egypt.”

Egypt had an ancient and long history, but the following summary will only address Egypt as it comes into contact with biblical history.

First Intermediate period (21342040 BC) and Middle Kingdom (2040–1640 BC). After the death of PepyII came economic collapse due to drought and falling tax revenues. These led to political collapse, and power was split among many competing factions. This time of instability is known as the First Intermediate period; it ended when the Eleventh Dynasty pharaoh MentuhotepII reunified Egypt and reestablished a strong central government. It is likely around the time of the end of the First Intermediate period (2134–2040 BC) and the beginning of the Middle Kingdom (2040–1640 BC) that Abraham visited Egypt and later Joseph, Jacob, and his family entered Egypt. The famous Beni Hasan tomb painting of this period shows a caravan of Semitic peoples moving into Egypt, wearing multicolored clothing. In this period the position of vizier (prime minister) grew to prominence. One vizier, Amenemhet, succeeded to the throne of Egypt. Joseph filled the role of vizier in the biblical account (Gen. 41:39–40). Also dating from this period are turquoise mines in the Sinai region that have the earliest known Semitic inscription. Written on the mine walls in Proto-Sinaitic, this inscription may be the earliest alphabetic script in existence.

Second Intermediate period (1640–1550 BC). At the end of the Middle Kingdom, Egypt again fell into a fractured political situation with the decline of the pharaoh’s power. A Semitic people, the Hyksos (Egyptian for “foreign rulers” or “shepherd kings”), invaded the Nile Delta region and established their capital at Avaris. The Seventeenth Dynasty continued to rule Upper Egypt in the south while the Hyksos were in power. Although the Israelites were servants of Pharaoh from the beginning (keeping his flocks), they were not enslaved until later. It may have been a Hyksos pharaoh or a New Kingdom pharaoh who enslaved them to hard labor.

New Kingdom (1550–1069 BC). The last king of the Seventeenth (Theban) Dynasty, Kamose, attacked the Hyksos, but it was his successor, Ahmose, who drove them out and reunified Egypt. Ahmose is considered the first pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty. It may have been Ahmose or one of his successors who enslaved the Hebrews. During the first half of the New Kingdom, Egypt was at the height of its power and wealth. During this period Egyptians began to call their king “Pharaoh,” meaning “great house.” The Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh ThutmoseIII and his son AmenhotepII are good candidates for an early-date exodus (c. 1446 BC). A later king of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Akhenaten, moved the capital to Amarna and shifted his allegiance from Amun-Re, the sun god, to sole worship of the god Aton (sun-disk). For this reason, many identify him as the first monotheist. Akhenaten may have made this move in order to defund the temples and priestly orders that had grown very wealthy and powerful over time. His reforms did not last, and the worship of Amun-Re was restored by his successor, Tutankhamen. The Nineteenth Dynasty warrior RamessesII is the likely pharaoh of a late-date Exodus (c. 1250 BC).

Third Intermediate period (1069–664 BC). This period was a time of weak and divided government, with capitals in the north and the south. Pharaoh Siamun has been conjectured to be King Solomon’s father-in-law, who conquered Gezer and gave it to Solomon as a dowry (c. 960 BC; 1Kings 9:16). Later, Sheshonq (biblical Shishak), a Libyan pharaoh of the Twenty-second Dynasty, came to the throne and campaigned against Solomon’s son Rehoboam, plundering Jerusalem in the process (1Kings 14:25; 2Chron. 12:2; cf. 1Kings 11:40). The African Cush*te pharaohs of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty (760–664 BC) ruled the north for a little more than a century but failed to defend against the waves of Assyrian conquest in the seventh century BC.

Late Kingdom period (664–525 BC). The Twenty-sixth (Saite) Dynasty (ruling from the Delta city of Sais) reunified Egypt under native Egyptian control. Pharaoh NechoII tried to support a declining Assyria as a buffer against the Babylonian onslaught but was unsuccessful (c. 609 BC). However, in the process Necho killed King Josiah of Judah in battle at Megiddo and placed one of Josiah’s sons, Jehoiakim, as a vassal upon the throne of Judah (2Kings 23:29–35; cf. 2Chron. 35:20–36:8; Jer. 46:2). After the Babylonian destruction of Judah/Jerusalem (587/586 BC) and the murder of their Jewish governor, Gedaliah, a group of Jewish exiles fled to Egypt. This group forced the prophet Jeremiah to go with them to Egypt (Jer. 40:1–43:7). A small group of Jewish exiles eventually found their way to a tiny island in the upper Nile, Elephantine, where they established a temple and community; there they worked as mercenaries.

Persian period (525–332 BC). CambysesII, king of Persia and son of Cyrus the Great, conquered Egypt in 525 BC. His successor, DariusI, ruled Egypt benevolently and resumed the construction of temples and canals. However, Egypt revolted against Persian rule several times, ultimately winning independence in 404 BC with the help of Greek allies. The last native Egyptian pharaoh was NectaneboII, who ruled in 359–343 BC. However, this period of Egyptian independence was short-lived, with Persia reestablishing control in 343 BC.

Hellenistic-Roman period (332–30 BC; 30 BC and beyond). Alexander the Great conquered Egypt in 332 BC. After Alexander’s death, his general Ptolemy took control of Egypt and ruled as pharaoh. From Alexander’s conquest to the death of Cleopatra, Egyptian rulers were of Greek descent. After Cleopatra’s death (30 BC), Rome annexed Egypt into its empire and governed the country until the fall of the Roman Empire. A large contingent of Jews lived and prospered in the Delta city of Alexandria in this period.

Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.

Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.

In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:2829).

In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).

Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (2:8).

In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the Letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).

In 1Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1:21), whereas in 2Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2Pet. 1:1). In the Letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, ... you have eternal life” (1John 5:13).

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage and divorce. Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:617). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the OT (Mark 10:1–12).

Children and parenting. Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

The first child born to a married couple. In the OT it most commonly refers to the first male child, upon whom special privileges were bestowed. The OT describes some of the privileges associated with being the firstborn son: he would receive a double portion of the inheritance (a privilege codified in the law in Deut. 21:17), the paternal blessing (Gen. 27; 48:1719), and other examples of favoritism (e.g., Gen. 43:33). The importance ascribed to the firstborn is also attested in the legislative requirement that the firstborn—people, animals, and produce—belong to Yahweh (Lev. 27:26; Deut. 15:19; and of people, note Num. 3:12–13), so stressing his primacy over Israel.

“Firstborn” language is also used figuratively in the OT. It is used of Israel as Yahweh’s firstborn in Exod. 4:22–23, wherein Pharaoh’s failure to release Yahweh’s firstborn results in the destruction of Egypt’s firstborn. God also declares the Davidic king to be his firstborn son in Ps. 89:27, highlighting the special favor that he would enjoy. “Firstborn” language can also be used figuratively to describe anything that receives a greater share, such as “the firstborn of Death” in Job 18:13 (NRSV) and “the firstborn of the poor” in Isa. 14:30 (NRSV).

Somewhat surprisingly, God does not adhere to the significance of primogeniture, frequently bestowing his favor on those who were not firstborn: Abel over Cain, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph and Judah over Reuben, Ephraim over Manasseh, Moses over Aaron, David over his brothers, and Solomon over Adonijah.

The NT presupposes an understanding of the significance of the firstborn. Jesus is specifically identified as Mary’s firstborn (Luke 2:7, 23). However, the description extends beyond mere notions of human primogeniture when Jesus is described as “firstborn over all creation” (Col. 1:15) and “firstborn from among the dead” (Col. 1:18; cf. Rev. 1:5). These expressions, in line with figurative use of “firstborn” language in the OT, express Jesus’ privileged place in both creation and the new creation.

Biblically speaking, to forgive is less about changing feelings (emotions) and more about an actual restoration of a relationship. It is about making a wrong right, a process that usually is both costly and painful. To capture the biblical sense, the English word “pardon” may prove more helpful.

Forgiveness expresses the character of the merciful God, who eagerly pardons sinners who confess their sins, repent of their transgressions, and express this through proper actions. Forgiveness is never a matter of a human right; it is exclusively a gracious expression of God’s loving care. Human need for forgiveness stems from actions arising from their fallen nature. These actions (or nonactions), whether done deliberately or coincidentally, destroy people’s relationship with God and can be restored only by God’s forgiving mercy (Eph. 2:1).

Under the Mosaic covenant, sin placed offenders under God’s wrath among the ungodly. Rescue from this fate could be obtained by God’s forgiveness alone, which was attained through repentance and sacrifice. Although sacrifice was necessary to express true repentance, it is a mistake to consider it a payment that could purchase God’s forgiveness (1Sam. 15:22; Prov. 21:3; Eccles. 5:1; Hos. 6:6). The forgiveness of God remains his free, undeserved gift.

Although the sacrificial system is done away with, or rather completed, through Christ (Heb. 10:12), NT teaching continues to recognize conditions for forgiveness. Since forgiveness restores relationship, the offender remains involved and must desire the restoration (Luke 13:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38). God does not grant his forgiveness without consideration of the offending party.

Jesus expresses this most clearly in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:1124). The son rebels against his father, squanders his wealth, and violates their relationship. The gracious and loving father remains willing to restore the relationship, but the reunion does not occur until the prodigal replaces rebellion with repentance; then, before he can even utter his sorrow, the eager father welcomes him back to a restored relationship. God remains free to forgive or not forgive, but, because of God’s nature and mercy, sinners can rest assured of God’s relationship-restoring forgiveness when they seek it in repentance. The forgiveness that God grants is full and restores things to an “as before” situation (cf. Ps. 103:12; Jer. 31:34), a point that the older son in the parable (Luke 15:25–32), who exemplifies religious self-righteousness, did not comprehend.

Literally, fruit is the seed-bearing part of a plant. It constitutes an important part of the diet in the ancient Near East. Common fruits are olives, grapes, and figs, though many other varieties of fruit are also available, including apples, apricots, peaches, pomegranates, dates, and melons. Fruit trees play a prominent role as a food source in God’s creation and preparation of the garden of Eden (Gen. 13). The law prohibits the Israelites from cutting down their enemy’s fruit trees (Deut. 20:19). The abundance of fruit trees characterizes the land that God has prepared for Israel (Deut. 8:8; Neh. 9:25) as well as the final restoration (Ezek. 47:12; Joel 2:22; Rev. 22:2).

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

A controlled point of entry into an otherwise enclosed area such as a city (Gen. 34:24; Ps. 122:2; Acts 9:24), camp (Exod. 32:2627), tabernacle court (Exod. 35:17), palace (2Kings 11:19), temple area (Jer. 36:10; Ezek. 40), prison (Acts 12:10), or house (Acts 10:17).

In the OT, the city gate has a central role in that city’s military, economic, judicial, political, and religious aspects of life. A key component of the defense system of a city, the gate consists of doors fortified with bars (Judg. 16:3; Ps. 107:16; Nah. 3:13) and keeps invading armies out while also serving as the point of departure and return for the city’s army (2Sam. 18:4; cf. God the warrior entering in Ps. 24:7–8). The gate also may serve as the location where news of the battle is delivered (1Sam. 4:18; 2Sam. 18:24). The destruction of the city gate usually means the destruction of the city (Isa. 24:12).

In the economic life of the city, the gate functions as a place of commerce (Gen. 23; 2Kings 7:1) and music (Lam. 5:14). At the entrance to the city gate, the city elders assembled daily to hear cases and render judgment (Job 29:7; Prov. 24:7). Along with the elders, there might be additional witnesses (Ruth 4:1–11; Ps. 69:12). For criminal cases, the gate may also be the location where punishment is enacted (Deut. 17:5; 22:24). Thus, the gate is to be a place where all people can come to obtain justice (2Sam. 15:2–4; Isa. 29:21; Amos 5:15). The gate may hold a seat reserved for the king (2Sam. 19:8) as well as the king’s officials (Esther 2:19–21; 3:2–3). The city gate might also contain shrines to various gods (2Kings 23:8; cf. Acts 14:13).

Some references to gates refer to those of the temple area (Ezek. 44; 46; Pss. 100:4; 118:19–20). In Ezek. 48 the temple area is to have twelve gates, each named after a tribe of Israel (Ezek. 48:30–35; cf. Rev. 21:12–25). The prophet Jeremiah proclaims the word of the Lord from both the city gate(s) (Jer. 17:19–27) and the temple gate(s) (7:1–4).

In the NT, Jesus raises the dead son of a widow at the town gate (Luke 7:11–17) and heals a lame man near the Sheep Gate (John 5:1–15). Peter heals a crippled man near the temple gate (Acts 3:1–10). Jesus mentions gates in his teaching, including a call to enter through the narrow gate of life (Matt. 7:13–14), and his parable of the sheep and the gate, in which Jesus refers to himself as the gate (John 10:1–18). See also City Gates.

The English word “governor” is used to translate a number of Hebrew words. The term indicates one who has been designated with authority over a certain region, especially under the rule of a king or emperor.

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

One notable governor was Gedaliah, ruler of the Jewish remnant left in Judah during the deportation, who reported to the king of Babylon (Jer. 40:11). Later, he was assassinated by Ishmael (41:2). This provoked great fear, causing some to flee to Egypt (41:1718).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grace is the nucleus, the critical core element, of the redemptive and sanctifying work of the triune God detailed throughout the entire canon of Scripture. The variegated expressions of grace are rooted in the person and work of God, so that his graciousness and favor effectively demonstrated in every aspect of the created realm glorify him as they are shared and enjoyed with one another.

The biblical terminology informing an understanding of grace defines it as a gift or a favorable reaction or disposition toward someone. Grace is generosity, thanks, and good will between humans and from God to humans. Divine expressions of grace are loving, merciful, and effective. The biblical texts provide a context for a more robust understanding of divine gift. The overall redemptive-historical context of grace is the desire of the eternal God to bring glory to himself through a grace-based relationship with his creation. The Creator-Redeemer gives grace, and the recipients of grace give him glory.

Although the concepts of sin and guilt often overlap, a basic distinction between the two can be established. In the biblical sense, sin is basically violation of divine stipulations (what a person does or does not do), whereas guilt is the resulting state, or one’s “legal” status (what that person has become as a result). In essence, one commits sin and becomes guilty (Hab. 1:11).

The state of being guilty is further distinguished from the punishment that it draws, because one can be pronounced guilty and still be exempted from punishment. Nor should guilt be mistaken for the emotional response of the culprits toward themselves and their victims. No matter how sincere it may be, remorse does not eliminate the guilt.

In the biblical sense, guilt is something objective and separate from the will or intention of the culprit. One can pay back debt and render the obligation fulfilled. One cannot, however, cancel one’s own guilt. In the sacrificial system of the OT, the offender must perform restitution to the victim and also give a guilt offering to God. This reflects the notion that in committing sinful acts in violation of God’s laws, the culprit has offended not only the victim but also God. This is what David means in Ps. 51:34 (with his sin in full display before God, David realizes that he has sinned against God and God alone).

This is why those who scoff at the guilt offering are fools (Prov. 14:9). By doing this, they insult God’s being and character. Such a biblical view of guilt implies that forgiveness and restoration should come from without, from source(s) other than the culprit and victim. The Bible affirms that the only one capable of offsetting the cost of human sin is the sinless Christ, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). His life was laid on the cross and offered as the acceptable sacrifice for the totality of guilt, and as a result it freed those who believe in him from the obligation of the guilt.

Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and in the Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors.

Metaphorically, the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or even the whole person. It also refers to the center of something or its inner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importance and location.

Mind. The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these cases does not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while the neurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, it has no bearing on this use of language. Deuteronomy 6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occurs in three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common to all three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospel writers want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,” but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrew word for “heart” includes the mind.

The mental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heart is where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1Chron. 29:18; Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1Kings 3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makes plans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1Chron. 29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, and skill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is the place of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role of conscience (2Sam. 24:10; 1John 3:2021).

It is often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for “heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp the mental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to love God with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6). Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes our perspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” is clearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents to talk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. In order for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds need to be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him. Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation on and determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is not merely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview in which the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truth requires careful, reflective thought.

Emotions and attitude. The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number of feelings and sentiments, such as gladness (Exod. 4:14; Acts 2:26), hatred (Lev. 19:17), pride (Deut. 8:14), resentment (Deut. 15:10), dread (Deut. 28:67), sympathy (Judg. 5:9), love (Judg. 16:15), sadness (1Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition (James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudes such as willingness, courage, and desire.

The present abode of God and the final dwelling place of the righteous. The ancient Jews distinguished three different heavens. The first heaven was the atmospheric heavens of the clouds and where the birds fly (Gen. 1:20). The second heaven was the celestial heavens of the sun, the moon, and the stars. The third heaven was the present home of God and the angels. Paul builds on this understanding of a third heaven in 2Cor. 12:24, where he describes himself as a man who “was caught up to the third heaven” or “paradise,” where he “heard inexpressible things.” This idea of multiple heavens also shows itself in how the Jews normally spoke of “heavens” in the plural (Gen. 1:1), while most other ancient cultures spoke of “heaven” in the singular.

Although God is present everywhere, God is also present in a special way in “heaven.” During Jesus’ earthly ministry, the Father is sometimes described as speaking in “a voice from heaven” (Matt. 3:17). Similarly, Jesus instructs us to address our prayers to “Our Father in heaven” (6:9). Even the specific request in the Lord’s Prayer that “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (6:10) reminds us that heaven is a place already under God’s full jurisdiction, where his will is presently being done completely and perfectly. Jesus also warns of the dangers of despising “one of these little ones,” because “their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven” (18:10). Jesus “came down from heaven” (John 6:51) for his earthly ministry, and after his death and resurrection, he ascended back “into heaven,” from where he “will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).

Given this strong connection between heaven and God’s presence, there is a natural connection in Scripture between heaven and the ultimate hope of believers. Believers are promised a reward in heaven (“Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven” [Matt. 5:12]), and even now believers can “store up for [themselves] treasures in heaven” (6:20). Even in this present life, “our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20), and our hope at death is to “depart and be with Christ, which is better by far” (1:23). Since Christ is currently in heaven, deceased believers are already present with Christ in heaven awaiting his return, when “God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him” (1Thess. 4:14).

Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit for association with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4). God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while “Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’s Spirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49), as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).

With reference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like his uniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory (Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is, his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).

God’s dwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy” functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly (11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels who surround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).

A corollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy (Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps. 96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).

While “holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,” this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is an associated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied to people and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly or implicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never “from” something.

The symbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, the tabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1Chron. 29:3), and everything associated with them, are holy and the means whereby God’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God. For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these too must be holy (Lev. 11:4445; Heb. 12:14).

The OT system of worship involved the distinction between unclean and clean, and between common and holy, and the means of effecting a transition to a state of cleanness or holiness (Lev. 10:10). People, places, and items may be made holy by a process of consecration or sanctification, whether simply by God’s purifying presence (Exod. 3:5) or by ritual acts (Exod. 19:10; 29:36).

God’s faithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1Pet. 2:9). In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, and of particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10), prophets (2Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7) are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tension between the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holiness of its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended to act as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.

At times simply indicating a wish (2Cor. 11:1), in the Bible the word “hope” most often designates a disposition of soul, the grounds for one’s hope, or the outcome for which one hopes. At its core, biblical hope is hope in God, rooted in God’s covenant faithfulness (Ps. 62:58; Jer. 14:8; 17:13; Rom. 4:18; 5:1–5). Hope trusts God in the present and lives even now on the strength of God’s future accomplishments (Gal. 5:5; Heb. 11:1).

In the NT, hope is closely associated with Christ and his saving work. Christians now live by hope in Christ (Eph. 1:12; 1Pet. 1:3; 3:15); indeed, he is “Christ Jesus our hope” (1Tim. 1:1), and his future appearing is “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). Thus, hope refers to eschatological glory (2Cor. 3:11–12; Eph. 1:18). It is “the hope of the resurrection” (Acts 23:6; cf. 24:15; 26:6–9), our transformation into Christ’s likeness (1John 3:1–3). That expectation stimulates various hopes for God’s plans to be realized in one’s own or others’ lives (1Cor. 9:10, 13; Phil. 2:19, 23; 2Tim. 2:25; 2John 12). So hope is named repeatedly as an essential Christian attribute (Rom. 12:12; 15:4, 13; 1Cor. 13:13).

Horses first appear in the Bible in Gen. 47:17 as a part of the livestock traded for grain under Joseph’s supervision during a time of famine. Due to the military role of horses and the need to depend on God alone, the king of Israel was forbidden to hold great numbers of horses (Deut. 17:16), and the people were commanded not to obtain horses from the principal supplier of the time, Egypt, which happened despite the prohibition (2Chron. 1:16). King David first introduced chariots to the armies of Israel when he kept one hundred chariot horses out of a large number he had captured from the kingdom of Zobah (2Sam. 8:34). The use of chariots expanded under Solomon, and he is said to have owned as many as twelve thousand chariot horses (1Kings 4:26). He also built specific chariot cities in order to solidify Israel’s defenses (1Kings 10:26). This move was deeply unfaithful, however, and was denounced by the prophets as an indulgence in pagan luxury and sinful self-reliance. Isaiah proclaimed, “Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, who rely on horses, who trust in the multitude of their chariots and in the great strength of their horsem*n, but do not ... seek help from the Lord” (Isa. 31:1). The very real military advantages that came from chariot warfare gave God’s people a reason, however false, to trust their own power rather than the provision of God.

Horses are often mentioned as a literary image meant to evoke speed, energy, and strength (Ps. 20:7). Jesus’ own entry into Jerusalem was on a donkey rather than a horse, emphasizing the nonmilitary nature of his messiahship (Matt. 21:5). In Rev. 6:1–8 horses of different colors represent four judgments of God upon the earth.

The gates of Jerusalem and the temple have varied throughout history. Gates usually were given names that represented their function, activity, or the direction of travel. Most of what we know of gates during OT times is derived from Nehemiah’s inspection and description of the destroyed city.

Jerusalem contained several gates during the OT period. On the eastern wall was the Fountain Gate. Just south of this gate was the Potsherd Gate, later becoming the Dung Gate. On the southwest corner was the Valley Gate. On the northern wall were the Ephraim Gate (later called “Middle Gate”) and possibly the Fish Gate.

Gates that were either associated with or near the temple were the Muster Gate, Horse Gate, Gate of the Guard, and the Water Gate (possibly also called “East Gate”), the temple gate facing the north, New Gate, Horse Gate, and the upper Benjamin Gate (also Sheep Gate?).

Josephus recounts ten gates associated with the temple: four each on the north and south and two on the east. The gate that led to the court of the women may have been the Beautiful Gate (Acts 3:2), and the gate between the court of the women and the court of Israel probably was the Nicanor Gate. The Todi Gate was on the north; the Coponius Gate (Barclay’s Gate), Wilson’s Arch, and Warren’s Gate were on the west. The south side of the Temple Mount had two large gates: the Double Gate and the Triple Gate. Josephus mentions only two city gates: the Gate of the Essenes and the Gennath Gate.

Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:1617), Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete. They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves were inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with their attempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).

In the midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways that sin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blow upon the offspring of the woman, the offspring of the woman would defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adam and Eve, covering their sin.

In one sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holy God satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationship with human beings without compromising his justice? The short answer is: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), who eventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemed them from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought them to Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated on obedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant was the sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided as a means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrifices made for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year to atone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies and sprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took a second goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness.... The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinful people, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.

During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it was revealed that he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to be the obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation (Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13; Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also the Suffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. With his justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify all who are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus Christ did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).

After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers began proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus did and calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness, they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned against them (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believers continue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal. 5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23). The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the new heaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse (Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).

As even this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesis to Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’s plot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative; it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved in order for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.

Jeremiah is a complex book with many themes. One of the central ideas, however, is covenant. The Bible often uses the idea of a covenant to describe the relationship between God and his people. A covenant is a divinely initiated and defined agreement. God makes promises and calls on his people to observe certain requirements. Research has found that the biblical covenants are close in form and concept to ancient Near Eastern treaties between the kings of superpowers and those of much less powerful nations (vassal treaties). The powerful, sovereign king announces the law to the vassal, and it is accompanied by curses and blessings. If the vassal obeys, then the king gives a reward, but if the vassal disobeys, then the king issues punishment.

There is a series of covenantal relationships between God and his people (Noah [Gen. 9]; Abraham [Gen. 12:13; 15; 17]; Moses [Exod. 19–24]; David [2Sam. 7]), but most relevant for our understanding of Jeremiah is the covenant with Moses as reaffirmed in Deuteronomy. The Mosaic covenant emphasizes law (see Deut. 5–26) and has an extensive section of curses and blessings (Deut. 27–28).

Jeremiah and many of the other prophets may be styled “lawyers of the covenant.” God sends them to his people when they disobey the law. Their job is to warn the people to change their lives and live in conformity with God’s will or else the curses of the covenant will come into effect.

Jeremiah’s oracles focus on warning the people that they are covenant breakers, particularly in the matter of worshiping false gods (Jer. 10–11). The hope is that the people will repent and thus avoid the most extreme punishment. But it is not only the judgment oracles that are related to the covenant; so too are the salvation oracles. In Jer. 31:31–34 the prophet announces that God will replace the old covenant with a new one, which will be more internal, more intense, and more intimate.

The concept of justice pervades the Bible, especially, though not exclusively, the OT. The biblical concept of justice is an embodiment of two contemporary concepts: righteousness and justice. The former designates compliance with the divine norm, while the latter emphasizes conformity to a societal standard of what is right and equitable. Focusing exclusively on the latter hinders the correct understanding of justice in the biblical sense.

The source of justice is God himself. It flows from his essential character as one who is both just and righteous, whose actions are flawless, perfect, upright, and just (Deut. 32:4; 1Sam. 12:7; 2Sam. 22:31; Job 37:23; Ps. 89:14). God is the righteous lawgiver, hence the one who establishes the norm for right conduct (Deut. 4:48; Ps. 19:7–9). He requires justice of all his creatures (cf. Gen. 9:5–6; Exod. 21:12, 28–29). God also judges righteously (Gen. 18:25; 1Kings 8:32; Ps. 9:4, 9; Jer. 9:24) and defends and vindicates the weak and oppressed (Deut. 10:18; Ps. 103:6). The responsibility of maintaining justice in the human community, however, he delegates to its leaders, such as civil magistrates or political officials, and requires them to execute this responsibility with integrity, equity, and impartiality (Deut. 1:16–17; 16:18–20; Ps. 82:2–4; Prov. 31:8–9; John 7:24; 1Pet. 2:13–14). God’s requirement of justice in the human community is not limited to its leaders only; it is incumbent upon everyone therein (Ps. 15:1–5; Mic. 6:8; Zech. 7:9; 8:17; Matt. 23:23).

A kingdom signifies the reality and extent of a king’s dominion or rule (Gen. 10:10; 20:9; Num. 32:33; 2Kings 20:13; Esther 1:22). Some kingdoms were relatively small; others were concerted attempts to gain the whole world.

A kingdom presupposes monarchy, rule by an individual, human authority. Although kings only have as much authority as their armies and the general populace allow, they nevertheless exercise an almost absolute power, which invites either profound humility or hubris. Royal arrogance, unfortunately, is the primary motif characterizing kings in the Bible (e.g., Dan.3).

God originally intended Israel to be governed as a theocracy, ruled by the one, true, living God (but see Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:1420). Israel was to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6), but the people demanded a king (1Sam. 8:1–22). However, even when God granted their request, God remained King over the king and even retained ownership of the land (Lev. 25:23, 42, 55). The Israelite king was nothing more than God’s viceroy, with delegated authority. With few exceptions, most of the kings of Israel and Judah were corrupted by authority and wealth and forgot God (1Sam. 13:13–14; 15:28; Matt. 14:6–11). But God made a covenant with David, so that one of his descendants would become a coregent in a restored theocracy, the kingdom of God (2Sam. 7:1–29; Pss. 89:3; 132:11). In contrast to David’s more immediate descendants, this coming king would return to Jerusalem humble and mounted on a donkey (Zech. 9:9; cf. Isa. 62:11). The Gospels present Jesus Christ as this king (Matt. 21:1–9 pars.). Those who are likewise humble will inherit the land with him (Matt. 5:5).

In general, Torah (Law) may be subdivided into three categories: judicial, ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlap with the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah” with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 1923) following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt, though some body of customary legislation existed before this time (Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation in other pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24, indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code of conduct and worship for Israel not only during its wilderness wanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan following the conquest.

More specifically, the word “law” often denotes the Ten Commandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “ten words”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered to Moses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandments reflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided into two parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which they were first recorded: the first four address the individual’s relationship to God, and the last six focus on instructions concerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplistic expression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelines extends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any and all incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thing forbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing the prohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice its opposite good in order to be in compliance.

God begins his creation with light, which precedes the creation of sun, moon, and stars and throughout Scripture is an unqualified good (Gen. 1:35, 15–18; Exod. 10:23; 13:21). In the ancient world, people rarely traveled at night and usually went to bed soon after sunset. The only light in the home was a small oil lamp set on a stand, which burned expensive olive oil. Light is a biblical synonym for life (Job 3:20; John 8:12). Seeing the light means living (Ps. 49:19; see also Job 33:30). Conversely, darkness is often a symbol of adversity, disaster, and death (Job 30:26; Isa. 8:22; Jer. 23:12; Lam. 3:2).

John, who offers perhaps the most profound meditations on light, claims that God is light (1John 1:5). The predicate appropriates the intrinsic beauty of light, a quality that draws people’s hearts back to the author of beauty. For the apostle, light represents truth and signifies God’s will in opposition to the deception of the world (John 1:9; 12:46). Light stands for purity and signifies God’s holiness as opposed to the unrighteousness of the world (John 3:19–21). Light is where God is, and it radiates from the place of fellowship between God and his creation (John 1:7).

Mercy is a distinguishing characteristic of the nature of God. God is called “the Father of mercies” (2Cor. 1:3 NRSV [NIV: “Father of compassion”]). God is “rich in mercy” (Eph. 2:4; cf. 2Sam. 24:14; Dan. 9:9). God’s mercy was demonstrated in his covenantal faithfulness to his people (1Kings 8:2324; Mic. 7:18–20). God redeemed the oppressed Israelites from slavery under Pharaoh because of his mercy, which was stirred when he heard their groaning and cry for help.

Jesus Christ lived a life full of mercy. He is, in a sense, the bodily manifestation of God’s mercy. Jesus expressed deep mercy whenever he saw the sick and the lost. The writers of the Gospels describe Jesus’ demonstrations of mercy when he healed the blind, the lame, the deaf, the leprous, the demon-possessed, and the dead (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 8:2; Luke 7:13; John 11:33). Jesus especially had compassion on the crowds, who did not have a spiritual leader, and he compared them to “sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).

What is the proper response to God’s mercy and compassion? God expects believers to show the same kind of mercy toward other people. One of the best examples is the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23–35).

The ancient Jewish calendar was tied to the phases of the moon, with the months beginning with each new moon. The new moon was celebrated with multiple offerings (Num. 28:1115). Festival days were calculated from the new moon.

The moon figures prominently in prophecy. At the day of the Lord, the sun and the moon will be darkened (e.g., Joel 2:10). While most ancient Near Eastern cultures worshiped the moon, Israel was forbidden such worship (Deut. 4:19).

The account of the moon’s creation recorded in Gen. 1:16 does not mention the moon by name. This is in keeping with the general tone of the creation story, wherein God, almost incidentally, creates the things that were worshiped by contemporary cultures.

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circ*mstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2Sam. 1:1727; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1Kings 18:28).

Almost all the oil to which the Bible refers is olive oil. Oil was used primarily for cooking, but also for medicinal purposes, cosmetics, lighting, and religious ceremonies.

Oil was one of the major export products of Palestine, with huge economic impact on Israel and Judah. Oil often was used as currency for other needed materials (Deut. 7:13; Neh. 5:11; Luke 16:6). For example, Elisha performed a miracle with oil to help a widow pay her debts (2Kings 4:7). Oil was kept as part of the royal stores (2Kings 20:13; 2Chron. 32:28). There are dozens of ostraca that detail the trading, bartering, and selling of oil.

Oil was one of the main ingredients for cooking. A typical meal consisted of flour pressed together with oil and fried with oil on a griddle (1Kings 17:1216). This was also the typical way in which grain offerings were made at the tabernacle and temple (Lev. 2:1, 4–7). Oil was also used in lamps because it burned cleanly and produced bright light (2Kings 4:10; Matt. 25:3–8). Lamps were used throughout the house. Small lamps, often no larger than a hand, were used to give people light when they were walking and traveling at night. In such instances, extra oil usually was carried as a reserve (Matt. 25:1–13). Both the tabernacle and the temple used olive oil to light their lamps. The finest oil was also used for sacrifices at the tabernacle (Exod. 27:20; 29:40; Lev. 24:2; Num. 28:5).

Oil was used cosmetically as well. For instance, oil was put in the hair for beauty (Eccles. 9:8). Oil was also the normal base for perfumes, mixed with a variety of spices (Esther 2:12). The tabernacle had special anointing oil that was mixed to make a perfume (Exod. 30:25). Oil was also used medicinally to help heal wounds, either by mixing it with other substances or by itself to help seal a wound (Luke 10:34). The elders of the church were commissioned to pray for and anoint the sick with oil (James 5:14).

In the OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modern ways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayer does not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer to God, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray to humans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction between the sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in the OT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, such as that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. These should be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, but rather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” in recognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. In the NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.

A presupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and may indeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is not primarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of the one praying, but rather about God changing the circ*mstances of the one praying.

The depiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of the OT, but there are important developments.

Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:1920; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26).

Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

The Holy Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we are able to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is to be done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1Cor. 14:15).

Jesus encourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke 18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).

Jesus becomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions (Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points (Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offers prayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers that are (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and not give up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overly literalized “pray without ceasing” in 1Thess. 5:17 NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb. 5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and even now, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, our intercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb. 4:14–16).

A priest is a minister of sacred things who represents God to the people and the people to God. The OT identifies priests of Yahweh and priests of other gods and idols. The only pagan priest that the NT mentions is the priest of Zeus from Lystra who wanted to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, whom the crowd mistook for deities (Acts 14:13). All other NT references build upon OT teaching about priests of Yahweh.

Early biblical history records clan heads offering sacrifices for their families (Gen. 12:78; 13:18; 22; 31:54; 46:1). Although the patriarchs performed these duties, they are never called “priests”; the only priests mentioned from this time are foreigners such as Melchizedek, the Egyptian priest of On, and Moses’ father-in-law Jethro (Gen. 14:18; 41:45, 50; 46:20; Exod. 3:1; 18:1). Whereas all Israelites could be called “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6), a distinctive priesthood came to light when God instructed Moses to prepare special priestly clothes for Aaron and his sons (Exod. 28). The high priest was distinguished from the others by more magnificent clothes. By failing to wear their special clothes while serving at the tabernacle, the priests would incur guilt and die (Exod. 28:43).

In NT times many priests exerted religious and civil power as leaders of the Sadducees and the Essenes. Some priests, such as Zechariah, were portrayed as righteous men (Luke 1:5–6). Others were said to have come to faith in Jesus (Acts 6:7). Supporting the role assigned by Moses, Jesus regularly required those whom he healed to show themselves to the priest. Even so, most Gospel references to priests underscore their opposition to Jesus’ ministry and the role they played in his trial and crucifixion. This opposition continued after the resurrection, as priests challenged the witness of the apostles. When Peter and John proclaimed that a crippled beggar had been healed by Jesus’ power, the priests and others jailed, interrogated, and forbade them from speaking in Jesus’ name (Acts 4:1–20). The Sanhedrin questioned Stephen about charges of blasphemy and speaking against the temple and the Mosaic law (6:11–7:1). Saul (Paul) received a letter of authority from the high priest to arrest Christians (9:1–2). Later, as a follower of Jesus, he stood trial before Ananias, who charged him before Felix (24:1), and a wider group of chief priests who charged him before Festus (25:1–3).

Hebrews uniquely highlights how the priesthood of Jesus surpassed the OT priesthood. The OT priests presented sin offerings, but their sacrifices needed to be repeated regularly, whereas Jesus, the faithful and merciful high priest, offered a sacrifice that never needed repeating and was available to everyone at all times. Jesus also surpassed the Aaronic priests because they first needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins, but he never sinned. Furthermore, since he offered the perfect sacrifice of himself, all people, not just priests, could draw near to God.

The NT develops the idea of a priesthood of all believers by taking the concept that Israel would be a kingdom of priests and transferring it to the church (1Pet. 2:4–9; cf. Exod. 19:6). Reflecting the general biblical view of priesthood, believers offer spiritual sacrifices to God, represent God to the world by revealing his works of salvation, and represent the world to God through prayer. In the NT, the priesthood of believers is corporate; a priestly office in the church is never expressly mentioned.

(1)A town in Benjamin (Josh. 18:25), possibly located on the site of the modern city of Er-Ram, five miles north of Jerusalem, or three miles further north at Ramallah. Ramah was located near the cities of Gibeon and Mizpah and close to the eventual border between Israel and Judah. It was a resting place on the road to the north (Judg. 19:13). The judge Deborah held court near Ramah on the road to Bethel (Judg. 4:5).

When King Baasha of Israel invaded Judah, he made Ramah his base, fortifying the city in order to control northern access to Jerusalem (1Kings 15:17). After Baasha was forced to abandon his position, King Asa of Judah dismantled the fortifications and used the materials to strengthen the cities of Geba and Mizpah (15:22). Following the return from exile, some of the Benjamites resettled in the city of Ramah (Neh. 11:33). Rachel’s tomb was said to be near Ramah, and the place is associated with her mourning for her children in Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 31:15). Some scholars believe that Ramah of Benjamin was also the birthplace of Samuel (see #2).

(2)The birthplace and burial site of Samuel (1Sam. 1:19; 25:1), also known as Ramathaim, or possibly Ramathaim Zuphim (1:1 NIV mg.), situated in the hill country of Ephraim. Ramah was Samuel’s home throughout his time as judge over Israel, and he built an altar to God there (7:17). It was at Ramah that the Israelite elders came to Samuel to demand a king (8:45). Later, when David fled from Saul’s house, he went to Ramah to take counsel from Samuel and find refuge from the king.

A payment made to redeem a slave, release a captive, or free a criminal from punishment.

In the OT, slaves could be set free by ransom (Lev. 19:20), and certain kinds of criminals are excluded from ransom (Num. 35:3132), implying that others could be ransomed to escape their punishment. Ransom is also used more broadly to include notions of atonement (Exod. 30:12) and as a near synonym for “redemption” (Jer. 31:11 NASB, NRSV, KJV). “Ransom” is frequently used metaphorically to describe God’s saving actions on behalf of the nation (Isa. 43:3; 50:2; Jer. 31:11; Hos. 13:14), saving them from their enemies, or of individuals (Job 5:20; Ps. 55:18), saving them from death. In these cases, the emphasis is on the rescue effected, not the price paid.

In the NT, “ransom” is used to describe the atoning work of Christ. Jesus describes his own purpose: “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45// Matt. 20:28). Paul uses the same language: “Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1Tim. 2:5–6). The author of Hebrews describes the effect of this ransom: “He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:15). All three references indicate that the price paid for the ransom is Jesus’ life, given up to death on the cross. Each of the literal meanings of “ransom” has its metaphorical equivalent: Christ’s death frees us from our slavery to sin and death (Rom. 6:6), releases us from our captivity to the law (7:4–6), and pays the price of the punishment that our sins deserved (3:25–26). The ransom was not paid to the devil, and it is best understood as the satisfaction of God’s own justice (Rom. 6:23).

More than a simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the grace of the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classical texts use the Greek word apolytrōsis (“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given to release a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. The group of words based on the Greek term lytron (“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. The corresponding Hebrew word padah is a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.

The experience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religious significance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included the dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:1213). Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), was redeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up to describe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continued to broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance from all Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included the whole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or the new age to come).

The NT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). When Jesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slavery of sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28// Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the cross accentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christian idea of ransom followed the accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death (Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with a ransom (Col. 1:13–14).

Although redemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future (Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions of redemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expects redemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption is universal; it restores the relationship between creation and the Creator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).

The central idea of the remnant concept or remnant theology is that in the midst of seemingly total apostasy and the consequential terrible judgment and/or destruction, God always has a small, faithful group that he delivers and works through to bring blessing.

Early allusions to the idea of a remnant are introduced in the book of Genesis. Noah and his family (Gen. 69) are the remnant that is saved during the flood, when all other people are destroyed in judgment. The remnant theme surfaces in several other places in the OT. For example, when Elijah complains to God that he is the only faithful one left, God corrects him by pointing out that he has maintained a remnant of seven thousand faithful ones in the midst of national apostasy (1Kings 19:10–18).

However, it is in the OT prophets that the remnant theme flowers into full blossom. The Hebrew words for “remnant” (she’ar, she’erit) occur over one hundred times in the prophetic books. The prophets proclaim that since Israel/Judah has broken the covenant and refuses to repent and turn back to God, judgment is coming. This judgment takes the form of terrible foreign invasions and destruction, followed by exile from the land. Thus, the northern kingdom, Israel, is destroyed and exiled by the Assyrians in 722 BC, and the southern kingdom, Judah, is destroyed and exiled by the Babylonians in 587/586 BC. Yet the prophets also prophesy hope and restoration beyond the judgment. They declare that many will be destroyed in the judgment, but not all. They prophesy that a remnant will survive, and that God will work through the remnant to bring blessings and restoration. Usually the remnant is identified as those who go into exile but who likewise hope to return to the land. The reestablishment of the remnant is often connected with the inauguration of the messianic age.

The remnant theme continues into the NT, but it is not nearly as prominent in the NT as it is in the OT prophets. The term “remnant” does not occur in the Gospels, although the idea is implied in several texts. Thus, in Matt. 7:13–14 Jesus states, “For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Likewise, in Matt. 22:14 Jesus summarizes his preceding parable by stating, “Many are invited, but few are chosen.”

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.

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.

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” (2Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “their righteousness” (1Sam. 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).

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 (1Thess. 2:10; 1Tim. 6:11; 2Tim. 2:22; 1Pet. 2:24) and is contrasted with wickedness (2Cor. 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. 57), 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).

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 (2Tim. 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; 1Pet. 3:18; 1John 2:1, 29). He fulfilled righteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating complete conformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1Pet. 3:18). He also fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his saving activity toward humans (e.g., 2Pet. 1:1).

Eden’s rivers. Genesis 2:10 14 describes the garden in Eden as the source of an unnamed river that subsequently divided into four “headwaters”: the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. This description defies any attempt to locate the purported site of Eden in terms of historical geography. The Tigris and the Euphrates do not diverge from a common source, but instead converge before emptying into the Persian Gulf. Moreover, the Gihon, if it is to be identified with the sacred spring of the same name in Jerusalem (1Kings 1:45), is several hundred miles away from the Tigris and the Euphrates. The Pishon is otherwise unknown. If, as various commentators since antiquity have suggested, the Gihon and the Pishon are to be identified with other great rivers in the same class of importance as the Tigris and the Euphrates (the Nile, the Ganges, etc.), then this would further confound any attempt to understand Gen. 2:10–14 in terms of historical geography.

The Nile River. The Nile (Heb. ye’or) is fed by two major tributaries: the White Nile, which begins at Lake Victoria, and the Blue Nile, which begins in Ethiopia. At over four thousand miles, the Nile is the longest river in the world. The ancient civilization of Egypt depended entirely on the flow of the Nile and upon its annual flood (the “gift of the Nile”) for irrigation of crops. Even today, arable land along the Nile is confined in some places to an area no more than a few miles from its banks.

Two of the plagues sent by God upon the Egyptians took place at the Nile, an appropriate setting for a confrontation between the God of Israel and the Egyptian pharaoh, himself a living representation of the Egyptian pantheon. God told Moses to confront Pharaoh at the Nile (Exod. 7:15), and the first plague with which God afflicted the Egyptians consisted of turning the Nile into blood, causing its fish to die and rendering its water unsuitable for drinking. The Egyptians were forced to dig wells along its banks (7:20–21). The second plague involved the multiplication of frogs in the Nile, to the point of great inconvenience (8:3).

Isaiah continues the theme of God punishing the Egyptians by attacking the Nile: “The waters of the river will dry up, and the riverbed will be parched and dry. The canals will stink; the streams of Egypt will dwindle and dry up. The reeds and rushes will wither, also the plants along the Nile” (Isa. 19:5–7).

The Euphrates River. The Euphrates is the westernmost of the two great rivers of Mesopotamia (along with the Tigris [see below]), the land “between the rivers.” As mentioned above, the Euphrates was one of the four rivers flowing from the garden of Eden, according to Gen. 2:14. Along the Euphrates were located the ancient cities of Carchemish, Emar (Tell Meskeneh), Mari, Babylon, and Ur. The Euphrates runs over seventeen hundred miles from northwest to southeast, beginning in the mountains of eastern Turkey before joining with the Tigris and entering the Persian Gulf.

In the Bible, the Euphrates represents the northern boundary of the territory granted to Abraham (Gen. 15:18; see also Exod. 23:31). David extended his territory as far as the Euphrates when he fought the Aramean king Hadadezer (2Sam. 8:3), and so the dimensions of Israel at its apex under Solomon are described as controlling all the kingdoms “from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt [i.e., the southern limit of his realm]” (1Kings 4:21).

The Tigris River. Along with the Euphrates, the Tigris (Heb. khiddeqel) was one of the two rivers of ancient Mesopotamia. The Tigris lies east of the Euphrates and runs over a course of approximately 1,150 miles from northwest to southeast, finally joining with the Euphrates and emptying into the Persian Gulf. In antiquity, the cities of Calah, Nineveh, and Asshur lay along the Tigris. The Tigris is mentioned twice in the Bible: first, as one of the four headwaters emanating from the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:14) and, second, as the location of Daniel’s visionary experience (Dan. 10:4).

The Jordan River. The Jordan (Heb. yarden) runs southward from the Hula Valley into the Sea of Galilee (also known as the Sea of Tiberias; modern Lake Kinneret) and from there through a river valley (the “plain of the Jordan” [see Gen. 13:10]) to the Dead Sea.

In the OT, several memorable stories are set near the Jordan. In addition to Joshua’s dramatic crossing of the Jordan (Josh. 3:1–17), the “fords of the Jordan” were strategic locations, and it was there that the Gileadites slaughtered forty-two thousand Ephraimites as they attempted to return to their territory on the western side of the Jordan (Judg. 12:5). Elisha instructed Naaman, the leprous Aramean general, to bathe seven times in the Jordan for the healing of his condition (2Kings 5:10). When Elisha’s companions wished to build shelters for themselves, they went to the Jordan, where they knew they would find abundant vegetation and poles (2Kings 6:2; cf. Zech. 11:3). When one of them dropped an iron ax head into the water, Elisha caused it to float to the surface (2Kings 6:6–7).

In the NT, the Jordan was the site of much of John the Baptist’s ministry (Matt. 3:5–6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:3). John 1:28 specifies that John was on the eastern bank (also John 3:26; 10:40). It was in the waters of the Jordan that he baptized those who came to him, including Jesus (Matt. 3:13; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21).

The wadi of Egypt. In a number of texts the “wadi of Egypt” (or “brook of Egypt”) represents the far southern limit of Israelite territory. Some ancient interpreters understood this as referring to the Pelusian branch of the Nile River delta, while most modern scholars favor the Besor River, farther east, in present-day Israel. Several biblical passages refer to the Shihor River as marking a boundary between Egypt and Israelite territory (Josh. 13:3; 19:26; 1Chron. 13:5; Isa. 23:3; Jer. 2:18).

The Orontes River. Although it is not mentioned in the Bible, the Orontes marked an important international boundary in the biblical world. The Orontes begins in the Bekaa Valley in present-day Lebanon, then flows northward between the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon mountain ranges before turning sharply westward to empty into the Mediterranean Sea. Along the Orontes lay the kingdom of Hamath (see, e.g., 2Sam. 8:9; 2Chron. 8:3; Jer. 39:5).

Samaria was the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel. After the fall of JeroboamI’s dynasty, and the rules of Baasha, Elah, and Zimri, the ruling center of the northern kingdom moved from Tirzah to Samaria during the rule of Omri (r. 882871 BC), the first king of northern Israel’s third dynasty.

Samaria remained the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel until it fell to the Assyrians under SargonII in 721 BC, when he deported most of the population to other areas of the Assyrian Empire (2Kings 17:6). According to Sargon’s annals, he improved the city and populated it with peoples deported from other countries that he had conquered. The report of the fall of Samaria in 2Kings 17:24 generally agrees with this. The populace of Samaria worshiped its own gods and the God of Israel as well.

Besides being the name of the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel, “Samaria” was a name for the northern kingdom itself. The northern kingdom was always politically and economically more prosperous than Judah.

In the NT, Samaria is the region between Galilee and Judea through which Jews avoided traveling. By this time, there had been great animosity between the Jews and Samaritans for centuries. Luke lists Samaria as one of the regions to which Jesus’ disciples would be witnesses (Acts 1:8). The archaeological ruins of Samaria lie eight miles northwest of the modern city of Nablus. The town of Sabastia is located there today. See also Samaritans.

“Salvation” is the broadest term used to refer to God’s actions to solve the plight brought about by humankind’s sinful rebellion and its consequences. It is one of the central themes of the entire Bible, running from Genesis through Revelation.

In many places in the OT, salvation refers to being rescued from physical rather than spiritual trouble. Fearing the possibility of retribution from his brother Esau, Jacob prays, “Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau” (Gen. 32:11). The actions of Joseph in Egypt saved many from famine (45:57; 47:25; 50:20). Frequently in the psalms, individuals pray for salvation from enemies that threaten one’s safety or life (Pss. 17:14; 18:3; 70:1–3; 71:1–4; 91:1–3).

Related to this usage are places where the nation of Israel and/or its king were saved from enemies. The defining example of this is the exodus, whereby God delivered his people from their enslavement to the Egyptians, culminating in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army (Exod. 14:1–23). From that point forward in the history of Israel, God repeatedly saved Israel from its enemies, whether through a judge (e.g., Judg. 2:16; 3:9), a king (2Kings 14:27), or even a shepherd boy (1Sam. 17:1–58).

But these examples of national deliverance had a profound spiritual component as well. God did not save his people from physical danger as an end in itself; it was the necessary means for his plan to save them from their sins. The OT recognizes the need for salvation from sin (Pss. 39:8; 51:14; 120:2) but, as the NT makes evident, does not provide a final solution (Heb. 9:1–10:18). One of the clearest places that physical and spiritual salvation come together is Isa. 40–55, where Judah’s exile from the land and prophesied return are seen as the physical manifestation of the much more fundamental spiritual exile that resulted from sin. To address that far greater reality, God announces the day when the Suffering Servant would once and for all take away the sins of his people (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

As in the OT, the NT has places where salvation refers to being rescued from physical difficulty. Paul, for example, speaks of being saved from various physical dangers, including execution (2Cor. 1:8–10; Phil. 1:19; 2Tim. 4:17). In the midst of a fierce storm, Jesus’ disciples cry out, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” (Matt. 8:25). But far more prominent are the places in the Gospels and Acts where physical healings are described with the verb sōzō, used to speak of salvation from sin. The healing of the woman with the hemorrhage (Mark 5:25–34), the blind man along the road (Luke 18:35–43), and even the man possessed by a demon (Luke 8:26–39), just to name a few, are described with the verb sōzō. The same verb, however, is also used to refer to Jesus forgiving someone’s sins (Luke 7:36–50) and to his mission to save the lost from their sins (Luke 19:10). Such overlap is a foretaste of the holistic salvation (physical and spiritual) that will be completed in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21–22). The NT Epistles give extensive descriptions of how the work of Jesus Christ saves his people from their sins.

Shepherds were pastoralists who herded sheep and goats for meat, milk, clothing, and sacrifices. Shepherding was an integral part of life and a potent symbol in Israelite culture, reflected in biblical portrayals of Abel (Gen. 4:2), Moses (Exod. 3:1), David (1Sam. 16:11), and Jesus (Luke 2:820; John 10:11, 14).

A shepherd could herd his or her own flock (Gen. 30:37–43). Sons (Gen. 37:2), daughters (Gen. 29:6, 9), or hirelings (Gen. 13:7; 1Sam. 25:7; Luke 17:7) could assume the task. As agriculture developed and crops were cultivated, shepherds became marginalized (note that it was the youngest son of Jesse, David, who tended the sheep [1Sam. 16:11–13]) and even despised (Gen. 46:34). Shepherds could live in villages, daily herding their flock to and from nearby arable land (Gen. 29:7–14). Once all the grazing land had been consumed, shepherds led the flock to pastureland far enough from town to prohibit daily returns. They would then live a seminomadic existence, wandering when new grazing land and water were needed (Gen. 37:12; cf. Isa. 13:20). Shepherds constructed makeshift enclosures out of available materials (stones, brush) or used a cave and remained with the flock throughout the night (Gen. 31:40; Song 1:8; Luke 2:8)

The vital role of shepherding in ancient Near Eastern culture naturally led to the metaphorical use of the term to refer to both civil authorities (Num. 27:17; 1Kings 22:17; Isa. 44:28; Ezek. 34:1–19) and deity (Gen. 48:15; 49:24; Pss. 23:1; 78:52), both in Israel and among its neighbors. Both the exodus (Exod. 15:13, 17; Ps. 78:52–55, 71–72) and the return from Babylonian exile (Ps. 44:11–23; Jer. 23:1–8; 31:8–14) are portrayed in pastoral terms as Yahweh shepherding his people to safe pasture. In the NT, Jesus called himself the “good shepherd” (John 10:1–16), and the metaphor is extended to church leaders who are to imitate the good shepherd in their provision and protection of God’s people (Acts 20:28; 1Pet. 5:1–3).

The word “star” is used in the Bible to refer to any bright point of light in the night sky; no linguistic distinction is made between stars and planets (cf. 2Pet. 1:19; Rev. 2:28; 22:16).

Stars often are used to illustrate the scope of God’s promises (Gen. 15:5; 22:17; 26:4; Deut. 10:22). They were used throughout the ancient Near East to represent the king, an association also evident in the OT (Num. 24:17; Isa. 14:12). Stars also were named, and some were objects of worship, a practice condemned in Israel (Amos 5:26; cf. Deut. 4:19). Stars were subject to study by foreign sages who sought to predict the future based on their observations, although their efficacy is denied (Isa. 47:13). Nonetheless, the arrival of the Messiah is heralded by a star in the service of its creator (Matt. 2:210). The falling (Rev. 6:13) and the darkening (Joel 2:10; 3:15) of stars are used to depict the coming of the day of the Lord in judgment.

The sun was worshiped as a god or goddess in all the nations around Israel in OT times, and the polemic against sun worship in Deut. 4:19; 17:3; Jer. 8:2; Job 31:2628 suggests that sun worship also made inroads into Israel. By way of contrast, the OT attests to the sun’s created status (Gen. 1:16) and counts it as subject to God’s control (e.g., Josh. 10:12–13).

In the OT, the sun often is associated with and symbolic of life (e.g., Eccles. 7:11; cf. Ps. 58:8) or justice (Ps. 19:6; Job 38:13; Mal. 4:2; cf. 2Sam. 23:3–4). The darkening of the sun is presented as a sign of judgment heralding the day of the Lord (Isa. 13:10; Ezek. 32:7; Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15; Amos 8:9; Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:24; Rev. 6:12; 9:2), which many associate with the darkness that fell during the crucifixion (Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44).

Water is mentioned extensively in the Bible due to its prevalence in creation and its association with life and purity. The cosmic waters of Gen. 1 are held back by the sky (Gen. 1:67; cf. Pss. 104:6, 13; 148:4). God is enthroned on these waters in his cosmic temple (Pss. 29:10; 104:3, 13; cf. Gen. 1:2; Ps. 78:69; Isa. 66:1). These same waters were released in the time of Noah (Gen. 7:10–12; Ps. 104:7–9).

Water is also an agent of life and fertility and is therefore associated with the presence of God. Both God himself and his temple are described as the source of life-giving water (Jer. 2:13; 17:13; Joel 3:18; cf. Isa. 12:2–3). Ezekiel envisions this water flowing from beneath the temple and streaming down into the Dead Sea, where it brings life and fecundity (Ezek. 47:1–12; cf. Zech. 14:8). The book of Revelation, employing the same image, describes “the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb” (22:1). This imagery is also illustrated in archaeological remains associated with temples. Cisterns are attested beneath the Dome of the Rock (presumably the location of the Jerusalem temple) and beneath the Judahite temple at Arad. Other temples, such as the Israelite high place at Tel Dan, are located close to freshwater springs. The Gihon spring in the City of David may also be associated with the Jerusalem temple (Ps. 46:4; cf. Gen. 2:13).

This OT imagery forms the background for Jesus’ teaching regarding eternal life in the writings of the apostle John. Jesus claims to be the source of living water, and he offers it freely to everyone who thirsts (John 4:10–15; 7:37; Rev. 21:6; 22:17; cf. Rev. 7:17). This water, which produces “a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (John 4:14), is the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer (John 7:38–39).

Water is also described in the Bible as an agent of cleansing. It is extensively employed in purification rituals in the OT. In the NT, the ritual of water baptism signifies the purity and new life of the believer (Matt. 3:11, 16; Mark 1:8–10; Luke 3:16; John 1:26, 31–33; 3:23; Acts 1:5; 8:36–39; 10:47; 11:16; 1Pet. 3:20–21; cf. Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22).

Finally, the NT also reveals Jesus as the Lord of water. He walks on water (Matt. 14:28–29; John 6:19), turns water into wine (John 2:7–9; 4:46), and controls water creatures (Matt. 17:27; John 21:6). Most important, Jesus commands “the winds and the water, and they obey him” (Luke 8:25; cf. Ps. 29:3).

In the OT, wisdom is a characteristic of someone who attains a high degree of knowledge, technical skill, and experience in a particular domain. It refers to the ability that certain individuals have to use good judgment in running the affairs of state (Joseph in Gen. 41:33; David in 2Sam. 14:20; Solomon in 1Kings 3:9, 12, 28). It can also refer to the navigational skills that sailors use in maneuvering a ship through difficult waters (Ps. 107:27). Furthermore, wisdom includes the particular skills of an artisan (Exod. 31:6; 35:35; 1Chron. 22:15 16). In all these cases, wisdom involves the expertise that a person acquires to accomplish a particular task. In these instances “wisdom” is an ethically neutral term, or at least that dimension is not emphasized. The wise are those who have mastered a certain skill set in their field of expertise.

The uniqueness of the OT wisdom literature (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc.) is that it highlights the moral dimension of wisdom. Here “wisdom” refers to developing expertise in negotiating the complexities of life and managing those complexities in a morally responsible way that honors God and benefits both the community and the individual. Although it is difficult to pin down a concise definition, one can gain a better understanding of wisdom by investigating two important dimensions: wisdom as a worldview, and the traits of a person who is considered to be wise.

Who is wise? First, the wise are those involved in a lifelong process of character development. They manifest the virtues of righteousness, justice, and equity (Prov. 1:3; 2:9). The embodiment of these virtues culminates in the description of the woman of noble character at the conclusion of Proverbs (31:10–31). She exhibits self-control, patience, care, diligence, discipline, humility, generosity, honesty, and fear of the Lord (cf. James 3:13–18). She is the epitome of wisdom in its maturity and the model that all should emulate.

Second, the wise know the value of words and how to use them. They know when to speak, what to say, and how to say it (Job 29:21–22; Prov. 15:23; 25:11; Eccles. 3:7; 12:9–10). Wisdom and the wise place a premium on the power of words.

Third, the wise place great importance on relationships and on interaction with others. The wise person is the one who is open to the give-and-take of relationships (Prov. 27:5–6, 17, 19). Such a person develops the humility necessary to receive correction and criticism from others. Hearing criticism and changing wrong behavior are integral to wisdom (3:1–11). The wise appreciate insightful criticism because it helps them live life more productively (15:12). Wisdom is, ultimately, relational.

Fourth, the wise person develops the art of discernment (Prov. 1:2, 4–6). The sage is equipped with the ability to think critically. The very quality of wisdom itself invites the re-forming and rethinking of ideas. Sages are not interested in pat answers (26:4–5). Proverbs 16:1–9 throws a wrench in the conventional cogs of wisdom, claiming that although humans make their plans, God has the final say. Both Job and Ecclesiastes go head to head with conventional beliefs, probing more deeply into the complexities of life and the relationship between human and divine. No easy answers exist here. In contrast, fools do not use their mental faculties. They view wisdom as a commodity, a matter of learning some techniques, accepting certain beliefs, and memorizing a few proverbs (17:16). The wise, however, know that wisdom involves the art of critical thinking and interacting with others.

Fifth, and most fundamental, the wise person takes a God-centered focus toward life. Wisdom literature affirms, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 9:10; cf. Prov. 1:7; Job 28:28; Eccles. 12:13). That this is the beginning step in the process of gaining wisdom means that one who misses this step can proceed no further along the path to wisdom. The fear of the Lord is to wisdom as the letters of the alphabet are to forming words. The wise gain wisdom by being in relationship with the Lord (Prov. 3:5–8). The fear of the Lord is the beginning as well as the culmination of wisdom.

Wisdom is a highly prized quality, superior to might and power (Prov. 25:15; Eccles. 9:13–16), and one must diligently seek it (Prov. 2:1–5). Yet in the end, wisdom is a gift that only God can give (Prov. 2:6–8; 1Kings 3:9).

In the Bible, woman is first encountered along with man in Gen. 1:2628. God created “man” in the plural, male and female, and commanded them to reproduce and to fill the earth and subdue it. Being created male and female is set in parallel to being created in the image of God. In the ancient Near East, perhaps the king would be thought of as the image of God. But in Genesis, not only is the first man the image of God, but the first woman participates in the image as well. This is all but unthinkable in the ancient world, and it suggests an unparalleled dignity and worth in womankind.

Genesis records that the human race fell through the instrumentality of a man, a woman, and the serpent. The serpent approached the woman, not the man. The woman was convinced by the serpent and ate the forbidden fruit. She gave some to her husband, who also ate it without saying a word. Thus, the woman can be blamed in part for the fall of the race. Adam was condemned because he “listened to [his] wife” (Gen. 3:17). Her judgment, for heeding the serpent, was pain in childbirth and a desire for her husband, who would rule over her (Gen. 3:16). The exact parameters of this judgment are unclear, but it appears that her desire will be for his position of leadership and will be perpetually frustrated.

Often in the Bible, women are motivated by their desire to have children. Rachel demanded of Jacob, “Give me children, or I’ll die!” (Gen. 30:1). She saw herself in competition with her sister, Leah, in this respect (30:8). The “fruit of the womb” is a reward, and like arrows, the blessed man’s quiver is full of them (Ps. 127:1–5). Note also the beatitude of Ps. 128:3: “Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table.”

In Genesis, the reproductive capability of slave girls is at the disposal of their owners. Thus, Rachel and Leah’s maidservants became surrogate mothers for a number of their sons (Gen. 30:3–10). Sarah also became frustrated at her inability to conceive, so she gave Hagar to Abraham. The result was great familial turmoil, finally resulting in the banishment of both Hagar and Ishmael, whom she bore to Abraham.

In the beginning, God joined one man and one woman together as husband and wife. But soon this idea was corrupted, and Lamech, a man from Cain’s lineage, is credited with the first polygamous marriage (Gen. 4:19). Although the patriarchs (such as Jacob) did have more than one wife, the household discontent and strife are what is highlighted in those stories, such as with Hagar. In the NT, an elder is to be, literally, a “one-woman man” (1Tim. 3:2; ESV, KJV: “the husband of one wife”), meaning monogamous.

The Torah contains significant legislation regarding women. The daughters of Zelophehad argued that their father died without sons, so in Canaan they were disinherited. God agreed and decreed that in Israel daughters would inherit land in the absence of sons. Only if there were no children at all would the land pass to other kin (Num. 27:1–11).

When a man made a vow, he must fulfill it, but a young woman’s vow was subject to her father. If he remained silent, the vow stood, but if he expressed disapproval, then she was freed from it. If she was married, her husband governed her vows, but if she was divorced, then there was no responsible male over her, and her vow was treated as a man’s (Num. 30:1–16).

Sexual intercourse was also regulated in the law of Moses, insofar as the act rendered both parties ritually impure (Lev. 15:18). Both must bathe and were unclean until evening. A woman’s menstrual discharge also made her unclean for a week. Everything she sat or lay upon was unclean, as was anyone who touched these things. She must wash and offer sacrifice to become clean again (15:18–31).

If a man discovered on his wedding night that his bride was not a virgin, he could accuse her publicly. If her parents provided evidence that she had in fact been a virgin, then the man was severely punished for lying and not allowed to divorce her (otherwise, it was simply a matter of writing a letter to divorce her [Deut. 24:1]). If her virginity could not be proved, she was to be put to death by stoning (Deut. 22:13–21).

In the case of a rape of a betrothed virgin, if it occurred in the city, both the rapist and the victim were stoned, since apparently she had failed to cry out for help and thus, the law assumed, consented to sexual intercourse. If she was raped in the countryside, only the man was killed. But if he raped a woman who was not spoken for, his punishment was that he must marry her without possibility of divorce (Deut. 22:23–29).

Numbers 5:11–31 treats cases where a husband was suspicious that his wife had been unfaithful—that is, a matter of covenantal jealousy. The unprovable was left to God to punish.

In the Bible, women sometimes are afforded dignity beyond what is expected in an ancient Near Eastern provenance. Hagar is the only woman in all ancient Near Eastern literature who gave a name to a deity (Gen. 16:13). In Judg. 4:4, Deborah “judged” Israel (despite the NIV’s “leading,” the underlying Hebrew verb indicates “judging,” as in the NRSV). Even as judge, however, she did not lead the army against the enemy general Sisera; Barak did so. But Barak was unwilling to undertake this mission unless Deborah went with him (4:8). Thus, God ensured that the prestige of killing Sisera went to a woman, Jael (4:9, 21). Another prominent woman was Huldah, to whom the priests turned for guidance when the law was rediscovered (2Kings 22:14).

Many biblical stories feature heroines. Mighty Pharaoh was undermined by two midwives in his attempt to destroy Israel (Exod. 1:15–21). Ruth the Moabite woman gave her name to the book that recounts her trek from Moab to Israel, including her famous oath of loyalty (Ruth 1:16–17). Esther too was a courageous woman whose book bears her name. Heroines are especially prominent in the Gospels, and the women there have the distinction of being the first to witness the risen Lord. Luke’s birth narrative is largely organized around Mary. Priscilla (with her husband) taught and helped to shape the early church (Acts 18:26). Paul lists many women in Rom. 16, calling them “deaconess,” “fellow worker,” and possibly even “apostle.”

Scripture also at times portrays various women as being temptations to men. Eve handed the fruit to Adam (Gen. 3:6). In the wilderness Israel worshiped Moabite gods in conjunction with sexual activity (Num. 25:1–9). Later, Israelites intermarried with Canaanite women, directly leading to worship of their idols (Judg. 3:6). Bathsheba was a temptation to David, and this began a series of events that marred his career as a man after God’s own heart. Solomon loved many foreign women, who turned him to worship their gods. After the exile, the Israelites were admonished by Nehemiah to put away their foreign wives lest history repeat itself (Neh. 13:26).

Women and marriage are used in the Bible as images for spiritual things. Paul writes that marital love mirrors the church’s relationship with Christ (Eph. 5:32–33). A man should love his wife as Christ loved the church. Revelation portrays the climax to human history in the figure of two women: the bride of Christ, adorned with righteous deeds for her husband (19:7–8), and the whor* Babylon, drunk on the blood of the saints (17:5–6). The consummation of the age is when one is judged and the other enters her eternal marital bliss.

The book of Proverbs also separates humankind into two groups, symbolized by two women. Along the path of life, the youth hears the voices of Woman Folly (9:13–18) and of Woman Wisdom (1:20–33) calling out to him. Folly is incarnated in the flesh-and-blood temptation of the immoral woman (7:6–27), whereas Woman Wisdom has her counterpart at the end of the book in the detailed description of the woman of virtue (31:10–31). There, the woman who fears God is set as a prize far above earthly wealth—the highest blessing of the wise.

Paul uses two women from sacred history to help explain his gospel of law versus grace. Hagar the slave woman represents the Mosaic covenant given at Sinai, and the earthly Jerusalem—that is, a mind-set of slavery that futilely attempts to earn God’s favor by works of the law. Sarah was the free woman, and her son was the promised son, who represents the heavenly Jerusalem, the new covenant, and freedom from the requirements of the law (Gal. 4:21–31). Again, two women symbolize two paths and two peoples—one being slaves, the other being God’s free people.

“Word” is used in the Bible to refer to the speech of God in oral, written, or incarnate form. In each of these uses, God desires to make himself known to his people. The communication of God is always personal and relational, whether he speaks to call things into existence (Gen. 1) or to address an individual directly (Gen. 2:1617; Exod. 3:14). The prophets and the apostles received the word of God (Deut. 18:14–22; John 16:13), some of which was proclaimed but not recorded. The greatest revelation in this regard is the person of Jesus Christ, who is called the “Word” of God (John 1:1, 14).

The psalmist declared God’s word to be an eternal object of hope and trust that gives light and direction (Ps. 119), and Jesus declared the word to be truth (John 17:17). The word is particularized and intimately connected with God himself by means of the key phrases “your word,” “the word of God,” “the word of the Lord,” “word about Christ,” and “the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17; Col. 3:16). Our understanding of the word is informed by a variety of terms and contexts in the canon of Scripture, a collection of which is found in Ps. 119.

The theme of the word in Ps. 119 is continued and clarified in the NT, accentuating the intimate connection between the word of God and God himself. The “Word” of God is the eternal Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; 1John 1:1–4), who took on flesh and blood so that we might see the glory of the eternal God. The sovereign glory of Christ as the Word of God is depicted in the vision of John in Rev. 19:13. As the Word of God, Jesus Christ ultimately gives us our lives (John 1:4; 6:33; 10:10), sustains our lives (John 5:24; 6:51, 54; 8:51), and ultimately renders a just judgment regarding our lives (John 5:30; 8:16, 26; 9:39; cf. Matt. 25:31–33; Heb. 4:12).

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

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

On the other hand, a display of anger may be the result of distorted perceptions or values (Gen. 4:56). A tendency to anger in oneself needs to be kept in check (James 1:19) and in others needs to be handled prudently (Prov. 15:1). Unchecked, anger may lead to violence and murder (Gen. 49:6). In several NT lists anger is associated with such other sinful behavior as quarreling, jealousy, selfishness, slander, malice, gossip, conceit, strife, idolatry, sorcery, and bitterness (2Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8).

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

Jerusalem was held by the Jebusites, who mocked David’s forces. But David captured the city, which from then on bore the title “City of David,” also called “fortress of Zion” (2Sam. 5:59). David made it his capital. Later, Solomon built the temple there, making it also the religious center of the nation (1Kings 8:1–14). “Zion” (of uncertain meaning) sometimes is a designation for the city of Jerusalem. It is said to have towers, ramparts, and citadels (Ps. 48:12–13), and Jeremiah prophesied its razing (Jer. 26:18). But it is also a designation for the mountain on which the city is built (Isa. 24:23; Zech. 8:3).

Since the God of Israel has a special relationship with Israel and its king, God’s purposes for the world often are couched in terms of Mount Zion. God set his king on Mount Zion (Ps. 2:6). The psalmist praises God, who has established Zion “forever” (Ps. 48:1–8). It is there that God is said to reign (Isa. 24:23). Nevertheless, the king on David’s throne and the inhabitants of Zion can be censured by God and found wanting (Amos 6:1). In fact, it is precisely because God identifies with the city that the people bear particular responsibility to represent his character. Thus, the time came when Zion was indeed “plowed like a field” (Mic. 3:12). Lamentations mourns Zion’s destruction numerous times. After God’s people spent a period of time in exile, God brought them back to Zion (Ps. 126). Although the ancient city was again destroyed by the Romans, Zion has become in the NT a symbol of the present heavenly dwelling place of God, entered into by faith (Heb. 12:22), and the future destiny of the saints (Rev. 14:1).

Jeremiah is the second of the Major Prophets, after Isaiahand before Ezekiel, an order determined by the chronology of thebeginning of their prophetic work. Jeremiah and Ezekiel werebasically contemporaries, but the latter began his ministry afterJeremiah. The book of Jeremiah is the longest of the prophets (21,835words), compared to Ezekiel (18,730 words) and Isaiah (16,932 words).Readers ancient and modern are attracted to the book not only by itsstirring message but also because Jeremiah is the most transparent ofall the prophetic personalities, often referred to as the WeepingProphet.

HistoricalBackground

Authorshipand date.The superscription of the book announces that it contains “thewords of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth inthe territory of Benjamin” (1:1). His prophetic ministry isthen described as taking place between the thirteenth year of KingJosiah and the eleventh year of King Zedekiah, equivalent to 626–586BC, a period of great turbulence (see next section). Chapters 40–44narrate events in the period immediately after the fall of Jerusalem.

Onthe one hand, there is no good reason to question the existence ofthe historical Jeremiah or the attribution to him of the prophecythat bears his name. On the other hand, the text indicates that thebook was not written at one sitting but rather is the product of aprocess. Chapter 36 mentions that the prophet wrote down his sermonsin 605 BC, and when King Jehoiakim burned the scroll, the narratorrelates that Jeremiah again dictated them to Baruch, who wrote themall down, and Jeremiah added many more oracles (36:32). The bookdescribes a close relationship between Jeremiah and his associateBaruch. It is possible that the stories about Jeremiah were writtendown and added by this close friend.

AncientNear Eastern historical context.When Jeremiah started his prophetic work in 626 BC, the world wasundergoing major political change. Assyria had been the dominantsuperpower for the preceding centuries. It had incorporated thenorthern kingdom of Israel into its vast empire in 722 BC, and Judahhad been forced to pay tribute. In 626 BC, however, Babylon began itsrebellion against Assyria. Nabopolassar, a Chaldean chieftain, nowking of Babylon, threw off the yoke of Assyrian bondage, and overwhat was almost two decades he eradicated Assyria and inherited theempire.

In626 BC Josiah was king of Judah. His father, Amon, and hisgrandfather Manasseh had been evil kings, promoting false worship.But Josiah served Yahweh, and soon before Jeremiah began his work,the king began to purify the religious institutions of Judah(2Chron. 34:3b–7). Jeremiah’s early ministry thenoccurred in an environment that would find support from the royalcourt. In 609 BC, however, Josiah tried to block Necho of Egypt fromreinforcing the remnants of Assyria against Babylon and in theprocess lost his life. Although the Egyptians were unsuccessful inhelping Assyria survive, they were able to exercise control overJudah and placed a pro-Egyptian king, Jehoiakim, on the throne. Evenso, by 605 BC Egypt could not stop Babylon under their new king,Nebuchadnezzar, from demanding that Judah be their vassal (Dan.1:1–3). Jehoiakim revolted against Babylon in 597 BC. By thetime the avenging Babylonian army arrived, Jehoiakim was gone,replaced by his son Jehoiachin. The latter was promptly deported toBabylon and replaced by Zedekiah. The book of Jeremiah records thatboth Jehoiakim and Zedekiah were determined opponents of the prophet.In any case, Zedekiah too eventually rebelled against Babylon, andthis time Nebuchadnezzar not only captured and exiled many leadersbut also systematically destroyed the city. He then incorporatedJudah into his empire as a province and appointed a Judean governor,Gedaliah. Jeremiah 40–44 describes how Jewish insurgentsassassinated Gedaliah and killed off the Babylonian garrison troops.Many of the remaining Jewish people then fled to Egypt against God’swill as announced by Jeremiah, who was forced to go with them.

Theseevents provide the background to the prophetic oracles and theactions narrated in the book of Jeremiah. Some of Jeremiah’swords and actions are specifically dated to these events, whileothers are not dated.

Text

Jeremiahis one of the few books of the OT that present a significanttext-critical issue. The main Hebrew text (the MT) is clearlydifferent from the Greek text. The latter is about one-eighth shorterthan the former, lacking about 2,700 words. In addition, the order ofthe book is different. The oracles against the foreign nations arechapters 46–51 in the Hebrew but are found right after 25:13 inthe Greek. The DSS attest to early Hebrew manuscripts that reflectthe Greek tradition, and therefore we cannot attribute the differenceto translation error or intentional rearrangement. A better solutionis to remember that the book of Jeremiah as we know it in the Hebrewis the result of a long history of composition. The Greek text mayreflect an earlier shorter version. The longer Hebrew text thenrepresents the final authoritative edition of the book and is rightlyused for modern translations.

LiteraryTypes

Thebook as a whole is a compendium of prophetic oracles and storiesabout Jeremiah. The following distinct literary types are found inthe book.

Poeticalprophetic oracles of judgment and salvation.Chapters 2–25 are composed primarily of poetic oracles ofjudgment directed toward God’s people. They are God’swords to his people uttered by the prophet. Chapters 46–51 arealso judgment oracles, but these are directed toward foreign nationssuch as Egypt and Babylon. Although salvation oracles are found inthe first part of the book, chapters 30–31 form a strikingcollection of such oracles, the best known of which is theanticipation of the new covenant (31:31–34).

Poeticalconfessions/laments.Jeremiah’s confessions are in the form of laments in which hecomplains about the burdens brought on by his prophetic task. Theselaments have many similarities with laments in the psalms, includingelements such as an invocation, a declaration of innocence, aninvocation against enemies, and divine response. While the lamentshave a certain ritual form, there is no good reason to deny that theyauthentically represent the emotions of the prophet. Theconfessions/laments are found in 11:18–23; 12:1–6;15:15–21; 17:14–18; 18:19–23; 20:7–17.

Proseoracles.Jeremiah’s oracles come in the form of prose as well as poetry.Similarities have been drawn between these oracles (a good example is7:1–8:3) and the theology of the book of Deuteronomy. Some wantto use this similarity to deny a connection with the historicalJeremiah, but there is no good reason to deny that Jeremiah couldreflect the theology of this foundational book.

Prosebiographical material.A significant part of the prose material may be described asbiographical, in that it relates events in Jeremiah’s life(chaps. 26–29; 34–45). These descriptions often carry aprophetic oracle. It is likely that these biographical descriptionswere written by someone other than Jeremiah (Baruch?).

Propheticsign-acts.Perhaps a special category of biographical material is thedescription of events and acts of Jeremiah’s that carryprophetic significance. A good example is 13:1–11, whichnarrates Jeremiah’s trip to the Euphrates River to bury hisdirty underwear.

Outline

I.Introduction and Jeremiah’s Call (1:1–19)

IIThe First Half of Jeremiah’s Ministry (2:1–25:14)

A Sermons, oracles, and sign-acts (2:1–24:10)

B Summary (25:1–14)

III.The Second Half of Jeremiah’s Ministry: Judgment and the Fallof Jerusalem (25:15–51:64)

A.Judgment against the nations (25:15–38)

B.Stories about Jeremiah and reports of oracles (26:1–29:32)

C.The Book of Consolation: Salvation oracles (30:1–33:26)

D.Stories about Jeremiah and oracles of judgment (34:1–38:28)

E.Account of the exile (39:1–44:30)

F.Oracle to Baruch (45:1–5)

G.Oracles against foreign nations (46:1–51:64)

IV.Epilogue (52:1–34)

Structure

Thebook of Jeremiah does not have a clearly delineated structure. Inthis respect, Jeremiah is not unique among the prophets. Nonetheless,we may still make some general observations about the shape of thebook and its large sections, even though we cannot always account forwhy one oracle follows another. When they are given chronologicalindicators, they are not arranged sequentially.

Thereare reasons to think that chapter 25 plays a pivotal role in thebook, though it may be that this was more explicit in an earlier formof the book (when the oracles against the foreign nations followedimmediately after it; cf. the Greek version). Even so, 25:1–14summarizes the message of chapters 2–24, and then 25:15–38announces judgment against the nations. Chapter 1, then, is anintroduction to the book, with its account of the prophet’scommissioning, and chapter 52 is an epilogue describing the fall ofJerusalem.

Withinthese two large sections we can recognize blocks of material. Chapter1 introduces the prophet, recounts his call, and presents two undatedoracles that serve to introduce important themes of the book.

Chapters2–24 follow as a collection of sermons, poetic and proseoracles, and prophetic sign-acts that are undated. Indeed, it isoften difficult to tell when one oracle ends and another begins. Itis likely that these are the oracles that come from the first part ofthe prophet’s ministry, that is, his first scroll, described inchapter 36.

Afterchapter 25 summarizes the first part of the book and turns attentionto the judgment against the nations, a block of prose materialfollows consisting of stories about Jeremiah as well as reports oforacles (chaps. 26–29).

Chapters30–33 are a collection of salvation oracles, a break from theheavy barrage of judgment in the book up to this point.Traditionally, these chapters are known as the Book of Consolation.Chapters 30–31 are poetic oracles, while chapters 32–33are prose.

Chapters34–38 return to prose stories about Jeremiah and oracles ofjudgment. This section culminates with the first account of the fallof Jerusalem.

Thenext section, chapters 39–44, gives the distressing account ofthe exile and the continuing failures on the part of those who stayin the land with Jeremiah. They end up in Egypt because of their lackof confidence in God’s ability to take care of them. Chapter 45is an oracle directed toward Baruch, Jeremiah’s associate.

Thebook ends with a collection of oracles against foreign nations(chaps. 46–51), culminating with a lengthy prophetic statementdirected toward Babylon. The book concludes with a second account ofthe fall of Jerusalem.

TheologicalMessage

Jeremiahis a complex book with many themes. One of the central ideas,however, is covenant. The Bible often uses the idea of a covenant todescribe the relationship between God and his people. A covenant is adivinely initiated and defined agreement. God makes promises andcalls on his people to observe certain requirements. Research hasfound that the biblical covenants are close in form and concept toancient Near Eastern treaties between the kings of superpowers andthose of much less powerful nations (vassal treaties). The powerful,sovereign king announces the law to the vassal, and it is accompaniedby curses and blessings. If the vassal obeys, then the king gives areward, but if the vassal disobeys, then the king issues punishment.

Thereis a series of covenantal relationships between God and his people(Noah [Gen. 9]; Abraham [Gen. 12:1–3; 15; 17]; Moses [Exod.19–24]; David [2Sam. 7]), but most relevant for ourunderstanding of Jeremiah is the covenant with Moses as reaffirmed inDeuteronomy. The Mosaic covenant emphasizes law (see Deut. 5–26)and has an extensive section of curses and blessings (Deut. 27–28).

Jeremiahand many of the other prophets may be styled “lawyers of thecovenant.” God sends them to his people when they disobey thelaw. Their job is to warn the people to change their lives and livein conformity with God’s will or else the curses of thecovenant will come into effect.

Jeremiah’soracles focus on warning the people that they are covenant breakers,particularly in the matter of worshipping false gods (Jer. 10–11).The hope is that the people will repent and thus avoid the mostextreme punishment. But it is not only the judgment oracles that arerelated to the covenant; so too are the salvation oracles. In Jer.31:31–34 the prophet announces that God will replace the oldcovenant with a new one, which will be more internal, more intense,and more intimate.

NewTestament Connections

Jeremiahanticipates the founding of a new and better covenant, and the NTwitnesses tothe fulfillment of this expectation. As he passedthe cup to his disciples, Jesus said, “This cup is thenewcovenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20[cf. 1Cor. 11:24–25]). The cup, representing Christ’sdeath, functions as the sign of the new covenant. The point is thatthe new covenant is founded on the death and resurrection of Christ.

Thenew covenant replaces the old. This is the argument of the book ofHebrews, which twice cites the relevant passage in Jeremiah to makethe point (Heb. 8:8–12; 10:15–17; see also 2Cor.3). According to the author of Hebrews, the old covenant failed notbecause of a defect in God or his instrument but because of thepeople (Heb. 8:8). They consistently broke that covenant bydisobeying the law explicated in the covenant with Moses. As aresult, as Jeremiah himself announced, the people would be expelledfrom the land (reversing the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant),bringing to conclusion the monarchy, which is a provision of theDavidic covenant.

The Hebrew expression “sons of God” (often translated as “children of God” in contemporary usage) is an important biblical concept and is used to describe a range of referents.

In the OT, the term is used to refer to angels (e.g., Job 1:6). They are subordinate divine beings, carrying out God’s mission on earth (Job 2:1). Compared to them, Yahweh’s incomparability is asserted in divine council (Ps. 89:6; cf. Deut. 32:8 NIV mg.). They are called upon to praise Yahweh for his creation (Ps. 29:1). They shout for joy at God’s creation (Job 38:7). In Gen. 6:2 the term refers to beings that are apparently of divine origin and to be contrasted with the “daughters of men” in that same passage. The sin mentioned in this passage refers to the cohabitation of divine beings and humans. This union is one of the impetuses for the flood, an indication of how bad things had gotten. The “order” of creation (Gen. 1), where humans are meant to be fruitful with their own kind, is here transgressed. Hence, God introduces further disorder by bringing back the waters of chaos to flood the earth.

Israel as a covenant nation is called “my son, my firstborn” by Yahweh (Exod. 4:22; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1). As son, Israel is expected to give proper reverence and honor for his father (Mal. 1:6). Although only one of many metaphors for Israel in the OT, Israel’s status as son is important for understanding the movement of the book of Exodus. Israel is to be delivered from Egyptian rule because Israel is God’s son. If Pharaoh continues to mistreat Israel, God will call judgment upon Egypt’s firstborn, as he did in the plague of death and the Red Sea incident.

Sonship is not exclusive to Israel. The Gentiles are also included in the future of God’s program (Isa. 19:25; Zech. 14:16). Likewise, in the NT all humans are God’s children (Eph. 4:6). More often, though, the term refers to those who are in Christ. The bond is spiritual, and often the concept of adoption is used (John 1:12; Rom. 9:6; Gal. 3:26; 4:5–7; 1 John 5:1). See also Sons of God

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.

Terminology

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

Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

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

Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).

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

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

Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.

Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).

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

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

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

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

Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

TheCovenant Genre

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

1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.

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

Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.

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

(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

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

(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.

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

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

4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.

Covenantsin the Bible

Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.

Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.

TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.

Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.

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

Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

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

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

Rhythmic movement of the body, usually to music. In theBible, dancing usually has some form of religious significance. ForGod’s people in the OT, dancing was a joyous experienceassociated with celebration and worship. The various words used todescribe dancing are descriptive: leaping, skipping, twisting, andwhirling. Throughout Scripture, dancing is used as a symbol ofrejoicing and as an antithesis to mourning (Ps. 30:11; Eccles. 3:4;Lam. 5:15). The sacred dances of the Hebrews expressed praise (Pss.149:3; 150:4) and joy (Exod. 15:20; Judg. 11:34; 1Sam. 18:6–7;21:11; 29:5; Ps. 30:11; Eccles. 3:4; Lam. 5:15). In ancient Jewishculture men and women danced in separate groups (Ps. 68:25; Jer.31:13). Dance performers usually were groups of women, with oneleading, on occasions of national celebration, such as after thecrossing of the Red Sea (Exod. 15:20), after military victories(1Sam. 18:6), and at religious festivals (Judg. 21:19–21).This may reveal the peculiarity of David’s conduct in dancingwith all his might as the ark of the Lord was brought to Jerusalem(2Sam. 6:14; 1Chron. 13:1–14; 15:1–29).Although dancing was reserved for occasions of religious worship andfestivity, God speaks of a time of the ultimate restoration of hispeople from despair, when he promises that all Israel will rejoice indancing (Jer. 31:4, 13).

Paganworship also included dancing. The prophets of Baal, in their attemptto implore their god to appear, performed a kind of limping dancearound Elijah’s altar on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:26).Elsewhere, Aaron and the Israelites danced before the golden calf atthe foot of Mount Sinai (Exod. 32:6, 18–19).

Dancingis also associated with pagan celebrations, as when Herodias’sdaughter danced before Herod Antipas and his dinner guests at Herod’sbirthday celebration. The result was the beheading of John theBaptist. In the manner of Greek entertainment, the dance of thisyoung daughter, who perhaps was only twelve to fourteen years old(Matt. 14:6; Mark 6:22), probably was a sensual art form, a type ofdance unheard of in Israel.

Danceis not limited to the pious, and it was found to be an integral partof everyday events of antiquity. Children danced (Job 21:11; Matt.11:16–17; Luke 7:32), as did the young women at the vineyards,some while playing their hand drums (Judg. 21:21; Jer. 31:4, 13). TheShulammite’s dance (Song 6:13) was as beautiful as two dancetroupes. Dancing is associated with family celebrations, as in thestory of the prodigal son. When the prodigal son returned home, hisexuberant father cried out, “For this son of mine was dead andis alive again; he was lost and is found,” and so “theybegan to celebrate.” The older brother heard music and dancing,which commemorated the homecoming of the prodigal son (Luke15:24–25).

Rhythmic movement of the body, usually to music. In theBible, dancing usually has some form of religious significance. ForGod’s people in the OT, dancing was a joyous experienceassociated with celebration and worship. The various words used todescribe dancing are descriptive: leaping, skipping, twisting, andwhirling. Throughout Scripture, dancing is used as a symbol ofrejoicing and as an antithesis to mourning (Ps. 30:11; Eccles. 3:4;Lam. 5:15). The sacred dances of the Hebrews expressed praise (Pss.149:3; 150:4) and joy (Exod. 15:20; Judg. 11:34; 1Sam. 18:6–7;21:11; 29:5; Ps. 30:11; Eccles. 3:4; Lam. 5:15). In ancient Jewishculture men and women danced in separate groups (Ps. 68:25; Jer.31:13). Dance performers usually were groups of women, with oneleading, on occasions of national celebration, such as after thecrossing of the Red Sea (Exod. 15:20), after military victories(1Sam. 18:6), and at religious festivals (Judg. 21:19–21).This may reveal the peculiarity of David’s conduct in dancingwith all his might as the ark of the Lord was brought to Jerusalem(2Sam. 6:14; 1Chron. 13:1–14; 15:1–29).Although dancing was reserved for occasions of religious worship andfestivity, God speaks of a time of the ultimate restoration of hispeople from despair, when he promises that all Israel will rejoice indancing (Jer. 31:4, 13).

Paganworship also included dancing. The prophets of Baal, in their attemptto implore their god to appear, performed a kind of limping dancearound Elijah’s altar on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:26).Elsewhere, Aaron and the Israelites danced before the golden calf atthe foot of Mount Sinai (Exod. 32:6, 18–19).

Dancingis also associated with pagan celebrations, as when Herodias’sdaughter danced before Herod Antipas and his dinner guests at Herod’sbirthday celebration. The result was the beheading of John theBaptist. In the manner of Greek entertainment, the dance of thisyoung daughter, who perhaps was only twelve to fourteen years old(Matt. 14:6; Mark 6:22), probably was a sensual art form, a type ofdance unheard of in Israel.

Danceis not limited to the pious, and it was found to be an integral partof everyday events of antiquity. Children danced (Job 21:11; Matt.11:16–17; Luke 7:32), as did the young women at the vineyards,some while playing their hand drums (Judg. 21:21; Jer. 31:4, 13). TheShulammite’s dance (Song 6:13) was as beautiful as two dancetroupes. Dancing is associated with family celebrations, as in thestory of the prodigal son. When the prodigal son returned home, hisexuberant father cried out, “For this son of mine was dead andis alive again; he was lost and is found,” and so “theybegan to celebrate.” The older brother heard music and dancing,which commemorated the homecoming of the prodigal son (Luke15:24–25).

Rhythmic movement of the body, usually to music. In theBible, dancing usually has some form of religious significance. ForGod’s people in the OT, dancing was a joyous experienceassociated with celebration and worship. The various words used todescribe dancing are descriptive: leaping, skipping, twisting, andwhirling. Throughout Scripture, dancing is used as a symbol ofrejoicing and as an antithesis to mourning (Ps. 30:11; Eccles. 3:4;Lam. 5:15). The sacred dances of the Hebrews expressed praise (Pss.149:3; 150:4) and joy (Exod. 15:20; Judg. 11:34; 1Sam. 18:6–7;21:11; 29:5; Ps. 30:11; Eccles. 3:4; Lam. 5:15). In ancient Jewishculture men and women danced in separate groups (Ps. 68:25; Jer.31:13). Dance performers usually were groups of women, with oneleading, on occasions of national celebration, such as after thecrossing of the Red Sea (Exod. 15:20), after military victories(1Sam. 18:6), and at religious festivals (Judg. 21:19–21).This may reveal the peculiarity of David’s conduct in dancingwith all his might as the ark of the Lord was brought to Jerusalem(2Sam. 6:14; 1Chron. 13:1–14; 15:1–29).Although dancing was reserved for occasions of religious worship andfestivity, God speaks of a time of the ultimate restoration of hispeople from despair, when he promises that all Israel will rejoice indancing (Jer. 31:4, 13).

Paganworship also included dancing. The prophets of Baal, in their attemptto implore their god to appear, performed a kind of limping dancearound Elijah’s altar on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:26).Elsewhere, Aaron and the Israelites danced before the golden calf atthe foot of Mount Sinai (Exod. 32:6, 18–19).

Dancingis also associated with pagan celebrations, as when Herodias’sdaughter danced before Herod Antipas and his dinner guests at Herod’sbirthday celebration. The result was the beheading of John theBaptist. In the manner of Greek entertainment, the dance of thisyoung daughter, who perhaps was only twelve to fourteen years old(Matt. 14:6; Mark 6:22), probably was a sensual art form, a type ofdance unheard of in Israel.

Danceis not limited to the pious, and it was found to be an integral partof everyday events of antiquity. Children danced (Job 21:11; Matt.11:16–17; Luke 7:32), as did the young women at the vineyards,some while playing their hand drums (Judg. 21:21; Jer. 31:4, 13). TheShulammite’s dance (Song 6:13) was as beautiful as two dancetroupes. Dancing is associated with family celebrations, as in thestory of the prodigal son. When the prodigal son returned home, hisexuberant father cried out, “For this son of mine was dead andis alive again; he was lost and is found,” and so “theybegan to celebrate.” The older brother heard music and dancing,which commemorated the homecoming of the prodigal son (Luke15:24–25).

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

Deuteronomy,perhaps in an effort to eliminate any misconception of God’somnipresence or in reaction to the destruction of the first temple,describes the sanctuary as the “dwelling for his Name”(Deut. 12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2; cf. 1Kings 8:29; Isa.18:2–7; Jer. 7:12), while Kings and Chronicles (1Kings8:30, 39, 43, 49; cf. 1Chron. 17:5; 2Chron. 6:21, 30, 33,39; 30:27) maintain that God’s dwelling is in heaven and not onearth. As Solomon confesses, not even the heavens can contain God,let alone a temple (1Kings 8:27; cf. Ps.74:7; Jer. 25:30). Someprophets and writings refer to Jerusalem, the location of the nowdestroyed temple, as the “dwelling of God” (e.g., Ezra7:15; Jer. 31:23; Lam. 2:6), while others prefer the “dwellingplace of God’s Name” (e.g., Neh. 1:9; Isa. 18:7).

Job’sfriend Bildad identifies the dwelling of an evil person as onecharacterized by calamities (Job 18:5–21), while Job, who wantsto make his claim of innocence to God, laments his inability tolocate God’s dwelling (23:3).

Jesusis described in John’s Gospel as the Word (logos) of God thatdwelled or “tabernacled” (skēnoō) among humans(John 1:14). Paul describes believers as groaning in waiting to beclothed with their “heavenly dwelling,” by which theyattain immortality (2Cor. 5:2–4), and says that they arebeing built into a dwelling of God’s Spirit (Eph. 2:22). Thislatter sentiment is echoed in Revelation, which says that the newcity of God will need no physical temple because God and the Lambthemselves are the temple, dwelling among the people (21:3, 22; cf.1Cor. 3:16–17).

The word “enemy” primarily translates the Hebrew word ’oyev and the Greek word echthros. The word ’oyev occurs almost three hundred times in the OT, with several uses. Other terms commonly occur in parallel with ’oyev (in the NIV, these are generally translated as “enemy”): “adversary” (tsar [Ps. 27:2; Mic. 5:9]), “foe” (tsorer [Exod. 23:22; Ps. 23:5]), “hating one” (sone’ [Deut. 30:7]), and “one rising up” (qam [Ps. 18:48; NIV: “foes”]). Saul was a personal enemy of David (1Sam. 18:29; 24:4, 19). Other pairs of enemies include David and Ish-Bosheth (2Sam. 4:8), and Ahab and Elijah (1Kings 21:20).

In most occurrences, Israel’s politico-military enemies are in view: Midianites, Assyrians, Babylonians, and often the Philistines. Periods of national peace and rest were the exception rather than commonplace (Lev. 26:6; Josh. 14:15; 2Sam. 10:19). Neighboring nations routinely harassed and oppressed Israel (Deut. 1:42; Josh. 7:8; 1Kings 8:33; Mic. 4:10). International fighting against Israel was viewed as divine judgment (Deut. 28:25–26, 31, 48, 68; Judg. 2:14). As the supreme warrior, Yahweh could crush his enemy (Exod. 15:6; cf. Isa. 1:24; Nah. 1:2). More startling are human claims that God was acting as their enemy: the captive Israel made such a claim (Jer. 30:14; Lam. 2:4–5), as did Job (Job 13:24).

The OT commonly refers to a national enemy, as does the NT (e.g., Luke 1:71: “salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us”). The NT also speaks of enemies in a more personal sense. Jesus acknowledged that believers have personal enemies (Matt. 5:44). Sinners were God’s enemies (Rom. 5:8–10), but Satan remained God’s adversary (Matt. 13:24–30; Luke 10:19).

Contrary to common uses of the word “forgiveness,”which are highly influenced by modernity’s interest inpsychology, the biblical concept identifies forgiveness as atheological issue to be understood in relational categories.Biblically speaking, to forgive is less about changing feelings(emotions) and more about an actual restoration of a relationship. Itis about making a wrong right, a process that usually is both costlyand painful. To capture the biblical sense, the English word “pardon”may prove more helpful.

Terminology

Principally,God forgives by removing the guilt from transgressors and therebyreleasing them from their deserved penalty. The OT term kipper speaksto the covering of sin (Deut. 21:8; Ps. 78:38; Jer. 18:23), and itsuse in connection with sacrifice signifies the idea of atonement.Like salakh, it communicates exclusively God’s forgiveness ofhumans (Num. 30:5; Amos 7:2). The term nasa’ refers to theremoval of guilt, God lifting the burden of sin from the sinner(Exod. 32:32; Num. 14:19), but it also can be used of forgivenessbetween humans (Gen. 50:17).

Inthe NT, verbs such as aphiēmi (noun aphesis) and apolyōconnote the idea of sending away or releasing, whereas (epi)kalyptōexpresses the idea of covering. Other terms, such as paresis(“passing over” [Rom. 3:25]) further extend the idea ofGod’s forgiveness: debt is canceled; God is exercising hisforbearing love. Paul’s preferred term is charizomai, whichunderscores the close correlation between grace and forgiveness (Rom.8:32; Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13; 3:13).

God’sForgiveness

Forgivenessexpresses the character of the merciful God, who eagerly pardonssinners who confess their sins, repent of their transgressions, andexpress this through proper actions. Forgiveness is never a matter ofa human right; it is exclusively a gracious expression of God’sloving care. Human need for forgiveness stems from actions arisingfrom their fallen nature. These actions (or nonactions), whether donedeliberately or coincidentally, destroy people’s relationshipwith God and can be restored only by God’s forgiving mercy(Eph. 2:1).

Underthe Mosaic covenant, sin placed offenders under God’s wrathamong the ungodly. Rescue from this fate could be obtained by God’sforgiveness alone, which was attained through repentance andsacrifice. Although sacrifice was necessary to express truerepentance, it is a mistake to consider it a payment that couldpurchase God’s forgiveness (1Sam. 15:22; Prov. 21:3;Eccles. 5:1; Hos. 6:6). The forgiveness of God remains his free,undeserved gift.

Althoughthe sacrificial system is done away with, or rather completed,through Christ (Heb. 10:12), NT teaching continues to recognizeconditions for forgiveness. Since forgiveness restores relationship,the offender remains involved and must desire the restoration (Luke13:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38). God does not grant his forgiveness withoutconsideration of the offending party.

Jesusexpresses this most clearly in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke15:11–24). The son rebels against his father, squanders hiswealth, and violates their relationship. The gracious and lovingfather remains willing to restore the relationship, but the reuniondoes not occur until the prodigal replaces rebellion with repentance;then, before he can even utter his sorrow, the eager father welcomeshim back to a restored relationship. God remains free to forgive ornot forgive, but sinners can rest assured of God’srelationship-restoring forgiveness when they seek it in repentance.The forgiveness that God grants is full and restores things to an “asbefore” situation (cf. Ps. 103:12; Jer. 31:34), a point thatthe older son in the parable (Luke 15:25–32), who exemplifiesreligious self-righteousness, did not comprehend.

HumanForgiveness

Thebiblical description of forgiveness between humans is rooted in thistheological understanding and articulates a clear analogy betweendivine and human forgiveness. Human relationship with God provides apattern for their relationship to each other (Matt. 5:23–24;6:12, 14–15). They forgive because they have been forgiven(Luke 7:41–47; Col. 3:13). If, or when, their forgiveness ofothers remains absent, it questions, or even jeopardizes, their ownrelationship with God (Matt. 18:22–35).

Again,since forgiveness is a theological matter, the one being wrongedremains obligated to work for the restoration of the relationshipeven if the wrongdoer does not repent. The one wronged should seek towin the offender back by showing mercy and eagerness to forgive aslearned from God (Rom. 12:19–20). There is no formula for thisGod-inspired forgiveness and no limit to its zeal. Jesus met Peter’ssuggestion that the offer of forgiveness could be exhausted with anunequivocal no (Matt. 18:21–22). The offended must offerforgiveness every time the wrongdoer asks for it (Luke 17:3–4).

Mostradical is the biblical mandate to forgive enemies. The OT oftenfollows the common ancient Near Eastern notion that enemies areexpressions of foreign deities, whom their own god(s) desires todestroy. It was therefore unimaginable that Israel (or Yahweh) shouldforgive a pagan god (e.g., Ps. 137:8–9). Jesus transforms thisthinking and makes forgiveness a Christian duty (Matt. 5:43–48;cf. Rom. 12:20).

An enclosed farming area where vegetables and fruit trees arecultivated. Vineyards, orchards, and olive groves belong to a broadercategory of the garden. Gardens in biblical times generally weresurrounded by a wall of mud-bricks or stones, along with a hedge ofthorny bushes (Prov. 24:31; Song 4:12; Isa. 5:5). A booth orwatchtower was set up to guard it from thieves and wild animals (Job27:18; Isa. 1:8; 5:2). For irrigation, water was raised from wells orbrought in through a canal system connected to rivers or springs.

Sincemost of the land of Canaan was a hilly and arid region, awell-watered garden was highly valued. Thus Balaam blesses the tentsof the Israelites to be “like gardens beside a river”(Num. 24:6–7; cf. Ps. 1:3; Jer. 17:8). Notably, in Gen. 13:10the Plain of Jordan, in its fertility from the ample water supply, islikened to two places: “the garden of the Lord” and “theland of Egypt.” The land of Egypt had developed vegetablegardens, with an irrigation system connected to the Nile (Deut.11:10; cf. Num. 11:5). The garden of the Lord, or the garden of Eden,was also such a place of fruitfulness, with rivers and fruit trees,especially the tree of life (Gen. 2:9–10).

Thegarden of Eden also carries various connotations that are developedin the rest of the Bible. It is a place secluded from the world,where nakedness is not shameful (Gen. 2:25). Song of Songs describesthe garden as a place of perfect love. It is also a meeting placebetween God and human beings (Gen. 2:16–17; 3:8–14; cf.idolatrous gardens in Isa. 1:29–31; 65:3; 66:17). Moreimportant, God is the gardener who planted it (Gen. 2:8).

Themetaphorical identification of God as the gardener is frequentlydeveloped in the OT. In Deut. 11:10–12 the land of Canaan isdescribed as a garden that God himself will take care of. Isaiahpresents Zion as the vineyard that God planted and cultivated butdecided to destroy due to its unfruitfulness (Isa. 5:1–7; cf.Jer. 12:10; Ezek. 19:10; Joel 2:3); after the time of its desolation,however, God also promises to restore and care for it (Isa. 27:2–6).Restored Zion is likened to a well-watered garden and even the gardenof Eden (Isa. 51:3; 58:11; 61:11; cf. Jer. 31:12; Ezek. 36:34–35;47:12).

Descriptionsof God as the gardener perhaps convey the conception of kingship.Gardens belonged to socially prestigious people, especially royalty,as indicated by the references to the king’s garden atJerusalem (2Kings 25:4; Jer. 39:4; 52:7; Neh. 3:15) as well asthe Persian palace garden (Esther 1:5; 7:7–8). But a royalgarden was particularly regarded as the main achievement of a king(Eccles. 2:4–6; also note the story of Naboth’s vineyardin 1Kings 21). The allusions to the garden of Eden in the tauntsongs of the kings of Tyre, Assyria, and Pharaoh (Ezek. 28:13;31:8–9, 16, 18) also support this relationship.

Metaphoricaluse of the garden continues in the NT. The people of God aredescribed as the vegetation whose fruits reveal their identities (cf.Matt. 7:16–19). The need to bear fruit is particularlyemphasized in the vineyard imagery of John 15, in which God isintroduced as a farmer, Jesus as the vine, and believers as itsbranches. Paul mentions the bearing of fruit as the goal of Christianlife (Rom. 7:4–5; Phil. 1:11; Col. 1:10), which is possiblethrough the work of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22–25). Revelation21:1–22:5 describes the new Jerusalem as a restored garden ofEden, in the midst of which a river of life, issuing from beneathGod’s throne, provides abundant water for the tree of life onboth sides.

Alsonoteworthy is the reference in the Gospel of John to the two gardens:the garden of Jesus’ arrest (18:1–11) and the garden ofJesus’ burial (19:41). Considering their location in Jerusalemand the usage of royal gardens for burial (cf. 2Kings 21:18),it seems that John mentions the gardens in order to underline Jesus’kingship, which he particularly develops in John 18–19. Mary’sperception of the risen Christ as a gardener possibly supports thisinterpretation (John 20:15).

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

Imageryof God

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

Godis compared to the father who shows compassion and love to hischildren (Ps. 103:13; Rom. 8:15). The father image is also used bythe prophets to reveal God’s creatorship (Isa. 64:8). Jesuspredominantly uses the language of “Father” in referenceto God (Mark 8:38; 13:32; 14:36), revealing his close relationshipwith the Father. God is also identified as the king of Israel evenbefore the Israelites have a human king (1Sam. 10:19).

ThePsalter exalts Yahweh as the king, acknowledging God’ssovereignty 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 theshepherd who takes care of his sheep, his people, to depict hisnature of provision and protection (Ps. 23:1–4). The image ofthe potter is also employed to describe the nature of God, whocreates his creatures according to his will (Jer. 18:6; Rom.9:20–23). In Hos. 2:4–3:5 God is identified as thelong-suffering husband of the adulterous wife Israel. In the settingof war, God is depicted as the divine warrior who fights against hisenemy (Exod. 15:3).

Godis also referred to as advocate (Isa. 1:18), judge (Gen. 18:25), andlawgiver (Deut. 5:1–22). The image of the farmer is alsofrequently adopted to describe God’s nature of compassionatecare, creation, providence, justice, redemption, sanctification, andmore (e.g., Isa. 5:1–7; John 15:1–12). God is oftenreferred to as the teacher (Exod. 4:15) who teaches what to do, asdoes the Holy Spirit in the NT (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit isidentified as the counselor, the helper, the witness, and the guide(John 14:16, 26; 15:26). God is often metaphorically compared tovarious 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 imagesin 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’sactivities. Numerous parts of the human body are used to speak ofGod: face (Num. 6:25–26), eyes (2Chron. 16:9), mouth(Deut. 8:3), ears (Neh. 1:6), nostrils (Exod. 15:8), hands (Ezra7:9), 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).

Namesand Attributes of God

TheOT refers to God by many names. One of the general terms used forGod, ’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 (“GodAlmighty”), and ’el ro’i (“the God who seesme” or “God of my seeing”). These descriptive namesreveal important attributes of God and usually were derived from thepersonal experiences of the people of God in real-life settings;thus, they do not describe an abstract concept of God.

Themost prominent personal name of God is yahweh (YHWH), which istranslated as “the Lord” in most English Bibles. At theburning bush in the wilderness of Horeb, God first revealed to Moseshis 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 Godwho was with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to Jesus’testimony, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the Godof Jacob” is identified as the God “of the living”(Matt. 22:32). Hence, the name “Yahweh” is closely tiedto God’s self-revelation as the God of presence and life. (Seealso Names of God.)

Manyof God’s attributes are summarized in Exod. 34:6–7: “TheLord, 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 leavethe guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their childrenfor the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”Below are further explanations of some of the representativeattributes of God.

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

Loveand justice.Because “God is love,” no one reaches the true knowledgeof God without having love (1John 4:8). Images of the fatherand the faithful husband are frequently employed to portray God’slove (Deut. 1:31; Jer. 31:32; Hos. 2:14–20; 11:1–4).God’s love was supremely demonstrated by the giving of his onlySon Jesus Christ for his people (John 3:16; Rom. 5:7–8; 1John4:9–10). God expects his people to follow the model of Christ’ssacrificial love (1John 3:16).

God’sjustice 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’sjustice is demonstrated in judging people according to theirdeeds—punishing wickedness and rewarding righteousness (Ezek.18:20; Ps. 58:11; Rev. 20:12–13). God establishes justice byupholding the cause of the oppressed (Ps. 103:6) and by vindicatingthose afflicted (1Sam. 25:39). God is completely impartial inimplementing justice (Job 34:18–19). As with holiness, Godrequires his people to reflect his justice (Prov. 21:3).

Godkeeps 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 oneact. Because of his love, God gave his only Son for his people;because of his justice, God punished his Son for the sake of theirsins. The good news is that God’s justice was satisfied by thework of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:25–26).

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

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

Godkeeps a perfect balance between righteousness and mercy. Hisrighteousness and mercy never infringe upon each other, nor does oneoperate at the expense of the other. God’s abundant mercy isshown to sinners through Jesus Christ, but if they do not repent oftheir sins, his righteous judgment will be brought upon them.

Faithfulness.God’s faithfulness is revealed in keeping the covenant that hemade with his people. God “is the faithful God, keeping hiscovenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him andkeep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). God is faithful to hischaracter, his name, and his word (Neh. 9:8; Ps. 106:8; 2Tim.2:13; Heb. 6:13–18). God’s faithfulness is clearly seenin fulfilling his promise (Josh. 23:14). God showed his faithfulnessby 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 thetemple that he promised to David (2Sam. 7:12–13; 1Kings8:17–21), and by sending his people into exile in Babylon andreturning them to their homeland (Jer. 25:8–11; Dan. 9:2–3).God’s faithfulness was ultimately demonstrated by sending JesusChrist, as was promised in the OT (Luke 24:44; Acts 13:32–33;1Cor. 15:3–8).

Goodness.Jesus said, “No one is good—except God alone” (Mark10:18). God demonstrates his goodness in his actions (Ps. 119:68), inhis work of creation (1Tim. 4:4), in his love (Ps. 86:5), andin his promises (Josh. 23:14–15).

Patience.God is “slow to anger” (Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18), which isa 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 (Acts13:18). Because of his patient character, he delays punishment (Isa.42:14). For instance, God was patient with his disobedient prophetJonah and also with the sinful people of Nineveh (Jon. 3:1–10).The purpose of God’s patience is to lead people towardrepentance (Rom.2:4).

Godof the Trinity

TheChristian God of the Bible is the triune God. God is one but existsin 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 Spiritis one with God (2Sam. 23:2–3). All three share the samedivine 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; 1Cor. 8:6; 2Cor.3:17–18; 2Pet. 1:1). All three share in the same work ofcreation (Gen. 1:1–3), salvation (1Pet. 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).

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

Textsthat speak of God relenting indicate that God is adopting a newcourse of action, a change of mind. In a sense, divine judgmentit*elf represents a kind of “change of mind” from God’sbasic, original intent to bless. Whereas judgment is “hisstrange work ... his alien task” (Isa. 28:21),undertaken when necessary, God’s character is to be graciousand compassionate, to relent from sending calamity (Isa. 48:9; Joel2:13), 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. Oncertain occasions, it refers to profound grief that God feels inreaction to human sin and calamity (Gen. 6:6–7; Judg. 2:18;1Sam. 15:35; 2Sam. 24:16). This is not to suggest thatGod is making amends for wrongs or has the same kinds of regret formistakes that humans have. But we should recognize that when nakhamis used to speak of God “relenting,” it means somethingmore than a change in the direction of the wind: it involves theheart of God, engaged deeply with his people’s welfare (cf.Hos. 11:8–9). Conversely, the human cry for God to relent iswrung from experiences of deep crisis (Job 6:29; Pss. 90:13;106:44–45).

Exodusand Jonah.Two classic OT narratives about divine relenting may be contrasted.In Exod. 32 the Israelites’ idolatry with the golden calf isfollowed by God’s indictment and intention to destroy them. Adramatic turning point comes with Moses’ intercession, inresponse to which God relents. The book of Jonah turns this sequenceon its head. Here the prophet resists his mission of announcingNineveh’s doom because he fears that its people may repent,which they do (Jon. 3:5–9), and that God may then relent frombringing on them the judgment that he had sent Jonah to announce,which he does (4:2). The book of Jonah portrays the prophet as anantihero, out of step with the compassion and larger purposes of God,unhappy with the freedom of God. But it preserves the link betweenhuman repentance for sin and divine relenting from previouslyannounced judgment, as seen in Exod. 32.

Theprophets.Through the OT prophets, God wrestles with Israel, announcing onecourse of action, judgment, while often holding open the possibilityof an alternate ending: if Israel repents (Jer. 18:8; 26:3, 13) or ifa prophet (Amos 7:1–6) or a king (Jer. 26:19) intercedes, thenGod may relent. At the end of the day, relenting remains a move thatGod 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).

Inthe book of Amos, God does both. Amos 1–2 comprises a cycle ofseven judgment speeches against Israel’s neighbors, culminatingin the eighth, lengthiest judgment speech against Israel. Each speechopens with the formula “For three sins of X, and for four, Iwill not turn back [my wrath].” Here God declares that he hascommitted himself to carrying out judgment. With the use of the verbshub (“to turn, turn back”), any implied question ofreprieve is answered immediately: the nation’s condemnation isirrevocable. But in 7:1–6 God is twice said to “relent”(nakham) from sending the locusts and fire that he has just shownAmos in visions. Granting stays from specific forms of punishment isnot the same as forgiving Israel’s sin, however, and thesetemporary measures are followed by a reassertion of God’sdetermination to spare Israel no longer (7:7–9). Moreover, eventhough Israel’s doom is sealed, Amos can still urge his hearersto repent and turn to God, on the grounds that God may relent—thatis, freely respond with mercy and allow some to survive the nation’sfall (5:4–6, 14–15).

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

Grace is the nucleus, the critical core element, of theredemptive and sanctifying work of the triune God detailed throughoutthe entire canon of Scripture. The variegated expressions of graceare rooted in the person and work of God, so that his graciousnessand favor effectively demonstrated in every aspect of the createdrealm glorify him as they are shared and enjoyed with one another.

Thebiblical terminology informing an understanding of grace defines itas a gift or a favorable reaction or disposition toward someone.Grace is generosity, thanks, and goodwill between humans and from Godto humans. Divine expressions of grace are loving, merciful, andeffective. The biblical texts provide a context for a more robustunderstanding of divine gift. The overall redemptive-historicalcontext of grace is the desire of the eternal God to bring glory tohimself through a grace-based relationship with his creation. TheCreator-Redeemer gives grace, and the recipients of grace give himglory.

OldTestament

Genesis.The grace of the creation narratives is summarized with the repeateduse of the term “good” (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25,31). God is good, and he made a good creation with abundant gifts forAdam and Eve to enjoy. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, herighteously judged and graciously provided for an ongoingrelationship. God clothed the naked Adam and Eve (3:21) and announcedthat the seed of the woman would yield a redeemer (3:15).

Gracein the postcreation narratives (Gen. 4–6) is focused onindividuals. God looked with favor on Abel and his offering (4:4),and Noah found grace in God’s eyes (6:8). God looked at and hadregard for the offering of Abel (Gen. 4). Jacob confessed to Esauthat God graced him with descendants and with possessions (33:5).

Graceand graciousness also characterize interaction between individuals.The Jacob and Esau exchange uses grace vocabulary for the gift andthe disposition of grace. Jacob invited Esau to accept his gift if hehad a favorable disposition toward him (Gen. 33:11). The covenant sonJoseph received favorable treatment from the prison warden because ofhis disposition toward him (39:21).

Exodus.The exodus narrative recounts how the seed of Abraham multiplies, isredeemed, and then is given the law, which defines the relationshipof God to Israel. All these events are tied to the gracious promisesthat God made to Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12; 15; 17; seealso Gen. 21; 27).

Thegrace associated with the redemption of Israel from Egypt iscelebrated in the song of Exod. 15. God’s victory over theEgyptian army and his covenant fidelity to the patriarchs are thesong’s themes. Moses and the Israelites sing because God heardIsrael’s groaning; he remembered his covenant with Abraham andlooked on Israel with concern (2:24). God made Egypt favorablydisposed toward Israel (3:21) and parted the sea for Israel to escape(11:3; 12:36). The confession “He is my God ... myfather’s God” ties together major sections of redemptivehistory and affirms the constancy of God’s grace throughout theperiods (15:2). God’s tenacious covenant loyalty (khesed) tothe nation and his covenant grace (15:13) to Israel cannot bemerited.

Thegiving of the law in Exod. 20 is prefaced by a gracious and powerfulpresentation of God to the nation in Exod. 19. In the organizationand development of Exod. 19–20, grace themes emerge. The graceassociated with redemption and covenant life is marked in Exod. 19.God took Israel from Egyptian bondage, redeemed it, and brought thenation to himself (19:4). Through this action, the nation will becomea special treasure, a holy nation, a kingdom of priests (19:5–6).In sum, Israel exists because God created, loved, and redeemed it.

Second,the Decalogue of Exod. 20 follows upon the redemption effected byGod, defining how Israel will relate to its God. In this sense, lawis viewed as a gift that expresses the divine will. When compared andcontrasted with ancient Near Eastern laws, Torah reflects the graceof God’s character and his genuine concern for the poor,slaves, aliens, and widows. In addition, there is a grace ethic thatmotivates obedience to the law. The motivational statements in theDecalogue in Exod. 20 relate to the grace of redemption (v.2),the righteousness of God (vv. 4–7), the creation work of God(vv. 8–11), and long life (v.12).

Exodus32–34 is a key passage that links the covenant with graceterminology. This section begins with the story of the golden calf(chap. 32) and ends with the account of Moses’ radiant face(34:29–35). The grace terminology is observed in 33:19; 34:6–7.The context of 33:19 involves Moses meeting with God face-to-face.According to 33:12–17, Moses wanted to know who would be leftafter the purge of 33:5. He acknowledged God’s favor in hislife and wondered who else might enjoy it. Moses reminded God thatthe nation was his people (33:13). The grace of this account is God’sassurance of his presence with Israel and the unmerited purposefulexpression of his grace.

Exodus34:6–7 employs a series of adjectives in a grace confessionalstatement. This statement arises out of God’s instructions toMoses to cut two new tablets of stone like the first ones (34:1; seealso 24:12), which were broken after the incident of the golden calf(32:19). God descended in a cloud, stood with Moses, and proclaimedhis name to him (34:5). The rhetoric of the passage emphasizes thespeech of God, who defines himself in connection with covenantmaking. God is merciful and gracious, long-suffering, anddistinguished by steadfast love.

Graceand covenant loyalty.These key passages are foundational for understanding the grace andsteadfast loyalty of God expressed in the subsequent events ofcovenant history. Grace and khesed are expressed in connection withcovenant curse implementation (Num. 14:18; Hos. 4:1; 6:4, 6), in theoverall structure of Deuteronomy (5:10; 7:9, 12), in the Davidiccovenant (2Sam. 7:15; 1Chron. 17:13), in the future hopeof Israel (Isa. 54:8), in restoration (Jer. 32:18), in the newcovenant (Jer. 31:31), and in exile (Dan. 9:4).

Toround out the OT discussion, we may note that covenant siblings wereto be gracious and loyal in their ongoing relationships with oneanother. The book of Ruth illustrates covenant grace in action (2:2,10, 13). In addition, grace is to be expressed toward the poor (Prov.28:8), the young and the old (Deut. 28:50), and those who suffer (Job19:21).

NewTestament

TheNT focus of grace is developed in keeping with the foundation laid inthe OT. The triune God is the center and source of grace: it is thegrace of God (Rom. 1:7), the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:29), and thegrace of Christ (John 1:17). The grace of God revealed in the OT isunveiled uniquely in the person and work of Christ.

TheGospel of John.The canonical development of the grace theme between the Testamentsis explained in the opening chapter of John’s Gospel. JesusChrist is the Word, who was with God, who is God, and who created theworld (John 1:1–3). Christ then became flesh and dwelled amongus (1:14). In doing so, he made known the glory of God to us. At thispoint in the development of chapter 1, John connects Christ (theWord) with the adjectives describing God in Exod. 34:6 to affirm thatChrist has the very same virtues that God has. The assertion in John1:17 that Jesus is full of grace and truth parallels the statement inExod. 34:6 of God’s steadfast love and faithfulness. In Christwe are able to see the glory that Moses hoped to see in God (John1:18). Christ is both the message and the messenger of grace andtruth.

TheEpistles and Acts.The NT Epistles develop the “full of grace and truth”statement about Christ (John 1:14) in several ways. The grace andtruth found in Christ are given to his servants (1Cor. 1:4) andare a reason for praise (2Cor. 8:9; Gal. 1:6, 15; Eph. 4:7;1Tim. 1:2; 2Tim. 2:1). This grace from Christ iseffective in bringing about redemption and sustaining a life ofgodliness. Ephesians 2:8–9 is the classic statement affirmingthat God’s favor is the source of salvation. Paul makes thispoint by repeating “it is by grace” in 2:5, 8 andclarifying the grace of salvation with the “it is the gift ofGod” statement in 2:8. This design of salvation celebrates theincomparable riches of Christ’s grace and the expression of hiskindness to us (cf. Eph. 1:7). Salvation is devoid of human merit,gifts, or favor (2:8). Keeping the law as a means of entrance into arelationship with God and as a means of gaining favor with God isantithetical to the nature of grace. God’s favor expressed topeople in salvation is an expression of his sovereign will.

Romans5 declares many of the same themes found in Eph. 2. In Rom. 5 Paulcontrasts the action and result of Adam’s transgression withthe obedience of Christ. Salvation is God’s grace and giftbrought by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ (v.15). The giftand grace of Christ brought about justification.

Theeffective operation of God’s grace in salvation is illustratedin the historical narratives of Acts. The men involved in the heateddebate of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:2) affirmed the salvation ofthe Gentiles by grace after hearing the report of Barnabas and Paul(15:12). Those in Achaia (18:27) are another illustration of aneffective operation of grace.

Thegrace of God that saves is also the grace that sanctifies. Titus 2:11declares that redemptive grace instructs the redeemed to say no to alife of ungodliness. The instructional nature of grace is highlightedin the development of the Titus 2 context. The teacher in 2:1–10,15 is Titus, who is to nurture godly people. There is a change ofinstructors in 2:11, with grace now teaching. Redemptive grace worksin harmony with sanctifying grace to provide for godly living.

Accordingto Titus 3:8, those who trust in the generosity of God’s graceshould devote themselves to doing what is good. By God’s grace,justified sinners will find their delight and satisfaction in thepromises of God for a life of persevering godliness.

Gracealso functions as an enablement for life and ministry. Paul oftenrehearses this feature of grace in his letters. In Rom. 1:5 Paultestifies about the grace associated with a commission to be anapostle. When reflecting on his role in the church, he affirms thatby God’s grace he has been able to lay a foundation (1Cor.3:10). Paul’s testimony in 1Cor. 15:10 demonstrates theessential role of grace in making him who he is and effectivelyenabling what he does. Giving is also viewed as an exercise of grace(2Cor. 8:7) reflecting the grace received by individualbelievers. This gift of grace for life and ministry is somehowrecognizable. Peter, James, and John recognized it in Paul (Gal.2:9). It was upon the apostles (Acts 4:33), and it was seen in thechurch of Antioch (11:23).

Giventhe source and the effective nature of grace, one can understand theappropriateness of appealing to grace in greetings and salutations(Rom. 1:7; 16:20; Gal. 1:3; 6:18).

Commongrace.Finally, grace does operate beyond the context of the elect and thework of salvation and sanctification. Theologians define this as“common grace.” God’s sending rain and givingcreatures intellectual and artistic abilities are expressions ofcommon grace.

The restoration to full health of one who has been ill orinjured. The Bible makes a few brief references to standard “medical”attempts to heal people. For example, Jeremiah mentions a balm ofGilead (Jer. 8:22; 46:11), and Isaiah orders a “poultice offigs” to be applied to a boil on King Hezekiah (Isa. 38:21).But medical treatment in the biblical world was primitive and oftenbased more on superstition than on understanding. Before the adventof modern medicine, most injuries and sicknesses were quite serious;treatments and therapies were rarely effective. Most of the healingmentioned in the Bible, therefore, is of a miraculous nature andassociated with divine empowerment.

OldTestament.In the OT, the occurrences of healing miracles, as well as othermiracles, are not evenly distributed throughout Israel’shistory but instead are concentrated in two time periods: that of theexodus, and that of Elijah and Elisha (1Kings 17–2Kings13). During these two eras, miracles in general, and healing inparticular, authenticated God’s prophets and leaders andauthenticated the word of God spoken by these prophets and leaders.

TheOT prophets, Jeremiah in particular, frequently use the imagery ofwounds and sickness to describe the apostasy and the terriblespiritual situation of Israel and Judah. In his first twenty-ninechapters, while Jeremiah is bemoaning the fact that the people ofJudah have turned to other gods and refuse to repent, he regularlyuses imagery of sickness and wounds. He declares that Israel/Judah iswounded and/or sick, but that there is no healing for them, onlyjudgment. He asks, for example, “Is there no balm inGilead?... Why then is there no healing for thewound of my people?” (Jer. 8:22). This theme is repeated in thebook (8:15; 10:19; 14:19; 15:18).

InJer. 30–33, however, Jeremiah turns to the glorious restorationbrought about by the coming Messiah. Part of this gloriousrestoration, Jeremiah declares, will be a drastic reversal from atime of sickness with no healing (symbolizing sin and defiance) to atime characterized by healing and health. For example, in 30:12–15God uses physical sickness and wounds in his imagery to describe theserious, incurable spiritual sickness in Jerusalem. Yet in starkcontrast to statements like these, in the passages that follow Godlooks to the messianic future and proclaims, “But I willrestore you to health and heal your wounds” (30:17). Isaiahuses similar imagery, but he expands it by adding that people willultimately be healed through the suffering and the wounds (i.e., thedeath) of the coming Messiah (Isa. 53:4–5).

NewTestament.In the Gospels, healing is a significant component of Jesus’ministry. Although the prophets used sickness/healing imageryprimarily in a metaphorical sense to describe the spiritual conditionof Israel and Judah, Jesus actually fulfills their prophecies bothfiguratively and literally. That is, not only does Jesus heal peoplespiritually, providing forgiveness and restoration to wholeness, butalso he frequently heals people physically (blindness, leprosy,paralysis, etc.), ironically fulfilling figurative prophecies in aliteral manner. The Greek word for “to save” (sōzō)can also mean “to heal,” thus adding to this dual idea ofliteral healing that is also figurative of spiritual salvation. Forexample, when Jesus turns to the bleeding woman who touches him infaith, he declares to her, “Your faith has healed [sōzō]you” (Mark 5:34). Here the word sōzō can indicateeither physical healing (her bleeding had stopped) or spiritualhealing (forgiveness of sins and deliverance from judgment).

Jesusfrequently heals people throughout his ministry here on earth. Hisacts of healing authenticate him as the fulfillment of specific OTmessianic prophecies and also highlight the fact that he comes ingreat power, a power that identifies him with the Lord, the greathealer in the OT. In addition, Jesus’ acts of healing announceand characterize the inbreaking of the kingdom of God, underscoringthat in the ultimate consummation of the kingdom all sickness (aswell as blindness, leprosy, lameness, etc.) will be eliminated. Thistheme is continued at the end of the book of Revelation as Johndepicts the tree of life growing on both sides of the river of thewater of life. The leaves from this tree, John concludes, “arefor the healing of the nations” (22:1–2).

The high priest was the leader of the Levitical clan thatoversaw Israel’s sacrificial system, whether directlyperforming sacrifices or supervising others. As no fixed terminologywas set, he could also be referred to as the anointed priest, headpriest, chief priest, or simply the priest. He was considered theholiest person in Israel, his position corresponding to the most holyplace in the tabernacle or temple, so that he was the only oneallowed behind the veil to perform sacrifices on the Day of Atonement(see Lev. 16).

TheRole of the High Priest

Israel’sfirst high priest was Moses’ brother, Aaron, who was chosen byGod and instructed in his duty. Many of the directions that hereceived were binding on every high priest who followed him. Inaddition to taking part in offering various types of sacrifices, hewas required to enter the tabernacle twice daily to burn incense andtend the lamps (Exod. 30:7–8). An added responsibility may havebeen to place twelve loaves of bread on the table in the tabernacleeach Sabbath (Lev. 24:5–8; Ezek. 44:16). Once a year, on theDay of Atonement, the high priest entered the most holy place tosprinkle the blood of a sacrificial goat on the mercy seat of the arkof the covenant, to atone for the sins of his people.

Thehigh priest needed to be particularly careful to maintain his holystatus (Lev. 21:10–15). Like other priests, he was not allowedto touch a corpse, but he alone was forbidden to enter a house wherethere was a dead body. He was not permitted to become unclean afterthe death of his mother or father or to tear his clothes as a sign ofmourning. To prevent his offspring from being defiled, he wasinstructed to marry only a virgin of his own people.

Likeall Israelite priests, the high priest was anointed for his position.This signified that he was set aside by God and empowered for histask. The high priest was distinguished from his brothers by hisspecial clothing (Exod. 28). In addition to the linen tunic, sash,and turban worn by all priests, the high priest normally wore abreastpiece, an ephod containing the Urim and Thummim, and a robe.The breastpiece was a pouch made of blue, purple, and scarlet yarnwith thin strips of gold woven into it. Attached to the ephod by fourbraided gold chains, the breastpiece was set with twelve stones, eachof which was engraved with the name of a tribe, so that the highpriest represented all of Israel before God. The Urim and Thummimwere placed in the pouch, to be used by the priest when seekingspecial direction from God.

Theephod, made of the same material as the breastpiece, was a sleevelessgarment fastened by a belt made of the same material. Two onyxstones, each engraved with the names of six of the tribes of Israel,were set in gold filigree and attached to the shoulders of the ephod.The robe, made of blue cloth and reinforced at the neck, probably wasworn under the ephod. Golden bells and pomegranates alternated aroundits hem, the bells ringing whenever the priest entered the holy placeso that he would not die. To distinguish this turban from those wornby other priests, a golden plate or rosette was attached, engraved toproclaim that the high priest was “Holy to the Lord.”

Eventhough the high priest usually wore distinctive clothing, on the Dayof Atonement, when he entered the most holy place, he wore only atunic, sash, undergarments, and turban, all made of linen. Evidently,the special clothes were not appropriate when atoning for thenation’s sins.

Thehigh priest held a hereditary office originally occupied by theeldest direct descendant of Aaron’s son Eleazar. By the time ofEli, the priesthood had evidently passed to the descendants ofIthamar. During the reign of David, both Zadok, a descendant ofEleazar, and Abiathar, a descendant of Ithamar through Eli, served aspriests. After David’s death, Solomon deposed Abiathar forsupporting Adonijah’s attempt to become king. From this timeonward, the high priesthood remained in the hands of Zadok’sdescendants, until the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes, who sold the highpriesthood to the highest bidder, no matter what his genealogicalconnections.

Thedeath of a high priest was of national significance, as it marked thebeginning of the tenure of a new high priest, who received hisfather’s special clothing. It also gave anyone who had fled toone of the six cities of refuge for unintentionally killing someonethe opportunity to return home (Num. 35:25–28). Later rabbisconcluded that the high priest’s death in some way atoned forthose who committed manslaughter.

TheHigh Priest and Political Leaders

Fromthe period of the first temple a close link was established betweenthe high priest and the king. Both were anointed to serverespectively as Israel’s chief spiritual leader and politicalleader. Kings often exerted their authority over high priests. Thus,Solomon promoted Zadok and deposed Abiathar. Similarly, King Joashinstructed Jehoiada to repair the temple. It was also possible for ahigh priest to oppose or endorse a ruler. Thus, Jehoiada both deposedAthaliah and crowned Joash as king (2Kings 11). The chiefpriest Azariah drove Uzziah out of the temple when he attempted toburn incense on his own (2Chron. 26:16–20). At the end ofthe kingdom period, when King Zedekiah was taken captive to Babylon,the high priest Seraiah, along with his chief associates, also weretaken into exile, where they were executed (2Kings 25:18–21).

Afterthe exile, when Israel had no king, the high priests gainedadditional political significance. During the Hasmonean period, theoffices of high priest and king were sometimes united in one person.Herod the Great, in Roman times, elevated and deposed high priests atwill. After his death and his son’s removal from office, highpriests were appointed by the Roman governors and functioned as theJews’ main liaison with Roman officials.

ThePriesthood and the Early Church

Inthe first century AD, the high priest was the chief social andreligious leader among the Jews, presiding over the Sanhedrin, theJewish council that tried cases concerning Jewish laws. The Greekword used in the NT for “high priest,” archiereus, oftenappears in the plural, “chief priests,” to includecurrent or former high priests and members of the priestlyaristocracy. Luke refers to Sceva, whose seven sons attempted to castout demons in the way Paul did, as a high priest. Since no list ofhigh priests contains Sceva’s name, he may have been simply amember of a priestly family or personally used the term to boost hisreligious standing (Acts 19:13–14). After the destruction ofJerusalem in AD 70, the office of high priest disappeared entirely.

Thechief priests, in association with the Sanhedrin, scribes, and/orelders, often opposed Jesus’ ministry. The final officialrejection of Jesus came when the high priest Caiaphas proclaimed thatone man should die so that the nation might not perish. By thisproclamation, he unwittingly “prophesied that Jesus would diefor the Jewish nation” and for other children of God, thusuniting them (John 11:49–52). Caiaphas later personallyinterrogated Jesus about his status as the Messiah and proclaimed himguilty of blasphemy (Mark 14:60–64).

Afterthe resurrection, high priests joined the wider priestly oppositionto the apostles. Thus, the high priest was present when the decisionwas made to silence Peter and John for proclaiming that the crippledbeggar had been healed by the power of Jesus (Acts 4:1–20). Healso took part in their subsequent arrest and questioning (5:17–28).The high priest questioned Stephen over charges that he blasphemedand spoke against the temple and Mosaic law (6:11–7:1). Paul,before his experience of the risen Christ, received letters ofauthority from the high priest to arrest Christians (9:1–2).Paul later stood trial before the high priest Ananias, who alsobrought charges against him to Felix (24:1), and then was chargedbefore Festus by a wider group of chief priests (25:1–3).

ThePriesthood of Jesus in Hebrews

Althoughother NT books imply that Jesus had a priestly ministry, the book ofHebrews alone develops the idea that Jesus not only has the right toserve as priest but also is the great high priest who replaces the OTpriesthood. It is therefore incumbent upon all to follow Christ, asthere is no other way to be forgiven of sin and come into fellowshipwith the Father. The book shows this in a number of ways, chiefly inchapters 5–10. As a descendant of Judah, Jesus did not qualifyto serve as a priest under the Aaronic order. Hebrews thereforedemonstrates that his service as a priest in the order of Melchizedekfar surpasses the Aaronic priesthood (5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17). SinceMelchizedek is greater than Abraham, as seen by the patriarchbringing tithes to the priest, and since Levi, as a descendant ofAbraham, in effect paid tithes through his ancestor, Jesus—as amember of a greater priesthood—is greater than the Aaronicpriests (7:4–10). For Jesus to serve as high priest, he had tobe “like his brothers in every way” (2:17). This requiredthat he share in their humanity by taking on flesh and blood,learning to trust God completely in life, and dying (2:14). It alsomeant that he would be tempted in every way humans are so that hecould sympathize with them (2:18). However, since he never succumbedto temptation, he could rescue people from theirsin.

Althoughno one chooses to become a priest, Aaron’s descendantsinherited their role, whereas Jesus was designated as priest by Godwith an oath (Heb. 5:10; 7:21; cf. Ps. 110:4). That God did not swearthat Aaron’s line would always be priests implies that a changewas possible. Since Jesus received his priesthood by an oath, hispriesthood is greater than the Aaronic priesthood, becomes theguarantee of the better covenant spoken of in Jer. 31, and will neverbe forfeited.

TheOT priests presented repeated offerings, and so their work could notdefinitively deal with the problem of sin. The sacrifices of theAaronic priests needed to be repeated regularly, whereas thesacrifice of Jesus did not have to be repeated. Similarly, Aaronicpriests needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins before theycould aid others. Since Jesus never sinned, he had no suchlimitation. What the priests had to do for themselves daily (Heb.7:27), and for the nation once a year, Christ did once for all (7:27;9:26, 28; 10:10, 12, 14, 18).

TheLevitical priesthood could continue only as new priests replacedthose who retired or died, but Jesus’ priesthood is eternalbecause of his eternal life. Melchizedek is used to illustrate howthis can be. But while Melchizedek remains a priest forever simplybecause the Bible does not record his genealogy or his death, Jesushas a permanent priesthood because he lives forever and because ofthe oath quoted from Ps. 110:4: “The Lord has sworn:...‘You are a priest forever’ ” (Heb. 5:6; cf.6:20; 7:3, 17;21).

Notonly is Jesus a greater priest, but also he presented a greatersacrifice at a greater, heavenly sanctuary. The Aaronic priestsserved only at a copy of this true heavenly tabernacle, which waserected by God himself (Heb. 8:2). Jesus presented not the blood ofanimals, which needed to be offered over and over, but rather theperfect sacrifice of himself, ensuring that no other sacrifice isneeded. After becoming a sacrifice, he returned to the heavenlysanctuary, where he appears forever at the right hand of God as kingand mediator. Due to Christ’s work, the most holy place is nolonger barred to all but the high priest once a year. Rather, thecurtain has been opened so that all his people can boldly draw nearto the Father. Similarly, Christ’s priestly work ensures thatthose who follow him can be effectively forgiven, purified,sanctified, and perfected.

Scopeand Uses of the Word “Hope”

Attimes simply indicating a wish (2Cor. 11:1), in the Bible theword “hope” most often designates a disposition of soul,the grounds for one’s hope, or the outcome for which one hopes.

Thosewhom God has helped and delivered expect to see God’s poweragain when future needs arise, knowing that in God there are reasonsfor hope. Mere optimism assumes that bad circ*mstances will improvewith the passing of time. In contrast, hope assumes that God isfaithful and is convinced that he is able to bring about his goodpurpose (Isa. 44:1–8). So at its core, biblical hope is hope inGod, rooted in God’s covenant faithfulness (Ps. 62:5–8;Jer. 14:8; 17:13; Rom. 4:18; 5:1–5). Hope trusts God in thepresent and lives even now on the strength of God’s futureaccomplishments (Gal. 5:5; Heb. 11:1).

Bothof the main OT words for “hope” (Heb. roots qwh and ykhl)are at times translated “wait.” By definition, hope meansthat God’s promised outcome has not arrived, and that some timewill pass before it does. But that time is filled with a sense ofwaiting on God, often with a deep ache of longing for God to act (seePss. 25:16–21; 39:4–7; Isa. 40:28–31; Lam.3:19–24).

Theinner disposition of hope may be seriously threatened by injusticeand other devastating life experiences, as reflected in Job 6:8–13;14:19; 19:10. The refrain of Pss. 42:5–6, 11; 43:5 is apsalmist’s self-exhortation to hope amid oppressive anddepressing circ*mstances: “Why, my soul, are you downcast? Whyso disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praisehim, my Savior and my God.” Words for “hope”function similarly in other psalms of lament (Pss. 9:18; 31:24; 71:5,14; cf. Mic. 7:7).

TheOT usually locates individual hope within the horizon and limits ofthis world. One hopes for outcomes that may be realized in one’sown lifetime; indeed, when life ends, hope ends (Prov. 11:7; 24:20;Eccles. 9:4; Isa. 38:18). Proverbs that mention hope regardingsomeone’s character development show an underlying concern thatGod’s purposes be vindicated in one’s life (e.g., Prov.19:18; 26:12). When used in conjunction with Israel as a whole, hopelooks to a more distant future and coming generations.

Inthe NT, hope is closely associated with Christ and his saving work.Christians now live by hope in Christ (Eph. 1:12; 1Pet. 1:3;3:15); indeed, he is “Christ Jesus our hope” (1Tim.1:1), and his future appearing is “the blessed hope”(Titus 2:13). Thus, hope refers to eschatological glory (2Cor.3:11–12; Eph. 1:18). It is “the hope of the resurrection”(Acts 23:6; cf. 24:15; 26:6–9), our transformation intoChrist’s likeness (1John 3:1–3). That expectationstimulates various hopes for God’s plans to be realized inone’s own or others’ lives (1Cor. 9:10, 13; Phil.2:19, 23; 2Tim. 2:25; 2John 12). So hope is namedrepeatedly as an essential Christian attribute (Rom. 12:12; 15:4, 13;1Cor. 13:13).

Hopeas a Biblical Theme

Withthe God of hope as its covenant Lord, hope is a defining reality forIsrael and a persistent theme in the historical books (e.g., 2Sam.23:1–7; 2Kings 25:27–30). Psalmists find hopeeither in continuity with present structures (Ps. 37) or in drasticchange (Pss. 33; 82), such as personal or corporate restoration.

Judgmentdominates the message of the preexilic prophets, although expressionsof hope are also found. But Judah’s downfall in 587/586 BCmarks a turning point in prophetic hope. While preexilic prophecybases its indictment, appeal, and warning in the exodus and thecovenant, Jeremiah and Ezekiel tend to redirect hope and expectationto a new work of salvation that God will accomplish through and afterthe judgment of exile (e.g., Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 11:16–21;cf. Isa. 43:18–19). In the wake of Judah’s destruction,these prophets grasp a remarkable new vision of grace and promise.Restoration will be personal as well as national; forgiveness of sinwill enable obedience to God’s law, now to be found written ontheir hearts.

Duringthe exile, collection of Israel’s sacred texts enabled theshattered community to sustain identity and hope. Postexilic prophecyis often “text prophecy” that arises from reflection uponand reapplication of written prophecies, psalms, and other scripturaltexts. For example, the book of Zechariah (especially chaps. 9–14)alludes to many earlier writings and also moves toward apocalypticl*terature, contributing dramatic new imagery of God’s conquestof evil to establish his cosmic reign and fulfill his covenant.Messianic hopes rose throughout this period, fueled by earlierprophecies (e.g., Isa. 9; 11; 65:17; Jer. 23:5; Mic. 5:2).

Ifthe OT gives occasional hints of an afterlife, this hope becomesmanifest in the NT (2Tim. 1:10). Jesus promises the thief onthe cross fellowship after death (Luke 23:43). For Paul, “todepart and be with Christ” is such a vivid hope that “todie is gain” (Phil. 1:21–24). Such texts imply that deathushers the believer into Christ’s presence. Yet thisintermediate state is not the whole picture. We are saved in hope ofthe redemption of our bodies (Rom. 8:23–25)—ourresurrection from the dead and entry into a new glorified, bodilyexistence (1Cor. 15; Phil. 3:20–21).

Christis judge as well as savior (Matt. 16:27; 25:31–46; Acts 17:31;Rom. 2:16), and the NT anticipates final judgment of all persons andpowers arrayed against God, including sin and death (1Cor.15:24–26; 2Thess. 1:5–10). Christian hope involvesnothing less than the return and full revelation of Jesus Christ, theresurrection of the dead, and the renewal of all creation (1Thess.4:13–18; Rev. 21–22)—the complete vindication ofGod’s rule, secured already in Christ. Then God’sredeemed people will see his face and live in his presence forever(Matt. 5:8; Jude 24; Rev. 22:4). A vision of this future enables usto press on with hope, stretching toward what is to come (Phil.3:13–14).

A large, four-legged mammal with a continuous hoof,domesticated by humans as early as the second millennium BC. Horsesappear throughout the Bible as an asset among pastoral flocks usedfor transportation and as a beast of war used to pull chariots.Horses did not hold a central place in the life of the ancient NearEast, as the ox dominated agricultural work, and the donkey wasavailable to more people. One reason for this was that a crucialpiece of technology, the stirrup, did not reach Israel’s areauntil the late seventh century AD and was entirely unknown to theancient Near East and to Greco-Roman society. Along with other usesof horses, armed cavalry was not an option, as it was easy to unseatany rider without a secure saddle. Horses were suited for pullinglight loads quickly, however, which meant that drawing the chariotwas its first natural use. Many cultures and civilizations used themin this fashion, including the Roman Empire in the time of the earlychurch. The evidence indicates that the people of Israel did notappropriate their use until around the time of the monarchy.

Horsesfirst appear in the Bible in Gen. 47:17 as a part of the livestocktraded for grain under Joseph’s supervision during a time offamine. Due to the military role of horses and the need to depend onGod alone, the king of Israel was forbidden to hold great numbers ofhorses (Deut. 17:16), and the people were commanded not to obtainhorses from the principal supplier of the time, Egypt, which happeneddespite the prohibition (2Chron. 1:16). King David firstintroduced chariots to the armies of Israel when he kept one hundredchariot horses out of a large number he had captured from the kingdomof Zobah (2Sam. 8:3–4). The use of chariots expandedunder Solomon, and he is said to have owned as many as twelvethousand chariot horses (1Kings 4:26). He also built specificchariot cities in order to solidify Israel’s defenses (1Kings10:26). This move was deeply unfaithful, however, and was denouncedby the prophets as an indulgence in pagan luxury and sinfulself-reliance. Isaiah proclaimed, “Woe to those who go down toEgypt for help, who rely on horses, who trust in the multitude oftheir chariots and in the great strength of their horsem*n, but donot ... seek help from the Lord” (Isa. 31:1). Thevery real military advantages that came from chariot warfare gaveGod’s people a reason, however false, to trust their own powerrather than the provision of God.

Agate in Jerusalem was called the Horse Gate (Neh. 3:28; Jer. 31:40),and the royal palace near the city had a gate devoted to horses(2Chron. 23:15).

Horsesare often mentioned as a literary image meant to evoke speed, energy,and strength (Ps. 20:7). Jesus’ own entry into Jerusalem was ona donkey rather than a horse, emphasizing the nonmilitary nature ofhis messiahship (Matt. 21:5). In Rev. 6:1–8 horses of differentcolors represent four judgments of God upon the earth.

The central city and capital of ancient Israel. The originalmeaning of the name probably is “founded by [the Canaanite god]Salem.” The Amarna letters refer to a Beth-Shalem, and itsfirst reference in the Bible is Salem (Gen. 14:18). Throughout itshistory, the city has also been referred to variously as Zion, Jebus,Mount Moriah, and the City of David.

Thename “Jerusalem” occurs more than 650 times in the OT,particularly in the history of Israel, and in the NT more than 140times. The OT prophets used the city as a symbol of God’sdealing with his people and his plan. Jerusalem is viewedcollectively as God’s abode, his chosen place, and hissovereignty, while its destruction is also representative of God’sjudgment on apostasy among his people (e.g., Jer. 7:1–15;26:18–19; Mic. 3:12). The rebuilding of the city represents thehope and grace of God (e.g., Isa. 40:1–2; 52:1, 7–8;60–62; Jer. 30:18–19; 31:38–39; Ezek. 5:5; Hag.2:6–8; Zech. 8:3–8). Like the writers of the OT, the NTauthors spoke of Jerusalem in metaphorical and eschatological terms.Paul used Jerusalem to contrast the old and the new covenants (Gal.4:24–26), and the writer of Hebrews used it as the place of thenew covenant, sealed through the blood of Jesus (Heb. 12:22–24).In Revelation the concept of a new Jerusalem is related to the futurekingdom of God (Rev. 3:12; 21:1–22:5).

Jerusalemis located in the Judean hill country, about 2,700 feet above sealevel. It borders the Judean desert to the east. The city expandedand contracted in size over various hills and valleys. There are twomajor ridges (Eastern and Western Hills) separated by the TyropoeonValley. The Eastern Hill contains a saddle, the Ophel Hill, and northof this is the traditional site of Mount Moriah, where later thetemple was constructed. The Eastern Hill was always occupied, sincethe only water source is the Gihon Spring, located in the KidronValley. Two other ridges were important for the city, as they wereused for extramural suburbs, cemeteries, and quarries. To the east isthe Mount of Olives, which is separated from the Eastern Hill by theKidron Valley. To the west of the Western Hill is the Central RidgeRoute, separated by the Hinnom Valley.

EarlyHistory through the United Monarchy

Theearliest occupation was near the Gihon Spring, where Chalcolithicpottery (c. 3500 BC) and structures dating to the Early Bronze Age(c. 3000–2800 BC) were found. The Bronze Age city is mentionedin the Ebla tablets, Execration texts, and the Amarna letters.Melchizedek, the king of Salem, received gifts from Abraham andblessed him (Gen. 14). Abraham was commanded to offer Isaac as asacrifice on one of the mountains of Mount Moriah (Gen. 22:2), thelocation where Solomon later built the temple (2Chron. 3:1).The Jebusite city of the Bronze Age extended over the lower part ofthe Eastern Hill for about twelve acres, with a population of aboutone thousand.

AfterJoshua made a treaty with the Gibeonites, the king of Jerusalem,Adoni-Zedek, formed a coalition of five kings to attack Gibeon.Joshua defeated this coalition and killed the kings (Josh. 10). TheCanaanite inhabitants of Jerusalem are referred to as Amorites (Josh.10:5) and as Jebusites (Judg. 1:21; 1Chron. 11:4).

WhenDavid became king over both Israel and Judah, he made Jerusalem thepolitical, spiritual, and administrative center of his kingdom.Jerusalem became synonymous with David and was called the “Cityof David.” Transferring the ark to Jerusalem made it the newreligious center for the Israelites. David conquered the Jebusitestronghold through the tsinnor, possibly a water tunnel (2Sam.5:6–8; 1Chron. 11:4–7). He took up residence in thecity and began an extensive building program, but his vision ofJerusalem as the religious center was not fully realized until hisson Solomon became king and built the temple.

Solomongreatly expanded the city by building fortifications, the temple, andthe royal palace (1Kings 7–9). This was the first initialexpansion of the city as Solomon extended the city northward alongthe Eastern Hill, up the Ophel to the site of the present-day TempleMount. This expanded the city to about thirty-two acres, with apopulation of around five thousand. During the united monarchy,Jerusalem became the center of Israelite administration and religion.All Israelites were to come to Jerusalem three times a year forreligious festivals. Solomonic Jerusalem became the foundation forthe imagery bestowed on the city by the psalms (e.g., Pss. 46; 48;76; 84; 87; 122; 125; 132). Although major excavations were carriedout in the 1980s in the City of David, little is knownarchaeologically about the city of that period.

Fromthe Divided Monarchy to the Exile

Duringthe divided monarchy, Jerusalem was attacked by foreign forces.Jerusalem was attacked by Shishak of Egypt at the end of the tenthcentury BC (1Kings 14:25–26), by Syria and northernIsrael during the ninth century BC (2Kings 12:17; 15:37), andby Sennacherib of Assyria during the seventh century BC (2Kings18:13). Several Judean kings undertook building projects. Uzziahfortified Jerusalem by adding towers to the city walls (2Chron.26:9), and Jotham built the upper gate of the temple (2Chron.27:3).

Hezekiahgreatly expanded Jerusalem. The city doubled in size during his reignas it extended to the Western Hill (Upper City). The city thenencompassed about 125 acres, with a population of about twenty-fivethousand. It had expanded due to the influx of immigrants from thenorth when the capital of Samaria fell to the Assyrians. Hezekiahreinforced the Millo, built and rebuilt walls, and erected towers ashe extended the walls to encompass the Western Hill. In preparationfor the siege by Sennacherib, he constructed an underground watersystem to bring water from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloaminside the city (2Kings 20:20; 2Chron. 32:2–4, 30;Isa. 22:11). Manasseh refortified Jerusalem with the construction ofa new outer wall (2Chron. 33:14). Jerusalem was invaded whenJehoiakim rebelled and was finally destroyed by Babylon in 586 BC.Prophets during the divided monarchy spoke of the destruction ofJerusalem, but also of its exaltation in later times (e.g., Isa.2:2–4; 24:23; Jer. 7:14; Mic. 3:12).

Archaeologicalexcavations have revealed much about Jerusalem during the time of thelater Judean kings. Several walls, towers, and fortificationsattributed to Hezekiah have been excavated in the Jewish Quarter.Hezekiah’s tunnel and the Siloam Inscription have beendiscovered, highlighting the preparations made by Hezekiah for theAssyrian siege. Several quarries and tombs have been found on theslopes of the Mount of Olives and the western slope (Ketef Hinnom) ofthe Hinnom Valley. In one of the Ketef Hinnom tombs, a silver amuletcontaining the earliest known biblical text (Num. 6:24–26) wasfound. Evidence of the Babylonian destruction was found inexcavations of the Jewish Quarter and the City of David. A group ofbullae (fired clay impressions) was found with the name of “Gemariahben-Shaphan,” probably the scribe mentioned in Jer. 36.

FromPersian to Roman Rule

Afterthe Persian conquest of Babylon (539 BC), CyrusII allowed theJews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. Judah became thePersian province Yehud, and Jerusalem was the administrative center.Nehemiah was appointed governor of Judea by Artaxerxes in 445 BC.Nehemiah undertook a hasty rebuilding project against the wishes ofthe local population (Neh. 2:19; 4:7). The rebuilt city wasconstricted to the area of the Eastern Hill, comprising some thirtyacres, with a population of about forty-five hundred.

Alexanderthe Great captured Jerusalem in 332 BC. This victory marked the endof Persian rule. Following Alexander’s death, his empire wasdivided between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria.PtolemyI captured Jerusalem in 320 BC, but the Jerusalem templecontinued to be the center of local Jewish life and administration.The Seleucids defeated the Ptolemies and annexed Palestine around201–198 BC. The city and the temple were repaired during theirreign. During this period the Jews were struggling with theacceptance of Hellenistic culture. The high priest Jason favoredHellenization and transformed Jerusalem into a Hellenistic polis (aGreek city-state). Jerusalem became known as Antiochia, and the cityexpanded to the eastern slope of the Western Hill (Upper City). Jasonbuilt a gymnasium (1Macc. 1:11–15; 2Macc. 4:9–17).The Maccabeans revolted, and AntiochusIV destroyed the walls ofJerusalem, erected a fortress (the Akra), and desecrated the temple.Judas Maccabeus liberated Jerusalem in 164 BC, and the temple waspurified and rededicated (1Macc. 4:36–55). Hasmonean rulelasted from 142 to 63 BC. Hasmonean Jerusalem occupied the Westernand Eastern Hills. The Upper City was joined to the Temple Mount byan arched bridge across the Tyropoeon Valley (Wilson’s Arch). Afortress (the Baris) was built northwest of the temple. The Romansconquered Jerusalem in 63 BC under the rule of Pompey and endedHasmonean rule.

TheTime of Jesus and the First Century AD

Jerusalemduring the time of Jesus was largely the product of Herod the Great’spolicies and building programs. Herod was a Roman vassal and broughtHellenistic culture to the city. He built an amphitheater and atheater. Jerusalem became a city divided between the wealthy of theUpper City and the poor in the Lower City. Herodian Jerusalem’spopulation was about forty thousand, and the city extended over 230acres, not including suburbs on the Mount of Olives and west of thecity. Herod’s main building activity was the complex on theTemple Mount. Herod built a massive podium over the northern summitof the Eastern Hill. This podium stood forty-five meters high abovethe bottom of the Kidron Valley. This formed a rectangular platformfor the temple that measured 144,000 square meters. Most of theretaining walls are visible today, and the best-known section is theWestern Wall. To the south of the Temple Mount complex was the RoyalStoa, and on the northwest corner was the Antonia Fortress.

Archaeologicalresearch has uncovered several components and features of NTJerusalem. The temple rituals needed large amounts of water, andHerod built an elaborate water-delivery and storage system. Remainsof both subterranean and surface aqueducts are found from theBethlehem region to Jerusalem. Large water-storage pools are stillvisible today, such as the Serpent’s Pool in the Hinnom Valley,the Pool of the Towers of Amygdalon, the Sheep Pools, the Pool ofIsrael, as well as several other unnamed reservoirs and water-storagefeatures. Several segments of the city fortification walls were foundin various archaeological excavations, as well as remains of theAntonia Fortress and Herod’s Upper Palace with its three towersand adjacent Agora. Jewish Quarter excavations have revealed severalpalatial homes with various luxury goods, evidence of the wealth ofthe Upper City. These homes contained a courtyard surrounded by roomsand reception halls; several had private ritual baths. Excavations ofthe southern wall have revealed components of the Temple Mountcomplex, most notably the southern monumental stairway with theritual-bath complex building and the two entrances that led up to theTemple Mount. Several tombs and cemeteries have also been excavatedin the environs around the city.

Mostof Jesus’ ministry was spent in Galilee. He would have come toJerusalem at least three times each year to attend the majorfestivals. Of the Gospel writers, Luke most often referred toJerusalem and the temple as he framed his account of the deeds andteachings of Jesus. Although the events of Passion Week took place inJerusalem and its environs, the Gospels emphasize the events andteachings of Jesus, not the geography.

Theearly church started in Jerusalem with the events of Pentecost.Jerusalem was the origin and the center of the early church under theleadership of James. It seemed to serve as the center of theapostles’ authority, but the missionary zeal soon shifted theministry and focus of the church to the eastern Mediterranean.Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 by the Romans under the direction ofTitus. Jerusalem has been a central place for the Christian faith,whose followers acknowledge the city as the place of the death andresurrection of Jesus. Jerusalem played a major role throughouthistory and has always been a center of pilgrimage for Christians.

The KJV translation for a young girl, an unmarried woman orvirgin, or a female servant. At least five Hebrew words are used torefer to such women. Betulah refers to an unmarried virgin or a youngwoman who has had no sexual experience (Gen. 24:16; Job 31:1; Exod.22:16–17). A man who forcefully lay with such a woman wasexpected to marry her (Deut. 22:13–19). When David was old, avirgin was found to lie at his side to keep him warm (1Kings1:2). Israel as a nation is identified as a young virgin (Jer. 31:4).The second term is ’amah, translated “bondwoman,”“maidservant,” “maid,” “bondmaid,”“servant,” or “female servant” (Gen. 20:17;Exod. 2:5). The third is shipkhah, which refers to a female slave whois of close kinship to her master (Gen. 29:24). The fourth isna’arah, which is translated “unmarried girl”(Esther 2:4 [NIV: “young woman”]) or “servant”(Esther 4:4 [NIV: “female attendant”]; Ruth 2:23). Thefifth is ’almah, which is translated “girl” (Exod.2:8), “virgin” (Isa. 7:14), or “maiden”(Prov. 30:19 [NIV: “young woman”]).

Inthe NT, several Greek words are sometimes translated as “maiden”in the KJV. Parthenos refers to a “virgin,” male orfemale (Matt. 1:23; Acts 21:9; Rev. 14:4). Pais generally means “ayoung girl,” “maiden,”or “child” (Luke 8:51, 54). Paidiskē refers to a“female slave,” “servant maid,” or “servantgirl” (Mark 14:66; Luke 12:45). The word korasion refers to a“girl” or “little girl” (Matt. 9:24–25).Nymphē refersto a “young wife” or “bride” (Luke 12:53;Rev. 21:2).

Behind the English translation “mercy” liediverse biblical words in Hebrew (khesed, khanan, rakham) and inGreek (charis, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchnon). These words are alsotranslated as “love,” “compassion,” “grace,”“favor,” “kindness,” “loving-kindness,”and so on, depending on context. Hence, a conceptual approach to themeaning of “mercy” is best.

God’sMercy

Mercyas part of God’s character.Mercy is a distinguishing characteristic of the nature of God. God iscalled “the Father of mercies” (2Cor. 1:3 NRSV[NIV: “Father of compassion”]). God is “rich inmercy” (Eph. 2:4; cf. 2Sam. 24:14; Dan. 9:9). God’smercy was demonstrated in his covenantal faithfulness to his people(1Kings 8:23–24; Mic. 7:18–20). God redeemed theoppressed Israelites from slavery under Pharaoh because of his mercy,which was stirred when he heard their groaning and cry for help.Here, the rekindling of God’s mercy toward the Israelites wasdepicted in terms of remembering his covenant with Abraham, Isaac,and Jacob (Exod. 2:23–25). Mercy is a manifestation of God’sfaithfulness to his covenant. Hence, God’s mercy to hiscovenant people never ceases (Pss. 119:132; 103:17).

Godhas absolute sovereignty in electing the people to whom he wills toshow mercy. A classic expression appears in Exod. 33:19: “Iwill have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassionon whom I will have compassion.” Paul quoted this to explainGod’s sovereignty in electing Jacob as the recipient of God’smercy (Rom. 9:13–15). God’s mercy cannot be acquired byhuman effort or desire (Rom. 9:16). God even ordered the Israelitesto show no mercy to the Canaanites because of their corruption andidolatry (Deut. 7:2).

Diverseimages are used to describe God’s mercy. God is compared to aloving father who has compassion on his children (Jer. 31:20; Mal.3:17). “As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lordhas compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed,he remembers that we are dust” (Ps. 103:13–14). God’scompassion is also compared to that of a nursing mother who feeds herbaby at her breast (Isa. 49:15). The images of the loving father andthe loving mother reflect closely the heart of God’s mercytoward his chosen people. God is especially merciful to the needy,the weak, the afflicted, and the oppressed (Exod. 2:23–24; Ps.123:2–3; Isa. 49:13; Heb. 4:16). God is called “a fatherto the fatherless” and “a defender of widows” (Ps.68:5). Sinners appeal for God’s mercy when they requestforgiveness (Ps. 51:1). “Have mercy on me” is a commonform of expression when the psalmist entreats God for his forgiveness(Pss. 41:4, 10; 51:1). God’s mercy is also shown in his act ofsalvation and blessing (Exod. 15:13; Deut. 13:17–18; Judg.2:18; Eph. 2:4–5).

God’smercy in redemptive history.Redemptive history is a successive demonstration of God’s mercytoward his chosen people. It was because of God’s mercy that hetook the initiative to save fallen human beings (Gen. 3:15). Deathwas the due penalty for Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:17), but God preachedthe good news of mercy that the descendant of the woman would somedaycrush the head of the serpent. In Rev. 20:2 that ancient serpent inthe garden of Eden is identified as “the devil, or Satan,”whose head was crushed by Jesus Christ on the cross and is bound bythe coming Messiah “for a thousand years” and will be“thrown into the lake of burning sulfur” (Rev. 20:2, 10).In spite of God’s judgment on Cain, the first murderer, Godshowed mercy by putting a mark on him so that no one would kill him(Gen. 4:15). As the psalmist later confesses, God proves himself asthe merciful God who “does not treat us as our sins deserve orrepay us according to our iniquities” (Ps. 103:10).

Noahand his family were saved from the judgment of the flood because ofGod’s special mercy toward them (Gen. 6:8). Immediately afterGod confused the languages of human beings because of their challengeto him (Gen. 11:1–9), God showed mercy on Abram, “awandering Aramean” (Deut. 26:5), and designated him to be thefather of his chosen people (Gen. 12:1–3). Jacob’selection originated solely from God’s mercy, as Paul pointedout by quoting Scripture: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”(Rom. 9:13). The exodus is also the clearest evidence of God’sdemonstration of mercy toward his chosen people (Exod. 2:23–25).They were saved not by their own righteousness but rather by God’smercy on the covenant people, who suffered under the bondage ofPharaoh’s slavery. God’s mercy reached its climax when hesent his only Son, Jesus Christ, to save sinners (Rom. 5:8). It isbecause of God’s mercy that we are saved, not because of ourrighteousness (Titus 3:5).

Christ’sMercy

JesusChrist lived a life full of mercy. He is, in a sense, the bodilymanifestation of God’s mercy. Jesus expressed deep mercywhenever he saw the sick and the lost. The writers of the Gospelsdescribe Jesus’ demonstrations of mercy when he healed theblind, the lame, the deaf, the leprous, the demon-possessed, and thedead (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 8:2; Luke7:13; John 11:33). Jesus especially had compassion on the crowds, whodid not have a spiritual leader, and he compared them to “sheepwithout a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).

Jesus’ministry of healing and evangelism was motivated by his deep mercyand compassion toward people in physical and spiritual need (Luke4:16–21; cf. Isa. 61:1–2). Whenever the sick appealed tohis mercy, Jesus never refused to dispense it to them (Matt. 15:22;17:14–18). For example, he healed the two blind men whoentreated his mercy (Matt. 20:30–34). When a leper, kneelingbefore him, entreated his mercy, Jesus touched him (risking his ownuncleanness according to the law) and healed him (Matt. 8:2–3).When a centurion asked for Jesus’ mercy on his sick servant, hewas willing to go and heal the sick man (Matt. 8:5–13). Jesus’mercy was aroused especially when he saw people crying for the dead,and even he shed tears (John 11:33–35). When Jesus saw a widowcrying for her dead son during a funeral procession, he comforted andhad compassion on her and made her son alive (Luke 7:12–15).

Accordingto Heb. 2:17–18, Jesus became “a merciful and faithfulhigh priest” to make atonement for the sins of his people. Heis also compared to the high priest who is able to sympathize withour weaknesses because he “has been tempted in every way, justas we are” (Heb. 4:15). His high priestly work on earth washighlighted in terms of his ministry of mercy toward his people. LikeGod’s mercy, Jesus’ mercy was shown in his actions ofsalvation (Luke 19:10; Eph. 5:2; 1Tim. 1:14–16; Titus3:4–7), of blessing (Mark 10:13–16), and of forgiveness(Mark 2:10; Luke 23:34). Paul’s personal experience led him toconfess, “He saved us, not because of righteous things we haddone, but because of his mercy” (Titus 3:5). Jesus’character of mercy was most vividly manifested on the cross when heprayed for the forgiveness of the crucifying soldiers and the cursingcrowds (Luke 23:33–37).

HumanResponse to God’s Mercy

Whatis the proper response to God’s mercy and compassion? Godexpects believers to show the same kind of mercy toward other people.One of the best examples is the parable of the unmerciful servant(Matt. 18:23–35). The central focus of this parable is on theunmerciful servant, to whom a tremendous mercy is shown by the king,but who refuses to show a little mercy to his fellow servant. Theparable concludes with the king’s statement that no mercy willbe shown to those who do not show mercy and forgiveness to others.Hence, a forgiving attitude is a must for believers, who havereceived immeasurable mercy from God when he forgave their sins atthe time of repentance. The Lord’s Prayer also includes thebeliever’s forgiveness of others as being inseparably linked tothe request for forgiveness from God (Matt. 6:12). Jesus affirms thisidea in a subsequent statement: “For if you forgive otherpeople when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will alsoforgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Fatherwill not forgive your sins” (6:14–15).

Mercyis one of the eight blessings in the Beatitudes: “Blessed arethe merciful, for they will be shown mercy” (Matt. 5:7). Jesus’response to the critical Pharisees reveals that our merciful lifeshould precede our religious life (9:13). According to the parable ofthe good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), the true neighbor is theone who shows mercy to the afflicted. Its conclusion, “Go anddo likewise” (10:37), requires believers to show mercy to theirsuffering neighbors. At the last judgment the righteous arecharacterized by their lives of showing mercy to the hungry, thethirsty, the stranger, the unclothed, the sick, and the imprisoned(Matt. 25:37–40). In Luke 6:36, Jesus summarizes the law ofmercy: “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”According to James, “judgment without mercy will be shown toanyone who has not been merciful”; however, “mercytriumphs over judgment” (James 2:12–13). And according tothe prophets, a merciless life is characteristic of godless people(Isa. 13:18; Jer. 6:23; 21:7; 50:42; Amos 1:11–12).

Itis by God’s mercy that believers can persevere during the timeof suffering (2Cor. 4:1). Their prayer is the channel throughwhich they draw God’s mercy. Hence, the writer of Hebrewsexhorts believers to “approach God’s throne of grace withconfidence, so that we may receive mercy” (Heb. 4:16).

In the OT, “neighbor” is derived from the verb“to associate with.” This is an important connectionbecause relationships of various kinds are central to the issue ofneighbor. Depending on the context, a neighbor can include a friend(2Sam. 13:3), a rival (1Sam. 28:17), a lover (Jer. 3:1),or a spouse (Jer. 3:20). However, “neighbor” essentiallydefines someone who lives and works nearby, those with shared ethicalresponsibilities, rather than a family member (Prov. 3:29).Eventually, “neighbor” acquired the more technicalmeaning of “covenant member” or “fellow Israelite”(=“brother” [Jer. 31:34]). The legal literatureprohibits bearing false witness against a neighbor (Deut. 5:20) aswell as coveting a neighbor’s house, animal, slave, or wife(Deut. 5:21). Fraud, stealing, or withholding from a neighbor areprohibited (Lev. 19:13; Ps. 15:3). These are the negativestipulations. The theological ethics that arise from Lev. 19 areclimactic—ethically, politically, socially, and economically.Positively, Israelites are to judge their neighbors justly (Lev.19:15), loving their neighbors as themselves (19:18). Even theresident alien is to be protected by these core moral virtues (Lev.19:33–34; cf. Exod. 12:43–49).

Whenthe NT addresses the topic, not surprisingly it is Lev. 19:18 that isroutinely cited. Asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus quotesLev. 19:18 as the horizontal counterpart to loving the Lord (Matt.19:16–30). A lawyer’s question put to Jesus, “Whois my neighbor?” elicits the parable of the good Samaritan(Luke 10:29). Jesus teaches that extending mercy is more importantthan conveniently defining “neighbor.” A neighbor wasanyone someone met in need—Jew, Gentile, or Samaritan (Luke10:25–37). Jewish law came to define “neighbor” inpurely legal terms within Judaism. Jesus addressed the limits ofone’s responsibility, challenging the particularism of Judaism,denouncing prejudiced love, and including non-Jews. Beyond “in”or “out” groups, believers are now to pray for theirenemies (Matt. 5:43–48). Mission work continues to expandsocial, political, and economic boundaries. The OT reality ofrelationships is still in force, but “neighbor” in the NTnow prioritizes fellow believers (Rom. 13:8–10; 15:2; Gal.6:10; Eph. 4:25; James 2:8).

“New” basically carries three senses in theBible: (1)the beginning of a cycle of time such as the newmoon, the beginning of the month; (2)fresh, pristine, orunused; (3)formerly unknown or recently coming into existence.Often, the latter two senses overlap and become difficult todistinguish. In certain cases the second sense is emphasized, and theactual age is not of primary concern: new grain (Lev. 23:16), newwine (Josh. 9:13), new ropes (Judg. 15:13), new cart (1Sam.6:7), new cloak (1Kings 11:29), new bowl (2Kings 2:20),and new tomb (Matt. 27:60). The third sense often is associated withthe time of final restoration: God will do a new thing (Isa. 43:19),make a new covenant (Jer. 31:31), and create a new heavens and a newearth (Isa. 65:17).

TheBible places a high priority on the new works that God accomplishes,for there is little hope that people are capable of doing anythingnew (cf. Eccles. 1:9–10). These new works are contrasted withthe old. There is continuity between them as the former establishes afoundation for the latter, but there is also discontinuity as thelatter surpasses the former. Therefore, God will make a new (better)covenant (Jer. 31:31; Heb. 8:13), a new (better) heart (Ezek. 36:26),a new (better) creation (2Cor. 5:17), and a new (better)heavens and earth (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 21:1).

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.

Terminology

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

Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

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

Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).

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

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

Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.

Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).

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

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

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

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

Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

TheCovenant Genre

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

1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.

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

Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.

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

(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

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

(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.

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

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

4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.

Covenantsin the Bible

Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.

Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.

TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.

Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.

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

Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

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

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

This Hebrew word, indicating a “high place,” isused as the name for several sites in ancient Israel. (1)Atown in Benjamin (Josh. 18:25), possibly located on the site of themodern city of Er-Ram, five miles north of Jerusalem, or three milesfarther north at Ramallah. Ramah was located near the cities ofGibeon and Mizpah and close to the eventual border between Israel andJudah. It was a resting place on the road to the north (Judg. 19:13).The judge Deborah held court near Ramah on the road to Bethel (Judg.4:5).

WhenKing Baasha of Israel invaded Judah, he made Ramah his base,fortifying the city in order to control northern access to Jerusalem(1Kings 15:17). After Baasha was forced to abandon hisposition, King Asa of Judah dismantled the fortifications and usedthe materials to strengthen the cities of Geba and Mizpah (15:22).Following the return from exile, some of the Benjamites resettled inthe city of Ramah (Neh. 11:33). Rachel’s tomb was said to benear Ramah, and the place is associated with her mourning for herchildren in Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 31:15). Some scholarsbelieve that Ramah of Benjamin was also the birthplace of Samuel (see#2).

(2)Thebirthplace and burial site of Samuel (1Sam. 1:19; 25:1), alsoknown as Ramathaim, or possibly Ramathaim Zuphim (1:1 NIV mg.),situated in the hill country of Ephraim. Ramah was Samuel’shome throughout his time as judge over Israel, and he built an altarto God there (7:17). It was at Ramah that the Israelite elders cameto Samuel to demand a king (8:4–5). Later, when David fled fromSaul’s house, he went to Ramah to take counsel from Samuel andfind refuge from the king.

Thelocation of Ramah is uncertain. The difficulty with identifying it asRamah of Benjamin (see above) is the link with the territory ofEphraim (1Sam. 1:1), though both Er-Ram and Ramallah arepossible sites. Another suggested location is Beit Ramah, which is inthe mountains of Ephraim, about eleven miles northwest of Bethel,though the distance from Saul’s home in Gibeah (sixteen miles)casts some doubt on this (see 9:1–6).

(3)Atown on the boundary of Asher (Josh. 19:29). (4)Awalled town in Naphtali (Josh. 19:36). (5)Atown of Simeon (Josh. 19:8; 1Sam. 30:27). (6)Analternative name for Ramoth-Gilead (2Kings 8:28–29;2Chron. 22:5–6).

A payment made to redeem a slave, release a captive, or freea criminal from punishment.

Inthe OT, slaves could be set free by ransom (Lev. 19:20), and certainkinds of criminals are excluded from ransom (Num. 35:31–32),implying that others could be ransomed to escape their punishment.Ransom is also used more broadly to include notions of atonement(Exod. 30:12) and as a near synonym for “redemption”(Jer. 31:11 NASB, NRSV, KJV). “Ransom” is frequently usedmetaphorically to describe God’s saving actions on behalf ofthe nation (Isa. 43:3; 50:2; Jer. 31:11; Hos. 13:14), saving themfrom their enemies, or of individuals (Job 5:20; Ps. 55:18), savingthem from death. In these cases, the emphasis is on the rescueeffected, not the price paid.

Inthe NT, “ransom” is used to describe the atoning work ofChrist. Jesus describes his own purpose: “The Son of Man didnot come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransomfor many” (Mark 10:45// Matt. 20:28). Paul uses the samelanguage: “Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for allpeople” (1Tim. 2:5–6). The author of Hebrewsdescribes the effect of this ransom: “He has died as a ransomto set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant”(Heb. 9:15). All three references indicate that the price paid forthe ransom is Jesus’ life, given up to death on the cross. Eachof the literal meanings of “ransom” has its metaphoricalequivalent: Christ’s death frees us from our slavery to sin anddeath (Rom. 6:6), releases us from our captivity to the law (7:4–6),and pays the price of the punishment that our sins deserved(3:25–26). The ransom was not paid to the devil, and it is bestunderstood as the satisfaction of God’s own justice (Rom.6:23).

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

Textsthat speak of God relenting indicate that God is adopting a newcourse of action, a change of mind. In a sense, divine judgmentit*elf represents a kind of “change of mind” from God’sbasic, original intent to bless. Whereas judgment is “hisstrange work ... his alien task” (Isa. 28:21),undertaken when necessary, God’s character is to be graciousand compassionate, to relent from sending calamity (Isa. 48:9; Joel2:13), 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. Oncertain occasions, it refers to profound grief that God feels inreaction to human sin and calamity (Gen. 6:6–7; Judg. 2:18;1Sam. 15:35; 2Sam. 24:16). This is not to suggest thatGod is making amends for wrongs or has the same kinds of regret formistakes that humans have. But we should recognize that when nakhamis used to speak of God “relenting,” it means somethingmore than a change in the direction of the wind: it involves theheart of God, engaged deeply with his people’s welfare (cf.Hos. 11:8–9). Conversely, the human cry for God to relent iswrung from experiences of deep crisis (Job 6:29; Pss. 90:13;106:44–45).

Exodusand Jonah.Two classic OT narratives about divine relenting may be contrasted.In Exod. 32 the Israelites’ idolatry with the golden calf isfollowed by God’s indictment and intention to destroy them. Adramatic turning point comes with Moses’ intercession, inresponse to which God relents. The book of Jonah turns this sequenceon its head. Here the prophet resists his mission of announcingNineveh’s doom because he fears that its people may repent,which they do (Jon. 3:5–9), and that God may then relent frombringing on them the judgment that he had sent Jonah to announce,which he does (4:2). The book of Jonah portrays the prophet as anantihero, out of step with the compassion and larger purposes of God,unhappy with the freedom of God. But it preserves the link betweenhuman repentance for sin and divine relenting from previouslyannounced judgment, as seen in Exod. 32.

Theprophets.Through the OT prophets, God wrestles with Israel, announcing onecourse of action, judgment, while often holding open the possibilityof an alternate ending: if Israel repents (Jer. 18:8; 26:3, 13) or ifa prophet (Amos 7:1–6) or a king (Jer. 26:19) intercedes, thenGod may relent. At the end of the day, relenting remains a move thatGod 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).

Inthe book of Amos, God does both. Amos 1–2 comprises a cycle ofseven judgment speeches against Israel’s neighbors, culminatingin the eighth, lengthiest judgment speech against Israel. Each speechopens with the formula “For three sins of X, and for four, Iwill not turn back [my wrath].” Here God declares that he hascommitted himself to carrying out judgment. With the use of the verbshub (“to turn, turn back”), any implied question ofreprieve is answered immediately: the nation’s condemnation isirrevocable. But in 7:1–6 God is twice said to “relent”(nakham) from sending the locusts and fire that he has just shownAmos in visions. Granting stays from specific forms of punishment isnot the same as forgiving Israel’s sin, however, and thesetemporary measures are followed by a reassertion of God’sdetermination to spare Israel no longer (7:7–9). Moreover, eventhough Israel’s doom is sealed, Amos can still urge his hearersto repent and turn to God, on the grounds that God may relent—thatis, freely respond with mercy and allow some to survive the nation’sfall (5:4–6, 14–15).

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

Shepherds were pastoralists who herded sheep and goats formeat, milk, clothing, and sacrifices. Shepherding was an integralpart of life and a potent symbol in Israelite culture, reflected inbiblical portrayals of Abel (Gen. 4:2), Moses (Exod. 3:1), David(1Sam. 16:11), and Jesus (Luke 2:8–20; John 10:11, 14).

Ashepherd could herd his or her own flock (Gen. 30:37–43). Sons(Gen. 37:2), daughters (Gen. 29:6, 9), or hirelings (Gen. 13:7;1Sam. 25:7; Luke 17:7) could assume the task. As agriculturedeveloped and crops were cultivated, shepherds became marginalized(note that it was the youngest son of Jesse, David, who tended thesheep [1Sam. 16:11–13]) and even despised (Gen. 46:34).Shepherds could live in villages, daily herding their flock to andfrom nearby arable land (Gen. 29:7–14). Once all the grazingland had been consumed, shepherds led the flock to pastureland farenough from town to prohibit daily returns. They would then live aseminomadic existence, wandering when new grazing land and water wereneeded (Gen. 37:12; cf. Isa. 13:20). Shepherds constructed makeshiftenclosures out of available materials (stones, brush) or used a caveand remained with the flock throughout the night (Gen. 31:40; Song1:8; Luke 2:8).

Ashepherd’s tools included a clublike rod used to guard theflock and fend off predators and thieves (Gen. 31:39; Isa. 31:4; Mic.7:14) and as a tool for dividing the flock (Lev. 27:32; Jer. 33:13);a crook or staff to retrieve strays and injured (Ezek. 34:16; Zech.11:7); a sling and some sort of pouch (1Sam. 17:40); and evendogs (Job 30:1). A shepherd was held accountable for any losses inthe flock and was required to pay restitution (Gen. 31:39; Exod.22:10–13).

Thevital role of shepherding in ancient Near Eastern culture naturallyled to the metaphorical use of the term to refer to both civilauthorities (Num. 27:17; 1Kings 22:17; Isa. 44:28; Ezek.34:1–19) and deity (Gen. 48:15; 49:24; Pss. 23:1; 78:52), bothin Israel and among its neighbors. Both the exodus (Exod. 15:13, 17;Ps. 78:52–55, 71–72) and the return from Babylonian exile(Ps. 44:11–23; Jer. 23:1–8; 31:8–14) are portrayedin pastoral terms as Yahweh shepherding his people to safe pasture.In the NT, Jesus called himself the “good shepherd” (John10:1–16), and the metaphor is extended to church leaders whoare to imitate the good shepherd in their provision and protection ofGod’s people (Acts 20:28; 1Pet. 5:1–3).

In the OT, heavenly beings or angels are sometimes referredto as “sons of God” (Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Pss.82:6; 89:6). The more important background for the NT, however, isthe use of the term with reference to the nation Israel and themessianic king from David’s line. Israel was God’s son byvirtue of God’s unique calling, deliverance, and protection.Hosea 11:1 reads, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, andout of Egypt I called my son.” Similar references to God as thefather of his people appear throughout the OT (Exod. 4:22; Num.11:12; Deut. 14:1; 32:5, 19; Isa. 43:6; 45:11; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9,20; Hos. 2:1). The king from the line of David is referred to as theson of God by virtue of his special relationship to God and hisrepresentative role among the people. In the Davidic covenant, Godpromises David concerning his descendant, “I will be hisfather, and he will be my son” (2Sam. 7:14; cf. Pss. 2:7;89:26). Later Judaism appears to have taken up these passages andidentified the coming Messiah as the “son of God.”

Inthe Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ divine sonship is closely linkedto his messiahship. The angel Gabriel connects Jesus’ status as“Son of the Most High” with his reception of the throneof David (Luke 1:32). At Jesus’ baptism (which Luke identifiesas Jesus’ messianic anointing [Luke 3:21; 4:1, 14, 18]), theFather declares Jesus to be “my Son, whom I love” (3:22),an allusion to Ps. 2:7. Satan tempts Jesus as the Son of God toabandon obedience to the Father and claim independent authority(Matt. 4:1–11; Luke 4:1–13). Peter confesses that Jesusis “the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matt.16:16), and the high priest questions whether Jesus is “theMessiah, the Son of the Blessed One” (Mark 14:61; Matt. 26:63).In these and other texts “Son of God” is almostsynonymous with “Messiah” (cf. Mark 1:1; Luke 4:41;22:70; John 11:27; 20:31; Acts 9:20, 22). In other contexts, Jesus’divine sonship appears to exceed messianic categories. Jesus prays toGod as his Father (“Abba” [Mark 14:36]) and refers tohimself as the Son, who uniquely knows and reveals the Father. TheFather has committed all things to him. No one knows the Father butthe Son and those to whom the Son reveals him (Matt. 11:25–27;Luke 10:21–22). It is by virtue of Jesus’ unique sonshipthat he invites his disciples to pray to God as their Father (Matt.6:9).

Inthe Fourth Gospel, the status of Jesus as the Son of God isespecially important, indicating both Jesus’ uniquerelationship with the Father and his essential deity. John introducesthe notion of preexistent sonship in which the “Word”from creation is the Son (John 1:1–18; 17:5, 24). God sendsinto the world his Son (3:16), who reflects the glory of the Father(1:14; 14:6–11) and who will soon return (14:28). Jesus affirmsthat “I and the Father are one” (10:30), that “theFather is in me, and I in the Father” (10:38). John’spurpose in writing is to provoke faith “that Jesus is theMessiah, the Son of God” (20:31).

Somescholars reject the royal Jewish background of “the Son of God”when investigating the phrase in the Gospels. Instead, they appeal toHellenistic sources to argue that Jesus as the Son of God is a“divineman” (theios anēr), which accounts for his ability to workmiracles. This line of thinking, however, is fraught with manydifficulties, not least of which is that the epithet is never used todescribe the “divineman” in Greek literature.

InPaul’s thinking, the corporate, Israelite background of “Sonof God” is renewed with reference to the NT people of God. Paulstates that “theirs [the people of Israel] is the adoption tosonship” (Rom. 9:4). Although ethnic Israelites are rightfullycalled “sons of God,” this status is contingent uponbeing people of faith: “So in Jesus Christ you are all childrenof God through faith” (Gal. 3:26); Jesus’ death as theSon effects salvation (Rom. 8:2, 32; Gal. 2:20). The Spirit alsoplays a role in testifying with the spirits of believers that theyare indeed children of God (Rom. 8:15–16), by which they cry,“Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:3–6). The believers’status as God’s children will be completely revealed when theyshare in Christ’s glory (Rom. 8:17).

The Hebrew expression “sons of God” (often translated as “children of God” in contemporary usage) is an important biblical concept and is used to describe a range of referents.

In the OT, the term is used to refer to angels (e.g., Job 1:6). They are subordinate divine beings, carrying out God’s mission on earth (Job 2:1). Compared to them, Yahweh’s incomparability is asserted in divine council (Ps. 89:6; cf. Deut. 32:8 NIV mg.). They are called upon to praise Yahweh for his creation (Ps. 29:1). They shout for joy at God’s creation (Job 38:7). In Gen. 6:2 the term refers to beings that are apparently of divine origin and to be contrasted with the “daughters of men” in that same passage. The sin mentioned in this passage refers to the cohabitation of divine beings and humans. This union is one of the impetuses for the flood, an indication of how bad things had gotten. The “order” of creation (Gen. 1), where humans are meant to be fruitful with their own kind, is here transgressed. Hence, God introduces further disorder by bringing back the waters of chaos to flood the earth.

Israel as a covenant nation is called “my son, my firstborn” by Yahweh (Exod. 4:22; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1). As son, Israel is expected to give proper reverence and honor for his father (Mal. 1:6). Although only one of many metaphors for Israel in the OT, Israel’s status as son is important for understanding the movement of the book of Exodus. Israel is to be delivered from Egyptian rule because Israel is God’s son. If Pharaoh continues to mistreat Israel, God will call judgment upon Egypt’s firstborn, as he did in the plague of death and the Red Sea incident.

Sonship is not exclusive to Israel. The Gentiles are also included in the future of God’s program (Isa. 19:25; Zech. 14:16). Likewise, in the NT all humans are God’s children (Eph. 4:6). More often, though, the term refers to those who are in Christ. The bond is spiritual, and often the concept of adoption is used (John 1:12; Rom. 9:6; Gal. 3:26; 4:5–7; 1 John 5:1). See also Sons of God

(1)Apainful breakage in the skin caused by a disease or wound that oftenbecomes infected. Various skin ailments described in Hebrewvocabulary may be translated as “sore”: skin disorder(garab [Lev. 21:20; 22:22; Deut. 28:27]); moist wound (makkahteriyyah [Isa. 1:6]); boil, ulcer (mazor [2Sam. 3:29; Jer.30:13]); infected sore (nega’ [Lev. 13:3, 5, 29]); tumor,hemorrhoid (tekhorim [Deut. 28:27; 1Sam. 5:6]); infectious skindisease, traditionally, though not necessarily correctly, translatedas “leprosy” (tsara’at [e.g., Lev. 13:2–3,8–9; 14:3, 7; Deut. 24:8; 2Kings 5:6–7; 2Chron.26:9); skin sore or boil (shekhin [Exod. 9:9–11; Lev. 13:18–20,23; Deut. 28:35; 2Kings 20:7; Job 2:7; Isa. 38:21]); seepingsore, wart (yabbelet [Lev. 22:22]).

Incontrast, NT Greek uses a single root, helkos,to refer to a sore, boil, skin abscess, ulcer (Luke 16:20–21;Rev. 16:2, 11). Sores are significant under Mosaic law, since certaintypes render one ritually unclean and therefore separated fromcommunity life (Lev. 13–14).

(2)Apainfully tender physical discomfort (Gen. 34:25). (3)Anarchaic usage in older English versions that describes intensiveupset or affliction (e.g., Gen. 20:8; 41:56–57; Josh. 9:24;Matt. 17:6; Acts 20:37 KJV).

Both the OT and the NT use several words that fall into thecategory of sorrow. Sorrow may be felt to different degrees as fitsthe severity of the circ*mstances. Likewise, it may be expressed inmany ways, such as crying or weeping (Jer. 4:8; Joel 1:18), hiringprofessional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Mark 5:38), tearing one’sclothes (2Sam. 13:19), wearing sackcloth (2Sam. 3:31;Jer. 4:8), sitting in dust and ashes (Job 2:8; Luke 10:13), throwingdust over one’s head (Job 2:12), fasting (Esther 4:3), shavingone’s head or beard (Job 1:20; Jer. 41:5), and beating one’schest (Isa. 32:12; Luke 18:13).

Becauseof sin and the curse, pain is inescapable and sorrow appropriate.Although people may respond negatively, sorrow can be a positive partof repentance, developing character (2Cor. 7:10–11) ordemonstrating sympathy to others (Rom. 12:15) as a response to theirdifficulties. The reality of pain highlights joy and anticipation ofChrist’s return (John 16:19–22; Rev. 21:4; cf. Jer.31:13).

Whilesorrow may first come from the circ*mstances or threat of punishment,it is an important component of repentance, as regret over wrongdoingcan lead one to change behavior.

A response of grateful people toward a gracious God. In theOT, thanksgiving is conspicuously absent from the patriarchalnarratives, where the characters often appear ungrateful.Thanksgiving appears in the Pentateuch only in Lev. 7:12–15,where thanksgiving is one kind of fellowship offering given in publicworship, usually for deliverance from peril. Thanksgiving becomes aprominent exhortation in the Psalter, where it occurs over fiftytimes. Worshipers are encouraged to thank God (in public worship) fordeliverance from the physical perils common to being outside thesafety of one’s community (Ps. 107) and from perils within (Ps.103). Later, prophets (Isa. 51:3; Jer. 30:19), the Chronicler(1Chron. 23:30), and twenty-eight other psalms speak ofthanksgivings by offering songs rather than sacrifices. Thanksgiving,however, is still in the context of public (cultic) worship.

LaterJewish literature expanded expressions of thanksgiving outside asacrificial context to include the individual or family at homebefore each meal (b.Ber. 35a). Similarly, Jesus offers thanksbefore a meal (Matt. 15:36; 26:27).

Theother major occurrences of thanksgiving in the NT are found in Paul’sletters. While Greco-Roman letters occasionally began withthanksgiving to a deity for providing health or safety, Paul offeredfar longer and more frequent thanksgivings than any known writer.Thanksgiving must be considered one of the distinguishingcharacteristics of Paul’s writings and teachings. Both OT andNT examples and teachings indicate that thanksgiving to God isexpressed in front of others and not merely in silent individualprayers to God.

Grape-producing plants are widely cultivated in Palestine.The first biblical reference to vine cultivation appears in Gen.9:20, where the restoration of the earth is implied by Noah’splanting of a vineyard. The appearance of the vine in Pharaoh’schief cupbearer’s dream implies widespread vine cultivation inEgypt (Gen. 40:9–11). Before the Israelites’ entry, theland of Canaan was also famous for the production of grapes and wine(cf. Num. 13:23; Deut. 6:11; 8:8). Several places around the regionare named in the OT for their fruitful vines: Eshkol (Num. 13:23),Sorek (Judg. 16:4), Sibmah, Heshbon, Jazer, Elealeh (Isa. 16:8–10),Helbon (Ezek. 27:18), Lebanon (Hos. 14:7), and En Gedi (Song 1:14).

Vinecultivation. Vinecultivation is detailed in the Bible. A hilly terrain is terraced,stones are cleared, and soil is plowed (Ps. 80:9; Isa. 5:2). Thewalls are built up with stones, often with a hedge of thorny bushes,to protect the vineyard from thieves and wild animals (Isa. 5:2).Then young vines are planted where water is supplied (Ezek. 19:10).As their branches develop, they are raised up on supports (Ezek.17:6). In the spring the vines are pruned so that they will bear goodgrapes (Lev. 25:3; John 15:2). Winepresses are hewn out of wood orrocky ground (Isa. 5:2). A watchtower is erected to overlook thevineyard, especially as the harvest season draws near (Job 27:18;Isa. 1:8; 27:3). When the grapes are ripe, they are gathered inbaskets and taken to winepresses (Hos. 9:2), while some are driedinto raisins. When the harvest is done, the poor in the village areallowed to enter the vineyard to gather the gleanings (Lev. 19:10;Deut. 24:21; cf. Isa. 24:13; Jer. 49:9; Mic. 7:1).

Sincethe production of grapes was of major importance to the Israelites,the continuing cycle of vine cultivation meant national peace andsecurity (cf. “under their own vine and under their own figtree” in 1Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4; Zech. 3:10; joy of theharvest in Isa. 16:10; Jer. 48:33). Thus, the characteristicexpression of planting vineyards and consuming their fruits signalsGod’s blessing (2Kings 19:29; Ps. 107:37; Isa. 65:21–22;Jer. 31:5; 40:12; Ezek. 28:26; Amos 9:14), whereas not enjoying thefruit signifies misfortune (Deut. 20:6) or God’s judgment(Deut. 28:30; Ps. 78:47; Jer. 8:13; Amos 5:11; Hab. 3:17; Zeph.1:13). Likewise, a feast with wine signifies God’s blessing(Isa. 25:6; 55:1; Jer. 31:12; Joel 2:19; cf. Jesus turning water intowine [John 2:1–11]), while the lack of wine means God’sjudgment (Isa. 24:9, 11; 62:8; Hos. 2:9; 9:2; Joel 1:10).

OldTestament.The vine and the vineyard are important metaphors in the OT. Thefruitfulness of the vine often symbolizes the fruitfulness orblessedness of a person (e.g., Joseph in Gen. 49:22; a fruitful wifein Ps. 128:3). In Song of Songs the vineyard is not only the mainplace of love (2:13, 15; 6:11; 7:12) but also a metaphor for thewoman’s body (8:11); also, the “beloved” iscompared to “henna blossoms from the vineyards of En Gedi”(1:14), and her breasts to the “clusters of grapes on the vine”(7:8).

Themetaphors of the vine and the vineyard are also used of God’speople. In Ps. 80:8–13 Israel’s history is presented interms of the vine-cultivation cycle (cf. Jer. 2:21; Hos. 10:1). Asimilar story is heard in Isa. 5:1–7, which compares theIsraelites’ lack of justice and righteousness to the bearing ofwild grapes (cf. “vine of Sodom” in Deut. 32:32; “acorrupt, wild vine” in Jer. 2:21). Ezekiel also uses the vinemetaphor in rebuking the Israelites’ iniquity (Ezek. 15:2–4;17:3–10; 19:10–14). If the aforementioned passagesdescribe Israel’s history from its birth to judgment, Isa.27:2–6 presents God’s promise of restoration through thestory of the restored vineyard.

NewTestament.In five parables Jesus refers to vines and cultivation (Matt. 9:17pars.; 20:1–16; 21:28–32; 21:33–46 pars.; Luke13:6–9). Notable is the fact that God often is portrayed as theowner of the vineyard (Matt. 20:1; 21:28, 33; Luke 13:6). In Rev.14:18–20 God’s judgment upon his enemies is described bymeans of the imagery of the vine harvest, in which the enemies aretrampled like harvested grapes in the “great winepress of God’swrath” (cf. Isa. 63:1–6; Joel 3:13). In the vine metaphorin John 15:1–8, Jesus identifies God as the farmer, himself asthe “true vine,” and the believers as its branches. Nolonger are God’s people identified as the vine, which isexpected to bear good fruits; rather, Jesus is the vine, and thebelievers are his branches. So the fruitfulness of the branchesdepends on their adherence to the vine. Jesus’ use of the“fruit of the vine” at the Last Supper as the symbol ofhis atoning blood can be compared to his metaphoricalself-identification as the vine (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke22:18). See also Plants.

Grape-producing plants are widely cultivated in Palestine.The first biblical reference to vine cultivation appears in Gen.9:20, where the restoration of the earth is implied by Noah’splanting of a vineyard. The appearance of the vine in Pharaoh’schief cupbearer’s dream implies widespread vine cultivation inEgypt (Gen. 40:9–11). Before the Israelites’ entry, theland of Canaan was also famous for the production of grapes and wine(cf. Num. 13:23; Deut. 6:11; 8:8). Several places around the regionare named in the OT for their fruitful vines: Eshkol (Num. 13:23),Sorek (Judg. 16:4), Sibmah, Heshbon, Jazer, Elealeh (Isa. 16:8–10),Helbon (Ezek. 27:18), Lebanon (Hos. 14:7), and En Gedi (Song 1:14).

Vinecultivation. Vinecultivation is detailed in the Bible. A hilly terrain is terraced,stones are cleared, and soil is plowed (Ps. 80:9; Isa. 5:2). Thewalls are built up with stones, often with a hedge of thorny bushes,to protect the vineyard from thieves and wild animals (Isa. 5:2).Then young vines are planted where water is supplied (Ezek. 19:10).As their branches develop, they are raised up on supports (Ezek.17:6). In the spring the vines are pruned so that they will bear goodgrapes (Lev. 25:3; John 15:2). Winepresses are hewn out of wood orrocky ground (Isa. 5:2). A watchtower is erected to overlook thevineyard, especially as the harvest season draws near (Job 27:18;Isa. 1:8; 27:3). When the grapes are ripe, they are gathered inbaskets and taken to winepresses (Hos. 9:2), while some are driedinto raisins. When the harvest is done, the poor in the village areallowed to enter the vineyard to gather the gleanings (Lev. 19:10;Deut. 24:21; cf. Isa. 24:13; Jer. 49:9; Mic. 7:1).

Sincethe production of grapes was of major importance to the Israelites,the continuing cycle of vine cultivation meant national peace andsecurity (cf. “under their own vine and under their own figtree” in 1Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4; Zech. 3:10; joy of theharvest in Isa. 16:10; Jer. 48:33). Thus, the characteristicexpression of planting vineyards and consuming their fruits signalsGod’s blessing (2Kings 19:29; Ps. 107:37; Isa. 65:21–22;Jer. 31:5; 40:12; Ezek. 28:26; Amos 9:14), whereas not enjoying thefruit signifies misfortune (Deut. 20:6) or God’s judgment(Deut. 28:30; Ps. 78:47; Jer. 8:13; Amos 5:11; Hab. 3:17; Zeph.1:13). Likewise, a feast with wine signifies God’s blessing(Isa. 25:6; 55:1; Jer. 31:12; Joel 2:19; cf. Jesus turning water intowine [John 2:1–11]), while the lack of wine means God’sjudgment (Isa. 24:9, 11; 62:8; Hos. 2:9; 9:2; Joel 1:10).

OldTestament.The vine and the vineyard are important metaphors in the OT. Thefruitfulness of the vine often symbolizes the fruitfulness orblessedness of a person (e.g., Joseph in Gen. 49:22; a fruitful wifein Ps. 128:3). In Song of Songs the vineyard is not only the mainplace of love (2:13, 15; 6:11; 7:12) but also a metaphor for thewoman’s body (8:11); also, the “beloved” iscompared to “henna blossoms from the vineyards of En Gedi”(1:14), and her breasts to the “clusters of grapes on the vine”(7:8).

Themetaphors of the vine and the vineyard are also used of God’speople. In Ps. 80:8–13 Israel’s history is presented interms of the vine-cultivation cycle (cf. Jer. 2:21; Hos. 10:1). Asimilar story is heard in Isa. 5:1–7, which compares theIsraelites’ lack of justice and righteousness to the bearing ofwild grapes (cf. “vine of Sodom” in Deut. 32:32; “acorrupt, wild vine” in Jer. 2:21). Ezekiel also uses the vinemetaphor in rebuking the Israelites’ iniquity (Ezek. 15:2–4;17:3–10; 19:10–14). If the aforementioned passagesdescribe Israel’s history from its birth to judgment, Isa.27:2–6 presents God’s promise of restoration through thestory of the restored vineyard.

NewTestament.In five parables Jesus refers to vines and cultivation (Matt. 9:17pars.; 20:1–16; 21:28–32; 21:33–46 pars.; Luke13:6–9). Notable is the fact that God often is portrayed as theowner of the vineyard (Matt. 20:1; 21:28, 33; Luke 13:6). In Rev.14:18–20 God’s judgment upon his enemies is described bymeans of the imagery of the vine harvest, in which the enemies aretrampled like harvested grapes in the “great winepress of God’swrath” (cf. Isa. 63:1–6; Joel 3:13). In the vine metaphorin John 15:1–8, Jesus identifies God as the farmer, himself asthe “true vine,” and the believers as its branches. Nolonger are God’s people identified as the vine, which isexpected to bear good fruits; rather, Jesus is the vine, and thebelievers are his branches. So the fruitfulness of the branchesdepends on their adherence to the vine. Jesus’ use of the“fruit of the vine” at the Last Supper as the symbol ofhis atoning blood can be compared to his metaphoricalself-identification as the vine (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke22:18). See also Plants.

Despite tendencies to downplay the reality of God’sanger (God is classically described as “without passions”),if we are to do justice to both Testaments, we must allow thelanguage of Scripture to stand, where God often is said to be angrywith individuals or nations, including Israel. Although God ischangeless (Mal. 3:6), he interacts in a personal way with atime-bound world. The Bible writers intend us to understand thatthere is something in God’s anger to which human anger isanalogous, though God’s anger is not identical to ours (Hos.11:9). God’s anger is not an automatic response; he canrestrain it (Ps. 78:38). God is said to be characteristically slow tobecome angry; that is, his anger is a deliberate response (Exod.34:6, a text with numerous echoes) and may also be short-lived (Ps.30:5; Mic. 7:18).

God’sanger against Israel in the wilderness is noteworthy (Heb. 3:10, 17).The apostasy with the golden calf (Exod. 32:10–12), thecomplaining (Num. 11:1, 33), and the failure to enter the promisedland following the report of the spies (Num. 32:10–11) allprovoke God to anger. Failure to heed God’s word (Zech. 7:12)or that of his prophets (2Chron. 36:16), neglect of his worship(2Chron. 29:6–8), and intermarriage with idolaters (Ezra9:14) are behaviors that incur the wrath of God.

God’sanger is directed against individuals, particularly for failures ofleadership, as with Moses (Exod. 4:14; Deut. 1:37) and Solomon(1Kings 11:9–11). God’s anger often is directedagainst the Israelite and Judean kings, not just those who committedidolatry (2Chron. 25:15), but even those who are faithful inmost respects, for their failure to remove the idolatrous high places(2Kings 23:19).

Pickingup on the warning that God’s anger will be directed againstthose who do not pay homage to God’s appointed king (Ps. 2:5,12), Jesus declares that disobedience to God’s Son brings uponone the wrath of God (John 3:36), which evidently is not incompatiblewith his love for the world (3:16). According to Rom. 4:15, God’swrath is a consequence of the law; that is, the law, giving concreteexpression to the character of God, brings culpability fortransgression. God’s wrath is revealed against all forms ofungodliness and its tendency to suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18). Thosewho demonstrate their disobedience to God or his truth will besubjected to his anger (Rom. 2:8; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6).

Apervasive metaphor for anger is that of a burning fire (Deut. 32:22;Ps. 89:46; Isa. 66:15) along with associated images of smoke (Ps.18:8) and smelting metal (Ezek. 22:20, 22). Other images are thewinepress (Isa. 63:3; Rev. 14:19), drinking from a vessel (Isa.51:22; Rev. 14:10), and a tempest (Ezek. 13:13).

Thejudgment that follows as a consequence of God’s anger beingaroused takes the form of the withholding of God’s covenantfavor (Ps. 95:11; Isa. 54:8) or the implementation of his covenantcurses (Deut. 29:27), specifically through drought (Deut. 11:17),plague (Ps. 78:50), the sword (Ps. 78:62), and deliverance into thehands of enemies (2Kings 13:3), leading to exile (2Chron.6:36). God’s anger can be depicted in various forms of cosmicupheaval or the undoing of creation (2Sam. 22:8–16; Ps.18:7; Jer. 4:26). God’s anger is beyond human ability to endure(Ps. 76:7), such that hiding in Sheol is considered preferable (Job14:13).

God’swrath becomes particularly associated with a coming day of wrath atthe end of the age, when God’s justice will be powerfullydisplayed (Dan. 8:19; Zeph. 2:3; Luke 21:23; Rom. 2:5; Rev. 6:17).

Subjectionto God’s anger may evoke the cry “How long?” (Pss.79:5; 80:4). While God’s mercy cannot be taken for granted,since his anger against some may be final as an expression of hisjustice (Jer. 30:24; Rom. 12:19), God’s anger may be assuagedor averted through humbling oneself (2Chron. 12:7) and anappeal to God for mercy (Ps. 106:23; Hab. 3:2), by repentance(2Chron. 29:10; Ezra 10:14; Jon. 3:9), by zealous action toroot out evil (Num. 25:11), and by the faithful ministry of God’sappointed servants (Num. 1:53; 18:5).

TheNT brings to fulfillment these forms of mediation in presenting theultimate remedy for God’s wrath in the person and work of JesusChrist (Rom. 5:9; 1Thess. 1:10; 5:9). The use of “propitiation”language (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1John 2:2), though itssignificance is disputed, is classically understood in terms of theneed for God’s wrath to be satisfied. In that case, it isspecifically the cross of Christ that ultimately deals with God’srighteous anger against sinners.

The voluntary process of granting the rights, privileges,responsibilities, and status of child or heir to an individual orgroup that was not originally born to the adopter. While birth occursnaturally, adoption occurs only through the exertion of will.

Atleast two significant figures in the OT were adopted. After Moses’birth mother kept him alive despite Pharaoh’s command to drownevery newborn Hebrew boy in the Nile (Exod. 1:22), Moses was,ironically, adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter (2:10). Esther, orHadassah, was adopted by her uncle (or cousin) Mordecai upon thedeath of her parents (Esther 2:7)—this adoption plays animportant part in Esther’s ability to prevent the Jewishextermination intended by Haman.

Althoughadoption is fairly uncommon in the OT, God’s adoption of Israelis of the utmost importance. It demonstrates God’s willingnessto initiate relationship with humankind, a truth that laterculminated in Jesus Christ. God chooses to adopt the nation of Israelas his child (Deut. 7:6; Isa. 1:2; Hos. 11:1) and more significantlyas his firstborn son (Exod. 4:22; Jer. 31:9). Thus God singles outIsrael among the nations of the earth, bestowing the highest possiblehonor.

Theconcept of adoption is more prevalent in the NT, primarily in theapostle Paul’s writings. Based on the belief that Israel’sexclusive position as the adopted firstborn son of God the Father isno longer deserved, the NT includes those who believe in Jesus Christas adopted children of God’s eternal family (John 1:12; 11:52;Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1). The adoptedchildren of God enjoy all the rights of a natural-born child,including the opportunity to call God “Father,” as Jesusdid (e.g., Matt. 5:16; Luke 12:32). Paul in particular uses adoptionto describe the Christian’s new relationship with God throughthe atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:15–16, 21–23;9:25–26).

Babylon was the capital city of Babylonia, an ancient kingdomlocated in Mesopotamia, the region between the Tigris and theEuphrates rivers, an area now in the modern country of Iraq. The cityof Babylon was located on the banks of the Euphrates River, aboutfifty-five miles from the modern city of Baghdad. Babylon plays amajor role in the Bible, especially during the time of the OTprophets. Babylon or the Babylonians are mentioned in the books of2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Micah, Habakkuk, andZechariah. Babylon also appears at the very beginning of the biblicalstory (Gen. 10–11) as well as at the very end (Rev. 14; 16–18;cf. 1 Pet. 5:13).

History

TheSumerian and Akkadian period.Around3000 BC one of the earliest civilizations of the ancient worlddeveloped in the southernmost region of Mesopotamia. The Sumeriansdeveloped several innovations that nurtured and contributed to therise of large, complex, urban civilizations. These developmentsincluded irrigation, writing (especially in regard to governmentdocumentation), the city-state, the accumulation of capital, thewheel, the potter’s wheel, monumental architecture, the numbersystem based on the number sixty (we still use this for time as wellas for geometry—e.g., sixty minutes in an hour, 360 degrees ina circle), schools, and the cylinder seal.

TheAkkadian king Sargon conquered most of Mesopotamia around 2350 BC. Hebuilt his capital at Akkad and established Akkadian as the mainlanguage of Mesopotamia, a feature that was to remain characteristicfor many centuries. The city of Babylon first appears in nonbiblicalliterary documents during this time, but only as a minor provincialcity.

TheOld Babylonian period.Atabout the same time, a group of people called “Amorites”(lit., “those from the west”) started migrating in fairlylarge numbers eastward into southern Mesopotamia. Embracing much ofthe old Sumerian-related culture as well as the Akkadian language,these Amorites soon became a regional power, and they built the cityof Babylon into one of the most important cities in Mesopotamia. Oneof the most famous kings to rise to power during this “OldBabylonian” era was Hammurabi (c. 1728–1686 BC [manyscholars now refer to him as Hammurapi]). It was his extensivediplomatic and military skill that enabled Babylon to rise to powerso quickly and in such a spectacular fashion. Hammurabi’sactual empire lasted only a brief time, but his legacy waslong-lasting, and the entire central-southern region of Mesopotamiacontinued to be known as Babylonia for over a thousand years.

AfterHammurabi died, Babylon declined in power. For the next few hundredyears Mesopotamia was characterized by chaos and power struggles.Then around 800 BC the Assyrians (from the northern end ofMesopotamia) rose to power and dominated the entire region. TheAssyrians also played a major role in the Bible, appearing frequentlyin the books of 2 Kings and Isaiah.

TheNeo-Babylonian Empire.In the last quarter of the seventh century BC, however, theBabylonians steadily grew in power. A large migration of Arameansinto Babylonia had taken place, and the people in Babylonia hadreplaced Akkadian with Aramaic as their spoken language. TheChaldeans, a large and powerful group living in the Babylonianregion, intermarried with the descendants of these migrating Arameansto develop a civilization now known as Neo-Babylonia. Once again thecity of Babylon rose to splendor and prominence. Eventually this newBabylonia wrested control of much of the ancient Near East from theAssyrians and their Egyptian allies, decisively defeating them in 612BC to become the new superpower empire of the ancient Near East. Apowerful dynasty was started by Nabopolassar (626–605 BC) andcontinued by Nebuchadnezzar (604–562 BC), the most powerful andprominent of Babylon’s kings.

Babyloncontrolled most of the ancient Near East at a critical time inbiblical history. Nebuchadnezzar, the most famous Babylonian king ofthis era, besieged Jerusalem and destroyed it completely in 587/586BC. Nebuchadnezzar appears in the Bible numerous times, especially inthe books of 2 Kings, Jeremiah, and Daniel. He was the oneresponsible for taking the leadership of Judah into exile inBabylonia after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Surprisingly,this powerful empire did not last very long. As discussed below,several of the OT prophets prophesied the end of Babylon, and indeedBabylon crumbled quickly and eventually disappeared from history. Howdid this happen?

Persianand Greek rule. Firstof all, Nab­o­ni­dus, the last king of Babylon (555–539BC), tried to revise the religion of the people away from the worshipof their main god, Marduk, but he only alienated himself from thepowerful nobles of Babylon as well as from the general population.Leaving his son Belshazzar in charge, Nabonidus moved to Arabia forten years. When he finally returned, the Persians were threateningBabylon, and Nabonidus had little power to stop them. Sealing thePersian victory was the defection of Ugbaru, one of the most powerfulBabylonian princes. Thus, Cyrus, king of Persia, conquered Babylonwithout meeting any substantial resistance from the city (539 BC).Apparently, the Babylonians greeted Cyrus more as a liberator than asa conqueror. Babylon thus became a city within the Persian Empire.

Aboutfifty years later the city of Babylon revolted against the Persians,and the Persian king Xerxes recaptured it (482 BC), sacked it,demolished its spectacular fortifications, burned the great temple ofthe Babylonian god Marduk, and even carried away the statue of Mardukas a spoil of war. However, the Greek historian Herodotus, writingaround 450 BC, indicates that Babylon had not been completelydestroyed.

Inthe next century Alexander the Great conquered the entire region,defeating the Persians in 331 BC. Alexander was welcomed warmly bythe remaining citizens of Babylon, and thus he treated the cityfavorably at first. However, in 324 BC a close friend of Alexander’sdied, and Alexander tore down part of the city wall east of the royalpalace to build a funeral pyre platform in his friend’s honor,thus destroying a significant part of the city.

Thefall of Babylon.After Alexander died, Seleucus, one of his four generals, seizedBabylon (312 BC) and plundered the city and the surrounding area. Thenext Seleucid king, Antiochus I (281–261 BC), dealt thedeath blow to the city of Babylon. He built a new capital for theregion fifty-five miles to the north and then moved the entirecivilian population of Babylon to the new city. The once great cityof Babylon, now depopulated and seriously damaged physically by theSeleucid kings, fell into oblivion. Although Antiochus IV (173BC) tried for a brief period to revive the city, Babylon, for allpractical purposes, had ceased to exist.

Theruined site is mentioned a few other times in history. The Romanemperor Trajan spent the winter of AD 116 in Babylon, finding nothingthere except ruins. The spectacular fall of Babylon and the city’sstate of terrible desolation then became proverbial. In the secondcentury AD Lucian wrote that Nineveh vanished without a trace, andthat soon people will search in vain for Babylon. In fulfillment ofbiblical prophecy (e.g., Jer. 50–51), the city of Babylon wentfrom being the most important and most spectacular city in the worldto being a desolate, insignificant pile of rubble.

TheSplendor of Babylon

Duringthe time of Nebuchadnezzar the city of Babylon was developed into aspectacular city, certainly one of the most impressive cities in theancient Near East. The city was built on the banks of the EuphratesRiver with a large, imposing bridge connecting the two banks. Hugepublic buildings, palaces, and temples lined the banks of the river.The city was enclosed by two walls. The gates of the outer walls havenot yet been located, but archaeologists have identified nine large,impressive gates of the inner wall. The most famous of these is theIshtar Gate, which has been dismantled and reconstructed in thePergamon Museum in Berlin. The walls of this gate are lined withbright blue glazed ceramic tile and decorated with numerous reliefsof lions and dragons. A major structure in the city was the greattemple of Marduk, the central Babylonian deity, but the city also hadtemples dedicated to numerous other gods. Connected to the greattemple was a spectacular processional street running through theheart of the city. The city also contained large residential homes aswell as three immense royal palaces.

Afourth-century BC Greek historian mentions that Nebuchadnezzarbuilt an amazing garden for one of his wives. This garden, commonlyknown as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, was designated by theancient Greeks as one of the Seven Wonders of the World.Archaeologists, however, have been unable to locate such a garden inthe excavations of Babylon, and some scholars doubt its existence.

Babylonin the Bible

Theterms “Babylon” and “Babylonian,” in additionto the related terms “Chaldea” and “Chaldean,”appear over three hundred times in the Bible, indicating theimportant role that Babylon plays in Israel’s history.

OldTestament.Genesis 10:10 states that Babylon was one of the first centers of thekingdom of the mighty warrior Nimrod, but the puzzling nature ofNimrod and the difficulties encountered in interpreting Gen. 10 makeit difficult to state much about this reference with certainty.

Thebetter-known incident in Genesis regarding Babylon is the story aboutthe tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1–9). Note that in Gen. 9:1–7God commands Noah and his family to scatter over the earth andreplenish its population. The builders of the tower of Babel aredoing just the opposite of the divine injunction, trying to stop thescattering.

Genesis11:2 locates the tower of Babel on “a plain in Shinar”(cf. 10:10; 14:1), the broad, alluvial plain of the Tigris and theEuphrates rivers south of modern Baghdad. Most scholars suspect thatthe tower of Babel was a ziggurat, an elevated temple tower. Commonin Mesopotamia, these were worship centers where priests climbed upextensive stairways to offer their sacrifices to the gods. A templeshrine usually capped the top of the ziggurat. This elevated shrinewas understood to be the “gateway to the gods,” a placewhere human priests and their deities supposedly met. The tower ofBabel story in Genesis, however, introduces a humorous wordplayregarding this tradition. “Babel” (as well as “Babylon”)means “gateway to the gods” or “gate of the gods”in the local Mesopotamian languages. Ironically, however, in Hebrewthe word babel is related to balal, meaning “to confuse.”Thus, Gen. 11:9 presents a colorful wordplay or parody on the name ofBabel. In a humorous criticism of the future great city, that versesuggests ironically that the name “Babel” does not reallyrefer to the “gate of the gods” as the Mesopotamiansintended, but rather to the judgmental confusion that God broughtagainst them.

Thus,the city of Babel/Babylon carried negative connotations from the verybeginning of the biblical story. Genesis 11 introduces Babel as asymbol of human arrogance and rebellion against God. Later inIsrael’s history the city of Babylon will continue to havenegative associations, and once again it becomes a powerful symbol ofhuman arrogance and rebellion against God.

Thebooks of 1–2 Kings tell the tragic story of how Israel andJudah turn away from God to worship idols, ignoring the warnings thatGod gives them through the prophets. As foretold, the northernkingdom, Israel, is thus destroyed by the Assyrians in 722 BC.However, the southern kingdom, Judah, also fails to take heed andcontinues to worship pagan gods in spite of repeated warnings andcalls to repentance from the prophets. Prophets such as Jeremiahrepeatedly proclaim that if Judah and Jerusalem do not repent andturn from their idolatry and acts of injustice, then God will sendthe Babylonians to destroy them (see esp. Jer. 20–39). Jeremiahrefers to the Babylonians 198 times, and the prophet personallyexperiences the terrible Babylonian siege and destruction ofJerusalem. Jeremiah 39 and 52 describe the actual fall of Jerusalemto Nebuchadnezzar and his Babylonian army. This same tragic story isrecounted in 2 Kings 24–25. Thus, in 586 BC Nebuchadnezzarand his army completely destroy Jerusalem, burning the city and thetemple to the ground and carrying off most of the population intoexile in Babylonia.

Babylonappears in the OT prophetic literature in another context as well.Because of the apostasy of Israel and Judah, the prophets preachjudgment on them. But the prophets also preach judgment on theenemies of Israel and Judah for exploiting or attacking anddestroying God’s people. Jeremiah, for example, prophesiesagainst numerous nations and cities (Jer. 46–49), but hefocuses especially upon Babylon (Jer. 50:1–51:58). Likewise,judgment on Babylon is a central theme in Isa. 13; 14; 21; 47. In theOT, no other foe brought such terrible destruction on Jerusalem. Inlater literature this particular event thus becomes the prototypicalpicture of horrendous death and destruction, and Babylon becomes theliterary symbol epitomizing all of Israel’s enemies.

NewTestament.Babylon appears again at the end of the biblical story. In Rev. 17–18John describes the enemy of God’s kingdom as a harlot dressedin scarlet and riding on a beast. One of the titles written on herhead is “Babylon the Great” (17:5). Some commentatorsbelieve that John is describing a literal resurrected city ofBabylon. That is, they propose that Babylon will be rebuilt on itsoriginal site and become the center of government for the antichrist.Many other scholars, however, maintain that the harlot of Rev. 17–18symbolizes ancient Rome, not a modern rebuilt Babylon. They arguethat the term “Babylon” is used symbolically inRevelation. Supporting this view is the apostle Peter’sapparent use of the term “Babylon” to refer to Rome in1 Pet. 5:13 (“she who is in Babylon . . . sendsyou her greetings”). Most NT scholars conclude that in thisverse “she” is a reference to the church and that“Babylon” is a coded or symbolic reference to Rome.

Babylon was the capital city of Babylonia, an ancient kingdomlocated in Mesopotamia, the region between the Tigris and theEuphrates rivers, an area now in the modern country of Iraq. The cityof Babylon was located on the banks of the Euphrates River, aboutfifty-five miles from the modern city of Baghdad. Babylon plays amajor role in the Bible, especially during the time of the OTprophets. Babylon or the Babylonians are mentioned in the books of2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Micah, Habakkuk, andZechariah. Babylon also appears at the very beginning of the biblicalstory (Gen. 10–11) as well as at the very end (Rev. 14; 16–18;cf. 1 Pet. 5:13).

History

TheSumerian and Akkadian period.Around3000 BC one of the earliest civilizations of the ancient worlddeveloped in the southernmost region of Mesopotamia. The Sumeriansdeveloped several innovations that nurtured and contributed to therise of large, complex, urban civilizations. These developmentsincluded irrigation, writing (especially in regard to governmentdocumentation), the city-state, the accumulation of capital, thewheel, the potter’s wheel, monumental architecture, the numbersystem based on the number sixty (we still use this for time as wellas for geometry—e.g., sixty minutes in an hour, 360 degrees ina circle), schools, and the cylinder seal.

TheAkkadian king Sargon conquered most of Mesopotamia around 2350 BC. Hebuilt his capital at Akkad and established Akkadian as the mainlanguage of Mesopotamia, a feature that was to remain characteristicfor many centuries. The city of Babylon first appears in nonbiblicalliterary documents during this time, but only as a minor provincialcity.

TheOld Babylonian period.Atabout the same time, a group of people called “Amorites”(lit., “those from the west”) started migrating in fairlylarge numbers eastward into southern Mesopotamia. Embracing much ofthe old Sumerian-related culture as well as the Akkadian language,these Amorites soon became a regional power, and they built the cityof Babylon into one of the most important cities in Mesopotamia. Oneof the most famous kings to rise to power during this “OldBabylonian” era was Hammurabi (c. 1728–1686 BC [manyscholars now refer to him as Hammurapi]). It was his extensivediplomatic and military skill that enabled Babylon to rise to powerso quickly and in such a spectacular fashion. Hammurabi’sactual empire lasted only a brief time, but his legacy waslong-lasting, and the entire central-southern region of Mesopotamiacontinued to be known as Babylonia for over a thousand years.

AfterHammurabi died, Babylon declined in power. For the next few hundredyears Mesopotamia was characterized by chaos and power struggles.Then around 800 BC the Assyrians (from the northern end ofMesopotamia) rose to power and dominated the entire region. TheAssyrians also played a major role in the Bible, appearing frequentlyin the books of 2 Kings and Isaiah.

TheNeo-Babylonian Empire.In the last quarter of the seventh century BC, however, theBabylonians steadily grew in power. A large migration of Arameansinto Babylonia had taken place, and the people in Babylonia hadreplaced Akkadian with Aramaic as their spoken language. TheChaldeans, a large and powerful group living in the Babylonianregion, intermarried with the descendants of these migrating Arameansto develop a civilization now known as Neo-Babylonia. Once again thecity of Babylon rose to splendor and prominence. Eventually this newBabylonia wrested control of much of the ancient Near East from theAssyrians and their Egyptian allies, decisively defeating them in 612BC to become the new superpower empire of the ancient Near East. Apowerful dynasty was started by Nabopolassar (626–605 BC) andcontinued by Nebuchadnezzar (604–562 BC), the most powerful andprominent of Babylon’s kings.

Babyloncontrolled most of the ancient Near East at a critical time inbiblical history. Nebuchadnezzar, the most famous Babylonian king ofthis era, besieged Jerusalem and destroyed it completely in 587/586BC. Nebuchadnezzar appears in the Bible numerous times, especially inthe books of 2 Kings, Jeremiah, and Daniel. He was the oneresponsible for taking the leadership of Judah into exile inBabylonia after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Surprisingly,this powerful empire did not last very long. As discussed below,several of the OT prophets prophesied the end of Babylon, and indeedBabylon crumbled quickly and eventually disappeared from history. Howdid this happen?

Persianand Greek rule. Firstof all, Nab­o­ni­dus, the last king of Babylon (555–539BC), tried to revise the religion of the people away from the worshipof their main god, Marduk, but he only alienated himself from thepowerful nobles of Babylon as well as from the general population.Leaving his son Belshazzar in charge, Nabonidus moved to Arabia forten years. When he finally returned, the Persians were threateningBabylon, and Nabonidus had little power to stop them. Sealing thePersian victory was the defection of Ugbaru, one of the most powerfulBabylonian princes. Thus, Cyrus, king of Persia, conquered Babylonwithout meeting any substantial resistance from the city (539 BC).Apparently, the Babylonians greeted Cyrus more as a liberator than asa conqueror. Babylon thus became a city within the Persian Empire.

Aboutfifty years later the city of Babylon revolted against the Persians,and the Persian king Xerxes recaptured it (482 BC), sacked it,demolished its spectacular fortifications, burned the great temple ofthe Babylonian god Marduk, and even carried away the statue of Mardukas a spoil of war. However, the Greek historian Herodotus, writingaround 450 BC, indicates that Babylon had not been completelydestroyed.

Inthe next century Alexander the Great conquered the entire region,defeating the Persians in 331 BC. Alexander was welcomed warmly bythe remaining citizens of Babylon, and thus he treated the cityfavorably at first. However, in 324 BC a close friend of Alexander’sdied, and Alexander tore down part of the city wall east of the royalpalace to build a funeral pyre platform in his friend’s honor,thus destroying a significant part of the city.

Thefall of Babylon.After Alexander died, Seleucus, one of his four generals, seizedBabylon (312 BC) and plundered the city and the surrounding area. Thenext Seleucid king, Antiochus I (281–261 BC), dealt thedeath blow to the city of Babylon. He built a new capital for theregion fifty-five miles to the north and then moved the entirecivilian population of Babylon to the new city. The once great cityof Babylon, now depopulated and seriously damaged physically by theSeleucid kings, fell into oblivion. Although Antiochus IV (173BC) tried for a brief period to revive the city, Babylon, for allpractical purposes, had ceased to exist.

Theruined site is mentioned a few other times in history. The Romanemperor Trajan spent the winter of AD 116 in Babylon, finding nothingthere except ruins. The spectacular fall of Babylon and the city’sstate of terrible desolation then became proverbial. In the secondcentury AD Lucian wrote that Nineveh vanished without a trace, andthat soon people will search in vain for Babylon. In fulfillment ofbiblical prophecy (e.g., Jer. 50–51), the city of Babylon wentfrom being the most important and most spectacular city in the worldto being a desolate, insignificant pile of rubble.

TheSplendor of Babylon

Duringthe time of Nebuchadnezzar the city of Babylon was developed into aspectacular city, certainly one of the most impressive cities in theancient Near East. The city was built on the banks of the EuphratesRiver with a large, imposing bridge connecting the two banks. Hugepublic buildings, palaces, and temples lined the banks of the river.The city was enclosed by two walls. The gates of the outer walls havenot yet been located, but archaeologists have identified nine large,impressive gates of the inner wall. The most famous of these is theIshtar Gate, which has been dismantled and reconstructed in thePergamon Museum in Berlin. The walls of this gate are lined withbright blue glazed ceramic tile and decorated with numerous reliefsof lions and dragons. A major structure in the city was the greattemple of Marduk, the central Babylonian deity, but the city also hadtemples dedicated to numerous other gods. Connected to the greattemple was a spectacular processional street running through theheart of the city. The city also contained large residential homes aswell as three immense royal palaces.

Afourth-century BC Greek historian mentions that Nebuchadnezzarbuilt an amazing garden for one of his wives. This garden, commonlyknown as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, was designated by theancient Greeks as one of the Seven Wonders of the World.Archaeologists, however, have been unable to locate such a garden inthe excavations of Babylon, and some scholars doubt its existence.

Babylonin the Bible

Theterms “Babylon” and “Babylonian,” in additionto the related terms “Chaldea” and “Chaldean,”appear over three hundred times in the Bible, indicating theimportant role that Babylon plays in Israel’s history.

OldTestament.Genesis 10:10 states that Babylon was one of the first centers of thekingdom of the mighty warrior Nimrod, but the puzzling nature ofNimrod and the difficulties encountered in interpreting Gen. 10 makeit difficult to state much about this reference with certainty.

Thebetter-known incident in Genesis regarding Babylon is the story aboutthe tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1–9). Note that in Gen. 9:1–7God commands Noah and his family to scatter over the earth andreplenish its population. The builders of the tower of Babel aredoing just the opposite of the divine injunction, trying to stop thescattering.

Genesis11:2 locates the tower of Babel on “a plain in Shinar”(cf. 10:10; 14:1), the broad, alluvial plain of the Tigris and theEuphrates rivers south of modern Baghdad. Most scholars suspect thatthe tower of Babel was a ziggurat, an elevated temple tower. Commonin Mesopotamia, these were worship centers where priests climbed upextensive stairways to offer their sacrifices to the gods. A templeshrine usually capped the top of the ziggurat. This elevated shrinewas understood to be the “gateway to the gods,” a placewhere human priests and their deities supposedly met. The tower ofBabel story in Genesis, however, introduces a humorous wordplayregarding this tradition. “Babel” (as well as “Babylon”)means “gateway to the gods” or “gate of the gods”in the local Mesopotamian languages. Ironically, however, in Hebrewthe word babel is related to balal, meaning “to confuse.”Thus, Gen. 11:9 presents a colorful wordplay or parody on the name ofBabel. In a humorous criticism of the future great city, that versesuggests ironically that the name “Babel” does not reallyrefer to the “gate of the gods” as the Mesopotamiansintended, but rather to the judgmental confusion that God broughtagainst them.

Thus,the city of Babel/Babylon carried negative connotations from the verybeginning of the biblical story. Genesis 11 introduces Babel as asymbol of human arrogance and rebellion against God. Later inIsrael’s history the city of Babylon will continue to havenegative associations, and once again it becomes a powerful symbol ofhuman arrogance and rebellion against God.

Thebooks of 1–2 Kings tell the tragic story of how Israel andJudah turn away from God to worship idols, ignoring the warnings thatGod gives them through the prophets. As foretold, the northernkingdom, Israel, is thus destroyed by the Assyrians in 722 BC.However, the southern kingdom, Judah, also fails to take heed andcontinues to worship pagan gods in spite of repeated warnings andcalls to repentance from the prophets. Prophets such as Jeremiahrepeatedly proclaim that if Judah and Jerusalem do not repent andturn from their idolatry and acts of injustice, then God will sendthe Babylonians to destroy them (see esp. Jer. 20–39). Jeremiahrefers to the Babylonians 198 times, and the prophet personallyexperiences the terrible Babylonian siege and destruction ofJerusalem. Jeremiah 39 and 52 describe the actual fall of Jerusalemto Nebuchadnezzar and his Babylonian army. This same tragic story isrecounted in 2 Kings 24–25. Thus, in 586 BC Nebuchadnezzarand his army completely destroy Jerusalem, burning the city and thetemple to the ground and carrying off most of the population intoexile in Babylonia.

Babylonappears in the OT prophetic literature in another context as well.Because of the apostasy of Israel and Judah, the prophets preachjudgment on them. But the prophets also preach judgment on theenemies of Israel and Judah for exploiting or attacking anddestroying God’s people. Jeremiah, for example, prophesiesagainst numerous nations and cities (Jer. 46–49), but hefocuses especially upon Babylon (Jer. 50:1–51:58). Likewise,judgment on Babylon is a central theme in Isa. 13; 14; 21; 47. In theOT, no other foe brought such terrible destruction on Jerusalem. Inlater literature this particular event thus becomes the prototypicalpicture of horrendous death and destruction, and Babylon becomes theliterary symbol epitomizing all of Israel’s enemies.

NewTestament.Babylon appears again at the end of the biblical story. In Rev. 17–18John describes the enemy of God’s kingdom as a harlot dressedin scarlet and riding on a beast. One of the titles written on herhead is “Babylon the Great” (17:5). Some commentatorsbelieve that John is describing a literal resurrected city ofBabylon. That is, they propose that Babylon will be rebuilt on itsoriginal site and become the center of government for the antichrist.Many other scholars, however, maintain that the harlot of Rev. 17–18symbolizes ancient Rome, not a modern rebuilt Babylon. They arguethat the term “Babylon” is used symbolically inRevelation. Supporting this view is the apostle Peter’sapparent use of the term “Babylon” to refer to Rome in1 Pet. 5:13 (“she who is in Babylon . . . sendsyou her greetings”). Most NT scholars conclude that in thisverse “she” is a reference to the church and that“Babylon” is a coded or symbolic reference to Rome.

There were at least two towns called “Bethlehem” (meaning “house of bread”). (1) A town in Zebulun, in the north, about seven miles northwest of Nazareth (Josh. 19:15).

(2) The well-known town about four miles south of Jerusalem in Judah, situated on a couple of hills about 2,300 feet above sea level. The ancient name was “Ephrath” or “Ephrathah” (Gen. 35:16, 19; 48:7; Ruth 4:11; Ps. 136:2; Mic. 5:2; see also Bethlehem Ephrathah). With the possible exception of the story of the judge Ibzan (Judg. 12:8–10), most references to Bethlehem are to the town in Judah, which still exists.

Bethlehem first enters biblical history when Jacob’s wife Rachel dies there while giving birth to Benjamin (Gen. 35:16–19). After the conquest, the town was inhabited by Ephrathites descended from Caleb, one of whom was called “father of Bethlehem” (in the sense of civic leader; 1 Chron. 2:51; 4:4; cf. 2:54). Judges mentions two Levites passing though, one who moved from Bethlehem to Ephraim (Judg. 17:7–9), and another who lived in Ephraim but took a concubine from Bethlehem (19:1). The most important references to Bethlehem from this era, however, are in Ruth. It was from Bethlehem that Elimelek’s family set out for Moab (Ruth 1:1), and to Bethlehem that Ruth and Naomi returned (1:22). Two generations later, it was into this same Bethlemite family that the future king David was born (Ruth 4:18–22; 1 Sam. 16:1).

Bethlehem is mentioned frequently as David’s hometown (e.g., 1 Sam. 17:12, 58; 20:6). Several of the mighty men on whom David depended so much were from there, including the brothers Joab, Abishai, and Asahel (2 Sam. 2:18, 32) and Elhanan (2 Sam. 23:24). At one point, when Bethlehem was temporarily garrisoned by Philistines, some of the mighty men risked their lives to fetch David water from the town well (2 Sam. 23:14–17; 2 Chron. 11:16–26). Bethlehem was later fortified by David’s grandson Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:6).

In the eighth century the prophet Micah promised that although Judah’s defeat was inevitable, a new king would arise from this otherwise insignificant town to save the whole of Israel (Mic. 5:2). Both the place and the clan retained their identity through the exile, and 123 men of Bethlehem returned to Judah (Ezra 2:21; see also Neh. 7:26).

Luke stresses that Jesus was born in David’s city (Luke 2:4; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12–16); Joseph had taken Mary to his ancestral home, Bethlehem, for a Roman census. The angels announced Jesus’ birth to some shepherds in the vicinity of town (Luke 2:1–20). Matthew makes a more specific connection to Micah’s prophecy; indeed, it was on the basis of this prophecy that Herod decided where to send the magi (Matt. 2:1–8) and where to slaughter the baby boys (2:16). Matthew sees in this slaughter a fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy that Rachel, who died at Bethlehem, would mourn her children (Matt. 2:18; Jer. 31:15). Ironically, some Jews rejected Jesus because they thought that he came from Galilee (John 7:42). Constantine the Great, the fourth-century Roman emperor, built a church above a cave in Bethlehem, traditionally believed to be the birthplace of Jesus. Today the city boasts a population of about thirty thousand and is one of the most visited sites in Israel, especially during the Christmas season, when thousands of Christians make a pilgrimage to the traditional place of Jesus’ birth.

There were at least two towns called “Bethlehem” (meaning “house of bread”). (1) A town in Zebulun, in the north, about seven miles northwest of Nazareth (Josh. 19:15).

(2) The well-known town about four miles south of Jerusalem in Judah, situated on a couple of hills about 2,300 feet above sea level. The ancient name was “Ephrath” or “Ephrathah” (Gen. 35:16, 19; 48:7; Ruth 4:11; Ps. 136:2; Mic. 5:2; see also Bethlehem Ephrathah). With the possible exception of the story of the judge Ibzan (Judg. 12:8–10), most references to Bethlehem are to the town in Judah, which still exists.

Bethlehem first enters biblical history when Jacob’s wife Rachel dies there while giving birth to Benjamin (Gen. 35:16–19). After the conquest, the town was inhabited by Ephrathites descended from Caleb, one of whom was called “father of Bethlehem” (in the sense of civic leader; 1 Chron. 2:51; 4:4; cf. 2:54). Judges mentions two Levites passing though, one who moved from Bethlehem to Ephraim (Judg. 17:7–9), and another who lived in Ephraim but took a concubine from Bethlehem (19:1). The most important references to Bethlehem from this era, however, are in Ruth. It was from Bethlehem that Elimelek’s family set out for Moab (Ruth 1:1), and to Bethlehem that Ruth and Naomi returned (1:22). Two generations later, it was into this same Bethlemite family that the future king David was born (Ruth 4:18–22; 1 Sam. 16:1).

Bethlehem is mentioned frequently as David’s hometown (e.g., 1 Sam. 17:12, 58; 20:6). Several of the mighty men on whom David depended so much were from there, including the brothers Joab, Abishai, and Asahel (2 Sam. 2:18, 32) and Elhanan (2 Sam. 23:24). At one point, when Bethlehem was temporarily garrisoned by Philistines, some of the mighty men risked their lives to fetch David water from the town well (2 Sam. 23:14–17; 2 Chron. 11:16–26). Bethlehem was later fortified by David’s grandson Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:6).

In the eighth century the prophet Micah promised that although Judah’s defeat was inevitable, a new king would arise from this otherwise insignificant town to save the whole of Israel (Mic. 5:2). Both the place and the clan retained their identity through the exile, and 123 men of Bethlehem returned to Judah (Ezra 2:21; see also Neh. 7:26).

Luke stresses that Jesus was born in David’s city (Luke 2:4; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12–16); Joseph had taken Mary to his ancestral home, Bethlehem, for a Roman census. The angels announced Jesus’ birth to some shepherds in the vicinity of town (Luke 2:1–20). Matthew makes a more specific connection to Micah’s prophecy; indeed, it was on the basis of this prophecy that Herod decided where to send the magi (Matt. 2:1–8) and where to slaughter the baby boys (2:16). Matthew sees in this slaughter a fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy that Rachel, who died at Bethlehem, would mourn her children (Matt. 2:18; Jer. 31:15). Ironically, some Jews rejected Jesus because they thought that he came from Galilee (John 7:42). Constantine the Great, the fourth-century Roman emperor, built a church above a cave in Bethlehem, traditionally believed to be the birthplace of Jesus. Today the city boasts a population of about thirty thousand and is one of the most visited sites in Israel, especially during the Christmas season, when thousands of Christians make a pilgrimage to the traditional place of Jesus’ birth.

Every faithful translation of the Bible is the word of God.In this respect, Christianity is very different from Islam, whichconsiders the Arabic version of the Qur’an exclusively holy. Itis true that only the original versions of the biblical books, whichwere written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, were verbally inspired,and this means that individual translations, like copies, can containerrors. Translations also necessarily involve some degree ofinterpretation. However, all language is created by God, and in theincarnation the Word became fully human as well as fully divine. InGod’s hands, every human language is as capable as any other ofexpressing his truth.

SincePentecost, the Holy Spirit has been at work to reverse the effect ofhuman sin at Babel (Gen. 11:9), not by reducing all languages to one,but by redeeming the diversity and richness of the world’slanguages so that all can hear God speak to them in their own tongue(Acts 2:1–11). Indeed, translations of Scripture themselvestransform the languages and cultures in which they are written,endowing them with new or revised concepts of God, humanity, sin, andthe means of salvation.

TheHistory of Translation

Bibletranslation began long before the Bible as we know it was complete.In the fifth century BC the Israelites who returned from exile spokeAramaic. Thus, they needed the Levites to translate the Hebrew lawfor them (Neh. 8:8). This Levitical teaching was probably an earlyexample of a Targum, a translation into Aramaic with interpretationand expansion. We do not know exactly when the Targumim began to bewritten down, but some of the earliest fragments that have been foundare among the DSS.

Byabout the third century BC the dominant languages of Palestine wereGreek and Aramaic. Many NT quotations from the OT use an establishedGreek translation of the OT. This was known as the Septuagint (LXX),after the legend that it was translated by seventy-two men, six fromeach tribe of Israel, on the orders of Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt(285–247 BC). The NT was written in similar “common”(koinē) Greek, but in some places the Gospels and Acts translatewords that Jesus and Paul originally spoke in Aramaic (Mark 5:41;15:34; Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14; see also John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20;20:16).

UntilPentecost, God’s revelation was translated only into thelanguages spoken by the Jewish people in their everyday life. AtPentecost, however, the coming of the Holy Spirit was marked by adisplay of miraculous linguistic gifts, and a new era of Bibletranslation had begun (Acts 2). As Christians obeyed Christ’scommand to take the word of God into all the world, they began totranslate it into all the languages used by the growing church.

Withinthree centuries, Scripture was translated from the original Hebrew,Aramaic, and Greek into Syriac, Coptic, and Latin. The earliesttranslations into these languages were then revised and improved inthe subsequent centuries until some, such as Jerome’s LatinVulgate and the Syriac Pesh*tta, emerged as acknowledged standards.Other early translations included Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, andOld Slavonic. Many of these languages were already written, but asmissionaries ventured further, they sometimes had to start byreducing spoken languages to writing. Ulfilas, missionary to theGoths, was the first to do this.

Allof the thirty-three translations prior to the Reformation had to becopied out by hand, and almost all were “secondarytranslations” made from the Latin. Moreover, despite theefforts of early reformers such as John Wycliffe (AD 1330–84),the Catholic Church continued to use the Latin text itself, which wasaccessible only to the educated. In the sixteenth century, however,the printing press was invented, Renaissance scholars rediscoveredthe value of consulting texts in the original Hebrew and Greek, andProtestantism realized that believers need the Bible in their mothertongue.

Themost influential sixteenth-century translator into English wasWilliam Tyndale (1494–1536). His work on the NT and parts ofthe OT was gradually expanded and revised by other scholars,culminating in the 1611 King James Version, which is still widelyused. Meanwhile, other European translations were produced in German(by Martin Luther), Spanish, Hungarian, Portuguese, and French.

TheReformation also gave new momentum to mission outside Europe, and bythe end of the eighteenth century the number of languages having theBible had roughly doubled. A much greater global achievement,however, began in the nineteenth century, when the newly formed Biblesocieties, with other mission agencies, were instrumental in thetranslation and publication of portions of Scripture in over fourhundred languages. Famous translators from this century includeWilliam Carey in India, John Robert Morrison in China, Henry Martynin Persia, and Adoniram Judson in Burma. About five hundred moretranslations were added in the first half of the twentieth century.Progress was, nevertheless, slow. Many languages were difficult toanalyze, and it was particularly hard to produce translations thatread smoothly, using the genres and idioms that a native speakerwould use.

Sincethe 1950s, linguistic science has revolutionized the way thattranslation is carried out, and organizations such as Wycliffe BibleTranslators have set themselves the task of giving every person inthe world the Scriptures in their everyday language. Increasingly,translation is carried out by linguistically trained native speakersof the target languages, working wherever possible from the originalHebrew and Greek. Translators understand better than before howextended discourses are constructed at levels above the sentence, andhow social and pragmatic factors affect meaning. The combination oflinguistics and technology has also greatly increased the speed withwhich translations can be produced; sometimes a first draft in a newlanguage can be generated from a closely related language using acomputer program.

Typesof Translation

Alltranslators aim for both accuracy and acceptability, but the work oftranslation constantly involves compromise between these two factors.There are, broadly speaking, two types of translation: formalcorrespondence and functional equivalence.

Ina formal correspondence translation (also called “literal”),the translator, as far as possible, preserves the word order andstructure of the original text and translates each word the same wayevery time it occurs, even if the result is slightly wooden. This ishelpful for word studies, and it preserves patterns of repetitionthat give structure to the text. There is always a danger, however,that the closest formal match to the original actually conveys ameaning different from the original in a particular context.Literalness is not the same as accuracy. Pushed to its extreme,formal correspondence produces the kind of semitranslation found ininterlinear texts (where the English is reproduced word for wordbelow a line of Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek); it is not grammaticallyacceptable, cannot be used on its own for public or private reading,and loses many of the nuances of the original. However, formalcorrespondence translations that avoid such extremes are importantfor detailed Bible study.

Ina functional equivalence translation (also called “dynamic,”“idiomatic equivalence,” or “meaning-based”),the translator aims to produce the same response in a modern readeras the original text would have done in an ancient reader. To achievethis, the syntactic structures and figures of speech of Greek andHebrew are replaced by their equivalents in the target language. Aword may be translated many different ways in different contexts,even when it has a single basic meaning in the original. While thispreserves some nuances, it loses others, obscuring structure and thedeliberate echo of one verse in another. In this case there is alwaysa danger that the translator has misunderstood the original meaningand the response that it would have produced. Pushed to its extreme,this type shades into paraphrase, and it may be overly subjective orjeopardize the historical particularity of the text. However, dynamicequivalence translations that avoid such pitfalls are valuable forevangelism, new readers, and public and devotional reading.

Inpractice most translations sit somewhere on the spectrum betweenthese two extremes. Some intermediate translations are a deliberatecompromise, aiming to keep as close as possible to the original whilecommunicating its meaning clearly in a common language that isaccessible to all. The NIV is a widely used example. One problem inusing such a translation is knowing when form has been preserved atthe expense of meaning, and when meaning has been preserved at theexpense of form. For serious study, therefore, it is useful tocompare intermediate translations with translations of the other twotypes, and to learn from the introductory material what translationprinciples have been used.

Toillustrate the differences between the types of translation, considerhow Rom. 3:21 is rendered by the NASB (formal correspondence), theNIV (intermediate), and the NLT (functional equivalence):

Butnow apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested,being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets. (NASB)

Butnow apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known,to which the Law and the Prophets testify. (NIV)

Butnow God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keepingthe requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Mosesand the prophets long ago. (NLT)

FurtherChoices in Translation

Withinthis spectrum translators have further detailed decisions to make.

First,what are the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, asdetermined by the discipline of textual criticism?

Second,what style should be used? An elevated or archaic style is sometimespreferred in order to convey the dignity of the word; others use adeliberately colloquial style in order to maximize accessibility.Different books of the Bible themselves have different styles andgenres, ranging from vivid stories and evocative poems to precisedoctrinal formulations, and a translation may attempt to reflect thisdiversity. At the same time, the style and range of vocabulary chosenwill depend to some extent on the needs of the target audience.

Third,should the translation contain complexity and ambiguity when theoriginal does, or should it clarify and simplify? Some parts ofScripture were never easy reading even in the original (see 2 Pet.3:15–16). However, it is sometimes necessary to disambiguate inorder to produce grammatically acceptable text in the targetlanguage. In modern books it is also normal to divide text intoparagraphs and chapters, often with subheadings. Ancient texts,however, were written without any such breaks, so this too is aninterpretation of the text for the sake of clarity.

Fourth,what should the translator do when there is no equivalent word orphrase in the target language? Many people groups have never seen asheep! Sometimes a choice must be made between coining a new word andrefocusing the meaning of an existing word. This is particularlydifficult when deciding how to refer to God in a pagan culture.Translating gesture can also be challenging. For example, in Jer.31:19 the Hebrew is literally “I slapped my thigh,” whichis an indication of distress; but in Western culture slapping one’sthigh would probably mean enjoying a good joke, so the NIV translatesthe Hebrew as “beat my breast.” Footnotes may benecessary to ensure that the meaning is fully understood.

Finally,in cultures that have possessed the Bible for many generationstradition plays a role. A previous translation of a particular versemay be so well known that, unless it is seriously wrong, it ispreferable to let it stand than to “modernize” it.Conversely, tradition may so change the meaning of “biblical”words (such as “saint”) that verses containing them needto be retranslated.

Asa result of all these decisions, there is scope for many differenttranslations even in a single language. Where several translationsexist, serious study should always include comparison betweentranslations along with the use of commentaries. Where availableresources as yet permit only one translation in a language, the typeof translation to be produced must be chosen with great care. Ineither case, new translations will always be needed. On the one hand,although God’s word never changes, scholars can improve ourtextual, linguistic, and exegetical understanding of the Hebrew andGreek originals. On the other hand, the human languages into whichthe Bible is translated are in a process of constant change.

Gender-NeutralTranslations

RecentEnglish-language translations have grappled in particular with thequestion of gender neutrality. All languages differ in the way theydenote gender. Until recently, the masculine gender in English wasalso the inclusive gender; hence, “man” could simply mean“person” or “humanity.” In many cases, thebiblical languages work the same way, so that the older dynamictranslations could, like formal correspondence translations, mirrorthe original. Feminist concerns, however, have changed English usage.It is increasingly unacceptable to use the masculine genderinclusively, and everyday language now substitutes plurals (“person,”or “they” with singular meaning) or expansions (“manor woman,” “he or she”). This introduces adivergence between formal correspondence translations, which preservethe gender usage of the original, and functional equivalencetranslations, which prefer inclusive forms to masculine forms if themeaning of the original is entirely inclusive. To complicate mattersfurther, many careful readers of Scripture disagree on wheremasculine nuances exist and how important they are, in each specificinstance, to the meaning of the text.

The book of Ezekiel is widely recognized as one of the mostidiosyncratic of the OT prophetic books. Some rabbis prohibitedanyone under the age of thirty from reading portions of the book(i.e., the visions of God’s glory in chapters 1 and 10 mightlead to dangerous speculations about the mystery of God).

Authorshipand Date

Upuntil the beginning of the twentieth century, most scholars viewedthe unparalleled extensive dating in the book (1:1–2; 8:1;20:1; 24:1; 26:1; 29:1, 17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1, 17; 33:21; 40:1),along with the symmetry achieved by deliberate thematic repetition(i.e., the “watchman” passages in 3:16–21; 33:1–9;Ezekiel’s message of judgment/hope addressed to the mountainsof Israel respectively in chaps. 6; 36) as indisputable proof thatthe book was the product of a single author. Even during the firstone hundred years or so of historical-critical dominance in OTresearch, historical-critical investigations tended to confirm thetraditional views of the unity, authenticity, and date of the book ofEzekiel, although the opinions of the majority of scholars began toshift early in the twentieth century.

Formuch of the first half of the twentieth century, issues ofauthorship, dating, and provenance of the prophet’s ministrydominated critical research on the book of Ezekiel. The book’speculiarities lent themselves to various suggestions regarding theplace of Ezekiel’s ministry. If, as 1:1–3 records,Ezekiel was called to prophetic ministry among the exilic communityin Babylon, how does one explain Ezekiel’s apparent knowledgeof particular events in Jerusalem, such as the death of Pelatiah(11:13) and the various forms of idolatry taking place in and aroundthe temple complex in chapters 8–11? Furthermore, what is oneto make of Ezekiel’s words to those who remained behind inJerusalem (5:8–17; 11:5–12; 33:23–29)?

Manyof those who sought to defend a straightforward understanding of thebook’s own claims looked to mysticism or psychology to explainEzekiel’s visionary involvement in events occurring some sevenhundred miles away. Explanations for the apparent idiosyncrasies ofhis ministry—including extremely violent and graphic language,his extended period of “muteness,” various strikingsign-acts, and the extended length and emotional intensity of hisvisionary experiences—tended to bleed into the discussion ofhow to understand his visionary experience of being transported toremote locations. Earlier solutions ranged from noting thesimilarities between Ezekiel’s experiences and those of themystics to characterizing Ezekiel as having a “complexpersonality” and as one whose life was more attuned to therealities of the supernatural world.

Geographicalsolutions to account for Ezekiel’s apparent knowledge of eventsin Jerusalem include two suggestions. The first is that Ezekielministered only in Jerusalem. His preaching forms the core ofchapters 1–39, and a later exilic redactor updated thesechapters to address the concerns of an exilic audience and also addedchapters 40–48. The second suggestion is that Ezekielministered in Jerusalem from 593 BC until the fall of Jerusalem, atwhich time he was taken into captivity in Babylon, where he continuedhis ministry among the exiles. The appeal of a dual-ministry approachis that it accounts for the double geographical focus of Ezekielwithout resorting to ecstatic or supernatural flight from one city tothe other or positing extensive secondhand editing of the book.

Onthe other hand, there is evidence from other biblical materials thatecstatic or visionary experiences of this sort were part of theprophetic tradition. Many of Ezekiel’s apparent idiosyncrasiesactually resemble characteristics of the preclassical prophets.Viewing Ezekiel’s ministry as part of an accepted culturaltradition provides a more persuasive explanation for the text as itstands. For example, the evidence of continued contacts between theJerusalem and exilic communities (Jer. 29; Ezek. 33:21) suffices toexplain whatever knowledge Ezekiel possessed of events in Jerusalem.The manner of their presentation in his visions is dictated by thecultural standards and expectations of a prophet operating under theinfluence of the “hand of Yahweh” and by the rhetoricalgoals of his preaching.

Itis entirely plausible to suggest that the author of Ezekiel was anIsraelite who was a rough contemporary of the tragic eventssurrounding the dismantling of the Judahite monarchy by theNeo-Babylonian Empire.

HistoricalBackground

Thebook of Ezekiel itself yields pertinent information about Ezekiel’sworld, which, when supplemented with other biblical texts (2Kings,Jeremiah, Daniel, and Habakkuk), enables us to reconstruct a workingpicture of the social, historical, and theological milieu in whichEzekiel lived and ministered.

In701 BC the kingdom of Judah escaped annihilation by the Assyrians, ashad befallen the northern kingdom in 722 BC, due in large part to theministry of Isaiah and the faith of King Hezekiah (2Kings18:1–20:21; Isa. 36–37), albeit at a crippling financialexpense in the form of heavy tribute to Assyria. After Hezekiah’sdeath in 698 BC, his son Manasseh reversed his father’sreligious reforms, which meant disaster spiritually (2Kings21:1–18; 2Chron. 33:1–11) and survival politically.Judah continued to exist for most of the seventh century BC as avassal kingdom under Assyrian domination. The spiritual decline ofJudah was briefly challenged during the reign of Josiah, who ruled inthe years 640–609 BC. However, Jeremiah’s stronginvectives against empty religious formalism and socialirresponsibility during much of Josiah’s reign suggest thatJosiah’s attempts at religious reforms were only nominallysuccessful and did not penetrate to the populace at large.

WhileJosiah was seeking to institute his reforms, power in theinternational scene was shifting. After the death of Ashurbanipal,the last great Assyrian ruler, the Assyrian Empire began to wane. TheNeo-Babylonian Empire, founded by Nabopolassar (626 BC), dealtAssyria its final blow with the conquest of Nineveh (612 BC),followed by the destruction of Harran a few years later. This,coupled with the untimely death of Josiah in battle against theEgyptians at Megiddo (609 BC), spelled disaster for Judah (2Kings23:29–30; 2Chron. 35:20–24). Nebuchadnezzar assumedleadership of Babylon after the death of his father (605 BC). Laterthat same year, Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egyptian forces at Carchemishand also ordered the deportation of some of the educated young Jewishmen to Babylon (Dan. 1:1–4). This was followed by a seconddeportation in 597 BC, which included King Jehoiachin, Ezekiel, andabout ten thousand Jews (2Kings 24:14). Zedekiah was placed onthe Judean throne as a puppet king. His rebellion against Babylon(588 BC) led to Nebuchadnezzar’s one-and-a-half-year siege ofJerusalem before its final demise in 586BC.

Thepolitical crisis of 597–586 BC led to a crisis of faith. Thepromises of an eternal Davidic kingdom (2Sam. 7:7–16; Ps.89:3–4, 35–37) and Yahweh’s vow to set up his abodeforever in the temple at Jerusalem (Pss. 68:16; 132:13–14)seemed to be failing. At the beginning of Ezekiel’s ministry,the Davidic promise was already under a cloud: Jehoiachin, therightful heir of the line of David, had been taken in captivity toBabylon, and in his place sat the puppet king Zedekiah. In addition,the land of Canaan had played a significant role in shaping theIsraelites’ understanding of themselves as Yahweh’schosen people (Gen. 12:1–3; Deut. 4:37–38; 7:1–11).Because true worship of God was so closely aligned with theIsraelites’ inheritance of the land (Deut. 12), to be outsidethe land immediately raised grave concern about their status beforeGod (1Sam. 26:19). To be outside the promised land would leadin a few short years to a questioning of whether true worship waseven possible any longer (Ps. 137:4). Throughout this period, Ezekiel(and Jeremiah) consistently portrayed Nebuchadnezzar as an unwittingpagan king commissioned by Yahweh to execute the covenant curses onthe recalcitrant southern kingdom.

Farfrom recognizing these events as such, many Israelites in therebellion party, supported by rebellion prophets, asserted theirclaim to divine favor and denied the validity of propheticindictments. They supported their claims with appeals to themiraculous deliverance from the formidable Assyrian army (701 BC),selective use of Scripture’s focus on the inviolability ofJerusalem and the temple, the unconditional promises of an eternalDavidic kingdom (see above), and predictions by rebellion prophets ofa quick return for the exiles (Jer. 28; 29:15–32; Ezek.13).

FromEzekiel’s perspective, the people of Judah were making a liarout of Yahweh. Yahweh had always demanded their exclusive worship. Inlight of their recent history of idolatry, the only appropriateresponse was to execute judgment on them (Ezek. 20:4–44). Bydenying this, the only explanation left to the rebellion party forthe destruction of Jerusalem and exile was that a mighty and wickedkingdom that they intensely hated (Ps. 137:4) had bested Yahweh.

Fromthis historical survey one may distill the overall situation faced byEzekiel into a set of opinions probably shared by the majority ofEzekiel’s fellow exiles. First, there was a widespread beliefthat it was proper to worship other deities in addition to Yahweh.Also, it was generally believed that the people of Judah were in goodstanding with Yahweh and were objects of his favor, and that he wouldshortly bring them deliverance. These beliefs combined to eliminateserious consideration of the possibility that destruction of thekingdom and exile were Yahweh’s intention. Consequently, oncethe kingdom was destroyed and exile had become a reality, Yahweh’spower and/or character became suspect in the minds of many.Furthermore, the perceived link between the land and the presence andblessing of Yahweh cast the exilic experience in an extremelynegative light. For those gripped by these convictions, exile raisedthe specter of hopelessness. The sense of hopelessness wasintensified by its conjunction with the belief that destruction ofthe kingdom and exile were undeserved. There was no way to integratethe outcome of the Babylonian crisis with their previously heldbeliefs about Yahweh and his purposes for Israel.

LiteraryConsiderations

Structureand outline.There are several frameworks that can help the reader understand the“inner logic” of the book.

Tripartitestructure.In chapters 1–24 the theme of God’s impending judgment onthe nation of Israel for violation of the covenant laws isemphatically repeated in both word and sign-act. Chapters 25–32serve a Janus (double) function, connecting with chapters 1–24by continuing the theme of God’s judgment, now directed towardthe foreign nations. The pronouncements of coming judgment in thesechapters anticipate the last part of the book, with the message ofhope for Israel that dominates chapters 33–48. The emphasis ondivine judgment in the first half of the book is not a defactostatement that God is finished with Israel; rather, it is recognitionthat only by means of judgment (both of Israel and their neighbors)is future restoration and reconciliation possible. Many recognize afurther subdivision in the third section, with chapters 33–39focusing on the renewal of the nation and chapters 40–48dealing with Ezekiel’s temple vision.

Thisyields the following outline:

I.God’s Judgment on Israel (1–24)

II.God’s Judgment on the Foreign Nations (25–32)

III.Hope for Israel (33–48)

A.Renewal of the nation (33–39)

B.Ezekiel’s temple vision (40–48)

Visions.Visions open and close the book (chaps. 1–3; 40–48), withtwo additional visions in between: temple idolatry and theincremental departure of God’s glory as judgment is executed(chaps. 8–11), and the valley of dry bones (37:1–14).

Themovement of God’s glory.Ezekiel’s sustained concern for the temple as the place whereGod’s glory dwells provides a unifying structure to the book asEzekiel chronicles God’s glory coming to Babylon in his ominousinaugural vision (chaps. 1–3), the incremental departure ofGod’s glory from the temple and the city (chaps. 8–11),and the return of God’s glory in the vision of the new temple(chaps. 40–48).

Genre.The book of Ezekiel is considered by many to be a literarymasterpiece composed of various genres, including extended visionarynarrative (1–3; 8–11; 37:1–14; 40–48),allegory (16; 23), poetry (19; 26–28), parable (17; 24:3), andpopular sayings (8:12; 9:9; 11:3, 15; 12:22, 27; 18:2; 33:10, 17, 20,24, 30; 37:11). Other prophets quoted popular sayings (Isa. 40:27;Jer. 31:29; Amos 5:14; Hag. 1:2; Mal. 1:2, 6–7, 12–13),but the quotations are far more frequent in Ezekiel and are couchedin uniquely theocentric language. In each case it is God who informsEzekiel what the people are saying. Ezekiel uses popular sayings ofthe people to establish their hostility toward God and to vindicateGod by demonstrating his covenant faithfulness. The unparalleledfrequency of Ezekiel’s use of popular sayings in his oraclesagainst the Israelites and the patently theocentric garb in which hiscounterreplies are clothed serve to anchor both the judgment and thehope of restoration in God alone. Ezekiel’s quotations serve asa foil for a frontal attack on the entire religious enterprise of hiscontemporaries in Jerusalem and Babylon. By citing these popularsayings and refuting them, Ezekiel skillfully reveals both thenecessity and purpose of the exilic crisis. He turns the sayings ofthe people against them, exposing the depths of their opposition toGod and thus furthering the purpose of vindicating God.

TheologicalMessage

Thesovereignty of God.The book emphasizes God’s sovereignty over all as Ezekielchallenged the false theology of his fellow Jewish exiles, which heldthat Yahweh, bound by covenantal oath, could not destroy Jerusalem.The formulaic expression (with variations) “After X occurs,then you/they will know that I am the Lord/I have spoken”occurs over sixty-five times in the book to emphasize God’sintervention in human events, including the exile and restoration(e.g., 7:27; 13:23; 29:16), to uphold the covenant and establish hiskingdom.

Theholiness of God.Israel’s sins had obscured God’s holiness in the sight oftheir neighbors (20:9). God’s holiness required both punishmentof Israel’s sins and the continuation of his covenantalrelationship with his people. God’s purging judgment andrestoration would be a fulfillment of his covenantal obligations andwould display his holiness (20:40–44; 28:25; 36:16–32).

Hopein the midst of judgment.God’s covenantal faithfulness would include restoration afterjudgment (chaps. 33–39). The final temple vision (chaps. 40–48)gives a picture of the restoration using typological images andcultural idioms with which the people were familiar.

NewTestament Connections

Thereare approximately sixty-five quotations and allusions to the book ofEzekiel in the NT. Echoes of Ezekiel are prevalent in John’sGospel (John 10:1–30 [Ezek. 34]; John 15:1–8 [Ezek. 15])and the book of Revelation (Rev. 4:6–9 [Ezek. 1]; Rev. 20–22[Ezek. 40–48]).

In the Bible chaos primarily refers to an opposite conditionto the orderliness of the creation or a mythical force oftenrepresented by the sea or the sea monster(s) (translated as “dragon,”“Leviathan,” or “Rahab”). The two relatedideas are based on the creation accounts recorded in Gen. 1–2and other places.

OldTestament.In Gen. 1:2 chaos is the state of darkness and desolation (note thephrase “formless and empty” [Heb. tohu wabohu], whichprobably refers to the state of desolation of water with nothing init; cf. Isa. 34:11; 45:18). The rest of the chapter describes how Godin his absolute sovereignty and power—only with hiswords—creates order in place of the chaos. God brings light tothe darkness, separates the land from the sea, and provides the landwith abundance. The portrayal of the garden of Eden (2:4–14)further describes God’s provision of orderliness, fertility,eternal life, and harmony in the original creation.

Althoughthe Genesis account does not directly mention any mythical elements(i.e., the primordial combat between the sea and the prime god),other passages describe creation as the event in which God calmed theraging sea and killed the sea monsters (Pss. 74:12–17; 89:9–12;Job 26:7–14). Still, nowhere are the chaotic forces presentedas an independent power that constantly challenges God’ssovereignty. Rather, God always does whatever he pleases with them,lifting up the waves of the sea (Ps. 107:25; Jer. 31:35; cf. Ps.146:6) and uncovering Death and Destruction (Job 26:6). Isaiahalludes to God’s slaying of the chaotic sea creature not onlyas the past event (51:9), but also as the promise to be realized inthe day of the Lord (27:1).

InGenesis, God’s judgment is frequently described by means of thechaos motif, as a pre­creation condition reversed—forexample, loss of harmony, fruitfulness, and eternal life (Gen.3:15–24), return of the waters over the land (Gen. 7–8),loss of communication (11:7–9), and desolation of the fruitfulland (19:23–28; cf. 13:10).

Thechaos motif also plays an important role in the propheticdescriptions of God’s judgment against his people and againstthe foreign nations. Noteworthy is Jer. 4:23–26, which depictsGod’s judgment upon his people in terms of chaos’sreturn—that is, the condition of “formless and empty,”without light, creatures, or fruitful land (cf. Hos. 4:3). In Isa.34:11 God’s judgment upon Edom is expressed with thecharacteristic phrase in Gen. 1:2: “God will stretch out overEdom the measuring line of chaos [tohu, ‘formless’] andthe plumb line of desolation [bohu, ‘empty’].” Inother places Isaiah frequently employs the imageries of desolation(5:6; 7:23–25; 13:19–22; 24:1–13; 34:8–17),darkness (5:30; 8:22; 13:10), and flood (8:7–8).

NewTestament.The concept of chaos developed in the OT provides an importantbackground for understanding the NT. The Gospel writers use the chaosmotif in describing Jesus’ person and work—for example,as light in the darkness (John 1:4–9; 3:19), as provider ofabundance and eternal life (John 3:16; 4:14; 5:51; 6:1–15), andas the sovereign ruler of the chaotic sea, who walks on the water(Matt. 14:22–36; Mark 6:47–55; John 6:16–21) andcalms the stormy sea with his words (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark4:35–41; Luke 8:22–25). Jesus’ resurrection is hisultimate demonstration of his reign over death (cf. 1 Cor. 15).

Paulfurther uses the chaos motif to describe the life of sinners or thesinful world. The identity of believers is changed from “darkness”to “light” or “children of light,” who nowmust shine the light in the world (Eph. 5:8; cf. Matt. 5:15–16;Phil. 2:15).

Inthe book of Revelation the ultimate restoration of the perfectcreation order is presented, making allusions to the OT mythicaldescriptions of the chaotic forces (e.g., Satan as the dragon[12:15–16], Death and Hades as the underground forces[20:13–14]). Particularly, the new Jerusalem is the place of nosea or darkness or death (21:1, 4, 23–25) but of fruitfulnessand eternal life (22:1–2).

Terminology

TheNT word for “church” is ekklēsia, which means“gathering, assembly, congregation.” In classical Greekthe term was used almost exclusively for political gatherings. Inparticular, in Athens the word signified the assembling of thecitizens for the purpose of conducting the affairs of the city.Moreover, ekklēsia referred only to the actual meeting, not tothe citizens themselves. When the people were not assembled, theywere not considered to be the ekklēsia. The NT records threeinstances of this secular usage of the term (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).

Themost important background for the Christian use of the term is theLXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, dated c. 250BC), which uses the word in a religious sense about one hundredtimes, almost always as a translation of the Hebrew word qahal. Whileqahal does not indicate a secular gathering (in contrast to ’edah,the typical Hebrew word for Israel’s religious gathering,translated by Greek synagōgē), it does denote Israel’ssacred meetings. This is especially the case in Deuteronomy, whereqahal is linked with the covenant.

Inthe NT, ekklēsia is used to refer to the community of God’speople 109 times (out of 114 occurrences of the term). Although theword occurs in only two Gospel passages (Matt. 16:18; 18:17), it isof special importance in Acts (23 times) and the Pauline writings (46times). It is found 20 times in Revelation and in isolated instancesin James and Hebrews. Three general conclusions can be drawn fromthis usage. First, ekklēsia (in both the singular and theplural) applies predominantly to a local assembly of those whoprofess faith in and allegiance to Christ. Second, ekklēsiadesignates the universal church (Acts 8:3; 9:31; 1 Cor. 12:28;15:9; especially in the later Pauline letters: Eph. 1:22–23;Col. 1:18). Third, the ekklēsia is God’s congregation(1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1).

TheNature of the Church

Thenature of the church is too broad to be exhausted in the meaning ofone word. To capture its significance, the NT authors utilize a richarray of metaphorical descriptions. Nevertheless, there are thosemetaphors that seem to dominate the biblical pictures of the church,five of which call for comment: the people of God, the kingdom ofGod, the eschatological temple of God, the bride of Christ, and thebody of Christ.

Thepeople of God.Essentially, the concept of the people of God can be summed up in thecovenantal phrase: “I will be their God, and they will be mypeople” (see Exod. 6:6–7; 19:5; Lev. 26:9–14; Jer.7:23; 30:22; 32:37–40; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:22–28;Acts 15:14; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 8:10–12; Rev. 21:3). Thus,the people of God are those in both the OT and the NT eras whor*sponded to God by faith and whose spiritual origin restsexclusively in God’s grace.

Tospeak of the one people of God transcending the eras of the OT andthe NT necessarily raises the question of the relationship betweenthe church and Israel. Modern interpreters prefer not to polarize thematter into an either/or issue. Rather, they talk about the churchand Israel in terms of there being both continuity and discontinuitybetween them.

Continuitybetween the church and Israel. Two ideas establish the fact that thechurch and Israel are portrayed in the Bible as being in a continuousrelationship. First, in the OT the church was present in Israel insome sense. Acts 7:38 suggests this connection when, alluding toDeut. 9:10, it speaks of the church (ekklēsia) in thewilderness. The same idea is probably to be inferred from theintimate association noted earlier existing between the wordsekklēsia and qahal, especially when the latter is qualified bythe phrase “of God.” Furthermore, if the church is viewedin some NT passages as preexistent, then one finds therein theprototype of the creation of Israel (see Exod. 25:40; Acts 7:44; Gal.4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:11; cf. Eph. 1:3–14).

Second,Israel in some sense is present in the church in the NT. The many OTnames for Israel applied to the church in the NT establish that fact.Some of those are “Israel” (Gal. 6:15–16; Eph.2:12; Heb. 8:8–10; Rev. 2:14), “a chosen people”(1 Pet. 2:9), “the circumcision” (Rom. 2:28–29;Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11), “Abraham’s seed” (Rom. 4:16;Gal. 3:29), “the remnant” (Rom. 9:27; 11:5–7), “theelect” (Rom. 11:28; Eph. 1:4), “the flock” (Acts20:28; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:2), and “priesthood”(1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10).

Discontinuitybetween the church and Israel. The church, however, is not totallyidentical with Israel; discontinuity also characterizes therelationship. The church, according to the NT, is the eschatological(end-time) Israel incorporated in Jesus Christ and, as such, is aprogression beyond historical Israel (1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Cor.5:14–21). Indeed, significant discontinuity is introduced bythe fact that the church includes Gentiles as members of Israel,without requiring them to convert to Judaism first. Gentiles enter asGentiles. However, a caveat must be issued at this point. Althoughthe church is a progression beyond Israel, it does not seem to be thepermanent replacement of Israel (see Rom. 9–11, esp. 11:25–27).

Thekingdom of God.Many scholars have maintained that the life, death, and resurrectionof Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, producing the overlapping ofthe two ages. The kingdom has already dawned but is not yet complete.The first aspect pertains to Jesus’ first coming, and thesecond aspect relates to his second coming. In other words, the ageto come has broken into this age, and now the two existsimultaneously. This background is crucial in ascertaining therelationship between the church and the kingdom of God, because thechurch also exists in the tension that results from the overlappingof the two ages. Accordingly, one may define the church as theforeshadowing of the kingdom. Two ideas flow from this definition:first, the church is related to the kingdom of God; second, thechurch is not equal to the kingdom of God.

Thechurch and the kingdom of God are related. Not until after theresurrection of Jesus does the NT speak with regularity about thechurch. However, there are early signs of the church in the teachingand ministry of Jesus, in both general and specific ways. In general,Jesus anticipated the later official formation of the church in thathe gathered to himself the twelve disciples, who constituted thebeginnings of eschatological Israel—in effect, the remnant.More specifically, Jesus explicitly referred to the church in twopassages: Matt. 16:18–19; 18:17. In the first passage Jesuspromised that he would build his church despite satanic opposition,thus assuring the ultimate success of his mission. The notion of thechurch overcoming the forces of evil coincides with the idea that thekingdom of God will prevail over its enemies and bespeaks theintimate association between the church and the kingdom. The secondpassage relates to the future organization of the church, not unlikethe Jewish synagogue practices of Jesus’ day.

Thechurch and the kingdom of God are not identical. As intimatelyrelated as the church and the kingdom of God are, the NT does notequate the two, as is evident in the fact that the early Christianspreached the kingdom, not the church (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23,31). The NT identifies the church as the people of the kingdom (e.g.,Rev. 5:10), not the kingdom itself. Moreover, the church is theinstrument of the kingdom. This is especially clear from Matt.16:18–19, where the preaching of Peter and the church becomethe keys to opening up the kingdom of God to all who would enter.

Theeschatological temple of God.Both the OT and Judaism anticipated the rebuilding of the temple inthe future kingdom of God (e.g., Ezek. 40–48; Hag. 2:1–9;1 En. 90:29; 91:3; Jub. 1:17, 29). Jesus hinted that he wasgoing to build such a structure (Matt. 16:18; Mark 14:58; John2:19–22). Pentecost witnessed to the beginning of thefulfillment of that dream in that when the Spirit inhabited thechurch, the eschatological temple was formed (Acts 2:16–36).Other NT writers also perceived that the presence of the Spirit inthe Christian community constituted the new temple of God (1 Cor.3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1; Eph. 2:19–22; seealso Gal. 4:21–31; 1 Pet. 2:4–10). How­ever,that the eschatological temple is not yet complete is evident in thepreceding passages, especially in their emphasis on the need for thechurch to grow toward maturity in Christ, which will be fullyaccomplished only at the parousia (second coming of Christ). In themeantime, Christians, as priests of God, are to perform theirsacrificial service to the glory of God (Rom. 12:1–2; Heb.13:15; 1 Pet. 2:4–10).

Thebride of Christ.The image of marriage is applied to God and Israel in the OT (seeIsa. 54:5–6; 62:5; Hos. 2:7). Similar imagery is applied toChrist and the church in the NT. Christ, the bridegroom, hassacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be his bride (Eph.5:25–27). Her responsibility during the betrothal period is tobe faithful to him (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:24). At the parousia theofficial wedding ceremony will take place, and with it the eternalunion of Christ and his wife will be actualized (Rev. 19:7–9;21:1–2).

Thebody of Christ.The body of Christ as a metaphor for the church is unique to thePauline literature and constitutes one of the most significantconcepts therein (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12:12–27; Eph.4:7–16; Col. 1:18). The primary purpose of the metaphor is todemonstrate the interrelatedness of diversity and unity within thechurch, especially with reference to spiritual gifts. The body ofChrist is the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), the new humanity of theend time that has appeared in history. However, Paul’s usage ofthe image, like the metaphor of the new temple, indicates that thechurch, as the body of Christ, still has a long way to gospiritually. It is not yet complete.

Sacraments

Atthe heart of the expression of the church’s faith are thesacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The formersymbolizes entrance into the church, while the latter providesspiritual sustenance for the church.

Baptism.Baptism symbolizes the sinner’s entrance into the church. Threeobservations emerge from the biblical treatment of this sacrament.First, the OT intimated baptism, especially in its association ofrepentance of sin with ablutions (Num.19:18–22; Ps. 51:7; Ezek.36:25; cf. John 3:5). Second, the baptism of John anticipatedChristian baptism. John administered a baptism of repentance inexpectation of the baptism of the Spirit and fire that the Messiahwould exercise (Matt. 3:11 // Luke 3:16). Those who accept Jesusas Messiah experience the baptism of fire and judgment (which may bean allusion to undergoing the great tribulation/messianic woes thatlead into the messianic kingdom). Third, the early church practicedbaptism in imitation of the Lord Jesus (Matt. 3:13–17 //Mark 1:9–11 // Luke 3:21–22; see also John 1:32–34;cf. Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; Rom. 6:3–6; 1 Cor.1:13–15; Gal. 3:27; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21). Thesepassages demonstrate some further truths about baptism: baptism isintimately related to faith in God; baptism identifies the personwith the death and resurrection of Jesus; baptism incorporates theperson into the community of believers.

Lord’sSupper.The other biblical sacrament is the Lord’s Supper. This ritesymbolizes Christ’s spiritual nourishment of his church as itcelebrates the sacred meal. Two basic points emerge from the biblicaldata concerning the Lord’s Supper. First, it was instituted byChrist (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20;1 Cor. 11:23–25), probably as an adaptation of thePassover meal. If that is the case, then, Jesus will have introducedtwo changes into the Passover seder: he replaced the unleavened breadwith a reference to his body being given for us on the cross; hereplaced the cup of redemption with a reference to his shed blood onthe cross, the basis of the new covenant. Second, the early churchpracticed the Lord’s Supper probably weekly, in conjunctionwith the love feast (see 1 Cor. 11:18–22; cf. Jude 12). Atwofold meaning is attached to the Lord’s Supper by the NTauthors. First, it involves participation in Christ’s salvation(Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24–25), and in two ways:participating in the Lord’s Supper looks back to the death ofJesus, in which the believer now shares; participating in the Lord’sSupper looks forward to Christ’s return, the culmination pointof the believer’s salvation. Second, the Lord’s Supperinvolves identification with the body of Christ, the community offaith (1 Cor. 10:16–17; 11:27–33).

Worship

Theultimate purpose of the church is to worship God through Christ andin the power of the Holy Spirit (see, e.g., Rev. 4–5). Theearly church first worshiped in the Jerusalem temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1;5:42) as well as in the synagogue (Acts 22:19; cf. John 9:22; James2:2). At the same time, and into the near future, believers met inhomes for worship (Acts 1:13; 2:46; 5:42; cf. Rom. 16:15; Col. 4:15;Philem. 2; 2 John 10; 3 John 1, 6). Although many JewishChristians no doubt continued to worship God on the Sabbath, theestablished time for the church’s worship came to be Sunday,the day of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10). Theearly church most probably patterned its order of worship after thesynagogue service: praise in prayer (Acts 2:42, 47; 3:1; 1 Thess.1:2; 5:17) and in song (1 Cor. 14:26; Phil. 2:6–11; Col.1:15–20), the expounding of Scripture (Acts 2:42; 6:4; Col.4:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 4:13), and almsgiving to theneedy (Acts 2:44–45; 1 Cor. 16:1–2; 2 Cor. 8–9;James 2:15–17).

Serviceand Organization

Fiveobservations emerge from the NT regarding the service andorganization of the early church. First, the ministry of the churchcenters on its usage of spiritual gifts, which are given to believersby God’s grace and for his glory as well as for the good ofothers (Rom. 12:3; Eph. 4:7–16). Second, every believerpossesses a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7; Eph. 4:7). Third,it is through the diversity of the gifts that the body of Christmatures and is unified (Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:12–31; Eph.4:17–18). Fourth, although there was organized leadership inthe NT church, including elders (1 Tim. 3:1–7 [also called“pastors” and “bishops”; see Acts 20:17, 28;1 Pet. 5:1–4]) and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–13),there does not seem to have been a gap between the “clergy”and the “laity” in the church of the first century;rather, those with the gift of leadership are called to equip all thesaints for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:7–16). Fifth,spiritual gifts are to be exercised in love (1 Cor. 13).

In the Bible, gestures are made with either parts of the bodyor items, such as clothing and rings, directly connected to the body.For this reason, it makes sense to classify biblical gestures inrelation to the different body parts that are identified with thegestures. It is, however, challenging to know where to draw a line onclassifying a gesture. For example, a devious person is described inProv. 6:13 as one “who winks maliciously with his eye, signalswith his feet and motions with his fingers.” It is unclearwhether this is a single gesture or multiple ones, and whether allsignify different things or the same thing.

Head

Gesturesthat relate to the head range from simple head motions to semiviolentacts such as hair pulling. Simple head motions include lifting ofone’s head in honor (Gen. 40:13), bowing one’s head inmourning (Ps. 35:14), tossing one’s head in mockery andderision (2Kings 19:21), and shaking one’s head as insult(Ps. 22:7; Mark 15:29).

Acommon action is the shaving of the head, which can be forpurification (Lev. 14:8–9; Num. 6:9; 8:7 [includes all bodyhair]), mourning (Deut. 21:11–13; Job 1:20; Isa. 15:2; Jer.16:6; 47:5; 48:37; Ezek. 27:31; Amos 8:10; Mic. 1:16), remorse (Jer.41:5), or shaming (Jer. 2:16). However, priests are forbidden fromshaving their heads even in mourning (Lev. 21:5; Ezek. 44:20), whilethe high priest is to wear a turban on his head during sacrificialduties (Exod. 29:6).

Anointingof the head is done when a priest or king is installed (Exod. 29:7;Ps. 23:5) or simply as a sign of God’s goodness and blessing ona person (Eccles. 9:8). Blessing may also involve placing a hand onthe head of the person being blessed (Gen. 48:14–18; Exod.29:19), while the same gesture on the head of sacrificial animals isa symbolic means of transferring sin (Lev. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24,29, 33; 8:18, 22).

Inthe OT, a woman’s head can be shaved in mourning (Deut.21:12–13; cf. Jer. 47:5), but in the NT, a shaved head can be acause for disgrace (1Cor. 11:5–6).

Face.Facial gestures range from expressions to actions such as touching orcovering the face. A face can be downcast in anger (Gen. 4:5–6)or bowed to the ground in honor (Gen. 48:12), in dejection (Josh.7:6), in humility (Ruth 2:10), in worship (2Chron. 20:18; Ps.138:2), in subjection, supplication, reverence (1Sam. 20:41;25:41; 28:14; 2Sam. 14:4, 22; 18:28; 24:20; 1Kings 1:23;1Chron. 21:20), or in dread (e.g., Moses before Yahweh [Exod.3:6]).

Theface can be covered or veiled as an indication of uncleanness (Lev.13:45), in grief/mourning (2Sam. 19:4; Ezek. 24:17), inresignation (1Kings 19:13), with intent to deceive in adultery(Job 24:15), or in horror of judgment (Esther 7:8; Ezek. 12:6, 12).It can also be buried in the dust in remorse (Lam. 3:29).

Godcan be described as hiding or turning away his face againstwickedness and evil (Deut. 31:18; 32:20; Ps. 34:16; Isa. 8:17; Jer.33:5; Ezek. 7:22; 15:7; 20:46; 21:2) or in an act of withholdingblessings (Job 13:15; Pss. 10:1; 13:1; 27:9; 30:7; 34:16; Isa. 54:8;59:2; 64:7). God can also turn his face toward a place in judgment(Ezek. 4:3, 7; 6:2). In 1Sam. 5:3–4 the idol of thePhilistine god Dagon falls facedown before the ark of the covenant,apparently overpowered by Yahweh.

Actsof humiliation or dishonor can involve spitting in the face (Num.12:14; Deut. 25:9; Job 17:6; 30:10; Isa. 50:6), slapping the face(1Kings 22:24; 2Chron. 18:23; Job 16:10; Lam. 3:30; Mic.5:1), pulling a skirt up over someone’s face in shamingjudgment (Jer. 13:26; Nah. 3:5), and hooking and dragging someone bythe nose (2Kings 19:28). Although being struck on the cheek ishumiliating, Jesus instructs his disciples to “turn the othercheek” as a sign of resistance to violence (Matt. 5:39; Luke6:29).

Onecan lift one’s face in worship (2Kings 20:2; Job 22:26;Isa. 38:2) or in confidence (Job 11:15) and can fail to lift it inshame and disgrace (Ezra 9:6). Although the shaving of beards inmourning is common practice (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5; 48:37),the forced shaving of beards is an act of shaming and insulting(2Sam. 10:4; 1Chron. 19:4–5; Isa. 7:20; 50:6).

Eyes.Winking the eye is perceived as an evil, deceptive, or malicious act(Ps. 35:19; Prov. 6:13; 16:30). Eyes can be lifted up in worship andexpectation (Pss. 121:1; 123:1).

Mouth.Pursed lips can characterize an evil person (Prov. 16:30), while ahand can be clapped over the mouth in awe and submission (Job 21:5;40:4). Psalm 72:9 looks to the righteous king before whom the deserttribes will bow and whose “enemies lick the dust” indefeat.

Ears.An Israelite slave for life is to have a hole punched through his orher earlobe, held against a doorpost, with an awl (Exod. 21:6; Deut.15:17). Blood is sprinkled on the lobe of the right ear forpurification (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17), whilesupplication can be described as asking for the turning of an ear(2Kings 19:16; Ps. 31:2). Turning one’s ear signifiespaying attention or taking something to heart (Ps. 49:4; Prov. 4:20;5:13).

Neck.The neck can be adorned (Song 1:10) as a sign of pride and honor(Gen. 41:42; Judg. 5:30; Prov. 1:9; Ezek. 16:11) or outstretched inarrogance (Ps. 75:5 TNIV: “Do not lift your horns againstheaven; do not speak with outstretched neck”). Jeremiah put ayoke on his neck as a prophetic sign of the approaching Babylonianconquest (Jer. 27–28). While putting someone’s neck in ayoke is an act of triumphal conquest (Ps. 105:18), stepping on theneck of a subdued enemy is an act of subjugation and humiliation(Josh. 10:24).

Body

Nakednessin public is considered shameful (Gen. 9:22–23; Nah. 3:5; Rev.3:18), so that it is sometimes pictured as part of divine judgment(Deut. 28:48; Isa. 47:2–3; Lam. 1:8; Mic. 1:11) or as a sign ofpromiscuity (Isa. 57:8; Ezek. 16:36). An unkempt body can be a signof mourning, as it is for Mephibosheth (2Sam. 19:24). A certainkind of body covering is a sign of marriage proposal or protection(Ezek. 16:8; 23:18; Hos. 2:9). Body dismembering, even in war, is anact of humiliation (2Sam. 4:12).

Chest.In self-mortification, one can pound one’s chest in mourning(Ezek. 21:12) or in remorse (Jer. 31:19; Luke 18:13). The breasts ofsacrificial animals are waved before God as a “wave offering”before being eaten (Exod. 29:26; Lev. 7:30; Num. 6:20).

Hand,arm.Hand gestures include motions such as lifting hands in worship,clapping hands in joy, and clapping a hand over one’s mouth inawe. The expression “outstretched arm” (Exod. 6:6; Deut.4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 26:8; 1Kings 8:42; 2Kings17:36; 2Chron. 6:32; Ps. 136:12; Jer. 21:5; 27:5; 32:17, 21;Ezek. 20:33–34) indicates power, might, strength. It is oftenused of God to indicate his ability to defeat powerful armies andenemies. God is implored by the psalmist to lift his hand and act forthe sake of the righteous (Ps. 10:12).

Sincethe right hand is the hand of power, the act of sitting at the righthand indicates being favored (1Kings 2:19; Ps. 110:1; Matt.22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2;1Pet. 3:22). When taking an oath, one places a hand under thethigh/crotch (Gen. 24:2; 47:29), most likely the right hand (see Gen.48:14, 17–18; Lev. 8:23; 14:14).

Clappingthe hands can be a sign of awe (Ezek. 6:11), malice, or remorse(25:6), while a bared arm can be a sign of judgment (4:7). Job clapshis hand over his mouth in awe of God and in submission andrepentance (Job 40:4–5).

Handscan be lifted in worship (1Kings 8:22; 1Tim. 2:8), tobeseech (Ps. 28:2), to protect and bless (Ps. 10:12), in an oath(Deut. 32:40), or to harm (Exod. 24:11; 1Sam. 24:6, 10;2Sam.1:14; 18:12).

Pilatewashes his hands to proclaim his innocence over the death of Jesus(Matt. 27:24), while 1Pet. 5:6 urges believers to humblethemselves “under God’s mighty hand,” so that indue time they will be lifted up.

Buttocks.Exposure of the buttocks can serve as a humiliating insult andprovocation, as happens to David’s men (2Sam. 10:4;1Chron. 19:4) and Egyptian and Cush*te captives (Isa. 20:4).

Leg.The leg or thigh is often a euphemism for the male reproductiveorgans, so that putting one’s hand under a thigh in oath (Gen.24:2; 47:29) may involve actually grabbing the genitalia. Animalthighs are waved to God in offering before being consumed (Lev. 9:21;10:14; Num. 6:20), while oaths administered to uncover adultery causea guilty woman’s thighs to waste (Num. 5:2–27).

Themost common gesture involving the knee is bowing, in worship orreverence (Deut. 33:3; Isa. 45:23; Rom. 11:4; 14:11; Phil. 2:10), indefeat (2Sam. 22:40; Ps. 18:38; Isa. 60:14), in distress (Ps.57:6), or in respect (1Kings 1:31). In what seems to be asomewhat awkward position, Elijah puts his face between his knees inprayer (1Kings 18:42).

Feet.Gestures involving the feet are probably the most common gestures inthe Bible. Feet can be washed in hospitality (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32;43:24; 1Sam. 25:41), in ablution (Exod. 30:19, 21; 40:31), orin supplication (1Sam. 25:41). Feet can be bathed in oil as ablessing (Deut. 33:24), uncovered in marriage proposals (Ezek. 16:8;cf. Ruth 3:4, 7), and stamped in remorse (Ezek. 25:6), and sandalscan be removed from them in honor (Exod. 3:1–10) or disgrace(Deut. 25:9). The heavenly seraphs cover their feet in supplicationbefore the throne of God (Isa. 6:2), while the feet of humans cansignal deception (Prov. 6:13).

Enemiescan be placed under one’s feet in subjugation (1Kings5:3; Pss. 8:6; 18:39; 45:5; 47:3; 110:1; Mal. 4:3; Rom. 16:20), havetheir feet shackled or ensnared (Job 13:27; 33:11; Pss. 25:15;105:18), and be forced to lick the feet of victors in humiliation anddefeat (Isa. 49:23). The righteous will bathe their feet in the bloodof their enemies in revenge (Pss. 58:10; 68:23).

Thoseoverwhelmed can grovel at the feet of the powerful (2Kings4:27, 37; Esther 8:3; Matt. 28:9; Mark 5:33; 7:25; Acts 10:25), whilethose emboldened can rise to their feet in confidence (Ezek. 2:1–2;3:24; Dan. 8:18).

Inthe NT, dust can be shaken off one’s feet as an indication ofdivine judgment (Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5), even as lying ata person’s feet is a recognition of authority/submission (Matt.15:30; Mark 5:33; Luke 8:28, 35, 41, 47; 10:39; 17:16; Acts 4:37;5:2). A woman publicly washes Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipesthem with her hair, and kisses and perfumes them in what seems an actof love and repentance; but Jesus indicates that she has prepared hisbody for burial (Luke 7:38–46; John 11:2; 12:3). Jesus washeshis disciples’ feet as instruction on servanthood anddiscipleship (John 13:5–14).

Fingers,Toes.Different fingers seem to have different roles assigned them. Afinger sprinkles blood in cleansing (Lev. 4:6, 17, 25, 30, 34; 8:15;9:9; 14:16; 16:14, 19; Num. 19:4), while blood on the tip of theright thumb and on the right big toe is for cleansing (Exod. 29:20;Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17, 25, 28).

Onewears a signet ring as a sign of power (Esther 3:10) or a gesture ofrestoration and forgiveness (Luke 15:22). But fingers can also motionin deception (Prov. 6:13) or point in blame (Isa. 58:9). Jesus writeswith his finger on the ground, apparently as a gesture ofindifference to those pointing accusing fingers (John 8:6).

Clothesand Shoes

Garments.Garments attain significance as they are related to specificemotions. Wearing sackcloth and ashes in mourning is common (Gen.37:34; Ezek. 7:18; 2Sam. 3:31), while ripping garments inmourning is also frequently attested (Gen. 37:34; 44:13; Lev. 10:6;21:10; Josh. 7:6; 2Sam. 1:11; 3:31; 13:31; 1Kings 21:27;2Kings 2:12; 19:1; Esther 4:1; Isa. 32:11; 37:1; Jer. 41:5).

Rippingsomeone’s clothing to expose nakedness (Ezek. 16:39; 2Sam.10:4) or pulling a person’s skirts up over the face (Jer.13:26) is an act of shaming or insulting. But tearing one’sclothes off can be a sign of fury (Matt. 26:65). Persons withdefiling diseases are expected to warn off others by wearing tornclothes and shouting, “Unclean! Unclean!” (Lev. 13:45).

Bylaying their clothes at Saul’s feet, the crowd may beacknowledging his authority in the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58).

Sandals.A woman can remove a man’s sandal in contempt (Deut. 25:5–10),while a sandal can be removed by a kinsman-redeemer to indicategiving up a right or as a transfer of property (Ruth 4:7–8). Asandal can also be removed in mourning (Ezek. 24:17) or be cast overa piece of land to claim ownership (Pss. 60:8; 108:9).

PropheticGestures

Propheticgestures in the OT are mostly concerned with the call to repentanceand approaching judgments upon failure to heed the warning. Jeremiahputs a yoke on his neck (Jer. 27–28; cf. Deut. 28:48), Ezekielcooks with dung (Ezek. 4:12) and sleeps on his left side for 390 daysand then on his right side for 40 days (4:5–6), Isaiah stripsoff his clothing (Isa. 20:2–3; 32:11), and Hosea marries anunfaithful wife (Hos. 1:1–3).

Inthe NT, Jesus cleanses the temple as an act of symbolic judgment(Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15). He also breaks bread and drinkswine (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30, 35; Acts 2:46;20:11; 27:35; 1Cor. 11:24–25) and washes his disciples’feet (John 13:1–13), thereby establishing symbolic Christianpractices.

Author

Althoughstrictly anonymous, the first Gospel has always been known as“according to Matthew,” and no evidence exists that itever circulated without this name. The author is traditionally theapostle Matthew, a former tax collector (9:9). Mark (2:14) and Luke(5:27) identify him as “Levi,” probably his earlier name.This may be further established by the noticeable references to moneyin the first Gospel: the parables of the unmerciful servant (18:23)and of the daily pay of workers (20:1), the bribe paid to the guardsat the tomb to get them to lie (28:12), and Judas’s return ofthe thirty silver coins (27:5). These stories, unique to Matthew,relate the morality of money in an unequivocal way, indicatingMatthew’s own interests from his former life.

Matthew’sGospel appears first in almost every extant witness to the NT, and itwas considered the preeminent Gospel by the early church. It is theGospel most quoted by the early church fathers. Of the four Gospels,Matthew’s is most oriented toward a Jewish audience.

Sources

Acursory reading of the Gospels reveals that the first three, Matthew,Mark, and Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), share much of the samematerial. Yet each has its own collection and order of events,reflecting its own theological emphasis. This is quite to ourbenefit: by examining the differences between the three Gospels, notonly do we see different facets of Jesus, but also we can discern andfilter the idiosyncrasies of each writer. If Matthew records an eventlater in his Gospel, there must be a reason consistent with hispurposes.

Mostcurrent research holds that Mark was written first and providedmaterial for both Matthew and Luke. Matthew tends to smooth out the“rough” Greek of Mark; he also compresses many of thestories, and in a few places he “fixes” passages in Markthat might have seemed unclear or offensive. Material from Mark usedby Matthew is generally narrative of Jesus’ life.

Matthewand Luke also contain similar material not found in Mark, theso-called Q material (“Q” is from the German Quelle,which means “source”). No Q document is extant. If itever existed, it may represent an oral tradition. The Q material inMatthew has strong ethical content, such as the Sermon on the Mount,many of the parables, and the Olivet Discourse. Additionally, Matthewand Luke contain material unique to their own Gospels: M in Matthew,L in Luke. The M material includes the birth and infancy narratives,some of the stories surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection,and a few of the parables.

Theuse of Mark (not an apostle) by the apostle Matthew is not assurprising as it may seem. Papias reported that Mark wrote thereminiscences of Peter, a member of Jesus’ inner circle and theleader of the apostolic group. Surely Matthew would have no problemusing Mark’s Gospel as a starting point for his own.

Date

Datingthe Gospels is difficult. If Matthew borrowed from Mark, then thedate of Mark and how long it would have taken to circulate to Mattheware important in the discussion. The first convincing use of Matthewby an external author is Ignatius, early in the second century. Thisplaces Matthew in the period between the early 60s to the early 90s.

Internalevidence includes, as in most NT literature dating, Matthew’srelationship to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. If Matthewwrote after this date, we might expect to see this reflected in somepassages, especially in the Olivet Discourse, Jesus’ prophecyof the Jewish war. The mention of a city being burned in retributionin 22:7 is casual enough to suggest that Matthew did not know of thishappening to Jerusalem. There also are many references to the templethat might have merited a mention of its subsequent loss.

Themention of the temple tax in 17:24 is important. Before AD 70, payingthe tax supported the Jewish temple and showed solidarity withIsrael. After AD 70, the revenue was diverted to the temple ofJupiter in Rome. Jews were required to continue paying under duressand considered it support of idolatry. Had this been Matthew’sworld, he likely would have explained this critical point to hisreaders.

Argumentsfor a late date include references to the church (Matthew alone amongthe Gospel writers uses the term ekklēsia), possibly indicatingan interest in church orderthat developed later; historical tensions between the church and theJews, which only peaked in AD 85; and thoughts of a later date forMark. For some, Matthew’s account of Jesus’ predictionsof the destruction of Jerusalem is so vivid that it would have tohave been written afterward. Many consider the theology of Matthew sosophisticated that it would require a later date.

Externalevidence includes the early church tradition that Matthew was writtenearly, though part of this thinking is that Matthew was written firstof the Synoptics. Still, an early date for Matthew seems the best,though the evidence is far from conclusive.

Structure

Matthew’sliterary pointers do not necessarily align with his themes, makingfor a rich, complex structure that is hard to outline. The followingare some of the structures that scholars have proposed.

Bydiscourse.Matthew has five clear sections of Jesus’ discourses, set apartby a concluding phrase along the lines of “when Jesus hadfinished saying these things” (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1).The five discourses alternate with related narratives of Jesus’deeds. These discourses should not be thought of as intact, recordedsermons; they are compilations of Jesus’ teachings assembled byMatthew. The parallels in the other Gospels of this material differ:some of it is together as Matthew has it, but much of it is scatteredin the other accounts. Matthew organized his material into types ofstories and types of ministry by Jesus. Early on, Jesus is theethical teacher; later, he is the stern lecturer warning Israel ofimpending judgment.

Bystory line.Another proposed structure concerns the story line of the Gospel.Matthew twice uses the concluding phrase “from that time onJesus began to...” (4:17; 16:21). But thesetwo instances, particularly 16:21, are in the middle of the narrativeline and cannot be thought of as major literary structural markers.It is likely that Matthew uses this phrase to notify his readers of anew phase of the story, and possibly of a new approach in ministry byJesus.

Bygeography.This concept revolves around the geography and movement of Jesus fromhis birth, through the ministry in Galilee, around Galilee, and toJerusalem.

Outline

Thefollowing outline offers a thematic organization of Matthew’sGospel:

I.The Miraculous Beginnings of Jesus (1:1–4:11)

II.Ethical Teachings and Miracles (4:12–10:42)

III.Confrontation and Reactions (11:1–16:20)

IV.The Messiah Must Suffer (16:21–20:28)

V.Jesus Claims Authority and Receives Praise (20:29–25:46)

VI.The Death of Jesus (26:1–27:66)

VII.The Resurrection of Jesus (28:1–28:20)

I.The miraculous beginnings of Jesus (1:1–4:11).Jesus’ genealogy and childhood show him to be the fulfillmentof OT prophecy. His baptism demonstrates this fulfillment; his fortydays of testing in the desert identify him with Israel.

II.Ethical teachings and miracles (4:12–10:42).This section begins with a geographical change, as Jesus returns toGalilee. Having instructed his disciples, he sends them out as anextension of his own mission.

III.Confrontation and reactions (11:1–16:20).This section also involves a change of geography. Jesus first isquestioned by John’s disciples, then by the Pharisees, andfinally by the people in his own town. The questions are resolved byPeter’s confession.

IV.The messiah must suffer (16:21–20:28).This is the third section that begins “from that time on Jesusbegan to....” Jesus explains to his disciplesthat he will die at the hands of the Jews but be raised on the thirdday. This section includes the transfiguration and many parablesconcerning judgment and reward. The climax is at the end, when Jesusdeclares that he has come “to give his life as a ransom formany.”

V.Jesus claims authority and receives praise (20:29–25:46).Another geographical shift occurs, as Jesus and his disciples leaveJericho. Jesus acknowledges the title “Lord, Son of David,”cleanses the temple, and argues with the Pharisees about the sourceof his authority. The parables concern sonship and responses toauthority. The Pharisees try to entrap Jesus. Jesus teaches aboutauthority, then rebukes the Pharisees. Chapter 24 describes theconsequences of the ultimate rejection of authority. The climax isthe parable of the sheep and the goats.

VI.The death of Jesus (26:1–27:66). Matthew’sGospel has built-in intensity up to the passion narrative. Thissection builds again within itself, from the anointing of Jesus inBethany to the hush as the tomb is closed and sealed.

VII.The resurrection of Jesus (28:1–28:20).The accounts of the resurrection and postresurrection appearances arebrief but significant and contain several details not found in theother Synoptics.

TheUnique Contributions of Matthew

Amongthe unique contributions of Matthew are his genealogy of Jesus (whichdiffers significantly from Luke’s); the birth/infancy narrativeof 1:18–2:23, which includes the rec-ord of the angel appearingto Joseph, the magi from the East, the slaughter of the innocents,and the flight to Egypt; the Great Commission, where Jesus commandshis followers to “go and make disciples of all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son andofthe Holy Spirit” (28:19); and the Sermon on the Mount (chaps.5–7), the largest block of the teachings of Jesus in the NT(Matthew contains large blocks of Jesus’ teaching in the otherdiscourses as well).

Useof the Old Testament

Matthew’suse of the OT is remarkable. Matthew is concerned with showing Jesusas the fulfillment of the OT and God’s salvation history. Thiscan be seen in the so-called fulfillment quotations (1:22–23;2:15, 17–18, 23; 4:14–16; 8:17; 12:17–21; 13:35;21:4–5; 27:9–10; see also 2:5–6; 13:14; 26:54, 56,and 3:3; 22:31–32) as well as in the narrative portions of thebook, particularly in the sweeping statement of 26:56: “Thishas all taken place that the writings of the prophets might befulfilled.”

Matthewimmediately appeals to the OT in recounting the genealogy of Jesus.He divides the history of Israel into three eras: the firstculminates in David, the second with the exile—clearly two ofthe most significant turning points in Israel’s history—thethird in Jesus, the Christ.

Thequote “Out of Egypt I called my son” (2:15), from Hos.11:1, is an excellent example of Matthew’s commitment tofulfillment. The passage in Hosea clearly is not looking forward tothis verse, but Matthew employs this short sentence to identify Jesusas the fulfillment of Israel and uses the return from Egypt of theholy family to illustrate the parallels in Jesus’ life with theexperience of the Jews. Matthew’s use of the OT here, and ingeneral, follows ancient, particularly Jewish, interpretiveconventions.

Matthewcontains a number of OT quotations not found in the other Synoptics.These appear generally as asides from Matthew himself—his ownreflections, as it were, not the words of Jesus. Matthew clearly seesthe relationship between Jesus and the OT in both directions: Jesusis the total fulfillment of the OT, and the OT is deeply concernedwith pointing the way to Jesus.

Matthewthen applies OT passages to the life of Jesus: Jesus is the virgin’sson in Isa. 7:14 (Matt. 1:22–23), the one coming from Bethlehemto rule over Israel in Mic. 5:2 (Matt. 2:5–6), and the soncalled out of Egypt in Hos. 11:1 (Matt. 2:15); the slaughter ofinfants reflects the fall of Judah seen in Jer. 31:15 (Matt.2:17–18); and Jesus is the great light on Zebulun and Naphtaliof Isa. 9:1–2 (Matt. 4:13–16).

Jesus’Relationship to Jewish Leaders

Matthew’sGospel is almost universally negative toward the religious leaders,even where parallel passages do not reflect this antagonism (compareMatt. 23:37 with Luke 13:31). Matthew records many groups of leaders:teachers of the law (scribes), Pharisees, Sadducees, chief priests,and elders; he often combines terms, “scribes and Pharisees”being his favorite combination. Matthew portrays the Pharisees as themost hostile to Jesus, identifying them as a “brood of vipers”(3:7).

Yet,the Gospel of Matthew is far from being an anti-Jewish work. Jesus isthe fulfillment of the OT; he was sent “only to the lost sheepof Israel” (15:24); people praise the God of Israel for hishealing demonstrations. Matthew’s point is that it is Israel’sleaders and those who reject their Messiah who are bringing judgmentupon themselves.

A response of grateful people toward a gracious God. In theOT, thanksgiving is conspicuously absent from the patriarchalnarratives, where the characters often appear ungrateful.Thanksgiving appears in the Pentateuch only in Lev. 7:12–15,where thanksgiving is one kind of fellowship offering given in publicworship, usually for deliverance from peril. Thanksgiving becomes aprominent exhortation in the Psalter, where it occurs over fiftytimes. Worshipers are encouraged to thank God (in public worship) fordeliverance from the physical perils common to being outside thesafety of one’s community (Ps. 107) and from perils within (Ps.103). Later, prophets (Isa. 51:3; Jer. 30:19), the Chronicler(1Chron. 23:30), and twenty-eight other psalms speak ofthanksgivings by offering songs rather than sacrifices. Thanksgiving,however, is still in the context of public (cultic) worship.

LaterJewish literature expanded expressions of thanksgiving outside asacrificial context to include the individual or family at homebefore each meal (b.Ber. 35a). Similarly, Jesus offers thanksbefore a meal (Matt. 15:36; 26:27).

Theother major occurrences of thanksgiving in the NT are found in Paul’sletters. While Greco-Roman letters occasionally began withthanksgiving to a deity for providing health or safety, Paul offeredfar longer and more frequent thanksgivings than any known writer.Thanksgiving must be considered one of the distinguishingcharacteristics of Paul’s writings and teachings. Both OT andNT examples and teachings indicate that thanksgiving to God isexpressed in front of others and not merely in silent individualprayers to God.

The KJV translation for a young girl, an unmarried woman orvirgin, or a female servant. At least five Hebrew words are used torefer to such women. Betulah refers to an unmarried virgin or a youngwoman who has had no sexual experience (Gen. 24:16; Job 31:1; Exod.22:16–17). A man who forcefully lay with such a woman wasexpected to marry her (Deut. 22:13–19). When David was old, avirgin was found to lie at his side to keep him warm (1Kings1:2). Israel as a nation is identified as a young virgin (Jer. 31:4).The second term is ’amah, translated “bondwoman,”“maidservant,” “maid,” “bondmaid,”“servant,” or “female servant” (Gen. 20:17;Exod. 2:5). The third is shipkhah, which refers to a female slave whois of close kinship to her master (Gen. 29:24). The fourth isna’arah, which is translated “unmarried girl”(Esther 2:4 [NIV: “young woman”]) or “servant”(Esther 4:4 [NIV: “female attendant”]; Ruth 2:23). Thefifth is ’almah, which is translated “girl” (Exod.2:8), “virgin” (Isa. 7:14), or “maiden”(Prov. 30:19 [NIV: “young woman”]).

Inthe NT, several Greek words are sometimes translated as “maiden”in the KJV. Parthenos refers to a “virgin,” male orfemale (Matt. 1:23; Acts 21:9; Rev. 14:4). Pais generally means “ayoung girl,” “maiden,”or “child” (Luke 8:51, 54). Paidiskē refers to a“female slave,” “servant maid,” or “servantgirl” (Mark 14:66; Luke 12:45). The word korasion refers to a“girl” or “little girl” (Matt. 9:24–25).Nymphē refersto a “young wife” or “bride” (Luke 12:53;Rev. 21:2).

A Jewish prophet at the time of Jesus, he was the son ofpriestly parents (Zechariah and Elizabeth), executed by HerodAntipas, and identified as “John” (a common Jewish name),often with the title “the Baptist” or “theBaptizer,” the latter possibly being the older title.

Ourprimary sources on John the Baptist are the canonical Gospels,Josephus (Ant. 18.116–19), and Acts. Both Jewish and Christiansources note John’s message of the kingdom, call to baptism,and popularity. Josephus and the Gospels can speak of him withoutintroduction. In the Gospels, only Jesus is a more prominentcharacter. It is possible that the typical peasant was more familiarwith John than with Jesus, at least until after Pentecost.

TheGospels, particularly Luke, parallel the stories of John and Jesus.Both had an annunciation, a miraculous birth accompanied by praise,and a martyr’s death. Both gathered disciples, announced thekingdom, denounced the Jewish leadership, and practiced baptism. Itis easy to see how some on the periphery confused the characters(Mark 8:28).

Ministry

Dressedin a prophet’s garment of camel’s hair (Matt. 3:4; cf.2Kings 1:8; Zech. 13:4), the Baptist is noted for emerging fromthe wilderness and preaching near the Jordan. He called all listenersto repent to prepare Israel for the coming covenant of the Spirit. Heand his message were well known, disconcerting Jerusalem’spowerful elite (Mark 11:32) and enthralling the masses (Matt. 3:5–6).

Johnthe Baptist unwaveringly maintained that he was sent to introduce theSon (or Chosen One) of God, who would baptize with the Holy Spirit(John 1:33–34; cf. Matt. 3:11–12 pars.). This one was notnamed, but the Baptist was told how he would know him: “The manon whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one”(John 1:33). Thus, the Baptist could claim, “I myself did notknow him” (John 1:31), more likely meaning that the Baptist didnot know Jesus was the one until the Spirit descended on him (1:32).It is less likely that John meant that he had not met his cousinpreviously (Luke 1:39–45). Jesus accepts (and validates) theBaptist’s proclamation both at the beginning of his ministry(Mark 1:9) and again later (Luke 16:16; John 5:35; 10:41).

Afterhis imprisonment, the Baptist seems less certain of his earlieridentification of Jesus as the coming one (Matt. 11:2–3). Itshould also be noted that John had not disbanded his disciples. Afterhis death, some continued to preach his baptism of repentance as faraway as in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–26; 19:1–7). Similarly,Jesus’ last description of the Baptist is ambiguous. It isguarded but still complimentary (John 5:32–36; 10:41) and evenlofty: “Among those born of women there has not arisen anyonegreater than John the Baptist”; however, Jesus’ nextstatement could be interpreted to mean that the Baptist was not yetpart of the coming kingdom: “Yet whoever is least in thekingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11). Likeeveryone else, John was confused by Jesus’ preaching ministry.Jesus was not acting like the Messiah they were expecting (Luke7:18–20). The Gospels offer no final verdict on the Baptist.

Message

LikeIsaiah, the Baptist’s message of restoration of the kingdommeant comfort and hope for those preparing for its arrival (Isa. 40;Mark 1:2–6) and judgment for those unprepared (Isa. 41; Matt.3:7–10; Luke 3:7–9). The return of the kingdom was by anew covenant, marked by the Spirit (Mark 1:2–8). Cleansing withwater is connected to replacing the old covenant (etched in stone)with the new (imbedded in hearts with the Spirit) by the prophets(Ezek. 36:24–28; Jer. 31), by the Baptist (John 1:31–33),by Jesus (John 3:5), and by early Christians (2Cor. 3; Heb.9–10). Preparing (Matt. 3:3) meant repenting and living inpiety and justice as a member of the kingdom (Luke 3:10–14).This commitment of renewed faithfulness was marked by one’s own(ethical) cleansing, symbolized in baptism. While ritual lustrationswere somewhat common for initiation or membership in a group, Johnthe Baptist called all who would devote themselves to God to repent,confess their sins, and be baptized (Mark 1:4–5).

TheSynoptic Gospels portray Jesus and John as allies in announcing thekingdom. It has been argued that the Fourth Gospel has ananti-Baptist polemic. Because of historical elements (in Ephesus?),it may be more accurate to say that the Fourth Gospel strives toclarify the Baptist’s place in salvation history. He issubordinate to Jesus by divine design (John 1–5) and by deed(John 10:41). He was the Elijah who was to come before the Christ(Matt. 11:14).

The Letter to the Hebrews and the Letter to the Romans constitute the two great pillars of theology in the NT. Hebrews brings a high Christology and increases Christian understanding of Christ’s role as priest and pioneer of faith. From this book, deductions can be made regarding the early church’s understanding of OT interpretation and its view of typology.

Hebrews ends like a letter, but it does not begin like one. In particular, it lacks the names of the writer and the recipients. From the content, though, it is evident that this work is meant for a certain audience, familiar with the author. The author shows a loving pastoral concern for his readers, teaching them, exhorting them, and rebuking them when necessary. He gives them models of faith to encourage them and instructs them to encourage one another. The author describes the work as “my word of exhortation” (13:22). The book is often identified as a sermon.

Author

The letter is, strictly speaking, anonymous. No author is mentioned, and few clues as to his identity exist. He is known by his readers (13:19) and has a pastor’s heart for them (6:9). He and his audience are second-generation Christians; that is, they did not hear Jesus during his ministry but rather are dependent upon those who did (2:3). He is a companion of Timothy (13:23) and thus possibly in the circle of Paul. The letter shows that he has great organizational and rhetorical skills; he is intelligent and well educated; his writing indicates that he is likely from a Greek-speaking culture and is a converted Hellenistic Jew familiar with the Greek version of the OT. And he is a creative theologian with perspectives found nowhere else in theNT.

Early church tradition offers no name for the author. The letter’s later attribution to the apostle Paul probably granted it the authority necessary for canonicity, though problems with that view were readily apparent. The Greek is unlike Paul’s, and the rhetoric and theology are much different as well. The themes present in Hebrews are of only tangential interest to Paul. All the Pauline Epistles bear his self-identification, because he felt that his status as an apostle added authority to his words. And Paul did not consider himself to be a second-generation Christian, since he had seen the Lord himself (Gal. 1:12). Although the Catholic and Eastern Churches continue to ascribe the work to Paul, the Protestant Church has almost completely abandoned that idea.

In the absence of a known author, almost every name in the NT has been suggested, including Apollos, Barnabas, Luke, and Silas. While each name has merits and problems, too little is known to prove or disprove any prospective author. Yet, even without Pauline or other known authorship, the book maintains its authority.

Audience

The original readers almost certainly were a house church, part of a network of churches in an urban setting, likely either Jerusalem or Rome, with Rome being slightly preferred. The recipients were a specific group rather than the church at large as in the General Epistles (James, 1–2Peter, 1–3John, Jude); the author knew their circ*mstances (Heb. 10:32; 12:4; 13:17, 24). They were Jewish Christians who, possibly because of persecution, were in danger of drifting back into the Judaism they had left (see 10:32–39). The letter was written probably in the late 60s, as evidenced by the fact that there is no mention of the temple’s destruction, which occurred in AD 70. Given the reasoning of the author, it is quite hard to imagine that he would not mention this event were he writing after that date.

Themes

Hebrews presents two main themes. The first is faith and perseverance, especially in the face of persecution. Jesus is the pioneer of salvation through suffering (2:10) and can help those being tempted (2:18); he has been faithful to the one who appointed him (3:2) as the Son over God’s house (3:6), which is Christians who hold firmly to their confidence and hope (3:6). Christians share in Christ, if they hold their convictions firmly to the end (3:14). This is possible because Jesus is the great high priest, having ascended into heaven (4:14). A person falling away, not holding firmly, cannot be brought back again to repentance (6:4–6). Jesus has sacrificed himself once for all (7:27). Christians must hold unswervingly to the hope they profess, for the one who promised is faithful (10:23). Those who do will be richly rewarded (10:35–36).

Role models of faith are portrayed in chapter 11, the so-called Faith Chapter. The author presents Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and other OT figures as examples of living by faith. These serve as a “cloud of witnesses,” demanding “perseverance [in] the race marked out” for Christians (12:1). Jesus is the “pioneer and perfecter” of faith, enduring the cross and shame (12:2). Christians should endure hardship as discipline (12:7), which will produce a “harvest of righteousness” (12:11).

The second theme is the superiority of Christ, presented in a series of escalating comparisons between Jesus and every aspect of Judaism. The Son is a superior revelation from God (1:1–2). He is superior to the angels (1:4–14) and even to Moses (3:2–6). The Son’s Melchizedekian priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood (7:1–25). The new covenant brought by the Son is superior to the Mosaic covenant (8:6–13); the Son’s sacrifice is superior to the sacrifices offered under the Mosaic law (9:1–10:18).

Theology

The author brings his unique perspective to the work of Christ—his special roles as both high priest and sacrifice. Because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood (7:24), which is not a function of his ancestry but rather is “on the basis of the power of an indestructible life” (7:16). He meets the requirements of a priest, being “holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens” (7:26). He is a “priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek” (7:17, quoting Ps. 110:4). Melchizedek is a once-mentioned figure from Gen. 14:18. He was the king of Salem, a “priest of God Most High.” Abraham, and by extension Levi, paid him a tithe and received a blessing from him. Therefore, Melchizedek is superior to Levi, and his priestly order is superior to Levi’s. This priesthood, in fact, replaces the Levitical priesthood because the earlier priesthood could not produce perfection (Heb. 7:11), being “weak and useless” (7:18).

The Levitical priests had offered their sacrifices repeatedly, year after year, first for their own sins, then for those of the people. They had used the blood of bulls and goats to cleanse the tabernacle and accessories, because without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin (9:22). There had been many priests, as death claimed each one. The priests, in all their weaknesses, had been appointed by the law. The sanctuary in which they serve is a “copy and shadow” of what is in heaven (8:5).

In contrast to the Levitical high priest, Jesus sits at “the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven” (8:1) and serves in the true tabernacle not made by human hands. He has been appointed not by the law but by the oath of God, which came after the law. He has no need to offer sacrifices day after day; his sacrifice was “once for all” (7:27), coming at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin (9:26). In fact, the repeated nature of the Levitical sacrifices serves as proof of their ineffectiveness. Had they been effective, they would have ceased. But “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (10:4), even when offered in accordance with the law (10:8). The worshipers had been left with the same guilty consciences. Christ had “entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood” and obtained eternal redemption for all believers (9:12), sprinkling their hearts to cleanse them from guilty consciences (10:22)

Because of this, Christ is the mediator of the new covenant, prophesied in Jer. 31:31, which is superior to the Mosaic covenant. The first covenant has been made obsolete and will soon disappear (Heb. 8:13), as the new covenant is “established on better promises” (8:6). The tabernacle had been designed to demonstrate that there was no way into the most holy place for anyone but the high priest. Now, the blood of Jesus has opened a way through the curtain, allowing believers to “draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance of faith” (10:22).

Exhortations

Hebrews consists of theology interspersed with exhortations to the readers to persevere in the face of persecution, not to drift away from their new faith. These hortatory passages also serve as warnings. Because the new covenant is superior to the old one, its violation carries proportional penalties: since every violation of the old covenant had been met with its just punishment, “how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?” (2:3). Believers must encourage one another, so that no one becomes “hardened by sin’s deceitfulness” (3:13). As recipients of new access to God, Christians must hold unswervingly to the hope, because God is faithful. This new access has completely replaced the old; there is no sacrifice remaining to forgive deliberate sinning. As those rejecting the law of Moses had died without mercy, those insulting the Spirit of grace will be punished more severely (10:29). Christians should consider “him who endured such opposition” so as not to “grow weary and lose heart” (12:3).

The author rebukes his readers for being lazy: “We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand” (5:11); but he patiently moves on beyond elementary teaching to teaching of Christian maturity (6:1). He warns them sternly that there is no reverse gear: those who have entered the sphere of Christian faith cannot fall away and then reenter at will; apostates would be “crucifying the Son of God all over again” (6:6). But then he softens the rebuke as a pastor: “Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case— the things that have to do with salvation” (6:9).

The author also shows great interest in the Sabbath rest promised to Moses. Those who had disobeyed were denied the rest (3:18), but the promise of entering his rest still stands (4:1). In fact, the Sabbath rest that remains is superior, or else it would not still be offered (4:8), and Christians must make every effort to enter that rest so that no one will perish (4:11).

Outline

The Letter to the Hebrews is very organized yet difficult to outline, owing to the manner in which the author handles his transitional material. The main theological argument (the superiority of the Son) is presented as a series of overlapping and interlocked comparisons interspersed with pastoral exhortations to perseverance. The connection between sections is often a keyword used in one section and then picked up and expanded in the next.

I. Introduction (1:1–4)

II. The Son Is Superior to the Angels (1:5–14)

III. Warning: Do Not Reject the Word Spoken through God’s Son (2:1–4)

IV. Jesus Is the Perfect Pioneer of Salvation because of His Suffering (2:5–18)

V. The Son Is Superior to Moses (3:1–19)

VI. The Sabbath Rest Is Still Available and Is Superior to the OT Rest (4:1–13)

VII. The Son Is a Superior High Priest (4:14–5:10)

VIII. Rebuke: You Are Still Spiritual Children (5:11–6:3)

IX. Warning: There Is No Return to the Former Covenant (6:4–12)

X. Jesus Completes the Oath God Gave Abraham (6:13–20)

XI. Jesus Is a Priest of Melchizedek’s Order, Superior to Levi’s Priesthood (7:1–25)

XII. The Priestly Function of Jesus Is Superior to That of the OT Priest (7:26–8:6)

XIII. The New Covenant of Jesus Is Superior to the Mosaic Covenant (8:7–13)

XIV. The Tabernacle of the New Covenant Is Superior to the Old (9:1–7)

XV. The Sacrifice of Christ Is Superior to the OT Sacrifices (9:8–10:20)

XVI. Exhortation to Persevere (10:21–39)

XVII. Faith Models (11:1–40)

XVIII. Exhortation to Righteous Living (12:1–13:17)

XIX. Closing Personal Greetings (13:18–25)

The KJV translation for a young girl, an unmarried woman orvirgin, or a female servant. At least five Hebrew words are used torefer to such women. Betulah refers to an unmarried virgin or a youngwoman who has had no sexual experience (Gen. 24:16; Job 31:1; Exod.22:16–17). A man who forcefully lay with such a woman wasexpected to marry her (Deut. 22:13–19). When David was old, avirgin was found to lie at his side to keep him warm (1Kings1:2). Israel as a nation is identified as a young virgin (Jer. 31:4).The second term is ’amah, translated “bondwoman,”“maidservant,” “maid,” “bondmaid,”“servant,” or “female servant” (Gen. 20:17;Exod. 2:5). The third is shipkhah, which refers to a female slave whois of close kinship to her master (Gen. 29:24). The fourth isna’arah, which is translated “unmarried girl”(Esther 2:4 [NIV: “young woman”]) or “servant”(Esther 4:4 [NIV: “female attendant”]; Ruth 2:23). Thefifth is ’almah, which is translated “girl” (Exod.2:8), “virgin” (Isa. 7:14), or “maiden”(Prov. 30:19 [NIV: “young woman”]).

Inthe NT, several Greek words are sometimes translated as “maiden”in the KJV. Parthenos refers to a “virgin,” male orfemale (Matt. 1:23; Acts 21:9; Rev. 14:4). Pais generally means “ayoung girl,” “maiden,”or “child” (Luke 8:51, 54). Paidiskē refers to a“female slave,” “servant maid,” or “servantgirl” (Mark 14:66; Luke 12:45). The word korasion refers to a“girl” or “little girl” (Matt. 9:24–25).Nymphē refersto a “young wife” or “bride” (Luke 12:53;Rev. 21:2).

A large, four-legged mammal with a continuous hoof,domesticated by humans as early as the second millennium BC. Horsesappear throughout the Bible as an asset among pastoral flocks usedfor transportation and as a beast of war used to pull chariots.Horses did not hold a central place in the life of the ancient NearEast, as the ox dominated agricultural work, and the donkey wasavailable to more people. One reason for this was that a crucialpiece of technology, the stirrup, did not reach Israel’s areauntil the late seventh century AD and was entirely unknown to theancient Near East and to Greco-Roman society. Along with other usesof horses, armed cavalry was not an option, as it was easy to unseatany rider without a secure saddle. Horses were suited for pullinglight loads quickly, however, which meant that drawing the chariotwas its first natural use. Many cultures and civilizations used themin this fashion, including the Roman Empire in the time of the earlychurch. The evidence indicates that the people of Israel did notappropriate their use until around the time of the monarchy.

Horsesfirst appear in the Bible in Gen. 47:17 as a part of the livestocktraded for grain under Joseph’s supervision during a time offamine. Due to the military role of horses and the need to depend onGod alone, the king of Israel was forbidden to hold great numbers ofhorses (Deut. 17:16), and the people were commanded not to obtainhorses from the principal supplier of the time, Egypt, which happeneddespite the prohibition (2Chron. 1:16). King David firstintroduced chariots to the armies of Israel when he kept one hundredchariot horses out of a large number he had captured from the kingdomof Zobah (2Sam. 8:3–4). The use of chariots expandedunder Solomon, and he is said to have owned as many as twelvethousand chariot horses (1Kings 4:26). He also built specificchariot cities in order to solidify Israel’s defenses (1Kings10:26). This move was deeply unfaithful, however, and was denouncedby the prophets as an indulgence in pagan luxury and sinfulself-reliance. Isaiah proclaimed, “Woe to those who go down toEgypt for help, who rely on horses, who trust in the multitude oftheir chariots and in the great strength of their horsem*n, but donot ... seek help from the Lord” (Isa. 31:1). Thevery real military advantages that came from chariot warfare gaveGod’s people a reason, however false, to trust their own powerrather than the provision of God.

Agate in Jerusalem was called the Horse Gate (Neh. 3:28; Jer. 31:40),and the royal palace near the city had a gate devoted to horses(2Chron. 23:15).

Horsesare often mentioned as a literary image meant to evoke speed, energy,and strength (Ps. 20:7). Jesus’ own entry into Jerusalem was ona donkey rather than a horse, emphasizing the nonmilitary nature ofhis messiahship (Matt. 21:5). In Rev. 6:1–8 horses of differentcolors represent four judgments of God upon the earth.

ThePhenomenon of Prophecy

Aprophet is a messenger of God, a person to whom God entrusts hismessage to an individual or to a nation. Indeed, the last book in theOT is named “Malachi,” which means “my messenger.”Isaiah heard God ask, “Whom shall I send?” and he criedout, “Send me!” (Isa. 6:8). A good template forunderstanding the phenomenon is Moses and Aaron. Moses was to tellAaron what to say, and Aaron would say it. “Then the Lord saidto Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and yourbrother Aaron will be your prophet’ ” (Exod. 7:1).

Prophetssuch as Isaiah were privy to what transpires in heaven, wheredecisions were being made that control the course of human history.Micaiah describes how he has seen God in the company of the heavenlyhost deliberating on how to entice Ahab to his death (1Kings22:13–23). All the other “prophets” in Ahab’scourt were false, since they did not have knowledge of the eventsbeyond human ken, as only true prophets can. Only one who hasencountered God in this way can speak as an agent of the heavenlycourt.

Forevery true prophet in Israel, there were many false prophets. Mosesset guidelines for distinguishing them. True prophets prophesy inaccordance with revealed religion. If a prophet contradicts the law,for example, and calls Israel to worship another god, this is not atrue prophet (Deut. 18:20). Also, if a prophet predicts somethingthat does not come to pass, that is also a false prophet (Deut.18:21–22). These criteria are not mechanical and automatic,however. Sometimes a prophet may appear to contradict priorrevelation (Jer. 26:11), and sometimes the predicted judgment isstaved off by national repentance (Jon. 4). Also, sometimes God maytest the people with a false prophet who makes a true prediction(Deut. 13:1–3).

Trueprophets occasionally exhibited bizarre behavior. Saul, whilepursuing David, was suddenly possessed by the Spirit of God and laynaked day and night, prophesying. This caused the people to ask ifSaul was now one of the prophets (1Sam. 19:24). Even in theancient world, prophets were considered a bit crazy (2Kings9:11; Jer. 23:9; 29:26; Hos. 9:7). The phenomenon he experienced isreferred to as “ecstasy.” The practice of tongues in theNT church also seems to have been ecstatic behavior. Paul notes thatobservers would call practitioners “out of your mind”(1Cor. 14:23). At Pentecost, some observers thought that theapostles were drunk. Peter replied that they were not drunk butrather had the Spirit upon them (Acts 2:15–21).

Theword “prophet” refers to one who foretells the future. Ofcourse, many people cannot accept the notion of real prophecy andthus regard all prophecy as an illusion. Either the text was writtenafter the fact, or it was couched in such general terms that it is nomiracle that it came true, or else it was a lucky guess. The textit*elf, however, wants to be read as real prophecy, and Christiansbefore the modern age read it as such. After all, to reject thesupernatural elements in the Bible ultimately leads to rejecting theresurrection of Christ.

However,the modern Christian should not focus on the predictive part of theprophets’ message to such an extent that the “forthtelling”element is neglected. Forthtelling is the prophets’ chiefministry—calling the people to mercy and justice, to obedienceto the law and fidelity to God. Christians who believe the Bibleshould take seriously the predictions about the future, but even moreso the challenges about the present.

TheBooks of Prophecy in the Old Testament

TheOT of Catholic and Protestant Bibles is roughly organized around theGreek translation of the OT, the Septuagint. Thus, Daniel isconsidered a prophetic book, and the prophets are separated from thehistorical books by the poetical books. However, the Hebrew Bible hasa different organization. It has only eight “books” ofprophecy, divided into the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets.The Former Prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.Traditionally, Samuel wrote Judges. The books of 1Samuel and2Samuel form one scroll, as do 1Kings and 2Kings.The book of Samuel bears the name of the prophet, and Kings issubstantially about Elijah and Elisha. The four Former Prophetswitness to the outworking of the covenant sanctions, from theIsraelites’ entry into the promised land to their expulsionfrom it.

Usually,when Christians speak of the prophets, they are referring to theLatter Prophets, plus Daniel. In Catholic and Protestant Bibles thereare four Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; andtwelve Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Manyother prophets ministered in Israel but have no scroll that bearstheir name. Thus, the ones listed above can be called the “writingprophets.”

Isaiah.The book of Isaiah preserves the sermons from the prophet whoministered during the time when Hezekiah was king of Judah, thesouthern kingdom. Isaiah saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Assyrianarmy and assured the king that God would deliver his people. Thatmessage of salvation is the overall theme of the book, a salvationuniversal in scope and focused on the figure of the SufferingServant. Isaiah claims that this servant of God would be wounded and“cut off from the land of the living” (Isa. 53:8) andthrough this would bring healing and salvation to his people. Hewould see this and make many righteous (Isa. 53).

TheNT refers to Isaiah more often than any other prophet, always todemonstrate that the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ wererevealed in advance by the prophet. For example, Paul cites Isa. 1:9in his argument as to why the Jews had rejected the gospel (Rom.9:29). When Jesus withdrew to the area of Zebulun and Naphtali,Matthew says that this act fulfilled Isa. 9:1–2 (Matt.4:15–16). Jesus himself cites Isa. 53:12, “[he] wasnumbered with the transgressors,” and claims that it waswritten about him (Luke 22:37). He does the same with Isa. 61:1–2(Luke 4:18–21).

Jeremiah.The book of Jeremiah puts in writing the words of the prophetJeremiah, who ministered at the very end of the kingdom of Judah andlived through the destruction of Jerusalem, with its temple and thepeople of God being taken away to forced exile and captivity. He seesthe weakness and powerlessness of the covenant that God had made withhis people to stir up love and fidelity in their hearts to him.According to Jeremiah, what the people chiefly need is a new covenantaltogether, one that is not external and written on tablets of stone,but internal, written on their hearts. They need a change ofpersonality to become a different sort of people altogether. This iswhat Jeremiah predicts will happen in the coming age after their timeof captivity is over (Jer. 31:31–40). The NT identifies thisnew covenant with the gospel of Jesus (Heb. 8:8–12), secured byhis blood (Heb. 10:16–17). This is the new covenant that Jesusannounces to his disciples when he eats the Last Supper with them(Luke 22:20).

Ezekiel.The book of Ezekiel picks up where Jeremiah leaves off and continuesfrom the destruction of Jerusalem into the early years of theBabylonian captivity. Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel sees the failure of theold covenant. He likens Israel to a married woman who violates hermarriage covenant at every turn (Ezek. 16). The prophet also foreseesa future character transformation of God’s people. “Iwill give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will removefrom you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And Iwill put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and becareful to keep my laws” (Ezek. 36:26–27). This isgraphically illustrated in Ezek. 37, where the prophet is told toprophesy to a valley of dry bones, and through the preaching of theword of God the company of the dead come to life and become a vastarmy—not of skeletons, but of vitally alive warriors. This is avision of what will happen when God makes an everlasting covenantwith them and will dwell with them forever (Ezek. 37:26–27).Paul cites this in 2Cor. 6:16 and argues, “We are thetemple of the living God.” The last part of Ezekiel describes agreat, larger-than-life temple that Paul interprets to be the church.Thus, Ezekiel anticipates the preaching of the gospel, bringingspiritual life to a vast company of believers, among whom God himselfwill dwell.

Daniel.The book of Daniel is not a prophetic book by genre, but much of itis devoted to predicting the future, so in Catholic and ProtestantBibles it is placed between Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. Prophecycalls the people to repentance and threatens judgment on them due totheir sin. Daniel does the opposite: it calls them to persevere assaints, while the evil nations oppress them, until the end of time,when they will be vindicated. Daniel comforts the faithful who aresuffering due to the sins of the nations.

TheTwelve.The twelve Minor Prophets follow a roughly chronological sequence(with some notable exceptions). Hosea, Amos, and Micah date from therise of Assyria as the great power that threatened Israel and Judah.Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah date from near the end of Assyriandominance and the rise of Babylon. The Babylonian exile is skipped,and the last three—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—werewritten after the Jews’ restoration to the land of Judah. Joel,Obadiah, and Jonah are difficult to date with certainty.

Readas one book, the Minor Prophets tell a story of God’s constancyand fidelity even though everything else in the world changes. Theybegin with all twelve tribes intact and enjoying prosperity in theland. In Judah, there is a king on the throne of David. But by theend, most of the tribes are lost, the monarchy is no more, Jerusalemand the temple have been destroyed, and the Jews are under the heelof foreign powers. After all of that, God says to them, almost as themoral of the whole history of the OT, “I the Lord do notchange. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Eversince the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decreesand have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you”(Mal. 3:6–7). Deeply explored in the Minor Prophets is the dayof the Lord, the climax and denouement of history, in which all thewords of the prophets will finally be fulfilled (see Joel andZephaniah). The reader is given, as a picture of this day, a view ofthe repentance of one generation of Ninevites at the preaching ofJonah and of the final judgment to fall on that city as described byNahum.

TheNT cites the Minor Prophets much more often than any book of prophecyexcept Isaiah. Peter draws upon Joel 2:28–32 to explain thepouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–21).James cites Amos 9:11–12 to demonstrate that salvation wasalways intended for the Gentiles as well as the Jews (Acts 15:16–17).Paul quotes Hab. 2:4 to argue that righteousness before God comesthrough faith (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). Jesus says that like Jonah, hewill return to the land of the living after three days (Matt.12:38–41).

Prophecyin the New Testament

Inthe NT period there were a number of prophets. John the Baptist couldpoint to Jesus and proclaim him to be the Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sins of the world (John 1:29). Agabus the prophet predicted afamine and, later, Paul’s arrest (Acts 11:28; 21:10–11).

Paullists “gifts of the Spirit” (1Cor. 12:4–11),including prophecy and various phenomena reminiscent of the OTprophets’ ecstatic state. Paul warns the Corinthians not tooverdo this sort of thing and so to be mature (1Cor. 14:19–20).Near the end of his life, in one of his last letters, he speaks ofprophecy as normative in the church, particularly in establishing anauthoritative body of elders to rule and especially to preach thegospel (1Tim. 1:18; 4:14). Peter draws a connection between theministry of the OT prophets and the proclamation of the gospel ofJesus Christ (1Pet. 1:10–12). Evangelism seems to be thenormative mode for prophecy today: forthtelling by calling people toturn from their sins to Jesus, and foretelling by speaking of hisreturn and the final judgment.

Thus,all Christians hold the office of prophet, even if they neverparticipate in the ecstatic state experienced by the Corinthians. Thegreatness of a prophet is in how clearly the prophet points to Jesus.John the Baptist was the greatest of the OT prophets by that measure,but any Christian on this side of the cross and resurrection canproclaim the gospel even more clearly. Thus, the prophetic ministryof any Christian is greater than John’s (Matt. 11:11).

ThePhenomenon of Prophecy

Aprophet is a messenger of God, a person to whom God entrusts hismessage to an individual or to a nation. Indeed, the last book in theOT is named “Malachi,” which means “my messenger.”Isaiah heard God ask, “Whom shall I send?” and he criedout, “Send me!” (Isa. 6:8). A good template forunderstanding the phenomenon is Moses and Aaron. Moses was to tellAaron what to say, and Aaron would say it. “Then the Lord saidto Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and yourbrother Aaron will be your prophet’ ” (Exod. 7:1).

Prophetssuch as Isaiah were privy to what transpires in heaven, wheredecisions were being made that control the course of human history.Micaiah describes how he has seen God in the company of the heavenlyhost deliberating on how to entice Ahab to his death (1Kings22:13–23). All the other “prophets” in Ahab’scourt were false, since they did not have knowledge of the eventsbeyond human ken, as only true prophets can. Only one who hasencountered God in this way can speak as an agent of the heavenlycourt.

Forevery true prophet in Israel, there were many false prophets. Mosesset guidelines for distinguishing them. True prophets prophesy inaccordance with revealed religion. If a prophet contradicts the law,for example, and calls Israel to worship another god, this is not atrue prophet (Deut. 18:20). Also, if a prophet predicts somethingthat does not come to pass, that is also a false prophet (Deut.18:21–22). These criteria are not mechanical and automatic,however. Sometimes a prophet may appear to contradict priorrevelation (Jer. 26:11), and sometimes the predicted judgment isstaved off by national repentance (Jon. 4). Also, sometimes God maytest the people with a false prophet who makes a true prediction(Deut. 13:1–3).

Trueprophets occasionally exhibited bizarre behavior. Saul, whilepursuing David, was suddenly possessed by the Spirit of God and laynaked day and night, prophesying. This caused the people to ask ifSaul was now one of the prophets (1Sam. 19:24). Even in theancient world, prophets were considered a bit crazy (2Kings9:11; Jer. 23:9; 29:26; Hos. 9:7). The phenomenon he experienced isreferred to as “ecstasy.” The practice of tongues in theNT church also seems to have been ecstatic behavior. Paul notes thatobservers would call practitioners “out of your mind”(1Cor. 14:23). At Pentecost, some observers thought that theapostles were drunk. Peter replied that they were not drunk butrather had the Spirit upon them (Acts 2:15–21).

Theword “prophet” refers to one who foretells the future. Ofcourse, many people cannot accept the notion of real prophecy andthus regard all prophecy as an illusion. Either the text was writtenafter the fact, or it was couched in such general terms that it is nomiracle that it came true, or else it was a lucky guess. The textit*elf, however, wants to be read as real prophecy, and Christiansbefore the modern age read it as such. After all, to reject thesupernatural elements in the Bible ultimately leads to rejecting theresurrection of Christ.

However,the modern Christian should not focus on the predictive part of theprophets’ message to such an extent that the “forthtelling”element is neglected. Forthtelling is the prophets’ chiefministry—calling the people to mercy and justice, to obedienceto the law and fidelity to God. Christians who believe the Bibleshould take seriously the predictions about the future, but even moreso the challenges about the present.

TheBooks of Prophecy in the Old Testament

TheOT of Catholic and Protestant Bibles is roughly organized around theGreek translation of the OT, the Septuagint. Thus, Daniel isconsidered a prophetic book, and the prophets are separated from thehistorical books by the poetical books. However, the Hebrew Bible hasa different organization. It has only eight “books” ofprophecy, divided into the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets.The Former Prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.Traditionally, Samuel wrote Judges. The books of 1Samuel and2Samuel form one scroll, as do 1Kings and 2Kings.The book of Samuel bears the name of the prophet, and Kings issubstantially about Elijah and Elisha. The four Former Prophetswitness to the outworking of the covenant sanctions, from theIsraelites’ entry into the promised land to their expulsionfrom it.

Usually,when Christians speak of the prophets, they are referring to theLatter Prophets, plus Daniel. In Catholic and Protestant Bibles thereare four Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; andtwelve Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Manyother prophets ministered in Israel but have no scroll that bearstheir name. Thus, the ones listed above can be called the “writingprophets.”

Isaiah.The book of Isaiah preserves the sermons from the prophet whoministered during the time when Hezekiah was king of Judah, thesouthern kingdom. Isaiah saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Assyrianarmy and assured the king that God would deliver his people. Thatmessage of salvation is the overall theme of the book, a salvationuniversal in scope and focused on the figure of the SufferingServant. Isaiah claims that this servant of God would be wounded and“cut off from the land of the living” (Isa. 53:8) andthrough this would bring healing and salvation to his people. Hewould see this and make many righteous (Isa. 53).

TheNT refers to Isaiah more often than any other prophet, always todemonstrate that the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ wererevealed in advance by the prophet. For example, Paul cites Isa. 1:9in his argument as to why the Jews had rejected the gospel (Rom.9:29). When Jesus withdrew to the area of Zebulun and Naphtali,Matthew says that this act fulfilled Isa. 9:1–2 (Matt.4:15–16). Jesus himself cites Isa. 53:12, “[he] wasnumbered with the transgressors,” and claims that it waswritten about him (Luke 22:37). He does the same with Isa. 61:1–2(Luke 4:18–21).

Jeremiah.The book of Jeremiah puts in writing the words of the prophetJeremiah, who ministered at the very end of the kingdom of Judah andlived through the destruction of Jerusalem, with its temple and thepeople of God being taken away to forced exile and captivity. He seesthe weakness and powerlessness of the covenant that God had made withhis people to stir up love and fidelity in their hearts to him.According to Jeremiah, what the people chiefly need is a new covenantaltogether, one that is not external and written on tablets of stone,but internal, written on their hearts. They need a change ofpersonality to become a different sort of people altogether. This iswhat Jeremiah predicts will happen in the coming age after their timeof captivity is over (Jer. 31:31–40). The NT identifies thisnew covenant with the gospel of Jesus (Heb. 8:8–12), secured byhis blood (Heb. 10:16–17). This is the new covenant that Jesusannounces to his disciples when he eats the Last Supper with them(Luke 22:20).

Ezekiel.The book of Ezekiel picks up where Jeremiah leaves off and continuesfrom the destruction of Jerusalem into the early years of theBabylonian captivity. Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel sees the failure of theold covenant. He likens Israel to a married woman who violates hermarriage covenant at every turn (Ezek. 16). The prophet also foreseesa future character transformation of God’s people. “Iwill give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will removefrom you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And Iwill put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and becareful to keep my laws” (Ezek. 36:26–27). This isgraphically illustrated in Ezek. 37, where the prophet is told toprophesy to a valley of dry bones, and through the preaching of theword of God the company of the dead come to life and become a vastarmy—not of skeletons, but of vitally alive warriors. This is avision of what will happen when God makes an everlasting covenantwith them and will dwell with them forever (Ezek. 37:26–27).Paul cites this in 2Cor. 6:16 and argues, “We are thetemple of the living God.” The last part of Ezekiel describes agreat, larger-than-life temple that Paul interprets to be the church.Thus, Ezekiel anticipates the preaching of the gospel, bringingspiritual life to a vast company of believers, among whom God himselfwill dwell.

Daniel.The book of Daniel is not a prophetic book by genre, but much of itis devoted to predicting the future, so in Catholic and ProtestantBibles it is placed between Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. Prophecycalls the people to repentance and threatens judgment on them due totheir sin. Daniel does the opposite: it calls them to persevere assaints, while the evil nations oppress them, until the end of time,when they will be vindicated. Daniel comforts the faithful who aresuffering due to the sins of the nations.

TheTwelve.The twelve Minor Prophets follow a roughly chronological sequence(with some notable exceptions). Hosea, Amos, and Micah date from therise of Assyria as the great power that threatened Israel and Judah.Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah date from near the end of Assyriandominance and the rise of Babylon. The Babylonian exile is skipped,and the last three—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—werewritten after the Jews’ restoration to the land of Judah. Joel,Obadiah, and Jonah are difficult to date with certainty.

Readas one book, the Minor Prophets tell a story of God’s constancyand fidelity even though everything else in the world changes. Theybegin with all twelve tribes intact and enjoying prosperity in theland. In Judah, there is a king on the throne of David. But by theend, most of the tribes are lost, the monarchy is no more, Jerusalemand the temple have been destroyed, and the Jews are under the heelof foreign powers. After all of that, God says to them, almost as themoral of the whole history of the OT, “I the Lord do notchange. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Eversince the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decreesand have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you”(Mal. 3:6–7). Deeply explored in the Minor Prophets is the dayof the Lord, the climax and denouement of history, in which all thewords of the prophets will finally be fulfilled (see Joel andZephaniah). The reader is given, as a picture of this day, a view ofthe repentance of one generation of Ninevites at the preaching ofJonah and of the final judgment to fall on that city as described byNahum.

TheNT cites the Minor Prophets much more often than any book of prophecyexcept Isaiah. Peter draws upon Joel 2:28–32 to explain thepouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–21).James cites Amos 9:11–12 to demonstrate that salvation wasalways intended for the Gentiles as well as the Jews (Acts 15:16–17).Paul quotes Hab. 2:4 to argue that righteousness before God comesthrough faith (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). Jesus says that like Jonah, hewill return to the land of the living after three days (Matt.12:38–41).

Prophecyin the New Testament

Inthe NT period there were a number of prophets. John the Baptist couldpoint to Jesus and proclaim him to be the Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sins of the world (John 1:29). Agabus the prophet predicted afamine and, later, Paul’s arrest (Acts 11:28; 21:10–11).

Paullists “gifts of the Spirit” (1Cor. 12:4–11),including prophecy and various phenomena reminiscent of the OTprophets’ ecstatic state. Paul warns the Corinthians not tooverdo this sort of thing and so to be mature (1Cor. 14:19–20).Near the end of his life, in one of his last letters, he speaks ofprophecy as normative in the church, particularly in establishing anauthoritative body of elders to rule and especially to preach thegospel (1Tim. 1:18; 4:14). Peter draws a connection between theministry of the OT prophets and the proclamation of the gospel ofJesus Christ (1Pet. 1:10–12). Evangelism seems to be thenormative mode for prophecy today: forthtelling by calling people toturn from their sins to Jesus, and foretelling by speaking of hisreturn and the final judgment.

Thus,all Christians hold the office of prophet, even if they neverparticipate in the ecstatic state experienced by the Corinthians. Thegreatness of a prophet is in how clearly the prophet points to Jesus.John the Baptist was the greatest of the OT prophets by that measure,but any Christian on this side of the cross and resurrection canproclaim the gospel even more clearly. Thus, the prophetic ministryof any Christian is greater than John’s (Matt. 11:11).

ThePhenomenon of Prophecy

Aprophet is a messenger of God, a person to whom God entrusts hismessage to an individual or to a nation. Indeed, the last book in theOT is named “Malachi,” which means “my messenger.”Isaiah heard God ask, “Whom shall I send?” and he criedout, “Send me!” (Isa. 6:8). A good template forunderstanding the phenomenon is Moses and Aaron. Moses was to tellAaron what to say, and Aaron would say it. “Then the Lord saidto Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and yourbrother Aaron will be your prophet’ ” (Exod. 7:1).

Prophetssuch as Isaiah were privy to what transpires in heaven, wheredecisions were being made that control the course of human history.Micaiah describes how he has seen God in the company of the heavenlyhost deliberating on how to entice Ahab to his death (1Kings22:13–23). All the other “prophets” in Ahab’scourt were false, since they did not have knowledge of the eventsbeyond human ken, as only true prophets can. Only one who hasencountered God in this way can speak as an agent of the heavenlycourt.

Forevery true prophet in Israel, there were many false prophets. Mosesset guidelines for distinguishing them. True prophets prophesy inaccordance with revealed religion. If a prophet contradicts the law,for example, and calls Israel to worship another god, this is not atrue prophet (Deut. 18:20). Also, if a prophet predicts somethingthat does not come to pass, that is also a false prophet (Deut.18:21–22). These criteria are not mechanical and automatic,however. Sometimes a prophet may appear to contradict priorrevelation (Jer. 26:11), and sometimes the predicted judgment isstaved off by national repentance (Jon. 4). Also, sometimes God maytest the people with a false prophet who makes a true prediction(Deut. 13:1–3).

Trueprophets occasionally exhibited bizarre behavior. Saul, whilepursuing David, was suddenly possessed by the Spirit of God and laynaked day and night, prophesying. This caused the people to ask ifSaul was now one of the prophets (1Sam. 19:24). Even in theancient world, prophets were considered a bit crazy (2Kings9:11; Jer. 23:9; 29:26; Hos. 9:7). The phenomenon he experienced isreferred to as “ecstasy.” The practice of tongues in theNT church also seems to have been ecstatic behavior. Paul notes thatobservers would call practitioners “out of your mind”(1Cor. 14:23). At Pentecost, some observers thought that theapostles were drunk. Peter replied that they were not drunk butrather had the Spirit upon them (Acts 2:15–21).

Theword “prophet” refers to one who foretells the future. Ofcourse, many people cannot accept the notion of real prophecy andthus regard all prophecy as an illusion. Either the text was writtenafter the fact, or it was couched in such general terms that it is nomiracle that it came true, or else it was a lucky guess. The textit*elf, however, wants to be read as real prophecy, and Christiansbefore the modern age read it as such. After all, to reject thesupernatural elements in the Bible ultimately leads to rejecting theresurrection of Christ.

However,the modern Christian should not focus on the predictive part of theprophets’ message to such an extent that the “forthtelling”element is neglected. Forthtelling is the prophets’ chiefministry—calling the people to mercy and justice, to obedienceto the law and fidelity to God. Christians who believe the Bibleshould take seriously the predictions about the future, but even moreso the challenges about the present.

TheBooks of Prophecy in the Old Testament

TheOT of Catholic and Protestant Bibles is roughly organized around theGreek translation of the OT, the Septuagint. Thus, Daniel isconsidered a prophetic book, and the prophets are separated from thehistorical books by the poetical books. However, the Hebrew Bible hasa different organization. It has only eight “books” ofprophecy, divided into the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets.The Former Prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.Traditionally, Samuel wrote Judges. The books of 1Samuel and2Samuel form one scroll, as do 1Kings and 2Kings.The book of Samuel bears the name of the prophet, and Kings issubstantially about Elijah and Elisha. The four Former Prophetswitness to the outworking of the covenant sanctions, from theIsraelites’ entry into the promised land to their expulsionfrom it.

Usually,when Christians speak of the prophets, they are referring to theLatter Prophets, plus Daniel. In Catholic and Protestant Bibles thereare four Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; andtwelve Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Manyother prophets ministered in Israel but have no scroll that bearstheir name. Thus, the ones listed above can be called the “writingprophets.”

Isaiah.The book of Isaiah preserves the sermons from the prophet whoministered during the time when Hezekiah was king of Judah, thesouthern kingdom. Isaiah saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Assyrianarmy and assured the king that God would deliver his people. Thatmessage of salvation is the overall theme of the book, a salvationuniversal in scope and focused on the figure of the SufferingServant. Isaiah claims that this servant of God would be wounded and“cut off from the land of the living” (Isa. 53:8) andthrough this would bring healing and salvation to his people. Hewould see this and make many righteous (Isa. 53).

TheNT refers to Isaiah more often than any other prophet, always todemonstrate that the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ wererevealed in advance by the prophet. For example, Paul cites Isa. 1:9in his argument as to why the Jews had rejected the gospel (Rom.9:29). When Jesus withdrew to the area of Zebulun and Naphtali,Matthew says that this act fulfilled Isa. 9:1–2 (Matt.4:15–16). Jesus himself cites Isa. 53:12, “[he] wasnumbered with the transgressors,” and claims that it waswritten about him (Luke 22:37). He does the same with Isa. 61:1–2(Luke 4:18–21).

Jeremiah.The book of Jeremiah puts in writing the words of the prophetJeremiah, who ministered at the very end of the kingdom of Judah andlived through the destruction of Jerusalem, with its temple and thepeople of God being taken away to forced exile and captivity. He seesthe weakness and powerlessness of the covenant that God had made withhis people to stir up love and fidelity in their hearts to him.According to Jeremiah, what the people chiefly need is a new covenantaltogether, one that is not external and written on tablets of stone,but internal, written on their hearts. They need a change ofpersonality to become a different sort of people altogether. This iswhat Jeremiah predicts will happen in the coming age after their timeof captivity is over (Jer. 31:31–40). The NT identifies thisnew covenant with the gospel of Jesus (Heb. 8:8–12), secured byhis blood (Heb. 10:16–17). This is the new covenant that Jesusannounces to his disciples when he eats the Last Supper with them(Luke 22:20).

Ezekiel.The book of Ezekiel picks up where Jeremiah leaves off and continuesfrom the destruction of Jerusalem into the early years of theBabylonian captivity. Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel sees the failure of theold covenant. He likens Israel to a married woman who violates hermarriage covenant at every turn (Ezek. 16). The prophet also foreseesa future character transformation of God’s people. “Iwill give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will removefrom you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And Iwill put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and becareful to keep my laws” (Ezek. 36:26–27). This isgraphically illustrated in Ezek. 37, where the prophet is told toprophesy to a valley of dry bones, and through the preaching of theword of God the company of the dead come to life and become a vastarmy—not of skeletons, but of vitally alive warriors. This is avision of what will happen when God makes an everlasting covenantwith them and will dwell with them forever (Ezek. 37:26–27).Paul cites this in 2Cor. 6:16 and argues, “We are thetemple of the living God.” The last part of Ezekiel describes agreat, larger-than-life temple that Paul interprets to be the church.Thus, Ezekiel anticipates the preaching of the gospel, bringingspiritual life to a vast company of believers, among whom God himselfwill dwell.

Daniel.The book of Daniel is not a prophetic book by genre, but much of itis devoted to predicting the future, so in Catholic and ProtestantBibles it is placed between Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. Prophecycalls the people to repentance and threatens judgment on them due totheir sin. Daniel does the opposite: it calls them to persevere assaints, while the evil nations oppress them, until the end of time,when they will be vindicated. Daniel comforts the faithful who aresuffering due to the sins of the nations.

TheTwelve.The twelve Minor Prophets follow a roughly chronological sequence(with some notable exceptions). Hosea, Amos, and Micah date from therise of Assyria as the great power that threatened Israel and Judah.Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah date from near the end of Assyriandominance and the rise of Babylon. The Babylonian exile is skipped,and the last three—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—werewritten after the Jews’ restoration to the land of Judah. Joel,Obadiah, and Jonah are difficult to date with certainty.

Readas one book, the Minor Prophets tell a story of God’s constancyand fidelity even though everything else in the world changes. Theybegin with all twelve tribes intact and enjoying prosperity in theland. In Judah, there is a king on the throne of David. But by theend, most of the tribes are lost, the monarchy is no more, Jerusalemand the temple have been destroyed, and the Jews are under the heelof foreign powers. After all of that, God says to them, almost as themoral of the whole history of the OT, “I the Lord do notchange. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Eversince the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decreesand have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you”(Mal. 3:6–7). Deeply explored in the Minor Prophets is the dayof the Lord, the climax and denouement of history, in which all thewords of the prophets will finally be fulfilled (see Joel andZephaniah). The reader is given, as a picture of this day, a view ofthe repentance of one generation of Ninevites at the preaching ofJonah and of the final judgment to fall on that city as described byNahum.

TheNT cites the Minor Prophets much more often than any book of prophecyexcept Isaiah. Peter draws upon Joel 2:28–32 to explain thepouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–21).James cites Amos 9:11–12 to demonstrate that salvation wasalways intended for the Gentiles as well as the Jews (Acts 15:16–17).Paul quotes Hab. 2:4 to argue that righteousness before God comesthrough faith (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). Jesus says that like Jonah, hewill return to the land of the living after three days (Matt.12:38–41).

Prophecyin the New Testament

Inthe NT period there were a number of prophets. John the Baptist couldpoint to Jesus and proclaim him to be the Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sins of the world (John 1:29). Agabus the prophet predicted afamine and, later, Paul’s arrest (Acts 11:28; 21:10–11).

Paullists “gifts of the Spirit” (1Cor. 12:4–11),including prophecy and various phenomena reminiscent of the OTprophets’ ecstatic state. Paul warns the Corinthians not tooverdo this sort of thing and so to be mature (1Cor. 14:19–20).Near the end of his life, in one of his last letters, he speaks ofprophecy as normative in the church, particularly in establishing anauthoritative body of elders to rule and especially to preach thegospel (1Tim. 1:18; 4:14). Peter draws a connection between theministry of the OT prophets and the proclamation of the gospel ofJesus Christ (1Pet. 1:10–12). Evangelism seems to be thenormative mode for prophecy today: forthtelling by calling people toturn from their sins to Jesus, and foretelling by speaking of hisreturn and the final judgment.

Thus,all Christians hold the office of prophet, even if they neverparticipate in the ecstatic state experienced by the Corinthians. Thegreatness of a prophet is in how clearly the prophet points to Jesus.John the Baptist was the greatest of the OT prophets by that measure,but any Christian on this side of the cross and resurrection canproclaim the gospel even more clearly. Thus, the prophetic ministryof any Christian is greater than John’s (Matt. 11:11).

ThePhenomenon of Prophecy

Aprophet is a messenger of God, a person to whom God entrusts hismessage to an individual or to a nation. Indeed, the last book in theOT is named “Malachi,” which means “my messenger.”Isaiah heard God ask, “Whom shall I send?” and he criedout, “Send me!” (Isa. 6:8). A good template forunderstanding the phenomenon is Moses and Aaron. Moses was to tellAaron what to say, and Aaron would say it. “Then the Lord saidto Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and yourbrother Aaron will be your prophet’ ” (Exod. 7:1).

Prophetssuch as Isaiah were privy to what transpires in heaven, wheredecisions were being made that control the course of human history.Micaiah describes how he has seen God in the company of the heavenlyhost deliberating on how to entice Ahab to his death (1Kings22:13–23). All the other “prophets” in Ahab’scourt were false, since they did not have knowledge of the eventsbeyond human ken, as only true prophets can. Only one who hasencountered God in this way can speak as an agent of the heavenlycourt.

Forevery true prophet in Israel, there were many false prophets. Mosesset guidelines for distinguishing them. True prophets prophesy inaccordance with revealed religion. If a prophet contradicts the law,for example, and calls Israel to worship another god, this is not atrue prophet (Deut. 18:20). Also, if a prophet predicts somethingthat does not come to pass, that is also a false prophet (Deut.18:21–22). These criteria are not mechanical and automatic,however. Sometimes a prophet may appear to contradict priorrevelation (Jer. 26:11), and sometimes the predicted judgment isstaved off by national repentance (Jon. 4). Also, sometimes God maytest the people with a false prophet who makes a true prediction(Deut. 13:1–3).

Trueprophets occasionally exhibited bizarre behavior. Saul, whilepursuing David, was suddenly possessed by the Spirit of God and laynaked day and night, prophesying. This caused the people to ask ifSaul was now one of the prophets (1Sam. 19:24). Even in theancient world, prophets were considered a bit crazy (2Kings9:11; Jer. 23:9; 29:26; Hos. 9:7). The phenomenon he experienced isreferred to as “ecstasy.” The practice of tongues in theNT church also seems to have been ecstatic behavior. Paul notes thatobservers would call practitioners “out of your mind”(1Cor. 14:23). At Pentecost, some observers thought that theapostles were drunk. Peter replied that they were not drunk butrather had the Spirit upon them (Acts 2:15–21).

Theword “prophet” refers to one who foretells the future. Ofcourse, many people cannot accept the notion of real prophecy andthus regard all prophecy as an illusion. Either the text was writtenafter the fact, or it was couched in such general terms that it is nomiracle that it came true, or else it was a lucky guess. The textit*elf, however, wants to be read as real prophecy, and Christiansbefore the modern age read it as such. After all, to reject thesupernatural elements in the Bible ultimately leads to rejecting theresurrection of Christ.

However,the modern Christian should not focus on the predictive part of theprophets’ message to such an extent that the “forthtelling”element is neglected. Forthtelling is the prophets’ chiefministry—calling the people to mercy and justice, to obedienceto the law and fidelity to God. Christians who believe the Bibleshould take seriously the predictions about the future, but even moreso the challenges about the present.

TheBooks of Prophecy in the Old Testament

TheOT of Catholic and Protestant Bibles is roughly organized around theGreek translation of the OT, the Septuagint. Thus, Daniel isconsidered a prophetic book, and the prophets are separated from thehistorical books by the poetical books. However, the Hebrew Bible hasa different organization. It has only eight “books” ofprophecy, divided into the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets.The Former Prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.Traditionally, Samuel wrote Judges. The books of 1Samuel and2Samuel form one scroll, as do 1Kings and 2Kings.The book of Samuel bears the name of the prophet, and Kings issubstantially about Elijah and Elisha. The four Former Prophetswitness to the outworking of the covenant sanctions, from theIsraelites’ entry into the promised land to their expulsionfrom it.

Usually,when Christians speak of the prophets, they are referring to theLatter Prophets, plus Daniel. In Catholic and Protestant Bibles thereare four Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; andtwelve Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Manyother prophets ministered in Israel but have no scroll that bearstheir name. Thus, the ones listed above can be called the “writingprophets.”

Isaiah.The book of Isaiah preserves the sermons from the prophet whoministered during the time when Hezekiah was king of Judah, thesouthern kingdom. Isaiah saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Assyrianarmy and assured the king that God would deliver his people. Thatmessage of salvation is the overall theme of the book, a salvationuniversal in scope and focused on the figure of the SufferingServant. Isaiah claims that this servant of God would be wounded and“cut off from the land of the living” (Isa. 53:8) andthrough this would bring healing and salvation to his people. Hewould see this and make many righteous (Isa. 53).

TheNT refers to Isaiah more often than any other prophet, always todemonstrate that the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ wererevealed in advance by the prophet. For example, Paul cites Isa. 1:9in his argument as to why the Jews had rejected the gospel (Rom.9:29). When Jesus withdrew to the area of Zebulun and Naphtali,Matthew says that this act fulfilled Isa. 9:1–2 (Matt.4:15–16). Jesus himself cites Isa. 53:12, “[he] wasnumbered with the transgressors,” and claims that it waswritten about him (Luke 22:37). He does the same with Isa. 61:1–2(Luke 4:18–21).

Jeremiah.The book of Jeremiah puts in writing the words of the prophetJeremiah, who ministered at the very end of the kingdom of Judah andlived through the destruction of Jerusalem, with its temple and thepeople of God being taken away to forced exile and captivity. He seesthe weakness and powerlessness of the covenant that God had made withhis people to stir up love and fidelity in their hearts to him.According to Jeremiah, what the people chiefly need is a new covenantaltogether, one that is not external and written on tablets of stone,but internal, written on their hearts. They need a change ofpersonality to become a different sort of people altogether. This iswhat Jeremiah predicts will happen in the coming age after their timeof captivity is over (Jer. 31:31–40). The NT identifies thisnew covenant with the gospel of Jesus (Heb. 8:8–12), secured byhis blood (Heb. 10:16–17). This is the new covenant that Jesusannounces to his disciples when he eats the Last Supper with them(Luke 22:20).

Ezekiel.The book of Ezekiel picks up where Jeremiah leaves off and continuesfrom the destruction of Jerusalem into the early years of theBabylonian captivity. Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel sees the failure of theold covenant. He likens Israel to a married woman who violates hermarriage covenant at every turn (Ezek. 16). The prophet also foreseesa future character transformation of God’s people. “Iwill give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will removefrom you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And Iwill put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and becareful to keep my laws” (Ezek. 36:26–27). This isgraphically illustrated in Ezek. 37, where the prophet is told toprophesy to a valley of dry bones, and through the preaching of theword of God the company of the dead come to life and become a vastarmy—not of skeletons, but of vitally alive warriors. This is avision of what will happen when God makes an everlasting covenantwith them and will dwell with them forever (Ezek. 37:26–27).Paul cites this in 2Cor. 6:16 and argues, “We are thetemple of the living God.” The last part of Ezekiel describes agreat, larger-than-life temple that Paul interprets to be the church.Thus, Ezekiel anticipates the preaching of the gospel, bringingspiritual life to a vast company of believers, among whom God himselfwill dwell.

Daniel.The book of Daniel is not a prophetic book by genre, but much of itis devoted to predicting the future, so in Catholic and ProtestantBibles it is placed between Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. Prophecycalls the people to repentance and threatens judgment on them due totheir sin. Daniel does the opposite: it calls them to persevere assaints, while the evil nations oppress them, until the end of time,when they will be vindicated. Daniel comforts the faithful who aresuffering due to the sins of the nations.

TheTwelve.The twelve Minor Prophets follow a roughly chronological sequence(with some notable exceptions). Hosea, Amos, and Micah date from therise of Assyria as the great power that threatened Israel and Judah.Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah date from near the end of Assyriandominance and the rise of Babylon. The Babylonian exile is skipped,and the last three—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—werewritten after the Jews’ restoration to the land of Judah. Joel,Obadiah, and Jonah are difficult to date with certainty.

Readas one book, the Minor Prophets tell a story of God’s constancyand fidelity even though everything else in the world changes. Theybegin with all twelve tribes intact and enjoying prosperity in theland. In Judah, there is a king on the throne of David. But by theend, most of the tribes are lost, the monarchy is no more, Jerusalemand the temple have been destroyed, and the Jews are under the heelof foreign powers. After all of that, God says to them, almost as themoral of the whole history of the OT, “I the Lord do notchange. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Eversince the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decreesand have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you”(Mal. 3:6–7). Deeply explored in the Minor Prophets is the dayof the Lord, the climax and denouement of history, in which all thewords of the prophets will finally be fulfilled (see Joel andZephaniah). The reader is given, as a picture of this day, a view ofthe repentance of one generation of Ninevites at the preaching ofJonah and of the final judgment to fall on that city as described byNahum.

TheNT cites the Minor Prophets much more often than any book of prophecyexcept Isaiah. Peter draws upon Joel 2:28–32 to explain thepouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–21).James cites Amos 9:11–12 to demonstrate that salvation wasalways intended for the Gentiles as well as the Jews (Acts 15:16–17).Paul quotes Hab. 2:4 to argue that righteousness before God comesthrough faith (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). Jesus says that like Jonah, hewill return to the land of the living after three days (Matt.12:38–41).

Prophecyin the New Testament

Inthe NT period there were a number of prophets. John the Baptist couldpoint to Jesus and proclaim him to be the Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sins of the world (John 1:29). Agabus the prophet predicted afamine and, later, Paul’s arrest (Acts 11:28; 21:10–11).

Paullists “gifts of the Spirit” (1Cor. 12:4–11),including prophecy and various phenomena reminiscent of the OTprophets’ ecstatic state. Paul warns the Corinthians not tooverdo this sort of thing and so to be mature (1Cor. 14:19–20).Near the end of his life, in one of his last letters, he speaks ofprophecy as normative in the church, particularly in establishing anauthoritative body of elders to rule and especially to preach thegospel (1Tim. 1:18; 4:14). Peter draws a connection between theministry of the OT prophets and the proclamation of the gospel ofJesus Christ (1Pet. 1:10–12). Evangelism seems to be thenormative mode for prophecy today: forthtelling by calling people toturn from their sins to Jesus, and foretelling by speaking of hisreturn and the final judgment.

Thus,all Christians hold the office of prophet, even if they neverparticipate in the ecstatic state experienced by the Corinthians. Thegreatness of a prophet is in how clearly the prophet points to Jesus.John the Baptist was the greatest of the OT prophets by that measure,but any Christian on this side of the cross and resurrection canproclaim the gospel even more clearly. Thus, the prophetic ministryof any Christian is greater than John’s (Matt. 11:11).

The word “providence” comes from the Latin wordprovidentia, which means “foresight.” However, the moderntheological use of the term refers not to foresight or foreknowl-edgeperse but rather to how God continues to sustain and guide hiscreation. There is no single term in either the OT or the NT thattranslates as “providence.” The one time the word occursin the NIV (Job 10:12), the Hebrew word (peqqudah) is one that theNIV in other places usually translates with words such as “care,”“charge,” or “oversight.” The concept ofdivine providence comes not from any one word but rather fromnumerous statements in the Bible that speak of God’s continuingsupervision of his world. The biblical data can perhaps best beorganized under four headings: created order, world history,salvation history, and individual history. These headings are,however, not discrete; they continually intersect.

CreatedOrder

Scripturetestifies in numerous places to God’s ongoing supervision ofhis creation. The psalms play a special role here. As one commentatorhas remarked, there are no nature lyrics in the psalms, onlyadmiration and awe at how God runs his world. God actively cares forthe land and waters it, causes grass to grow, plants trees, and makessure that they are well watered (Pss. 65:9; 104:14, 16). God bringsdarkness on the land and tells the sun when to set and when to rise(Ps. 104:19–20). God is the zookeeper who makes sure all theanimals are fed (Ps. 104:27). Every birth of every living creature isregarded as a new creative work of God, and he constantly renews theface of the earth (Ps. 104:30).

Godblankets the earth with snow and lays down a sheet of frost (Ps.147:16). When the snow and frost melt, it is because God commanded itby his word and sent breezes to make the melting waters flow (Ps.147:18). Hail, snow, clouds, and stormy winds do their Master’sbidding (Ps. 148:8). God commands the morning to dawn and keeps thesnow and hail in storehouses, ready to be deployed on the day ofbattle (Job 38:12, 22–23). The sea waves roar because God stirsthem up (Jer. 31:35). God even speaks of being in a covenantrelationship with his creation (Jer. 33:20, 25).

Inthe NT, we find that Jesus Christ himself sustains “all thingsby his powerful word” (Heb. 1:3). In him “all things holdtogether” (Col. 1:17).

WorldHistory

Whathappens on the world scene is under God’s sovereign control. Ifthe nations are scattered over the world and speak differentlanguages, it is because God made it so (Gen. 11:1–9). Goddetermines whether the nations are blessed or cursed (Gen. 12:3). Godis the one who has apportioned each nation’s inher-i-tance andhas established their boundaries (Deut. 32:8). Yahweh is the God ofIsrael, which is his special possession, but he has also appointeddeities for the other nations to worship (Deut. 4:19 [evidently falsegods, but still under Yahweh’s sovereignty]). He judges theworld and carries out justice for the peoples, foils the plans of thenations, forms the hearts of all people, reigns over the nations andguides them (Pss. 9:8; 33:10, 15; 47:8; 67:4).

Itis by God’s sanction that kings reign, and a king’s heartis like a watercourse, which God can redirect at will (Prov. 8:15;21:1). God “does as he pleases with the powers of heaven andthe peoples of the earth” (Dan. 4:35). All thrones, powers,rulers, and authorities “were created through him and for him”(Col. 1:16). God is actively working to bring the whole universe andall peoples and nations under one head, his Son, Christ Jesus (Eph.1:10).

SalvationHistory

Withinworld history, God has also worked through one particular people, theIsraelites, to accomplish his redemptive purposes. When Joseph toldhis brothers that what they had intended to do to him for evil, Godhad intended for good, for “the saving of many lives”(Gen. 50:20), he may not have fully realized how much his words werein accord with, and could even be said to summarize, redemptivehistory. God took the harm that Joseph’s brothers intended andused it to fulfill the promises that he had made years earlier toAbraham with regard to what would happen to his descendants (Gen.12:1–3). In the early chapters of Exodus, God’ssovereignty over the “forces of nature” intersects withhis deliverance of the Israelites in the plagues that he brings onthe Egyptians. Of course, God had raised up Pharaoh for the verypurpose of displaying his own glory in victory over Pharaoh and “allthe gods of Egypt” (Exod. 9:16; 12:12; cf. Rom. 9:17).

Throughoutthe ensuing Israelite history, God demonstrates his providential carefor the Israelites. The Jews return from their Babylonian captivitybecause God raised up Cyrus, even though Cyrus did not acknowledgehim (Isa. 44:28–45:13), for the very purpose of issuing thedecree that allowed them to return. Even in narratives in which God’sname is not mentioned, such as the book of Esther, we are tounderstand that God is directing the action, and certainly thenarrator wants us to connect the account ofthe origin of thefestival of Purim (“lots”) with the idea that “thelot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord”(Prov. 16:33).

Inthe NT the act that secures our redemption, the crucifixion of Jesus,is not an unforeseen occurrence that God makes the best of; rather,the death of Jesus is that which he himself would “accomplish”(Luke 9:31 NRSV [NIV: “bring to fulfillment”]). No onetakes Jesus’ life from him; he lays it down of his own accord(John 10:18). Jesus even gives Judas Iscariot directions on the nightof his betrayal (John 13:27). What happens in the crucifixion is inaccord with “God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge”(Acts 2:23) and with what his “power and will had decidedbeforehand should happen” (4:28).

IndividualHistory

Jesuspromises that for those who seek the kingdom of God, “all thesethings will be given to you as well” (Matt. 6:33). If God feedsthe birds of the air and clothes the grass of the field, much morewill he take care to feed and clothe us (Matt. 6:26, 30). Indeed, “inall things God works for the good of those who love him, who havebeen called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28).

This Hebrew word, indicating a “high place,” isused as the name for several sites in ancient Israel. (1)Atown in Benjamin (Josh. 18:25), possibly located on the site of themodern city of Er-Ram, five miles north of Jerusalem, or three milesfarther north at Ramallah. Ramah was located near the cities ofGibeon and Mizpah and close to the eventual border between Israel andJudah. It was a resting place on the road to the north (Judg. 19:13).The judge Deborah held court near Ramah on the road to Bethel (Judg.4:5).

WhenKing Baasha of Israel invaded Judah, he made Ramah his base,fortifying the city in order to control northern access to Jerusalem(1Kings 15:17). After Baasha was forced to abandon hisposition, King Asa of Judah dismantled the fortifications and usedthe materials to strengthen the cities of Geba and Mizpah (15:22).Following the return from exile, some of the Benjamites resettled inthe city of Ramah (Neh. 11:33). Rachel’s tomb was said to benear Ramah, and the place is associated with her mourning for herchildren in Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 31:15). Some scholarsbelieve that Ramah of Benjamin was also the birthplace of Samuel (see#2).

(2)Thebirthplace and burial site of Samuel (1Sam. 1:19; 25:1), alsoknown as Ramathaim, or possibly Ramathaim Zuphim (1:1 NIV mg.),situated in the hill country of Ephraim. Ramah was Samuel’shome throughout his time as judge over Israel, and he built an altarto God there (7:17). It was at Ramah that the Israelite elders cameto Samuel to demand a king (8:4–5). Later, when David fled fromSaul’s house, he went to Ramah to take counsel from Samuel andfind refuge from the king.

Thelocation of Ramah is uncertain. The difficulty with identifying it asRamah of Benjamin (see above) is the link with the territory ofEphraim (1Sam. 1:1), though both Er-Ram and Ramallah arepossible sites. Another suggested location is Beit Ramah, which is inthe mountains of Ephraim, about eleven miles northwest of Bethel,though the distance from Saul’s home in Gibeah (sixteen miles)casts some doubt on this (see 9:1–6).

(3)Atown on the boundary of Asher (Josh. 19:29). (4)Awalled town in Naphtali (Josh. 19:36). (5)Atown of Simeon (Josh. 19:8; 1Sam. 30:27). (6)Analternative name for Ramoth-Gilead (2Kings 8:28–29;2Chron. 22:5–6).

This Hebrew word, indicating a “high place,” isused as the name for several sites in ancient Israel. (1)Atown in Benjamin (Josh. 18:25), possibly located on the site of themodern city of Er-Ram, five miles north of Jerusalem, or three milesfarther north at Ramallah. Ramah was located near the cities ofGibeon and Mizpah and close to the eventual border between Israel andJudah. It was a resting place on the road to the north (Judg. 19:13).The judge Deborah held court near Ramah on the road to Bethel (Judg.4:5).

WhenKing Baasha of Israel invaded Judah, he made Ramah his base,fortifying the city in order to control northern access to Jerusalem(1Kings 15:17). After Baasha was forced to abandon hisposition, King Asa of Judah dismantled the fortifications and usedthe materials to strengthen the cities of Geba and Mizpah (15:22).Following the return from exile, some of the Benjamites resettled inthe city of Ramah (Neh. 11:33). Rachel’s tomb was said to benear Ramah, and the place is associated with her mourning for herchildren in Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 31:15). Some scholarsbelieve that Ramah of Benjamin was also the birthplace of Samuel (see#2).

(2)Thebirthplace and burial site of Samuel (1Sam. 1:19; 25:1), alsoknown as Ramathaim, or possibly Ramathaim Zuphim (1:1 NIV mg.),situated in the hill country of Ephraim. Ramah was Samuel’shome throughout his time as judge over Israel, and he built an altarto God there (7:17). It was at Ramah that the Israelite elders cameto Samuel to demand a king (8:4–5). Later, when David fled fromSaul’s house, he went to Ramah to take counsel from Samuel andfind refuge from the king.

Thelocation of Ramah is uncertain. The difficulty with identifying it asRamah of Benjamin (see above) is the link with the territory ofEphraim (1Sam. 1:1), though both Er-Ram and Ramallah arepossible sites. Another suggested location is Beit Ramah, which is inthe mountains of Ephraim, about eleven miles northwest of Bethel,though the distance from Saul’s home in Gibeah (sixteen miles)casts some doubt on this (see 9:1–6).

(3)Atown on the boundary of Asher (Josh. 19:29). (4)Awalled town in Naphtali (Josh. 19:36). (5)Atown of Simeon (Josh. 19:8; 1Sam. 30:27). (6)Analternative name for Ramoth-Gilead (2Kings 8:28–29;2Chron. 22:5–6).

This Hebrew word, indicating a “high place,” isused as the name for several sites in ancient Israel. (1)Atown in Benjamin (Josh. 18:25), possibly located on the site of themodern city of Er-Ram, five miles north of Jerusalem, or three milesfarther north at Ramallah. Ramah was located near the cities ofGibeon and Mizpah and close to the eventual border between Israel andJudah. It was a resting place on the road to the north (Judg. 19:13).The judge Deborah held court near Ramah on the road to Bethel (Judg.4:5).

WhenKing Baasha of Israel invaded Judah, he made Ramah his base,fortifying the city in order to control northern access to Jerusalem(1Kings 15:17). After Baasha was forced to abandon hisposition, King Asa of Judah dismantled the fortifications and usedthe materials to strengthen the cities of Geba and Mizpah (15:22).Following the return from exile, some of the Benjamites resettled inthe city of Ramah (Neh. 11:33). Rachel’s tomb was said to benear Ramah, and the place is associated with her mourning for herchildren in Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 31:15). Some scholarsbelieve that Ramah of Benjamin was also the birthplace of Samuel (see#2).

(2)Thebirthplace and burial site of Samuel (1Sam. 1:19; 25:1), alsoknown as Ramathaim, or possibly Ramathaim Zuphim (1:1 NIV mg.),situated in the hill country of Ephraim. Ramah was Samuel’shome throughout his time as judge over Israel, and he built an altarto God there (7:17). It was at Ramah that the Israelite elders cameto Samuel to demand a king (8:4–5). Later, when David fled fromSaul’s house, he went to Ramah to take counsel from Samuel andfind refuge from the king.

Thelocation of Ramah is uncertain. The difficulty with identifying it asRamah of Benjamin (see above) is the link with the territory ofEphraim (1Sam. 1:1), though both Er-Ram and Ramallah arepossible sites. Another suggested location is Beit Ramah, which is inthe mountains of Ephraim, about eleven miles northwest of Bethel,though the distance from Saul’s home in Gibeah (sixteen miles)casts some doubt on this (see 9:1–6).

(3)Atown on the boundary of Asher (Josh. 19:29). (4)Awalled town in Naphtali (Josh. 19:36). (5)Atown of Simeon (Josh. 19:8; 1Sam. 30:27). (6)Analternative name for Ramoth-Gilead (2Kings 8:28–29;2Chron. 22:5–6).

The concept of Israel is a complex one in the Bible. Itconsists of political, ethnic, and spiritual aspects. In distinctionfrom Israel as a political state (the northern kingdom) or as anethnic nation (sons of Israel, also known as Hebrews or Jews), Israelmay also represent a group of people with whom God has established aspecial relationship. The nature of that relationship is that Yahwehwill be their God, and they will be his people (e.g., Exod. 6:7; Lev.26:12).

“Israel”as a word representing the people of God emerges because of God’sdealings with humankind. It begins with God’s choice of ethnicIsrael. He chooses Israel as he delivers it from Egypt to Canaan. Atfirst, his choice of Israel is a result of his relationship withAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel) and the covenant that he made withthem (see Exod. 3:6–10). At Sinai, God invites the nation ofIsrael to a covenant in which it will be a treasured possession, akingdom of priests, and a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). Thenation accepts but quickly breaks the covenant, and so God threatensto destroy the nation completely (Exod. 32). On the plains of Moab,immediately preceding the conquest of Canaan, Moses and the priestswarn the nation that it has become the people of God and so must obeyall that God has commanded (Deut. 27:9). Because of the specialrelationship that God establishes with ethnic Israel, the word“Israel” is extended to represent the people of God.

Sincethe Israelites were the people of Yahweh, he was to be their God.This aspect of God’s relationship with ethnic Israel is clearfrom the start. In Exod. 6:7 Yahweh promises to make Israel hispeople and to be their God. At the end of a long list of blessingsfor Israel’s obedience, Lev. 26:12 reads as follows: “Iwill walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people.”As the people of Yahweh, they were expected to obey what he commanded(Deut. 27:9). However, Israel would not obey. The biblical portraitof Israel’s history is marked by widespread disobedience, withfew exceptions.

Againstthis background of disobedience, the prophets spoke about the futurefor the people of God. Hosea prophesies against Israel because thepeople have abandoned Yahweh as their God, who therefore calls them“not my people” (Hos. 1:9–10); but one day thosewho are called “not my people” will be God’s people(Hos. 2:23). Jeremiah predicts a day in the future in which Israelwill be Yahweh’s people, and he will be their God (Jer. 24:7;30:22; 31:1, 33). Ezekiel likewise speaks of such a day in the future(Ezek. 11:20; 14:11; 36:28; 37:23, 27). Even though Israel is oftencalled “the people of God” in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, thesepassages show that there is some distinction made between all ethnicIsrael and Israel as the people of God.

Paulpicks up on the distinction between ethnic Israel and Israel as thepeople of God when he states that not all those who are ethnic Israel(descended from Israel) are Israel (Rom. 9:6). In other words, beinga member of ethnic Israel does not guarantee that a person is amember of the people of God. Paul states instead that there is aremnant of ethnic Israel that belongs to the people of God, alongwith some from the Gentiles (9:23–29). As Paul elaboratesfurther, the people of God are comprised of those who have attainedthe righteousness that comes from God through faith (9:30–10:13).

Theprecise relationship of ethnic Israel to spiritual Israel is a topicof much debate. The issue has far-reaching implications for theinterpretation of prophecy, the future of ethnic Israel, and therelationship between the OT and the NT. Important passages to examineinclude Rom. 9:6; 11:1; Gal. 6:16; 1Pet. 2:1–10. In thesepassages both ethnic Israel (Rom. 11:1) and the church are regardedas God’s people (Gal. 6:16; 1Pet. 2:1–10).

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.

Terminology

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

Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

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

Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).

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

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

Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.

Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).

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

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

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

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

Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

TheCovenant Genre

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

1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.

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

Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.

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

(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

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

(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.

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

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

4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.

Covenantsin the Bible

Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.

Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.

TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.

Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.

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

Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

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

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

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.

Terminology

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

Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

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

Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).

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

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

Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.

Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).

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

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

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

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

Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

TheCovenant Genre

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

1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.

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

Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.

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

(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

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

(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.

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

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

4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.

Covenantsin the Bible

Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.

Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.

TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.

Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.

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

Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

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

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

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.

Terminology

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

Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

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

Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).

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

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

Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.

Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).

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

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

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

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

Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

TheCovenant Genre

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

1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.

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

Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.

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

(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

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

(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.

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

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

4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.

Covenantsin the Bible

Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.

Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.

TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.

Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.

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

Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

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

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

A form of government that acknowledges God’s kingship.God functions as the ultimate king in every era of biblical history,regardless of the form of human government.

Inthe book of Deuteronomy, theocracy is indicated in affirmations thatYahweh is Israel’s commander in chief. Yahweh goes before hispeople and fights battles on their behalf (1:30, 33; 3:22; 7:1,22–24; 9:3–5; 11:23). An important passage thatanticipates the monarchy prescribes that God chooses the human king(17:15). That king should neither turn the people back to Egypt noramass horses, wives, or riches (17:16–17). Rather, the king isto keep God’s law with him and must “read it all the daysof his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God andfollow carefully all the words of this law ... and notconsider himself better than his fellow Israelites” (17:19–20).

Thebook of Judges recounts a series of leaders who fail to uphold thetheocratic ideal of Deuteronomy. Both the tribes and leadersrepeatedly “did evil in the eyes of the Lord” (2:11; 3:7,12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1). The closing chapters of Judges state, “Inthose days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit”(17:6; 21:25; cf. 18:1; 19:1). These refrains show that Israel needsa human king who will help the people to do what is right (ratherthan evil) “in the eyes of the Lord.” Israel mustmaintain theocracy if it is to avoid foreign oppression.

Thesame issue is at stake in the account of Saul’s rise tokingship. The Israelites’ request for a king is problematic notonly because they desired to be like “all the other nations,”but also because they desired a human king who would go before themand fight their battles (1Sam. 8:5, 20). By asking for a kingwho would serve in the role of commander in chief, they effectivelysupplant Yahweh and reject theocracy (1Sam. 8:7; 10:19; 12:12).In keeping with Deuteronomy, Samuel explains that both king andpeople are to fear, serve, and obey Yahweh if they are to experienceblessing (1Sam. 12:14–15, 25; cf. Deut. 17:19–20).Since Saul has failed to uphold theocracy, God rejects him as king(1Sam. 13:14; 15:11, 23, 26–28, 35) and seeks out a manwho meets his own criteria for kingship (13:14; cf. 15:28). ThatDavid has a proper perspective on God’s authority is evident instatements such as “the battle is the Lord’s”(1Sam. 17:47). David especially acknowledges God’skingship by installing the ark in Jerusalem and desiring to build thetemple (2Sam. 6–7), actions that lead to the Davidiccovenant (7:4–17).

TheDavidic covenant is foundational for a biblical theology of God’skingdom. Numerous psalms are devoted to God’s kingship (Pss. 2;20; 21; 47; 93; 145), and eschatological prophecies reveal much aboutthe messianic king/kingdom (Isa. 9; 11; Jer. 23; 30; 33; Ezek. 37;Dan. 2; 7; 9; Mic. 5; Zech. 9; 14). The NT shows that God’skingdom has arrived in part at the first coming of Jesus but awaitsits full consummation at his second coming (Matt. 3:17; 12:28; Mark1:14–15; Luke 17:20–21; Acts 1:6–8).

The Hebrew word torahmost broadly means “teaching” or “instruction.”In the OT, torahmost commonly refers to the collection of teachings divinely revealedto Moses by God. This collection of teachings preserved in thePentateuch became authoritative and binding, not only for thecommunity of Hebrews wandering in the Sinai Desert, but also for eachsuccessive generation with whom the covenant with Yahweh was renewed(Exod. 24; Deut. 4:5–14, 44).

TheTorah of Moses

Thus,torah occurs often in combination with Moses’ name (“torahof Moses”), particularly in the Pentateuch, the DeuteronomisticHistory (Deuteronomy, Joshua through Kings), and Ezra, Nehemiah, andChronicles. Perhaps the use of Moses’ name in this wayemphasizes the authority of the teachings by reminding readers oftheir connection to him. In the prophetic literature and Psalms,however, torah is more commonly used in combination with the specialname for God revealed to Moses at the burning bush (“torah ofYahweh”). Perhaps the use of Yahweh’s special name inthis case emphasizes the divine nature of the teachings given toMoses by God.

Themeaning of torah in the OT is not uniform, however, and encompasses arange of related meanings. Torah sometimes refers to a more specificset of teachings within the corpus of Mosaic instructions. In somecases, torah seems to refer only to the Ten Commandments (Exod. 24;Deut. 4:44). In other cases, particularly in Leviticus and Numbers,torah can refer to a specific instruction pertaining to the people’sworship and service to God. For example, the specific regulation forhow to carry out a burnt offering is a torah for the burnt offering(Lev. 6:9), and the instruction for how to carry out a Nazirite vowis a torah for the Nazirite vow (Num. 6:13).

Agreat deal of the Mosaic teaching in Exodus through Deuteronomyfocuses on the community’s worship, offering specificinstruction on things such as offerings, sacrifices, the distinctionbetween clean and unclean, as well as instructions for constructingthe ancient sanctuary, the tabernacle. Because the Levitical priestswere leaders in the Israelite community’s worship, they werespecifically charged with careful transmission and interpretation oftorah (2Kings 22:8; Mal. 2:7–8). Indeed, Leviticalpriests held an authoritative position in the Israelite communitywith regard to interpretations of torah. Accordingly, sometimes torahrefers to a decision rendered by a priest, on behalf of Yahweh, whenthe application of an individual instruction is unclear. For example:“This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Ask the priestswhat the law [torah] says: If someone carries consecrated meat in thefold of their garment, and that fold touches some bread or stew,... does it become consecrated?’ ”(Hag. 2:11–12 [cf. Deut. 17:8–13]). Priests who fail intheir duties of transmission and interpretation of torah are chargedwith doing “violence to the law [torah]” and corruptingthe people (Zeph. 3:4; see also Jer. 2:8; Ezek. 7:26; 22:26; Hos.4:6).

OtherUses of Torah

Torahcan also be a more general term for the direct command of God, apartfrom the teachings of Moses. For example, God said of Abraham that he“obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping mycommands, my decrees and my instructions [torot]” (Gen. 26:5).Since Abraham died before the time of Moses, this reference to torahlikely emphasizes Abraham’s faithful obedience to God’sspecific instructions to him (cf. Gen. 12:1–4; 15:1–21).

Particularlyin the prophetic literature, torah often refers to the standard ofbehavior with which Israel will be judged: “The people havebroken my covenant and rebelled against my law [torah]” (Hos.8:1 [cf. Isa. 1:10; 5:24; 8:16, 19–20; 30:9; Zech. 7:12]). Inthe prophetic texts, torah is often the basis for God’sindictment of the people, and yet torah also holds promise for theredemption of God’s people, when “I [God] will put my law[torah] in their minds and write it on their hearts” (Jer.31:33).

Inthe book of Proverbs, torah usually refers to instructions given by aparent to a child: “Listen, my son, to your father’sinstruction and do not forsake your mother’s teaching [torah]”(1:8). In this case, torah represents practical parental wisdom todirect everyday living. While the use of torah in Proverbs is notdirectly associated with the Mosaic teachings in the Pentateuch, thecontent of the teaching (torah) of the parent to the child inProverbs is in alignment with the teachings of Moses to the Israelitecommunity, particularly with the Ten Commandments. Indeed, parentalinstruction (torah) in the book of Proverbs includes a prohibitionagainst dishonoring one’s parents (1:8; 10:1), violence ormurder (1:11–12; 3:29), stealing (1:13; 10:2), adultery(2:16–19; 5:3–20), and lying (3:30; 6:12–15).

Overall,torah is presented not as a stale collection of restrictive rules inthe OT, but rather as a joy and a delight: “The law [torah] ofthe Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lordare trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord areright, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant,giving light to the eyes.... They are sweeter thanhoney” (Ps. 19:7–10). See also Law.

Until the twentieth century, traveling farther than a week’sdistance from home was dangerous and expensive. We should notoverstate the difficulty or risks of travel then, but certainly itwas unlike today. Since virtually every region had its own currency,travelers carried cash and were at risk from thieves, money changers,innkeepers, slavers, and others who preyed upon travelers, as well asfrom the natural dangers of storms, floods, early snows, and soforth. Outside of cities, there was little law enforcement for thetypical traveler (Ezra 8:22). Family was often one’s onlydefender against injustice (Gen. 14:12–16; Ps. 127:3–5).

Fortravelers in the biblical world, improvement was slow and gradual.During the time of the patriarchs, travelers faced poor roads,bandits, and no security other than what they could providethemselves (Gen. 14:14). Later Assyrian documents complain ofdifficult roads. SargonII (r. 722–705 BC) boasted, “Iadvanced over inaccessible paths (in) steep and terrifying places”(ARAB 2:25–26). Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC) tells ofhaving to travel on foot because the road was too steep for hislitter (ARAB 2:122–23). Persian roads improved modestly, butHerodotus probably is exaggerating the improvements (Hist. 8.98), asXenophon seems to indicate (Anab. 1.2.25). Many sources speak ofbandits (Ezra 8:31; Hos. 6:9). Thus, safe travel or good roads becamea metaphor for peace. When ancient kings bragged, it often was aboutroads they had built or how the roads were now safe. The arrival ofthe kingdom of God was symbolized by repairing the road (Isa. 40:3–5;Luke 3:4–6).

Majorimprovements came with the Roman Empire. For the first (and last)time, a traveler could go from the Euphrates to Egypt to Britain onwell-policed roads and sea lanes under one’s own government.Enforced law and standardized, trustworthy coinage had distinctadvantages (Isa. 33:8; Matt. 22:15–22).

Runningempires required traveling. Envoys (Jer. 27:3), tax collectors (Dan.11:20), and overseers (1Kings 5:13–17), as well asarmies, moved about on imperial business. While farmers and localmerchants traveled limited distances to sell their wares (usually tothe closest large city), fortunes could be made by the moreadventuresome merchant willing to take the greater risks of travelingfarther distances (Gen. 37:28; 1Kings 10; Job 6:19; Prov.31:14; Isa. 23:8; Matt. 13:45). The ancient world also sawindividuals doing a great deal of local travel (less than sixtymiles), usually connected to business (Prov. 31:14), religiousfestivals (1Sam. 1; John 10), and family (Gen. 50:1–14;2Kings 8:29; Luke 1:39; John 2:1); often the three were woventogether.

Travelin the ancient world was by sea or land. Except for the wealthy, thismeant booking passage or walking. Sentimental images of a pregnantMary riding a donkey to Bethlehem or of the apostle Paul doingmissionary travels on horseback are likely fiction. Although there issome evidence of women traveling on donkeys (Josh. 15:18; 1Sam.25:20, 23; 2Sam. 16:1–2), the stories are of prominentwomen or unusual occasions; it should not be assumed to be normative.Obviously, the infirm rode when required to travel, but theypreferred not to travel (2Sam. 19:26–37). The wealthiestused private transport (Acts 8:27–28). We have references totravel by donkey, mule, camel, horse, cart, litter, and chariot, butordinary people walked. Typically, a good day’s walk was twentymiles; sea travel was by daylight and averaged roughly the same.Calculating how long it took someone to travel, though, is not merelya matter of math. Both sea and land travelers were fair-weathertravelers, usually between June and September. On a long journey, onehad to plan where to “winter.” Ancient travelers had tomake their travel plans around the seasons.

Travelby Land

Roads.Until the Romans, a “road” was merely a cleared path.They were ungraded and often impassable in wet weather. Nonetheless,they followed a distinct route, marked by “guideposts”(Jer. 31:21). In the ancient world, major roads ran east-west fromSyria into Mesopotamia. North-south roads connected Syria to Egypt,through Palestine. The Assyrian army invaded Israel by traveling weston the road as far as Syria and then turning south. The battlesfought in Gen. 14 were to control the north-south road (and thustrade). Solomon built wealth by controlling this trade (2Chron.9:14). Three major roads ran north-south through Israel. (1)TheKing’s Highway (Num. 20:17) ran through the eastern region,from Damascus through the eastern highlands of the Transjordan anddown to the Gulf of Aqaba, where Solomon maintained a port (2Chron.8:17). (2)The central (or Sinai) road ran from Sidon south toTyre, Akko, Shechem, Jerusalem, Hebron, Beersheba, Kadesh Barnea,into the Negev, and on to Egypt. (3)The Sea Road (Via Maris)ran from Damascus to Hazor through the Valley of Jezreel (the Plainof Esdraelon through the Megiddo Pass), down the coast of Israelthrough Gaza and into Egypt. Taking Megiddo meant controlling thisroad and the trade. The Egyptians (ThutmoseIII) defeated theCanaanites and took this road around 1468 BC. David captured it about1000 BC. Josiah died defending this road against the Egyptians(NechoII) in 609 BC.

TheGreeks extended a major road connecting through Asia Minor to theancient road running into Mesopotamia. The Romans built roads of flatstone placed upon foundations. Parts of these roads are still in usetoday. From Rome they built to the sea (Via Ostiensis, ViaPortuensis), to the south (Via Appia), to the west (Via Aurelia), tothe north (Via Flaminia), to the Adriatic (Via Salaria, Via Valeria),and to the east (Via Ignatia) connecting Rome to Greece and thus tothe rest of the biblical world.

Lodgings.Land travel necessitated lodgings. The wealthy near Rome often hadhomes along the common routes that they plied. Slaves ran ahead toannounce that the master was coming. Friends and those on themaster’s business likely used these homes as well whentraveling. When off the normal route, an aristocrat traveled with aretinue of servants, wagons, and tents to enable a well-equipped (andsecure) camp each evening. The ordinary traveler had no extra homesor entourages. Groups large enough for safety could camp near town.Individuals relied upon hospitality in town. Those individualtravelers unfortunate to lack any kinship with townsfolk often had norecourse but inns. Petronius (Sat. 94–97) tells a seamy storyof misadventures in the roadside inns of his day. Archaeology andliterature describe ill-kept dumps involving disreputableproprietors, questionable guests, and plenty of loose morals. AncientHebrews and early Christians emphasized hospitality (Gen. 19:1–2;Judg. 19:11–20; Rom. 12:13; 1Pet. 4:9; 3John 8).

Distanceand duration.Using the distances between ancient stopping places, travel records,and comments in literary sources, scholars generally agree that anormal walking traveler could expect to cover twenty miles in a day.Peter’s trip from Joppa to Caesarea (about forty miles) tooktwo days (Acts 10:23–30). Travelers using beasts of burdengenerally covered the same distance. Chariots averaged a bit better,perhaps twenty-five to thirty miles per day. Whether they actuallytraveled farther or just stopped earlier for the night is debatable.Horseback was intended for speed and could easily average fifty milesper day. Yet we must avoid the mistake of calculating travel timebetween places by simple math. While such calculations generally holdtrue for one- or two-day journeys (Acts 10), longer journeysencountered delays. Towns along main roads were commonly spaced aday’s walk apart. Yet it is unwise to assume that a traveleralways left the next morning after an overnight stay. Jesus warnedhis traveling preachers against such rudeness (Luke 10:5–7).Moreover, the host likely provided the food supplies and extra fundsfor the traveler’s next walk (3John 5–8; Did.11.5–6). Certainly, Jewish travelers were affected by Sabbathsand feasts. Not only would they not travel on those days, but alsothey likely would delay or rush to reach a particular location (Acts20:2–5, 16; 1Cor. 16:8). Ancients traveled according to adifferent tempo than modern Westerners.

Seasonscaused more serious delays. When traveling season ended, travelerswere forced to spend the winter wherever they were at that time. Ifpossible, they did not leave this to chance but rather planned whereto “winter” (Jer. 36:22; Acts 27:12; 1Cor. 16:6;Titus 3:12). Terrain was a serious consideration. Mountain passes andriver fords were obvious factors, and ancients often took the easier(or safer) though longer path. Hence, there were three roads leadingfrom Perga to Pisidian Antioch, the longest (western) being thesafest and easiest. Uphill journeys, snow-blocked passes, and flashfloods slowed ancient travelers, sometimes stranding them longer thantheir planned supplies would last (2Cor. 6:5).

Travelingin groups. Sincetravelers carried money, they avoided traveling alone or in verysmall groups. (The so-called wise men of Matt. 2:1–12 almostcertainly would have been waylaid had there been only three of them.)Commonly, travelers gathered in the agora (marketplace) early in themorning looking for fellow travelers heading their way, thus makingtraveling companions of those with whom they might not normallyassociate (Luke 9:57; 14:25). It was also common for travelers tojoin others along the road (Luke 24:13–16; Acts 8:27–30).

Travelby Sea

Ships.Almost all ancient ships were wooden. A “fast ship” wasnot necessarily a sleeker mode, but a dry one. Ideally, ships werestored out of the water during winter. Waterlogged ships werenaturally slower.

Nobiblical empire was worth its salt unless it had naval supremacy inthe Mediterranean Sea. Sailing vessels were at the mercy of the wind,so military ships meant galley ships. Rowing allowed captains to movewithout the wind. Today, we tend to imagine rowers like the “galleyslaves” of the Middle Ages. Ancient rowers, however, werehonored soldiers. Ships rammed each other in battle, and skill at theoar often meant the difference between victory and death. Once theenemy was rammed, rowers sprang up from their oars and fought hand tohand.

Piracyand commerce.No one could claim dominance of the sea without controlling piracy.The Roman navy, for the first time in history, managed to virtuallyeliminate piracy. Roman archers and slingers rained destruction asthey drew near pirate vessels. Catapults later were added for heavyartillery. Finally, firepots slung out on long poles set fire to theenemy’s ship, which the Romans then rammed and boarded.

Withthe taming of the Mediterranean, commercial shipping exploded ingrowth. Transporting cargo, passengers, and dispatches becameprofitable business. Smaller ships (like a Galilean fishing boat)depended upon oars, with a small sail as an auxiliary. Largermerchant ships depended more on sails. Sailing ships, with favorablewinds, probably averaged between two and four miles per hour, butonly half that with unfavorable winds. Ancient ships huggedcoastlines and avoided bad weather.

Commoncargo ships carried an average of about 250 tons of cargo and/orpassengers and ranged from 70 to 150 feet in length. Those carrying350 to 500 tons were considered large but not rare. It is thoughtthat the grain ships in Paul’s day (as in Acts 27) routinelywere three-decked, 180 feet long, carried 1,300 tons, and took over aweek to unload.

Travelingby ship.Although cargo ships also carried passengers, some ships wereprimarily for passengers. Josephus, on an unsuccessful attempt tosail to Rome, was on a ship with six hundred passengers (Josephus,Life 15). Sallust, a Roman historian, mentions a cohort (about 600men) traveling on one transport ship (Hist. 3.8). Paul’s shipto Rome had 276 aboard (Acts 27:37). Acts gives the impression thatthis ship left too late in the season. Aside from those compelled byRome, likely only the brave or the desperate would book such passage.Thus, we should not assume that the ship was fully booked.

Likeland travel, however, sea travel also was restricted by season. Inthe eastern half of the Mediterranean, the wind blows from thenorthwest toward the southeast persistently from June to September,marking the favorable sailing season. Vegetius (Mil. 4.39) writes,“From the 6th day before the kalends of June [May 27] until therising of Arcturus, that is until the 18th before the kalends ofOctober [Sept. 14], is believed to be the safe period ofnavigation.... From then up to the 3rd before theides of November, navigation is uncertain.... Fromthe 3rd before the ides of November to the 6th before the ides ofMarch, the seas are closed.” Many ancient writers indicatedthat sea travel in the winter was trecherous.

Aperson traveling by sea went first to the docks to inquire aboutships headed to the desired destination. Harbor managers, dockhands,sailors, or others pointed inquirers toward appropriate ships. Afternegotiating with a particular ship’s purser, whose job was tobook passengers (and guard against stowaways), a passenger was toldwhat day and time to be aboard. The lowest level of ships held theballast (usually sand or stone) and the bilgewater. Decking over itheld cargo. Some ships berthed the cheapest passengers in this area,what we now refer to as steerage (Lucian observes that suchpassengers were “not even able to stretch their legs on thebare boards alongside the bilgewater” [Jupp. trag. 48]). Largerfreighters had another deck above this that may have housed somepassengers. In general, however, travelers in Paul’s day (likeall travelers up until modern times) camped above deck (some withtents). Only the very wealthy rented cabins (P.Zen. 10). Shipwrecksand pirates were not the only dangers. A man cautioned his wife,“When you come, bring your gold ornaments, but do not wear themon the boat” (P.Mich. 3.214 [see also 8.468]). Then as now,tossing someone overboard left a clean crime scene (Jon. 1:15; cf.Acts 20:3).

Summary

Mostbiblical characters, like their peers, rarely traveled far from home.It is commonly estimated that Jesus’ ministry encompassed adistance no greater than one hundred miles from his home. Hisapostles, though, took advantage of the travel benefits of the RomanEmpire. Paul was a far more experienced traveler than most, both byland and sea (Acts 27:9–10, 30–32), although he appearsto have pushed the limits of safety on occasion. He mentions“sleepless nights and hunger” (2Cor. 6:5) as wellas being “in danger from rivers” and bandits (2Cor.11:26). In addition to what is reported in Acts 27, Paul wasshipwrecked at least three other times (2Cor. 11:25). Whetherby land or sea, travel in ancient times was not for the fainthearted.

Until the twentieth century, traveling farther than a week’sdistance from home was dangerous and expensive. We should notoverstate the difficulty or risks of travel then, but certainly itwas unlike today. Since virtually every region had its own currency,travelers carried cash and were at risk from thieves, money changers,innkeepers, slavers, and others who preyed upon travelers, as well asfrom the natural dangers of storms, floods, early snows, and soforth. Outside of cities, there was little law enforcement for thetypical traveler (Ezra 8:22). Family was often one’s onlydefender against injustice (Gen. 14:12–16; Ps. 127:3–5).

Fortravelers in the biblical world, improvement was slow and gradual.During the time of the patriarchs, travelers faced poor roads,bandits, and no security other than what they could providethemselves (Gen. 14:14). Later Assyrian documents complain ofdifficult roads. SargonII (r. 722–705 BC) boasted, “Iadvanced over inaccessible paths (in) steep and terrifying places”(ARAB 2:25–26). Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC) tells ofhaving to travel on foot because the road was too steep for hislitter (ARAB 2:122–23). Persian roads improved modestly, butHerodotus probably is exaggerating the improvements (Hist. 8.98), asXenophon seems to indicate (Anab. 1.2.25). Many sources speak ofbandits (Ezra 8:31; Hos. 6:9). Thus, safe travel or good roads becamea metaphor for peace. When ancient kings bragged, it often was aboutroads they had built or how the roads were now safe. The arrival ofthe kingdom of God was symbolized by repairing the road (Isa. 40:3–5;Luke 3:4–6).

Majorimprovements came with the Roman Empire. For the first (and last)time, a traveler could go from the Euphrates to Egypt to Britain onwell-policed roads and sea lanes under one’s own government.Enforced law and standardized, trustworthy coinage had distinctadvantages (Isa. 33:8; Matt. 22:15–22).

Runningempires required traveling. Envoys (Jer. 27:3), tax collectors (Dan.11:20), and overseers (1Kings 5:13–17), as well asarmies, moved about on imperial business. While farmers and localmerchants traveled limited distances to sell their wares (usually tothe closest large city), fortunes could be made by the moreadventuresome merchant willing to take the greater risks of travelingfarther distances (Gen. 37:28; 1Kings 10; Job 6:19; Prov.31:14; Isa. 23:8; Matt. 13:45). The ancient world also sawindividuals doing a great deal of local travel (less than sixtymiles), usually connected to business (Prov. 31:14), religiousfestivals (1Sam. 1; John 10), and family (Gen. 50:1–14;2Kings 8:29; Luke 1:39; John 2:1); often the three were woventogether.

Travelin the ancient world was by sea or land. Except for the wealthy, thismeant booking passage or walking. Sentimental images of a pregnantMary riding a donkey to Bethlehem or of the apostle Paul doingmissionary travels on horseback are likely fiction. Although there issome evidence of women traveling on donkeys (Josh. 15:18; 1Sam.25:20, 23; 2Sam. 16:1–2), the stories are of prominentwomen or unusual occasions; it should not be assumed to be normative.Obviously, the infirm rode when required to travel, but theypreferred not to travel (2Sam. 19:26–37). The wealthiestused private transport (Acts 8:27–28). We have references totravel by donkey, mule, camel, horse, cart, litter, and chariot, butordinary people walked. Typically, a good day’s walk was twentymiles; sea travel was by daylight and averaged roughly the same.Calculating how long it took someone to travel, though, is not merelya matter of math. Both sea and land travelers were fair-weathertravelers, usually between June and September. On a long journey, onehad to plan where to “winter.” Ancient travelers had tomake their travel plans around the seasons.

Travelby Land

Roads.Until the Romans, a “road” was merely a cleared path.They were ungraded and often impassable in wet weather. Nonetheless,they followed a distinct route, marked by “guideposts”(Jer. 31:21). In the ancient world, major roads ran east-west fromSyria into Mesopotamia. North-south roads connected Syria to Egypt,through Palestine. The Assyrian army invaded Israel by traveling weston the road as far as Syria and then turning south. The battlesfought in Gen. 14 were to control the north-south road (and thustrade). Solomon built wealth by controlling this trade (2Chron.9:14). Three major roads ran north-south through Israel. (1)TheKing’s Highway (Num. 20:17) ran through the eastern region,from Damascus through the eastern highlands of the Transjordan anddown to the Gulf of Aqaba, where Solomon maintained a port (2Chron.8:17). (2)The central (or Sinai) road ran from Sidon south toTyre, Akko, Shechem, Jerusalem, Hebron, Beersheba, Kadesh Barnea,into the Negev, and on to Egypt. (3)The Sea Road (Via Maris)ran from Damascus to Hazor through the Valley of Jezreel (the Plainof Esdraelon through the Megiddo Pass), down the coast of Israelthrough Gaza and into Egypt. Taking Megiddo meant controlling thisroad and the trade. The Egyptians (ThutmoseIII) defeated theCanaanites and took this road around 1468 BC. David captured it about1000 BC. Josiah died defending this road against the Egyptians(NechoII) in 609 BC.

TheGreeks extended a major road connecting through Asia Minor to theancient road running into Mesopotamia. The Romans built roads of flatstone placed upon foundations. Parts of these roads are still in usetoday. From Rome they built to the sea (Via Ostiensis, ViaPortuensis), to the south (Via Appia), to the west (Via Aurelia), tothe north (Via Flaminia), to the Adriatic (Via Salaria, Via Valeria),and to the east (Via Ignatia) connecting Rome to Greece and thus tothe rest of the biblical world.

Lodgings.Land travel necessitated lodgings. The wealthy near Rome often hadhomes along the common routes that they plied. Slaves ran ahead toannounce that the master was coming. Friends and those on themaster’s business likely used these homes as well whentraveling. When off the normal route, an aristocrat traveled with aretinue of servants, wagons, and tents to enable a well-equipped (andsecure) camp each evening. The ordinary traveler had no extra homesor entourages. Groups large enough for safety could camp near town.Individuals relied upon hospitality in town. Those individualtravelers unfortunate to lack any kinship with townsfolk often had norecourse but inns. Petronius (Sat. 94–97) tells a seamy storyof misadventures in the roadside inns of his day. Archaeology andliterature describe ill-kept dumps involving disreputableproprietors, questionable guests, and plenty of loose morals. AncientHebrews and early Christians emphasized hospitality (Gen. 19:1–2;Judg. 19:11–20; Rom. 12:13; 1Pet. 4:9; 3John 8).

Distanceand duration.Using the distances between ancient stopping places, travel records,and comments in literary sources, scholars generally agree that anormal walking traveler could expect to cover twenty miles in a day.Peter’s trip from Joppa to Caesarea (about forty miles) tooktwo days (Acts 10:23–30). Travelers using beasts of burdengenerally covered the same distance. Chariots averaged a bit better,perhaps twenty-five to thirty miles per day. Whether they actuallytraveled farther or just stopped earlier for the night is debatable.Horseback was intended for speed and could easily average fifty milesper day. Yet we must avoid the mistake of calculating travel timebetween places by simple math. While such calculations generally holdtrue for one- or two-day journeys (Acts 10), longer journeysencountered delays. Towns along main roads were commonly spaced aday’s walk apart. Yet it is unwise to assume that a traveleralways left the next morning after an overnight stay. Jesus warnedhis traveling preachers against such rudeness (Luke 10:5–7).Moreover, the host likely provided the food supplies and extra fundsfor the traveler’s next walk (3John 5–8; Did.11.5–6). Certainly, Jewish travelers were affected by Sabbathsand feasts. Not only would they not travel on those days, but alsothey likely would delay or rush to reach a particular location (Acts20:2–5, 16; 1Cor. 16:8). Ancients traveled according to adifferent tempo than modern Westerners.

Seasonscaused more serious delays. When traveling season ended, travelerswere forced to spend the winter wherever they were at that time. Ifpossible, they did not leave this to chance but rather planned whereto “winter” (Jer. 36:22; Acts 27:12; 1Cor. 16:6;Titus 3:12). Terrain was a serious consideration. Mountain passes andriver fords were obvious factors, and ancients often took the easier(or safer) though longer path. Hence, there were three roads leadingfrom Perga to Pisidian Antioch, the longest (western) being thesafest and easiest. Uphill journeys, snow-blocked passes, and flashfloods slowed ancient travelers, sometimes stranding them longer thantheir planned supplies would last (2Cor. 6:5).

Travelingin groups. Sincetravelers carried money, they avoided traveling alone or in verysmall groups. (The so-called wise men of Matt. 2:1–12 almostcertainly would have been waylaid had there been only three of them.)Commonly, travelers gathered in the agora (marketplace) early in themorning looking for fellow travelers heading their way, thus makingtraveling companions of those with whom they might not normallyassociate (Luke 9:57; 14:25). It was also common for travelers tojoin others along the road (Luke 24:13–16; Acts 8:27–30).

Travelby Sea

Ships.Almost all ancient ships were wooden. A “fast ship” wasnot necessarily a sleeker mode, but a dry one. Ideally, ships werestored out of the water during winter. Waterlogged ships werenaturally slower.

Nobiblical empire was worth its salt unless it had naval supremacy inthe Mediterranean Sea. Sailing vessels were at the mercy of the wind,so military ships meant galley ships. Rowing allowed captains to movewithout the wind. Today, we tend to imagine rowers like the “galleyslaves” of the Middle Ages. Ancient rowers, however, werehonored soldiers. Ships rammed each other in battle, and skill at theoar often meant the difference between victory and death. Once theenemy was rammed, rowers sprang up from their oars and fought hand tohand.

Piracyand commerce.No one could claim dominance of the sea without controlling piracy.The Roman navy, for the first time in history, managed to virtuallyeliminate piracy. Roman archers and slingers rained destruction asthey drew near pirate vessels. Catapults later were added for heavyartillery. Finally, firepots slung out on long poles set fire to theenemy’s ship, which the Romans then rammed and boarded.

Withthe taming of the Mediterranean, commercial shipping exploded ingrowth. Transporting cargo, passengers, and dispatches becameprofitable business. Smaller ships (like a Galilean fishing boat)depended upon oars, with a small sail as an auxiliary. Largermerchant ships depended more on sails. Sailing ships, with favorablewinds, probably averaged between two and four miles per hour, butonly half that with unfavorable winds. Ancient ships huggedcoastlines and avoided bad weather.

Commoncargo ships carried an average of about 250 tons of cargo and/orpassengers and ranged from 70 to 150 feet in length. Those carrying350 to 500 tons were considered large but not rare. It is thoughtthat the grain ships in Paul’s day (as in Acts 27) routinelywere three-decked, 180 feet long, carried 1,300 tons, and took over aweek to unload.

Travelingby ship.Although cargo ships also carried passengers, some ships wereprimarily for passengers. Josephus, on an unsuccessful attempt tosail to Rome, was on a ship with six hundred passengers (Josephus,Life 15). Sallust, a Roman historian, mentions a cohort (about 600men) traveling on one transport ship (Hist. 3.8). Paul’s shipto Rome had 276 aboard (Acts 27:37). Acts gives the impression thatthis ship left too late in the season. Aside from those compelled byRome, likely only the brave or the desperate would book such passage.Thus, we should not assume that the ship was fully booked.

Likeland travel, however, sea travel also was restricted by season. Inthe eastern half of the Mediterranean, the wind blows from thenorthwest toward the southeast persistently from June to September,marking the favorable sailing season. Vegetius (Mil. 4.39) writes,“From the 6th day before the kalends of June [May 27] until therising of Arcturus, that is until the 18th before the kalends ofOctober [Sept. 14], is believed to be the safe period ofnavigation.... From then up to the 3rd before theides of November, navigation is uncertain.... Fromthe 3rd before the ides of November to the 6th before the ides ofMarch, the seas are closed.” Many ancient writers indicatedthat sea travel in the winter was trecherous.

Aperson traveling by sea went first to the docks to inquire aboutships headed to the desired destination. Harbor managers, dockhands,sailors, or others pointed inquirers toward appropriate ships. Afternegotiating with a particular ship’s purser, whose job was tobook passengers (and guard against stowaways), a passenger was toldwhat day and time to be aboard. The lowest level of ships held theballast (usually sand or stone) and the bilgewater. Decking over itheld cargo. Some ships berthed the cheapest passengers in this area,what we now refer to as steerage (Lucian observes that suchpassengers were “not even able to stretch their legs on thebare boards alongside the bilgewater” [Jupp. trag. 48]). Largerfreighters had another deck above this that may have housed somepassengers. In general, however, travelers in Paul’s day (likeall travelers up until modern times) camped above deck (some withtents). Only the very wealthy rented cabins (P.Zen. 10). Shipwrecksand pirates were not the only dangers. A man cautioned his wife,“When you come, bring your gold ornaments, but do not wear themon the boat” (P.Mich. 3.214 [see also 8.468]). Then as now,tossing someone overboard left a clean crime scene (Jon. 1:15; cf.Acts 20:3).

Summary

Mostbiblical characters, like their peers, rarely traveled far from home.It is commonly estimated that Jesus’ ministry encompassed adistance no greater than one hundred miles from his home. Hisapostles, though, took advantage of the travel benefits of the RomanEmpire. Paul was a far more experienced traveler than most, both byland and sea (Acts 27:9–10, 30–32), although he appearsto have pushed the limits of safety on occasion. He mentions“sleepless nights and hunger” (2Cor. 6:5) as wellas being “in danger from rivers” and bandits (2Cor.11:26). In addition to what is reported in Acts 27, Paul wasshipwrecked at least three other times (2Cor. 11:25). Whetherby land or sea, travel in ancient times was not for the fainthearted.

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.

Terminology

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

Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

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

Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).

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

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

Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.

Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).

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

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

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

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

Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

TheCovenant Genre

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

1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.

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

Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.

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

(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

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

(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.

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

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

4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.

Covenantsin the Bible

Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.

Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.

TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.

Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.

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

Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

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

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

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.

Terminology

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

Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

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

Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).

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

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

Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.

Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).

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

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

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

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

Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

TheCovenant Genre

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

1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.

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

Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.

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

(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

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

(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.

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

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

4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.

Covenantsin the Bible

Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.

Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.

TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.

Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.

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

Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

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

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