Sermon and Worship Resources (2024)

The OT employs thirty-five different words for birds (both wild and domestic), but the identification of these words with known species has proved to be very difficult. Like other words for animals, terminology for birds often is employed in personal names (e.g., Jonah, Oreb, Zippor, Zipporah). There is significant evidence for fowling practices in ancient Israel, usually by means of nets and snares (Pss. 124:7; 140:5; Prov. 6:5; 7:23; Lam. 3:52; Hos. 7:12; Amos 3:5). Small birds and chickens are occasionally even depicted on Iron AgeII (1000586 BC) seals and vessels from sites such as el-Jib (Gibeon) and Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah).

Like other animals in the Bible, birds are depicted as agents of God. Divine agency is especially evident in instances such as the ravens feeding Elijah (1Kings 17:4–6) and the dove bringing an olive leaf to Noah (Gen. 8:11). The Bible also employs bird-related imagery such as in descriptions of divine judgment (Prov. 30:17; Jer. 12:9). Birds may also serve as ominous signs of impending judgment (Hos. 8:1). God’s “wings” can offer both healing (Mal. 4:2 KJV, RSV) and protection (Ruth 2:12; Pss. 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; 91:4). The metaphor of the soul or spirit as a bird is referenced in the description of the Holy Spirit descending like a dove (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32). The observation that birds “do not sow or reap” is employed as an image of worry-free living (Luke 12:24; cf. Job 38:41; Ps. 147:9). Jesus’ reference to “when the rooster crows” (Mark 13:35) is not strictly literal but rather refers to a watch of the night: the quarter of the night after midnight.

The prominence of sacrificial birds (especially doves and pigeons) in ritual literature indicates that they were likely raised for such purposes in ancient Israel. All birds could be eaten except those listed as unclean in Lev. 11:13–19 (twenty species) and Deut. 14:12–18 (twenty-one species). Generally speaking, birds of prey and those that feed on carrion or fish were considered unclean. Birds often served as food for the poor (Matt. 10:29–31; Luke 12:6–7). Poor people could offer birds as a substitute for expensive livestock (Lev. 5:7; 12:8; 14:21–22; cf. Luke 2:24), while the poorest of the poor were permitted to bring grain (Lev. 5:11). Finally, in one purgation ritual a live bird is used to carry away impurities (Lev. 14:52–53; cf. 16:22).

The word for “blood” in the Bible is used both literally and metaphorically. “Blood” is a significant biblical term for understanding purity boundaries and theological concepts. Blood is a dominant ritual symbol in biblical literature. Blood was used in sacrifices and purification rites, and it was inherently connected to menstruation, animal slaughter, and legal culpability. Among the physical properties of blood are the ability to coagulate, the liquid state of the substance (Rev. 16:34), and the ability to stain (Rev. 19:13). Blood can symbolize moral order in terms of cult, law, and power.

The usage of blood in the OT is predominantly negative. The first direct mention of blood in the biblical text involves a homicide (Gen. 4:10). Henceforward, the shedding of human blood is a main concern (Gen. 9:6). Other concerns pertaining to blood include dietary prohibitions of blood (Lev. 17:10–12), purity issues such as the flow of blood as in menstrual blood (Lev. 15:19–24), and blood as a part of religious rites such as circumcision (Gen. 17:10–11; Exod. 4:24–26).

Leviticus 17:11 contains a central statement in the OT concerning the significant role of blood in the sacrificial system: “The life of a creature is in the blood.” Blood was collected from all animal sacrifices, and blood was poured onto the altar (Lev. 1:5).

The covenant with Abraham was sealed with a covenantal ritual (Gen. 15:10–21). Moses sealed the covenant between the Israelites and God with a blood ritual during which young Israelite men offered young bulls among other sacrifices as fellowship offerings (Exod. 24:5). Moses read the words of the Book of the Covenant and sprinkled the blood of the bulls on the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod. 24:7–8).

During the Passover observance at the time of the exodus, blood was placed on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the Hebrews (Exod. 12:7). Not only altars were sprinkled and thus consecrated with blood, but priests were as well. Aaron and his sons were consecrated by the application of blood to their right earlobe, thumb, and big toe, and the sprinkling of blood and oil on their garments (Exod. 29:20). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the holy of holies and sprinkled blood on the mercy seat to seek atonement for the sins of the people (Lev. 16:15).

Many events in the passion of Christ include references to blood. During the Last Supper, Jesus redefined the last Passover cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Judas betrayed “innocent blood” (Matt. 27:4), and the money he received for his betrayal was referred to as “blood money” (Matt. 27:6). At Jesus’ trial, Pilate washed his hands and declared, “I am innocent of this man’s blood” (Matt. 27:24).

The apostle Paul wrote that believers are justified by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9). This justification or righteous standing with God was effected through Christ’s blood sacrifice (Rom. 3:25–26; 5:8). The writer of Hebrews stressed the instrumental role of blood in bringing about forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). In the picture of the ideal community of Christ, the martyrs in the book of Revelation are situated closest to the throne of God because “they triumphed over him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (Rev. 12:11). The blood of the Lamb, Christ, is the effective agent here and throughout the NT, bringing about the indirect contact between sinner and God.

The OT depicts God as riding on a cloud (Judg. 5:4; Isa. 19:1; Pss. 18:1112; 68:4; 104:3), and as the creator and sender of clouds: “Ask rain from the Lord in the season of the spring rain; from the Lord who makes the storm clouds, and he will give them showers of rain, to everyone the vegetation in the field” (Zech. 10:1 ESV [see also 1Kings 18:44; Pss. 135:7; 147:8; Prov. 8:28; Isa. 5:6; Jer. 10:13]). Divine judgment is pictured as a dark storm (Isa. 30:30; Lam. 2:1; Nah. 1:3; Zech. 1:15).

At several crucial points God manifested his presence among the Israelites in the form of a cloud: in the wilderness (the “pillar of cloud” of Exod. 13:21 and elsewhere), on Mount Sinai (Exod. 19:9; 24:15), in the tabernacle (Exod. 40:34), in the temple at Jerusalem (1Kings 8:10), and frequently in the visions of Ezekiel (e.g., Ezek. 1:4; 10:3).

The NT continues the imagery of the cloud as a manifestation of divine presence in the story of the transfiguration (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:36), and also in depictions of Jesus as a cloud-rider in Matt. 26:64; Rev. 14:14 (see Dan. 7:13). Jesus was hidden by a cloud when he ascended (Acts 1:9), and believers will be caught up by clouds at his return (1Thess. 4:17; Rev. 11:12).

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).

Whether animal or human, “creature” assumes creator. God’s unique creative activity is showcased in his majestic work: “creatures.” While the infinite God is not confined in the lives of his creatures, both are linked in a relationship of fidelity (Ps. 104).

A creature is a gift and has an obligation of service (Ps. 150). Scripture celebrates divine rule and creaturely dependence (Ps. 96). Creatures have roles, and the liturgy of doxology revels in a cosmic and eschatological drama (Ps. 148; Isa. 40:1231; 65:17–25). Humans are caretaking creatures (Ps. 8).

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).

Recounted in Gen. 6:59:19, the flood is the event whereby God destroys all creatures except for Noah, his family, and a gathering of animals. The account is highly literary and God-centered. It opens and closes with Noah’s three sons (6:10; 9:18–19). Noah’s obedience is highlighted (7:5, 9, 16). God is the protagonist, and Noah remains silent.

In Gen. 6:5–22, God observes the grand scale of human wickedness, determines to destroy all life, and selects righteous Noah to build an ark. God’s “seeing” is judicial investigation (6:5, 13) that counters the sons of God who “saw” (6:2), just as his pained heart counters humankind’s wicked heart (6:5–6). God’s second statement, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race” (6:7), is his judicial sentence (cf. 3:15–19), affecting all life in the domain of human care (1:28; cf. Job 38:41; Ps. 36:6; Hos. 4:3; Joel 1:20).

The earth’s corruption and violence (Gen. 6:12–13) reflect a spectrum of evil that has despoiled a creation that was once “very good” (1:31; cf. 6:17; 7:21; 8:17; 9:11). God’s destruction responds to the moral corruption of the earth. The ark is a rectangular vessel designed for floating rather than sailing (6:14–15). Noah builds a microcosm of the earth to save its life. The boat’s windowlike openings and three decks reflect the cosmology of Gen. 1 (heavens, water, earth [cf. 6:16]). God makes a promise that Noah will survive and receive a covenant from God (6:18), fulfilled in the Noahic covenant following the flood (9:9, 11, 14–17).

Genesis 7:1–24 recounts the boarding of the ark and then the rising waters. Two numbering systems are used by the narrator in the flood narrative: one for dates of Noah’s age (day, month, year) and one for periods between flood stages. Both systems number between 365 and 370 days. The flood is portrayed as a reversal of the second and third days of creation. Watery boundaries that God once separated collapse (cf. 1:6–10). The rising flood is described in three phases: rising and lifting the ark (7:17), increasing greatly and floating the ark on the surface (7:18), and covering all the high mountains (7:19). Total destruction is amplified by reversing the order of creation—people, animals, birds (7:23)—with “all/every” occurring repeatedly in 7:21–23.

Genesis 8:1–22 recounts the disembarking and Noah’s sacrifice. Genesis 8:1 is the structural and theological center, with God fulfilling (=“remember”) his covenant promise for Noah’s safety. The ark rests on one mountain within the range in eastern Turkey (Kurdistan). The earth’s drying occurs as a process (8:3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14), and echoes of creation reappear (e.g., “wind” [8:1; cf. 1:2]). Although the old curse is not lifted (cf. 5:29), God promises not to add to it (8:21). The flood has not reformed the human heart; it has only stopped the violence. God’s oath of restoration reaffirms the seamless rhythm of seasons that compose a full year (8:22).

Genesis 9:1–19 recounts the restoration of world order. Since murder was part of the antediluvian violence (6:11, 13), God’s law recalibrates earthly morality (9:5). God’s second postdiluvian speech encodes his plan for the broader preservation of creation (9:8–17). “My rainbow” is God’s confirming sign (9:13). The meteorological phenomenon of the storm is now harnessed as an image of peace. The cosmic warrior “hangs up” his bow in divine disarmament. Humankind now shares the responsibility of justice with God, illustrated in Noah’s first speech of cursing and blessing (9:20–27).

That humankind has been created in the image of God indicates its unique status above the animals because of a special similarity with God. This status authorizes humankind to rule the earth and requires respect toward people. The particulars of what the phrase “image of God” means have been understood in many ways.

The phrase is rather rare. It first appears in Gen. 1:2627, and the same or similar phrases occur in five more verses (Gen. 5:1, 3; 9:6; 1Cor. 11:7; James 3:9) that refer back to it. The NT also refers to Christ as the image of God and to believers becoming like the image of Christ.

The passages that refer back to Gen. 1:26–27 emphasize honor and respect for human individuals. Humans are to dominate the earth, not one another. They should not kill one another; otherwise they become subject to the death penalty (Gen. 9:6), and they should not curse others but instead treat them with honor (James 3:9). But the motif has no real prominence other than being in the beginning of the Bible. After Gen. 9:6, the OT does not use the phrase “image of God.” The concept of human rule appears (e.g., Ps. 8), but the expression “image of God” is more a subpoint under a larger topic than it is a heading for biblical teaching.

In the NT, Jesus is twice identified by the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew phrase “image of God” (2Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). Especially in the context of Col. 1:15, the emphasis is on Christ’s deity and so part of a different topic, despite the similar wording. The two verses about believers that refer to the likeness of God and the image of the Creator (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24) deal with moral behavior and the sanctification of the believer (cf. Rom. 8:29; 2Cor. 3:18). Although they do not directly refer to Gen. 1, they do address the common metaphor that humankind, by sinning, marred its imaging of God. To be conformed to the image of Christ restores how humanity images God in the world.

The eighth descendant listed in the line of Seth and the grandson of Methuselah, Noah was used by God to preserve the human race through the flood. His name means “rest,” chosen because his father, Lamech, believed that God would use his son to bring rest from the toil of life resulting from the fall (Gen. 5:29). Enoch was his great-grandfather, and like him, Noah is described as one who “walked faithfully with God” (Gen. 6:9; cf. 5:22, 24). He was the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Noah is mentioned two other times in the OT. God cites his promise that the “waters of Noah” never again would destroy the earth to affirm his covenant faithfulness to Israel (Isa. 54:9), and in another text groups Noah together with Job and Daniel as those who could deliver themselves by their righteousness, but not disobedient Israel (Ezek. 14:14, 20). In the NT, Jesus cites the conditions in Noah’s day as being representative of conditions at the time of his coming (Matt. 24:3738; Luke 17:26–27). Peter mentions Noah twice, once to refer to the spirits of those who perished in the flood (1Pet. 3:20) and once to use Noah as an example of God’s ability to deliver his people (2Pet. 2:5). Hebrews 11:7 lists Noah as a hero of faith.

Signs are visible, typically being an object, a mark, an event, or a custom. In addition, signs are symbolic, pointing to things not seen. Signs often reveal or share some quality with the unseen reality to which they point, and so they are a token of that reality. In the Bible, signs typically are caused or instituted by God, and in many cases they are miraculous. However, in a few cases signs are set forth as the work of other gods (as in Deut. 13:12) or as being instituted by merely human design (as in Num. 2:2). In summary, a sign may be defined as something seen that points to something unseen, and that is instituted or created to do so by someone’s intention.

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

The word for “blood” in the Bible (Heb. dam; Gk.haima) is used both literally and metaphorically. “Blood”is a significant biblical term for understanding purity boundariesand theological concepts. Blood is a dominant ritual symbol inbiblical literature. In ancient Jewish, Greco-Roman, and earlyChristian usage blood had both positive and negative connotations.Blood was used in sacrifices and purification rites, and it wasinherently connected to menstruation, animal slaughter, and legalculpability. Among the physical properties of blood are the abilityto coagulate, the liquid state of the substance (Rev. 16:3–4),and the ability to stain (Rev. 19:13). Blood can symbolize moralorder in terms of cult, law, and power.

JewishBackground

Bloodplayed a major role in the Jewish sacrificial system. The blood ofthe sacrifice was handled with care and was applied to thesacrificer. This ritual treatment provided indirect contact betweenthe person to be purified and the altar. An example of such indirecttreatment is seen in a purification rite involving a pair of birds.One bird is slaughtered in the presence of the impure person. Thesurviving bird is dipped into the blood of the slaughtered bird, andthe person is sprinkled with the same blood. Indirect contact is thusestablished between the impure person and the living bird. When thebird next was released, the impurities of the person flew away withthe bird (Lev. 14:6–7, 49–53).

Sinofferings followed a similar concept of indirect contact. On YomKippur, the annual Day of Atonement, the high priest made a series ofsin offerings (Exod. 30:10; Lev. 16:3–19). Sin offeringslikewise were used to consecrate altars (Exod. 29:35–37; Lev.6:23; Ezek. 43:18–27). The use of an animal sacrifice for thecleansing of altars meant indirect contact between the altar and thesacrificial animal when the blood of the animal was dotted on thehorns and poured out into the trough at the base of the altar. Theanimal thus received the impurity. The blood effected indirectcontact between the impure person and the receiving sacrifice oraltar.

Greco-RomanBackground

Bloodplayed a crucial role in ritualistic sacrifice in ancient Greekculture and was incorporated into the later (Greco-) Roman cults aswell. It was used in oath rituals and as an agent of purification inGreek religious practice. Both persons and shrines underwent bloodpurifications. The use of special utensils for the handling of bloodimplied the significance of the substance in Greek tradition and therituals of which it was part.

Themystery cults in the Greco-Roman world attached a broad range ofsoteriological understanding to blood. In this understanding, thepurification function of blood was the most salient concept attachedto blood in mystery cult usage. Generally speaking, blood wasconsidered a literal agent of purification. However, withinMithraism, for example, blood had a symbolic function and benefitedthe cult initiate.

OldTestament Usage

Theusage of blood in the OT is predominantly negative. The first directmention of blood in the biblical text involves a homicide (Gen.4:10). Henceforward, the shedding of human blood is a main concern(Gen. 9:6). Other concerns pertaining to blood include dietaryprohibitions of blood (Lev. 17:10–12), purity issues such asthe flow of blood as in menstrual blood (Lev. 15:19–24), andblood as a part of religious rites such as circumcision (Gen.17:10–11; Exod. 4:24–26).

Leviticus17:11 contains a central statement in the OT concerning thesignificant role of blood in the sacrificial system: “The lifeof a creature is in the blood.” Blood was collected from allanimal sacrifices, and blood was poured onto the altar (Lev. 1:5).

Thecovenant with Abraham was sealed with a covenantal ritual (Gen.15:10–21). Moses sealed the covenant between the Israelites andGod with a blood ritual during which young Israelite men offeredyoung bulls among other sacrifices as fellowship offerings (Exod.24:5). Moses read the words of the Book of the Covenant and sprinkledthe blood of the bulls on the people, saying, “This is theblood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordancewith all these words” (Exod. 24:7–8).

Duringthe Passover observance at the time of the exodus, blood was placedon the sides and tops of the doorframes of the Hebrews (Exod. 12:7).Not only altars were sprinkled and thus consecrated with blood, butpriests were as well. Aaron and his sons were consecrated by theapplication of blood to their right earlobe, thumb, and big toe, andthe sprinkling of blood and oil on their garments (Exod. 29:20). Onthe Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the holy of holies andsprinkled blood on the mercy seat to seek atonement for the sins ofthe people (Lev. 16:15).

Wheneverblood is involved in a religious occurrence, one can speak of aritual, ceremony, or rite. The rite of circumcision likewise was ablood ceremony (Gen. 17:10–11; Exod. 4:24–26). Rabbinictradition reveals that during circumcision ceremonies Scripture wasread with an emphasis on blood. An example of such a reading is foundin Ezek. 16:6: “Then I passed by and saw you kicking about inyour blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said toyou, ‘Live!’ ”

NewTestament Usage

Manyevents in the passion of Christ include references to blood. Duringthe Last Supper, Jesus redefined the last Passover cup: “Thisis my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for theforgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Judas betrayed “innocentblood” (Matt. 27:4), and the money he received for his betrayalwas referred to as “blood money” (Matt. 27:6). At Jesus’trial, Pilate washed his hands and declared, “I am innocent ofthis man’s blood” (Matt. 27:24).

Theapostle Paul wrote that believers are justified by the blood ofChrist (Rom. 5:9). This justification or righteous standing with Godwas effected through Christ’s blood sacrifice (Rom. 3:25–26;5:8). The writer of Hebrews stressed the instrumental role of bloodin bringing about forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). In the picture of theideal community of Christ, the martyrs in the book ofRevelation are situated closest to the throne of God because “theytriumphed over him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the wordof their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as toshrink from death” (12:11). The blood of the Lamb, Christ, isthe effective agent here and throughout the NT, bringing about theindirect contact between sinner and God.

TheologicalObservations

Whenthe phrase “blood of Christ” is used, scholars debatewhether it refers to the death of Christ or the life of Christ asreleased from his body. When, under the old covenant, an animal waskilled as part of the sacrificial system, the animal’s bloodwas shed. Scholars wonder if the shedding of the animal’s bloodwas an indication that life had ended or that the life of the animalwas now released from its body and presented as an offering to God.In the same vein, when Christ died on the cross and his blood flowed,was it an indication that his life had ended or that his life hadbeen released from his body and was presented as an offering to theFather? Scholars who hold the second view contend that OT referencesto blood as the source of life (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:1; Deut. 12:23) aretaken up in the NT. Although the death of Christ was unfortunate, theemphasis lies on his life having been set free for the purpose ofbringing salvation. Scholars who hold the first view, which is thetraditional view, point out that the overwhelming majority of thetime when the word “dam” is used in the OT, it has anegative connotation, pertaining to death or violence. Hence, whenthe Hebrews heard the phrase “blood of Christ,” acorrelation with death rather than life likely came to mind. Indeed,Heb. 9:14–15 relates the “blood of Christ” to hisdeath as a ransom.

Cloudsand theophany. Thestorm god Baal occupied a central place in Canaanite religion, and soa cloud, especially a rain cloud, was considered a prominentmanifestation of the divine presence. In Ugaritic texts Baal isdescribed as the “rider on the cloud.”

TheOT depicts the God of Israel in similar terms, as riding on a cloud(Judg. 5:4; Isa. 19:1; Pss. 18:11–12; 68:4; 104:3), and as thecreator and sender of clouds: “Ask rain from the Lord in theseason of the spring rain; from the Lord who makes the storm clouds,and he will give them showers of rain, to everyone the vegetation inthe field” (Zech. 10:1 ESV [see also 1 Kings 18:44; Pss.135:7; 147:8; Prov. 8:28; Isa. 5:6; Jer. 10:13]). Divine judgment ispictured as a dark storm (Isa. 30:30; Lam. 2:1; Nah. 1:3; Zech.1:15). In his taunt against the king of Babylon, Isaiah attributes tothe king the arrogant intention of ascending “above the tops ofthe clouds,” that is, to the dwelling place of God (Isa.14:14).

Atseveral crucial points God manifested his presence among theIsraelites in the form of a cloud: in the wilderness (the “pillarof cloud” of Exod. 13:21 and elsewhere), on Mount Sinai (Exod.19:9; 24:15), in the tabernacle (Exod. 40:34), in the temple atJerusalem (1 Kings 8:10), and frequently in the visions ofEzekiel (e.g., Ezek. 1:4; 10:3).

TheNT continues the imagery of the cloud as a manifestation of divinepresence in the story of the transfiguration (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7;Luke 9:36), and also in depictions of Jesus as a cloud-rider in Matt.26:64; Rev. 14:14 (see Dan. 7:13). Jesus was hidden by a cloud whenhe ascended (Acts 1:9), and believers will be caught up by clouds athis return (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 11:12).

Cloudsin nature. Ahandful of biblical texts describe clouds appearing in the land ofIsrael from the west, from the Mediterranean Sea (1 Kings 18:14;Luke 12:54).

Cloudsstand for the highest point in the sky (Job 35:5; Jer. 51:9). Theywere understood to release their rain when full (Eccles. 11:3).Clouds are associated with rainbows (Gen. 9:13; Rev. 10:1).

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).

The Hebrew word ’erets occurs 2,505 times in the OT andis most frequently translated “country” or “land.”“Earth” renders the Greek word gē in the NT. Notsurprisingly, ’erets appears 311 times in Genesis alone, thebook that initiates Israel’s landed covenant (Gen. 15:18). Theprimary uses of ’erets are cosmological (e.g., the earth) andgeographical (e.g., the land of Israel). Other uses of ’eretsinclude physical (e.g., the ground on which one stands) and political(e.g., governed countries) designations. Less frequently, “earth”translates the Hebrew word ’adamah (“country, ground,land, soil”).

Heavenand Earth

Israelshared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. Thisworldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon theprimeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having fourrims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rimswere sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters.God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth andshaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12–13). Similarly,the Akkadian text Hymn to the Sun-God states, “You [Shamash]are holding the ends of the earth suspended from the midst of heaven”(I:22). The earth’s boundaries were set against chaos (Ps.104:7–9; Isa. 40:12). In this way, the Creator and the Saviorcannot be separated because, taken together, God works against chaosin the mission of redemption (Ps. 74:12–17; Isa. 51:9–11).The phrase “heavens and earth” is a merism (two extremesrepresenting the whole) for the entire universe (Gen. 1:1; Ps.102:25). Over the earth arched a firm “vault” (Gen. 1:6).Heaven’s vault rested on the earth’s “pillars,”the mountains (Deut. 32:22; 1Sam. 2:8). Below the heavens isthe sea, part of the earth’s flat surface.

Therewas no term for “world” in the OT. The perception ofworld was basically bipartite (heaven and earth), though sometripartite expressions also occur (e.g., heaven, earth, sea [Exod.20:11; Rev. 5:3, 13]). Though rare, some uses of ’erets mayrefer to the “underworld” or Sheol (Exod. 15:12; Jer.17:13; Jon. 2:6). The earth can be regarded as the realm of the dead(Matt. 12:40; Eph. 4:9). However, the OT is less concerned with theorganic structure of the earth than with what fills the earth:inhabitants (Ps. 33:14; Isa. 24:1), people groups (Gen. 18:18; Deut.28:10), and kingdoms (Deut. 28:25; 2Kings 19:15). The term’erets can be used symbolically to indicate its inhabitants(Gen. 6:11). However, unlike its neighbors, Israel acknowledged nodivine “Mother Earth,” given the cultural associationswith female consorts.

TheTheology of Land

Inbiblical faith, the concept of land combines geography with theology.The modern person values land more as a place to build than for itsproductive capacities. But from the outset, human beings and the“earth” (’erets) functioned in a symbioticrelationship with the Creator (Gen. 1:28). God even gave the landagency to “bring forth living creatures” (Gen. 1:24). The“ground” (’adamah) also provided the raw substanceto make the human being (’adam [Gen. 2:7]). In turn, the humanbeing was charged with developing and protecting the land (Gen. 2:5,15). Showing divine care, the Noahic covenant was “between[God] and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). Thus, land was no mereonlooker; human rebellion had cosmic effects (Gen. 6:7, 17). The landcould be cursed and suffer (Gen. 3:17; cf. 4:11).

Israel’spromised 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 orientingpoints 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 andjudgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationshipwith God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; thiscould ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits”people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).

ForIsrael, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen.15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithfulobedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1Kings 2:1–4).Conditionality and unconditionality coexisted in Israel’srelationship of “sonship” with Yahweh (Exod. 4:22; Hos.11:1). 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 thesupreme 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 (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). TheLevites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did theother tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20;Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter andto occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3).Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when theyaccused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing withmilk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however,no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance”(Josh. 13:1).

Landpossession had serious ethical and religious ramifications (Deut.26:1–11). Israel was not chosen to receive a special land;rather, land was the medium of Israel’s relationship with God.Land functioned as a spiritual barometer (Ps. 78:56–64; Lam.1:3–5). The heavens and earth stood as covenant witnesses(Deut. 4:26). Blood, in particular, could physically pollute the land(Num. 35:30–34). National sin could culminate in expulsion(Lev. 26:32–39), and eventually the land was lost (Jer.25:1–11). For this reason, Israel’s exiles prompted aprofound theological crisis.

Inheritance

Thenotion of inheritance connected Israel’s religious worship withpractical stewardship. Land was not owned; it was passed down throughpatrimonial succession. God entrusted each family with an inheritancethat was to be safeguarded (Lev. 25:23–28; Mic. 2:1–2).This highlights the serious crime when Naboth’s vineyard wasforcibly stolen (1Kings 21). It was Israel’s filialsonship with Yahweh and Israel’s land tenure that formedYahweh’s solidarity with the nation. The law helped limitIsrael’s attachment to mere real estate: Yahweh was to beIsrael’s preoccupation (see Jer. 3:6–25). When the nationwas finally exiled, the message of the new covenant transcendedgeographical boundaries (Jer. 32:36–44; Ezek. 36–37; cf.Lev. 26:40–45; Deut. 30:1–10). In postexilic Israel,sanctuary was prioritized (Hag. 1:9–14).

Itwas Israel’s redefinition of land through the exile thatprepared the way for the incorporation of the Gentiles (Ezek.47:22–23), an integration already anticipated (Isa. 56:3–7).The prophets saw a time when the nations would share in theinheritance of God previously guarded by Israel (Isa. 60; Zech. 2:11;cf. Gen. 12:3). Viewed as a political territory, land receives nosubstantial theological treatment in the NT; rather, inheritancesurpasses covenant metaphor. Using the language of sonship andinheritance, Paul develops this new Gentile mission in Galatians (cf.Col. 1:13–14). The OT land motif fully flowers in the NTteaching of adoption (cf. 1Pet. 1:3–5). Both curse andcovenant are resolved eschatologically (Rom. 8:19–22).Inheritance is now found in Christ (Eph. 2:11–22; 1Pet.1:4). In the economy of the new covenant, land tenure has matured infellowship (koinōnia). Koinōnia recalibrates the ethicalsignificance of OT land themes, reapplying them practically throughinclusion, lifestyle, economic responsibility, and social equity.

Beyondcosmological realms, heaven and earth are also theological horizonsstill under God’s ownership. What began as the creation mandateto fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28) culminates in the newcreation with Christ (Rom. 8:4–25). Under the power of Satan,the earth “lags behind” heaven. Christ’s missionbrings what is qualitatively of heaven onto the earthly stage, oftenusing signs of the budding rule of God (Matt. 6:10; Mark 2:10–11;John 3:31–36; Eph. 4:9–13; Heb. 12:25). As Israel was tostand out in a hostile world (Deut. 4:5–8), now those ofAbrahamic faith stand out through Christian love (John 13:34–35;Rom. 4:9–16). According to Heb. 4:1–11, Israel’sinitial rest in the land (see Exod. 33:14; Deut. 12:9) culminates inthe believers’ rest in Christ (Heb. 4:3, 5). The formerinheritance of space gives way to the inheritance of Christ’spresence. The OT theme of land is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus’exhortation to “abide in me” (John 15).

Earthquake–InPalestine there have been about seventeen recorded major earthquakesin the past two millennia. One of the major sources of theseearthquakes is believed to originate from the Jordan Rift Valley. Inantiquity earthquakes were viewed as fearful events because themountains, which represented everlasting durability, were disturbed.The confession of faith is pronounced in association with suchphenomena (“We will not fear, though the earth give way”[Ps. 46:2]). An earthquake must have made a great impact in Amos’sday (“two years before the earthquake” [Amos 1:1; cf.Zech. 14:5]).

Anearthquake has many symbolic meanings. First, the power of God andhis divine presence are manifested through it (Job 9:6; Ps. 68:8;Hag. 2:6). It accompanied theophanic revelation (Exod. 19:18; Isa.6:4; 1Kings 19:11–12) when the glory of the Lord appeared(Ezek. 3:12). His divine presence was especially felt whenearthquakes occurred during the time of the crucifixion and theresurrection of Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:54; 28:2). It led thecenturion to confess of Christ, “Surely he was the Son of God!”(Matt. 27:54). God’s salvation power is represented when anearthquake comes at the appropriate moment, such as when it freedPaul and Silas from prison (Acts 16:26).

Second,it is used in the context of God’s judgment (Isa. 13:13; Amos9:1; Nah. 1:5). It becomes the symbol of God’s anger and wrath(Ps. 18:7). God brought earthquakes upon the people to destroy evilin the world and to punish those who had sinned against him (Num.16:31–33; Isa. 29:6; Ezek. 38:19). Earthquake activity possiblyexplains the background to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen.19:24).

Third,earthquakes are said to precede the end of time (Matt. 24:7; Mark13:8; Luke 21:11). In the apocalyptic book of Revelation, earthquakesare regular occurrences (Rev. 6:12; 11:13, 19; 16:18).

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

Recounted in Gen. 6:5–9:19, the flood is the event whereby God destroys all creatures except for Noah, his family, and a gathering of animals. The account is highly literary and God-centered. It opens and closes with Noah’s three sons (6:10; 9:18–19). Noah’s obedience is highlighted (7:5, 9, 16). God is the protagonist, and Noah remains silent.

Terminology. The Hebrew word for “flood” is mabbul, and the Greek word is kataklysmos. Outside of the Gen. 6–9 narrative and references to the flood in Gen. 10:1, 32; 11:10, mabbul occurs only in Ps. 29:10, probably a reference to the primordial water stored above the firmament in jars (cf. Gen. 1:7; 7:11). The LXX translates mabbul with kataklysmos in Sir. 40:10; 44:17–18; 4 Macc. 15:31. Hebrew Sirach and the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon also use mabbul for the flood (Sir. 44:17; 1QapGenar 12:9–10). All four uses of kataklysmos in the NT refer to the flood (Matt. 24:38–39; Luke 17:27; 2Pet. 2:5).

The flood narrative. In Gen. 6:5–22, God observes the grand scale of human wickedness, determines to destroy all life, and selects righteous Noah to build an ark. God’s “seeing” is judicial investigation (6:5, 13) that counters the sons of God who “saw” (6:2), just as his pained heart counters humankind’s wicked heart (6:5–6). God’s second statement, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race” (6:7), is his judicial sentence (cf. 3:15–19), affecting all life in the domain of human care (1:28; cf. Job 38:41; Ps. 36:6; Hos. 4:3; Joel 1:20).

The earth’s corruption and violence (Gen. 6:12–13) reflect a spectrum of evil that has despoiled a creation that was once “very good” (1:31; cf. 6:17; 7:21; 8:17; 9:11). God’s destruction responds to the moral corruption of the earth. The ark is a rectangular vessel designed for floating rather than sailing (6:14–15). Noah builds a microcosm of the earth to save its life. The boat’s windowlike openings and three decks reflect the cosmology of Gen. 1 (heavens, water, earth [cf. 6:16]). God makes a promise that Noah will survive and receive a covenant from God (6:18), fulfilled in the Noahic covenant following the flood (9:9, 11, 14–17).

Genesis 7:1–24 recounts the boarding of the ark and then the rising waters. Two numbering systems are used by the narrator in the flood narrative: one for dates of Noah’s age (day, month, year) and one for periods between flood stages. Both systems number between 365 and 370 days. The flood is portrayed as a reversal of the second and third days of creation. Watery boundaries that God once separated collapse (cf. 1:6–10). The rising flood is described in three phases: rising and lifting the ark (7:17), increasing greatly and floating the ark on the surface (7:18), and covering all the high mountains (7:19). Total destruction is amplified by reversing the order of creation—people, animals, birds (7:23)—with “all/every” occurring repeatedly in 7:21–23.

Genesis 8:1–22 recounts the disembarking and Noah’s sacrifice. Genesis 8:1 is the structural and theological center, with God fulfilling (=“remember”) his covenant promise for Noah’s safety. The ark rests on one mountain within the range in eastern Turkey (Kurdistan). The earth’s drying occurs as a process (8:3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14), and echoes of creation reappear (e.g., “wind” [8:1; cf. 1:2]). Although the old curse is not lifted (cf. 5:29), God promises not to add to it (8:21). The flood has not reformed the human heart; it has only stopped the violence. God’s oath of restoration reaffirms the seamless rhythm of seasons that comprise a full year (8:22).

Genesis 9:1–19 recounts the restoration of world order. Since murder was part of the antediluvian violence (6:11, 13), God’s law recalibrates earthly morality (9:5). God’s second postdiluvian speech encodes his plan for the broader preservation of creation (9:8–17). “My rainbow” is God’s confirming sign (9:13). The meteorological phenomenon of the storm is now harnessed as an image of peace. The cosmic warrior “hangs up” his bow in divine disarmament. Humankind now shares the responsibility of justice with God, illustrated in Noah’s first speech of cursing and blessing (9:20–27).

Ancient Near Eastern parallels. Without literary dependence on the biblical story, parallels to the biblical account exist in the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic, Gilgamesh TabletXI, and the Sumerian King List. The exact relationship between the biblical account and these Near Eastern accounts is a debated subject. Perhaps they are variants of a similar story based on the same historical event.

Generation has three primary meanings in the Bible: (1)alength of time, (2)a group of people of the same period oftime, and (3)a stage in the line of a person’s lineage.It also has three metaphorical or secondary uses.

First,“generation” as a length of time generally involves theduration of time between a person’s birth and the birth of thatperson’s children. The number “forty” is oftenassociated with the length of a generation because God made theIsraelites wander in the wilderness for forty years so that onegeneration would pass away and another arise (cf. Num. 32:13).However, two points should be noted. First, the actual number ofyears was determined to be forty because the people had spied out theland for forty days (Num. 14:34), not because a generation lastedforty years. Second, the forty years applied to those who were agetwenty or older. Since the purpose of the forty years in thewilderness was to allow one generation of adults to pass on(14:30–35), the forty years may represent the upper limit ofthe expected length of an adult’s life in the wildernessconditions, which would be sixty years. In fact, when Moses speaks toIsrael on the plains of Moab, he mentions that Israel crossed theZered Valley thirty-eight years after the wilderness wanderings hadbegun, and that the entire previous generation had died (Deut. 2:14).This comment shows that forty years has less to do with a generationthan with the expected life span of an adult in the wilderness. Otherpassages provide no hints for the length of a generation, such thatthe specific length of a generation is not recorded in the Bible.Furthermore, since a generation represents the duration of timebetween a person’s birth and the birth of that person’schildren, it is also not a fixed number but rather represents animprecise period of time. In one passage “generations”are even set alongside “ages,” which represent longerdurations of an indefinite period of time (Col. 1:26).

Second,“generation” often is used to represent a group of peopleof the same period of time. It may refer to a group of people wholive during the same time (Gen. 7:1) or those who were born atapproximately the same time (Exod. 1:6; Num. 32:13; Deut. 1:35).

Third,“generation” is also commonly used to represent a stagein the line of a person’s lineage. This use often is precededby an ordinal number (first, second, third, etc.). On severaloccasions it occurs in a context highlighting the severity of sin. Itoccurs in the formulaic statement of God’s self-revelationfound in Exod. 20:5; 34:7 and repeated in Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9. Godis described as loving, merciful, and forgiving, but also as jealous,not leaving the guilty unpunished to the third and fourth generation.It also occurs in legal contexts concerning the inclusion of Gentilesinto the assembly of the Lord (Deut. 23:1–8). Its use in thisway highlights the continuity of God’s work even through thetransitions of a family from one generation to another.

Finally,the word “generation” often is used in a secondary way orin a formulaic statement. First, several times the word describes oneaspect of God’s relationship to a particular person and hisdescendants or a nation. Sometimes it describes the long-lastingnature of God’s promise (Gen. 9:12; 17:7); at other times, itdescribes the long-lasting responsibility of the person and hisdescendants or a nation, especially as it relates to Israel and thelaw given at Sinai (Gen. 17:9–21; Exod. 12:14; 16:32–33;27:21; 29:42). Second, the word may emphasize the continuous natureof a condition or obligation (Exod. 3:15; 17:16; Esther 9:28; Pss.33:11; 45:17; 49:11; 72:5; 79:13). Third, the word refers to aparticular class or type of people, such as the righteous (Pss. 14:5[in some translations]; 112:2) or the wicked (Deut. 32:5; Prov. 30:11[in some translations]; Matt. 11:16; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:41; Acts2:40).

In addition to its most obvious anatomical meaning, “hand”may also refer to the finger (Gen. 41:42), the wrist (Gen. 24:22), orthe entire arm (2Kings 5:18).

Symbolicuses.The Bible attests to many symbolic references. To put a hand to themouth is indicative of silence (Job 21:5). Putting it upon one’shead is a gesture of sadness and mourning (2Sam. 13:19). Handclapping expresses either joy (Ps. 47:1) or derision (Job 27:23).Lifting up one or both hands is a gesture accompanying an oath (Deut.32:40), blessing (Lev. 9:22), prayer or worship (Pss. 28:2; 63:4). Toshake one’s hand indicates defiance (Isa. 10:32) or derision(Zeph. 2:15). The Jews in Jesus’ time washed their hands beforea meal for ritual cleansing (Matt. 15:2), while Pilate washed hishands to indicate his innocence (Matt. 27:24).

Thelaying on of hands is associated with many meanings in differentcontexts in the Bible. Its symbolic meaning in the context ofsacrifice, however, is still debated. The idea of transfer of theofferer’s guilt, which is explicit in case of the scapegoat inLev. 16:21–22, does not easily apply to the laying on of handsin the context of sacrifice. The laying on of hands, for example, ispart of a fellowship offering, a sacrifice that has little concernwith expiating sin. This has led some scholars to posit the idea thatby laying hands on the animal the offerer either acquires the meritsof the sacrifice or ensures that the sacrifice intended for specificoffering will be used solely for that purpose. The laying on of handsis also associated with a nonsacrificial context: commission for aspecial task. Moses laid hands on Joshua when appointing him leaderof the people of Israel (Num. 27:18–23). In the same way, theIsraelites were instructed to lay hands on the Levites (Num. 8:10).It is also through the laying on of hands that Saul and Barnabas wereappointed as missionaries for the Gentiles (Acts 13:2–3). It isalso associated with miraculous healing (Matt. 9:18) and the gift ofthe Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17–19). (See also Laying on of Hands.)

Idiomaticand figurative uses.The term “hand” forms numerous idiomatic expressions inthe Bible, some of which passed into European languages throughtranslations of the Bible. The following are only selective examples:“To put one’s hand to” means “to undertake”(Deut. 12:7; Luke 9:62); “to slack one’s hand” issynonymous with negligence and neglect (Josh. 10:6); “to hideor bury the hand in the dish” is descriptive of the slothful(Prov. 19:24); “to put one’s life into one’s hand”means to risk one’s life (1Sam. 19:5); “to fill thehands” means to consecrate (Exod. 32:29; NIV: “setapart”). The phrase “hand of God” or “hand ofYahweh” may denote a pestilence (1Sam. 5:6; 6:3, 5). Asimilar usage of “hand of [a god]” as illness is found inboth Ugaritic and Akkadian sources.

Severalfigurative uses of the hand occur in the Bible. The hand oftenconnotes power or strength. When the men of Ai realized theirdilemma, they had no “hand” to flee (Josh. 8:20). Also,the Israelites were commanded to bring a gift according to their“hand” at the Feast of Tabernacles (Deut. 16:17). Thepsalmist rebuked the Israelites for forgetting God’s “hand,”which redeemed them from their oppressor (Ps. 78:42). The hand issometimes synonymous with “side.” The “hand”of the road refers to the side of the road, and the “hand”of a river to its bank. Used alone, “hand” can indicate aplace, as in Deut. 23:12–13, where the Israelites are orderedto designate “a hand” outside the camp for a latrine. Thehand may be used metonymically for the person. In this sense, thepenalty is exacted “from the hand” or “at the hand”of the transgressor (Gen. 9:5; Ezek. 33:8). Finally, “the righthand” connotes a position of prestige or prominence. Jacob’spreference for Ephraim, the second son of Joseph, was expressed bythe laying on of his right hand (Gen. 48:13). Yahweh ordered themessianic king to sit at his right hand (Ps. 110:1). Jesus said,referring to himself, “You will see the Son of Man sitting atthe right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven”(Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62).

That humankind has been created in the image of God indicatesits unique status above the animals because of a special similaritywith God. This status authorizes humankind to rule the earth andrequires respect toward people. The particulars of what the phrase“image of God” means have been understood in many ways.

Thephrase is rather rare. It first appears in Gen. 1:26–27, andthe same or similar phrases occur in five more verses (Gen. 5:1, 3;9:6; 1Cor. 11:7; James 3:9) that refer back to it. The NT alsorefers to Christ as the image of God and to believers becoming likethe image of Christ.

UnderstandingGenesis 1:26–27

Thismakes Gen. 1:26–27 the starting point for understanding thephrase. Several factors come into play: the contrast with thecreation of animals on the same day; the connection with humankindruling the other creatures; other elements of the broader context;the meaning of the words “image” (tselem) and “likeness”(demut); the meaning of the preposition “in”; and themeaning and use of images in the ancient Near East.

Inthe immediately preceding context, animals are made “accordingto their kinds,” whereas humans are made “in the image ofGod.” The context directly following also makes a distinctionbetween the two, granting humans rule, or dominion, over the animals.Being in the image of God certainly involves what makes humans uniquein contrast to the rest of the animal kingdom.

Thehistory of interpretation of the phrase “image of God” islong and voluminous. Just about anything from the broader contextthat seems important to the interpreter might be selected as the keymeaning; or whatever philosophical system is dominant at the timewhen the interpreter writes might be tapped as the “obvious”explanation of what being in the image of God means; or perhaps theinsights of a particular academic discipline or systematictheological system might be given preference. Thus, the meaning ofbeing created in the image of God has been associated with manythings, such as language, eternal soul, rationality, relationality,being male and female (often compared to the Trinity), physicalappearance, dominion, and personhood. The wide variety is possiblebecause the text of Scripture does not spell it out, and the optionsseem reasonable to their various proponents as explaining theuniqueness of humanity, something that clearly serves the context.

Althoughmany of these insights may be reasonable and relevant, it can beproblematic to select one as the key element. For example, to supportthe suggestion that being in the image of God means walking erect ontwo feet, one could point out that (1)humankind’s“walking” is in the broader context, (2)humanbeings “walking” with God uniquely contrasts to thecirc*mstances of other animals, and (3)standing erect on twofeet is a dominance move in the animal kingdom. But this is unlikelyto be convincing to anyone, for good reason. And the many optionsoffered by interpreters often look equally out of place fromanother’s perspective. For example, the text emphasizes thatGod created them “male and female,” a unity with adifference. God is a trinity, a unity with a difference. Is this,then, the image of God? Someone might point out that the animals arealso male and female, and that the text does not necessarily have theTrinity in view (there are other explanations for the plural “us”in Gen. 1:26, which many consider better explanations).

Studyingthe words “image” and “likeness” does notquickly clarify the issue. “Image” normally refers to astatue, typically of a god. And “likeness” normallyrefers to similar physical appearance. The true God is a spirit,lacking a particular physical form, and he forbids making a statue ofhimself. If the three-dimensional human physique is not the point,what remains of the terms “image” and “likeness”is simply some notion of similarity. It is this vagueness that haspromoted diverse understandings.

Thepreposition “in” is also much discussed, for it mightmean “in” or “as.” Thus humanity is perhapsmade in a like appearance to God, or in an unspecified similarity toGod. Or humanity has been created as God’s image on the earth.The first emphasizes what humanity is (being), the second whathumanity is to do (function). Yet the two, being and function,certainly are related, so the difference between them may beoverstated.

Thesurrounding cultures of the ancient Near East made images of theirgods. They believed not that the statue actually was the god butrather that it invoked the presence of the god and represented thegod to the people as a central location for interaction. TheBabylonian word for “image” is similar to the Hebrew andalso usually refers to a statue or artistic representation. It issometimes used figuratively about a king being the image of a god.And in Egypt we find the idea that humanity is the image of gods.This conceptual backdrop aligns with an understanding that being inthe image of God relates to the function of ruling.

Additionally,the phrase “and let them rule over” occurs in a sequencethat can indicate purpose or result. Thus, the passage may berendered, “Let us make man as our image, as our likeness, sothat they may rule.” That is, God set up human beings with adistinct nature for a distinct task, which he expressly includes whenblessing them (Gen. 1:28). We might still infer from generalrevelation some of the details that are relevant to that uniqueness,but we should avoid elevating them in importance.

OtherBiblical Passages

Thepassages that refer back to Gen. 1:26–27 emphasize honor andrespect for human individuals. Humans are to dominate the earth, notone another. They should not kill one another; otherwise they becomesubject to the death penalty (Gen. 9:6), and they should not curseothers but instead treat them with honor (James 3:9). But the motifhas no real prominence other than being in the beginning of theBible. After Gen. 9:6, the OT does not use the phrase “image ofGod.” The concept of human rule appears (e.g., Ps. 8), but theexpression “image of God” is more a subpoint under alarger topic than it is a heading for biblical teaching.

Inthe NT, Jesus is twice identified by the Greek equivalent to theHebrew phrase “image of God” (2Cor. 4:4; Col.1:15). Especially in the context of Col. 1:15, the emphasis is onChrist’s deity and so part of a different topic, despite thesimilar wording. The two verses about believers that refer to thelikeness of God and the image of the Creator (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24)deal with moral behavior and the sanctification of the believer (cf.Rom. 8:29; 2Cor. 3:18). Although they do not directly refer toGen. 1, they do address the common metaphor that humankind, bysinning, marred its imaging of God. To be conformed to the image ofChrist restores how humanity images God in the world.

The Hebrew word ’erets occurs 2,505 times in the OT andis most frequently translated “country” or “land.”“Earth” renders the Greek word gē in the NT. Notsurprisingly, ’erets appears 311 times in Genesis alone, thebook that initiates Israel’s landed covenant (Gen. 15:18). Theprimary uses of ’erets are cosmological (e.g., the earth) andgeographical (e.g., the land of Israel). Other uses of ’eretsinclude physical (e.g., the ground on which one stands) and political(e.g., governed countries) designations. Less frequently, “earth”translates the Hebrew word ’adamah (“country, ground,land, soil”).

Heavenand Earth

Israelshared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. Thisworldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon theprimeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having fourrims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rimswere sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters.God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth andshaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12–13). Similarly,the Akkadian text Hymn to the Sun-God states, “You [Shamash]are holding the ends of the earth suspended from the midst of heaven”(I:22). The earth’s boundaries were set against chaos (Ps.104:7–9; Isa. 40:12). In this way, the Creator and the Saviorcannot be separated because, taken together, God works against chaosin the mission of redemption (Ps. 74:12–17; Isa. 51:9–11).The phrase “heavens and earth” is a merism (two extremesrepresenting the whole) for the entire universe (Gen. 1:1; Ps.102:25). Over the earth arched a firm “vault” (Gen. 1:6).Heaven’s vault rested on the earth’s “pillars,”the mountains (Deut. 32:22; 1Sam. 2:8). Below the heavens isthe sea, part of the earth’s flat surface.

Therewas no term for “world” in the OT. The perception ofworld was basically bipartite (heaven and earth), though sometripartite expressions also occur (e.g., heaven, earth, sea [Exod.20:11; Rev. 5:3, 13]). Though rare, some uses of ’erets mayrefer to the “underworld” or Sheol (Exod. 15:12; Jer.17:13; Jon. 2:6). The earth can be regarded as the realm of the dead(Matt. 12:40; Eph. 4:9). However, the OT is less concerned with theorganic structure of the earth than with what fills the earth:inhabitants (Ps. 33:14; Isa. 24:1), people groups (Gen. 18:18; Deut.28:10), and kingdoms (Deut. 28:25; 2Kings 19:15). The term’erets can be used symbolically to indicate its inhabitants(Gen. 6:11). However, unlike its neighbors, Israel acknowledged nodivine “Mother Earth,” given the cultural associationswith female consorts.

TheTheology of Land

Inbiblical faith, the concept of land combines geography with theology.The modern person values land more as a place to build than for itsproductive capacities. But from the outset, human beings and the“earth” (’erets) functioned in a symbioticrelationship with the Creator (Gen. 1:28). God even gave the landagency to “bring forth living creatures” (Gen. 1:24). The“ground” (’adamah) also provided the raw substanceto make the human being (’adam [Gen. 2:7]). In turn, the humanbeing was charged with developing and protecting the land (Gen. 2:5,15). Showing divine care, the Noahic covenant was “between[God] and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). Thus, land was no mereonlooker; human rebellion had cosmic effects (Gen. 6:7, 17). The landcould be cursed and suffer (Gen. 3:17; cf. 4:11).

Israel’spromised 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 orientingpoints 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 andjudgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationshipwith God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; thiscould ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits”people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).

ForIsrael, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen.15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithfulobedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1Kings 2:1–4).Conditionality and unconditionality coexisted in Israel’srelationship of “sonship” with Yahweh (Exod. 4:22; Hos.11:1). 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 thesupreme 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 (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). TheLevites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did theother tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20;Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter andto occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3).Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when theyaccused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing withmilk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however,no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance”(Josh. 13:1).

Landpossession had serious ethical and religious ramifications (Deut.26:1–11). Israel was not chosen to receive a special land;rather, land was the medium of Israel’s relationship with God.Land functioned as a spiritual barometer (Ps. 78:56–64; Lam.1:3–5). The heavens and earth stood as covenant witnesses(Deut. 4:26). Blood, in particular, could physically pollute the land(Num. 35:30–34). National sin could culminate in expulsion(Lev. 26:32–39), and eventually the land was lost (Jer.25:1–11). For this reason, Israel’s exiles prompted aprofound theological crisis.

Inheritance

Thenotion of inheritance connected Israel’s religious worship withpractical stewardship. Land was not owned; it was passed down throughpatrimonial succession. God entrusted each family with an inheritancethat was to be safeguarded (Lev. 25:23–28; Mic. 2:1–2).This highlights the serious crime when Naboth’s vineyard wasforcibly stolen (1Kings 21). It was Israel’s filialsonship with Yahweh and Israel’s land tenure that formedYahweh’s solidarity with the nation. The law helped limitIsrael’s attachment to mere real estate: Yahweh was to beIsrael’s preoccupation (see Jer. 3:6–25). When the nationwas finally exiled, the message of the new covenant transcendedgeographical boundaries (Jer. 32:36–44; Ezek. 36–37; cf.Lev. 26:40–45; Deut. 30:1–10). In postexilic Israel,sanctuary was prioritized (Hag. 1:9–14).

Itwas Israel’s redefinition of land through the exile thatprepared the way for the incorporation of the Gentiles (Ezek.47:22–23), an integration already anticipated (Isa. 56:3–7).The prophets saw a time when the nations would share in theinheritance of God previously guarded by Israel (Isa. 60; Zech. 2:11;cf. Gen. 12:3). Viewed as a political territory, land receives nosubstantial theological treatment in the NT; rather, inheritancesurpasses covenant metaphor. Using the language of sonship andinheritance, Paul develops this new Gentile mission in Galatians (cf.Col. 1:13–14). The OT land motif fully flowers in the NTteaching of adoption (cf. 1Pet. 1:3–5). Both curse andcovenant are resolved eschatologically (Rom. 8:19–22).Inheritance is now found in Christ (Eph. 2:11–22; 1Pet.1:4). In the economy of the new covenant, land tenure has matured infellowship (koinōnia). Koinōnia recalibrates the ethicalsignificance of OT land themes, reapplying them practically throughinclusion, lifestyle, economic responsibility, and social equity.

Beyondcosmological realms, heaven and earth are also theological horizonsstill under God’s ownership. What began as the creation mandateto fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28) culminates in the newcreation with Christ (Rom. 8:4–25). Under the power of Satan,the earth “lags behind” heaven. Christ’s missionbrings what is qualitatively of heaven onto the earthly stage, oftenusing signs of the budding rule of God (Matt. 6:10; Mark 2:10–11;John 3:31–36; Eph. 4:9–13; Heb. 12:25). As Israel was tostand out in a hostile world (Deut. 4:5–8), now those ofAbrahamic faith stand out through Christian love (John 13:34–35;Rom. 4:9–16). According to Heb. 4:1–11, Israel’sinitial rest in the land (see Exod. 33:14; Deut. 12:9) culminates inthe believers’ rest in Christ (Heb. 4:3, 5). The formerinheritance of space gives way to the inheritance of Christ’spresence. The OT theme of land is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus’exhortation to “abide in me” (John 15).

Earthquake–InPalestine there have been about seventeen recorded major earthquakesin the past two millennia. One of the major sources of theseearthquakes is believed to originate from the Jordan Rift Valley. Inantiquity earthquakes were viewed as fearful events because themountains, which represented everlasting durability, were disturbed.The confession of faith is pronounced in association with suchphenomena (“We will not fear, though the earth give way”[Ps. 46:2]). An earthquake must have made a great impact in Amos’sday (“two years before the earthquake” [Amos 1:1; cf.Zech. 14:5]).

Anearthquake has many symbolic meanings. First, the power of God andhis divine presence are manifested through it (Job 9:6; Ps. 68:8;Hag. 2:6). It accompanied theophanic revelation (Exod. 19:18; Isa.6:4; 1Kings 19:11–12) when the glory of the Lord appeared(Ezek. 3:12). His divine presence was especially felt whenearthquakes occurred during the time of the crucifixion and theresurrection of Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:54; 28:2). It led thecenturion to confess of Christ, “Surely he was the Son of God!”(Matt. 27:54). God’s salvation power is represented when anearthquake comes at the appropriate moment, such as when it freedPaul and Silas from prison (Acts 16:26).

Second,it is used in the context of God’s judgment (Isa. 13:13; Amos9:1; Nah. 1:5). It becomes the symbol of God’s anger and wrath(Ps. 18:7). God brought earthquakes upon the people to destroy evilin the world and to punish those who had sinned against him (Num.16:31–33; Isa. 29:6; Ezek. 38:19). Earthquake activity possiblyexplains the background to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen.19:24).

Third,earthquakes are said to precede the end of time (Matt. 24:7; Mark13:8; Luke 21:11). In the apocalyptic book of Revelation, earthquakesare regular occurrences (Rev. 6:12; 11:13, 19; 16:18).

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

Lifein the Natural Sense

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

First,life is the vital principle of animals and humans. This use of theterm is its popular sense. It refers to the quality of having ananimate existence or the state of being animate. Therefore, it isexpressed in terms of ability or power; one who has life has thepower to act. On the other hand, “death” is its antonym;one who is dead no longer acts. In the Bible, life in this senseapplies to both animals and humans; however, the quality of lifediffers because humans are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26; 5:1;9:6). Life is manifested in the breath of life, so that one who nolonger has the breath of life no longer has life (Gen. 2:7; 6:17; Job12:10; 27:3; Rev. 11:11). At the same time, life is seated in theblood. For this reason, blood should not be consumed but shouldinstead be poured out and buried (Gen. 9:3–5; Lev. 17:10–16;Deut. 12:23–25). Although life may cease because of physicalcauses (whether disease, murder, accident, etc.), God is ultimatelythe Lord of life. He gives life through his breath of life (Gen. 2:7;Ezek. 37:4–14); he sustains life through his spirit (Ps.104:29–30; cf. Gen. 6:3; 1Cor. 15:45); he delivers fromdeath (Gen. 5:24; Ps. 30:3; 1Cor. 15); he gives life and putsto death (Deut. 32:39; 1Sam. 2:6). Life, therefore, is firstand foremost a gift from God.

Ina discussion of life as the vital principle, it is important toaddress the question of the afterlife. The Bible affirms thesignificance of both the material and the immaterial components of ahuman being. The body is not merely a shell in which the true personis housed. Death is not the soul’s escape from the body’sprison, as evidenced by the resurrection of the dead (Ezek. 37:1–14;Dan. 12:2; Luke 14:14; 1Cor. 15). Human beings are not createdto live a disembodied existence ultimately. The fate for those whoexperience eternal life is the resurrection of the body made from anincorruptible source (1Cor. 15, esp. vv. 42–50). Forothers, their fate lies in eternal death (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:6–15;21:8).

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

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

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

Lifeas a Theological Concept

Beyondits natural sense, life is developed as a theological conceptthroughout the Bible.

OldTestament.The first chapters of Genesis set the stage for a rich theologicalunderstanding of life. First, God creates all things and preparesthem for his purposes. He is the creator of life, and life is a giftfrom his hand. The pinnacle of his creative activity is the creationof humankind. God blesses the man (Adam) and the woman (Eve) whom hecreates. God prepares a special place, a garden, for them, so thatthey may be able to live in perfect communion with him, under hisblessing. At the center of the garden lies the tree of life. The treeof life demonstrates that the garden is both the sphere of God’sprovision and the symbol of life itself. At the same time, Godcommands the man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good andevil, “for when you eat from it you will certainly die”(Gen. 2:17).

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

Itis also important to recognize in this narrative that obedience toGod’s commandment leads to life, but disobedience to hiscommandment leads to death. This principle is picked up throughoutthe Bible. Its clearest expression is found in Lev. 18:5: “Keepmy decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live bythem.”

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

Althoughthese themes—life, blessing, obedience, and wisdom—arefound in various places throughout the Bible, they come together mostexplicitly in Deuteronomy. There devotion and obedience to God areviewed as the means of attaining wisdom and understanding (Deut.4:5–9). Following God leads to living in the land that God hadpromised and enjoying his blessings there (28:1–14); however,forsaking God leads to all kinds of curses and ultimately to utterdefeat and exile from the land (28:15–68). The choice to followGod and obey him or to forsake God and disobey him results in eitherlife or death, good or bad, blessing or curse (30:15–20).

Lifeas a theological concept therefore has the following characteristics:being in the presence of God rather than exile, and experiencing hisblessings rather than his curses. Such life may be attained throughdevotion and obedience to God and through the wisdom that comes fromGod.

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

Although for millennia meat has been a major element in manypeople’s diets, the earliest humans did not eat it. In thegarden of Eden, God gave Adam and Eve a diet of plants, particularlyfruit (Gen. 2:15–16). God first sanctioned human consumption ofanimals only after the flood, though with the stipulation that meatnot be eaten with blood remaining in it (Gen. 9:3–4; see alsoLev. 7:26; 19:26).

Inthe Mosaic law the Israelites received further restrictions from Godconcerning the meat they could consume. Among land animals, onlythose that have a split hoof and chew the cud were “clean”for the Israelites to eat (Lev. 11:1–8). When the Israelitestwice complained that they had no meat in the wilderness, Godresponded both times by sending quail. In the second instance, Godbecame angry and sent a plague among those who had eaten the meat(Exod. 16:2–13; Num. 11:1–35).

Inthe NT, Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19), and God confirmedin a vision to Peter that he had rescinded all dietary restrictions(Acts 10:9–16). However, the Jerusalem council instructedGentile Christians to abstain from certain dietary practices thatwould be offensive to their Jewish brothers and sisters, includingeating blood and eating meat sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:28–29).In 1Corinthians, Paul continued the discussion of eating meatsacrificed to idols (8:4–13; 10:18–33) and therebyprovided guidance on various matters of Christian liberty.

(1)Theeighth descendant listed in the line of Seth and the grandson ofMethuselah, Noah was used by God to preserve the human race throughthe flood. His name means “rest,” chosen because hisfather, Lamech, believed that God would use his son to bring restfrom the toil of life resulting from the fall (Gen. 5:29). Enoch washis great-grandfather, and like him, Noah is described as one who“walked faithfully with God” (Gen. 6:9; cf. 5:22, 24). Hewas the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Hisstory is told mainly in Gen. 6–9. Because of its greatwickedness, God resolved to destroy the human race. But Noah foundgrace in God’s sight, so God instructed him to build a largeboat as directed and to take aboard provisions for his family as wellas selected representatives of animal life. Noah dutifully obeyed,and his family thus was preserved through the ensuing catastrophe.From them the earth was repopulated (Gen. 10), and Noah was therecipient of various directives for the governance of thepostdiluvian world, often referred to as the Noahic covenant (Gen.9:1–17). Noah’s personal story ends with the curiousepisode of him getting drunk and subsequently cursing a son of Hamfor some offense that Ham committed, the nature of which is describedonly as seeing “the nakedness of his father” (Gen. 9:22ESV, NRSV, NASB). His age at the time of his death is given as 950.

Noahis mentioned two other times in the OT. God cites his promise thatthe “waters of Noah” never again would destroy the earthto affirm his covenant faithfulness to Israel (Isa. 54:9), and inanother text groups Noah together with Job and Daniel as those whocould deliver themselves by their righteousness, but not disobedientIsrael (Ezek. 14:14, 20). In the NT, Jesus cites the conditions inNoah’s day as being representative of conditions at the time ofhis coming (Matt. 24:37–38; Luke 17:26–27). Petermentions Noah twice, once to refer to the spirits of those whoperished in the flood (1Pet. 3:20) and once to use Noah as anexample of God’s ability to deliver his people (2Pet.2:5). Hebrews 11:7 lists Noah as a hero of faith.

(2)Oneof the five daughters of Zelophehad. Their petition for a portion oftheir deceased father’s property helped set a precedent forinheritance law in ancient Israel (Num. 27:1–11; cf. Josh.17:1–6). When it came time for the daughters of Zelophehad tomarry, a further decree was issued that inherited land must not passfrom tribe to tribe (Num. 36).

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

TheOrigin of Humankind

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

Createdin the image of God.Whenit came to the making of human beings, God deliberated over thiscrucial step (Gen. 1:26). The plural of exhortation in “Let usmake man in our image” signals that the decision to makehumankind was the most important one that God had made so far.Genesis 1 says that human beings are like God in some way.

Variousopinions have been canvassed as to what the “image” is.We cannot totally exclude the physical form of humans, given God’shumanoid form in OT appearances (theophanies; e.g., Isa. 6:1; Ezek.1:26; Amos 9:1). The image has sometimes been interpreted as a task,the exercising of dominion (Gen. 1:28), with humanity appointed ascreation’s king, ruling under God. But the image is betterunderstood as the precondition for rule rather than rule itself. Theimage shows human worth (Gen. 9:6) and differentiates humans from allother creatures. It is proper for the Bible to use anthropomorphiclanguage for God, for humans are remarkably like God. Both male andfemale are in the image of God (“in the image of God he createdthem; male and female he created them” [1:27]), so that thedivine image is not maleness, nor is sexual differentiation theimage. Commonly, the image of God is thought to be some peculiarquality of human beings—for example, rationality, speech, moralsense, personality, humans as relational beings.

Everycentury has its own view of what is the essence of humanity. However,nothing in the passage allows a choice among such alternatives. Thepoint of the passage is simply the fact of the likeness, with noexact definition being provided. The fact of the image is the basisof the divine prohibition of murder and of the strict penalty appliedto the transgressor (9:4–6). The fall into sin affected everyaspect of the human constitution, and the Bible does not minimize thefact of human sinfulness (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10–18);nevertheless, humans are still in the image of God (Gen. 5:1–3;9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7). God’s plan of salvation is aimed atridding creation (and especially humanity) of the baneful effects ofsin, and this will be achieved through the work of Christ, who is theimage of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15–20; Heb. 1:1–3;2:5–18). The outcome will be the conformity of believers inChrist to his glorious image (Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 3.18).

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

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

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

TheNature of Humankind

Body,soul, and spirit.Arguments over whether human nature is bipartite (body and soul) ortripartite (body, soul, spirit) are not to be decided by arbitraryappeal to isolated verses. Verses can be found in apparent supportfor both the first view (e.g., Matt. 10:28) and the second (e.g.,1 Thess. 5:23), but certainly the first scheme is much moreprevalent in the Bible. “Soul” and “spirit”can be used interchangeably (Eccles. 3:21; 12:7; Ezek. 18:31). Deathis marked by the parting of soul/spirit and body, but it would be amistake to think that human beings are made up of separate componentparts, or that the physical body is only a dispensable shell and notessential to true humanity. The physicality of human existence in the“body” is owned and celebrated in Scripture, part of thatbeing the positive attitude to sexuality when properly expressed(Song of Songs; 1 Cor. 7) and the nonascetic nature of biblicalethics (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 2:23). The doctrine of theresurrection of the body is the fullest expression of this (1 Cor.15), in contrast to ancient Greek thought that viewed the body asinherently evil and understood salvation as the immortality of theliberated, disembodied soul.

Thedifferent words used in relation to persons are only intended torefer to and at times focus on different aspects of unified humannature. References to the “soul” may stress individualresponsibility (e.g., Ezek. 18:4 NASB: “The soul who sins willdie”). In Ps. 103:1–2, “O my soul” expressesemphatic self-encouragement to praise God and is in parallel with“all my inmost being”—that is, “my wholebeing” (an example of synecdoche: a part standing for the whole[cf. Ps. 35:10]). These are ways of referring to oneself as a personwho expresses will and intention (cf. Ps. 42:5–6, 11). The“flesh” is used to stress the weakness of mortal humanity(e.g., Isa. 40:6 RSV: “All flesh is grass”). The “heart”is the volitional center of a human being (Prov. 4:23; cf. Mark7:17–23). The emotional and empathetic reactions of humans aredescribed by reference to the organs: “liver,” “kidneys,”“bowels.”

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

Themoral responsibility of humanity is signaled from the beginning.God’s command gives permission for the man to eat from “anytree” except one (Gen. 2:16–17) and as such indicatesman’s freedom, so that this command is no great restriction.The wording “you are free to eat” reinforces the pointabout God’s generous provision. The prohibition is embedded inthe description of God’s fatherly care for the man and graciousact in placing him in the garden. The divine restriction is slightand not at all overbearing, though the serpent will seek to make itappear mean-spirited (3:1). The command and prohibition are the veryfirst words of God to the man, marking them out as of fundamentalimportance for the relationship between them. The prohibition (“youmust not eat . . .”) is an absolute one in thestyle of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21).What is placed before the man is a test that gives him theopportunity to express his loyalty to God. A relationship ofobedience and trust requires the possibility of choice and theopportunity to disobey (if that is what he wants to do). The moralnature and responsibility of individuals is not a late discovery bythe prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 18); rather, it is the presuppositionbehind the Mosaic law, for the commands of the Decalogue (“youshall not . . .”) are phrased as commands toindividuals (as the Hebrew makes clear). On the other hand, theconcept of corporate responsibility is also present (e.g., Achan’spunishment in Josh. 7).

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

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

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

DivineIntervention

Theword “sign” usually refers to an event that cannot beplausibly explained by natural or human causes but is consistent withintervention by God or by some other divine power. An importantexample of this occurs in the book of Exodus. In Exodus, Mosespredicts each kind of plague that will occur and the time of itsoccurrence. Many of those plagues, such as the plague of locusts(Exod. 10:14–15), are events that could occur naturally.However, the merely natural occurrence of so many plagues in such ashort time is quite improbable. It is likewise improbable that Mosescould simply guess beforehand the type and timing of all theseplagues.

Ultimately,a merely natural explanation for these plagues does not provecredible to the Egyptians. However, the plagues are consistent withacts of divine intervention, provided one does not rule out thatpossibility beforehand. They are consistent because Moses gives aplausible explanation of why God would intervene at this time, eventhough God had not intervened within living memory. All theseevidences together are considered sufficient to infer that some godhas caused the signs. The signs are portrayed as objectively knownevents. When Pharaoh refuses to admit that Moses can bring plagues,Pharaoh’s own officials say that he should know better (Exod.10:7). The officials believe in the reality of the signs even thoughthey do not follow the faith or God of Moses.

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

Miraclesand Faith

Miraculoussigns often are given to validate a prophet and his message. Signsare especially frequent when that prophetic message is a covenantfrom God that has life-or-death consequences. Both the Mosaiccovenant (Deut. 30:15–20) and the new covenant of Jesus (Luke22:15–20; John 5:24–29) warn of life and death. In theOT, signs occur most prolifically at the hands of Moses. The signsmanifested on behalf of Moses are explicitly given so that peoplewill believe in Moses and follow God’s covenant (Exod. 4:1–9;19:9).

Signsoccur even more frequently and prominently in the NT. Jesus makes thelame walk, heals the blind, and even raises the dead (John 5:1–9;9:1–7; 11:1–44). Throughout the Gospels, Jesus ischaracterized as performing many signs, and the signs are cited asone reason to believe in Jesus (John 20:30–31). The signs arecharacteristic of Jesus’ ministry and later of his apostles’ministries. The tradition that Jesus performed signs is interwoventhroughout the four Gospels as we have them, even in portions oftenthought to reflect earlier sources. The most important sign in the NTis the resurrection of Jesus, since this is the ultimate validationof Jesus by God, and the Christian faith hangs upon the truth ofJesus’ resurrection (1Cor. 15:1–20).

Althoughsigns are given to elicit faith, human nature and desires are suchthat reasonable belief does not always take root. As with Pharaoh,many others throughout the OT do not believe despite seeing signs(e.g., Num. 14:11; Ps. 78:11). In the Gospels, many will not believeany reports about miraculous signs. They instead demand to see signspersonally (Mark 8:11–12; John 4:48; 6:30; 9:27–41;20:29) or attribute them to Satan. The Passover signs were to beremembered and credited by later generations (Exod. 12:26–27).Similarly, the signs performed by Jesus were intended by theevangelists to be credited by readers who had not seen them (John20:29–31). Belief is not expected without inquiry (John4:39–42; Acts 17:11); however, unbelief in the face of evidenceis seen as a human failing (John 11:37–40).

Death is commonly defined as the end of physical life,wherein the normal biological processes associated with life (such asrespiration) cease. This definition, however, does not adequatelyencompass the varied nuances associated with death in the Bible.

TheBeginning of Death

Deathis introduced in the Bible as the penalty for transgressing theprohibition against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of goodand evil—a contrast to Mesopotamia, where death was part of thedivine design of human beings. In Gen. 2:16–17 God tells thefirst man, “When you eat from [the fruit of the tree] you willcertainly die.” The consequences of eating provide a usefulbasis for discussing the nature of death from a biblical perspective.

First,as is apparent from the subsequent narrative, neither the man nor thewoman experiences physical, biological death immediately after eatingthe fruit. In this way, Gen. 2–3 reflects the common biblicalnotion that death refers to more than just biological death, pointingto the more significant aspect of death that embodies alienation andseparation from the source of life, God. The point is presupposed byJesus when he offers life to those who are dead (John 5:24), and byPaul when he proclaims that before Christ all were dead in their sinsand transgressions (Eph. 2:1, 5). It is also reflected in the commonpunishment prescribed in the Pentateuch whereby offenders were cutoff from the people (Gen. 17:14; Exod. 12:15, 19; 30:38; cf. Gen.9:11; Exod. 9:15). Within Gen. 2–3, death arrives with loss ofaccess to the tree of life in the garden. Biologically, the first manand woman may continue to live for a while outside the garden, buttheir fate is sealed when they are cut off from the garden and theintimate fellowship with the Creator that had been enjoyed therein.

Second,the strong implication of Gen. 2:16–17 is that human beings, asoriginally created, were not subject to death (see also Rom. 5:12;6:23; 1Cor. 15:21). This does not mean that they were immortalin the same manner as God (cf. 1Tim. 6:16), but rather thatthey were contingently immortal: they were not subject to death butsustained by their relationship to the life-giving God through theprovision of the tree of life (cf. Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14). Once theywere cut off from the source of life, death ensued.

Theaccount of the arrival of death in Gen. 3, however, tells us littleabout how death affected animals, since the Bible consistentlypresents a predominantly human focus. While Eccles. 3:21 affirmshuman ignorance over the relative postmortem fate of humans andanimals, little else is said on the matter. Similarly, it is notentirely clear whether death is introduced as a punishment for sinfor humans only (and so whether animals could have died prior to thefall) or whether animals were perceived as sharing in immortalityprior to the fall.

Deathin the Old Testament

Deathis frequently depicted negatively throughout the OT. Aside from itsinitial presentation as a divine punishment for sin, it is presentedas that which seeks out and devours life and is terrifying (Pss.18:4–5; 55:4; Prov. 30:15–16; Hab. 2:5). For the authorof Ecclesiastes, death is that which ultimately undermines anypossible value that life may otherwise have (e.g., Eccles. 9:3). Thetragedy of death, in the OT, is that it results in separation, fromGod (as noted above in the context of Gen. 2–3) and frompeople. The psalms, for example, frequently cite the finality andprofundity of death’s effects (e.g., Pss. 6:5; 88:5; 115:17;cf. Isa. 38:18). Even those few passages that appear to present deathmore positively (e.g., Job 3:13, 17) ultimately serve to highlightthe appalling circ*mstances of the speaker’s life rather thanany blessed state of the dead (for a similar idea in the NT, seeRev.9:6).

TheOT does, however, depict death as the natural end of life, and a gooddeath as one that arrives only after a long and prosperous life. SoAbraham (Gen. 25:8), Isaac (Gen. 35:29), and Job (Job 42:16–17)are said to live long lives before they die. Furthermore, somepassages refer to the person being “gathered to his people,”suggesting some form of reunion with previous generations in death,presumably in Sheol, although the location and state of the dead arenever explicated. Isaiah can even include the idea of death withinlanguage used to describe the ideal future world (Isa. 65:20).

Althoughthere are no laws relating to the manner in which the bodies of thedead were to be handled, all the descriptive indicators show thatburial was normative, often in a family tomb or plot (e.g., Gen. 23;cf. 1Kings 13:22). Indeed, the importance of an appropriateburial is apparent in Ecclesiastes’ comment that a stillbornchild is better off than someone who lives a long life but receivesno burial (Eccles. 6:3) and in the prophets’ presentation ofthose not buried as being accursed (Jer. 8:2; 14:16;16:4).

Lifeafter Death in the Old Testament

Beliefin some form of postmortem existence was common in many parts of theancient world. In Egypt, an elaborate set of beliefs relating to thestate of those who had died included the possibility of an ongoingexistence that could even surpass what one may have experiencedbefore death (although such an opportunity was a reasonableexpectation only for the upper classes, while the general populationprobably had more modest expectations of the nature of theirexistence in the afterlife). By way of contrast, Mesopotamian beliefsdepicted a far darker and more troubling afterlife for all but thevery few whose lives and deaths were sufficiently blessed to ensurethem some degree of postmortem comfort. For the remainder, there waslittle hope for any positive experience following death.

TheOT, however, has little to say about the state of those who havedied. The widespread belief in some form of continued existencebeyond biological death in the ancient world suggests that, in theabsence of contrary data in the Bible, the people of Israel probablyassumed that some aspect of a person persisted beyond death.Furthermore, there are hints that this may have been the case, suchas the raising of Samuel’s shade by the medium at Endor (1Sam.28), the escape from death of Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2Kings2:11), the revivification of the body dropped on Elisha’s bones(2Kings 13:21), and expressions used to refer to death such as“gathered to his people” (Gen. 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29;Num. 27:13; Deut. 32:50; cf. Gen. 47:30; Deut. 31:16). The dead(sometimes referred to by the term repa’im, “shades/spiritsof the dead”) were thought to dwell in Sheol, generallydescribed as under the earth (e.g., Ezek. 31:14). Beyond this, thereare prophetic expectations that God will ultimately destroy death(e.g., Isa. 25:8), and that God does not take pleasure in anyone’sdeath (Ezek. 18:23, 32).

Deathin the New Testament

TheNT continues, and in some places expands upon, the negative view ofdeath presented in the OT. The notion that death is a consequence ofand punishment for the sinful state that imprisons all humanity isstated emphatically (e.g., Rom. 3:23; 6:23) and reinforced by thenotion that, although biologically alive, sinful humans are dead intheir sin and so incapable of reviving themselves (Eph. 2:1). Death,according to Paul, is the last enemy (1Cor. 15:26), and yet todie is gain (Phil. 1:21–24) because it heralds being withChrist, which, explains Paul, “is better by far” thanbeing alive in this body in this world.

Centralto both the message of the Bible and to the significance of death inthe Bible is the death of the Messiah, God’s Son. Jesus’death provides the basis for countering the consequences of theoriginal rebellion against God by the first couple (2Cor.5:21). Consequently, Paul could write that Jesus’ death itselfdestroyed death (2Tim. 1:10). Furthermore, the life that Jesusoffers—eternal life—is available to the believer in thepresent (John 3:36; 5:24), prior to the time when death is ultimatelyabolished, such that Jesus could assert that all those who believe inhim will live even though they die (John 11:25–26).

TheNT expands somewhat on the details relating to the state of the deadfrom the OT. For one thing, the existence of an afterlife is clearlypresented. Furthermore, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke16:19–31) reflects a more comprehensive understanding of theexistence of distinctions among those who have died, such that therich man is said to be suffering in Hades (Gk. hadēs, used inthe LXX to translate Heb. she’ol in the OT), while Lazarus isfar off with Abraham and being comforted. Although there is a dangerin reading too much into a parable, the detail appears to reflectsomething of the expanded understanding of the afterlife among somein Jesus’ day.

TheNT makes several references to a “second death” (Rev.2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8; cf. Jude 12). The expression refers to thestate of eternal judgment under God’s wrath, a death from whichthere will be no escape. But those who remain faithful to Christ willnot experience this second death (Rev. 20:6), and in their dwellingplace with God, the new Jerusalem, death will be no more (21:4).

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

TheOrigin of Humankind

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

Createdin the image of God.Whenit came to the making of human beings, God deliberated over thiscrucial step (Gen. 1:26). The plural of exhortation in “Let usmake man in our image” signals that the decision to makehumankind was the most important one that God had made so far.Genesis 1 says that human beings are like God in some way.

Variousopinions have been canvassed as to what the “image” is.We cannot totally exclude the physical form of humans, given God’shumanoid form in OT appearances (theophanies; e.g., Isa. 6:1; Ezek.1:26; Amos 9:1). The image has sometimes been interpreted as a task,the exercising of dominion (Gen. 1:28), with humanity appointed ascreation’s king, ruling under God. But the image is betterunderstood as the precondition for rule rather than rule itself. Theimage shows human worth (Gen. 9:6) and differentiates humans from allother creatures. It is proper for the Bible to use anthropomorphiclanguage for God, for humans are remarkably like God. Both male andfemale are in the image of God (“in the image of God he createdthem; male and female he created them” [1:27]), so that thedivine image is not maleness, nor is sexual differentiation theimage. Commonly, the image of God is thought to be some peculiarquality of human beings—for example, rationality, speech, moralsense, personality, humans as relational beings.

Everycentury has its own view of what is the essence of humanity. However,nothing in the passage allows a choice among such alternatives. Thepoint of the passage is simply the fact of the likeness, with noexact definition being provided. The fact of the image is the basisof the divine prohibition of murder and of the strict penalty appliedto the transgressor (9:4–6). The fall into sin affected everyaspect of the human constitution, and the Bible does not minimize thefact of human sinfulness (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10–18);nevertheless, humans are still in the image of God (Gen. 5:1–3;9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7). God’s plan of salvation is aimed atridding creation (and especially humanity) of the baneful effects ofsin, and this will be achieved through the work of Christ, who is theimage of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15–20; Heb. 1:1–3;2:5–18). The outcome will be the conformity of believers inChrist to his glorious image (Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 3.18).

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

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

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

TheNature of Humankind

Body,soul, and spirit.Arguments over whether human nature is bipartite (body and soul) ortripartite (body, soul, spirit) are not to be decided by arbitraryappeal to isolated verses. Verses can be found in apparent supportfor both the first view (e.g., Matt. 10:28) and the second (e.g.,1 Thess. 5:23), but certainly the first scheme is much moreprevalent in the Bible. “Soul” and “spirit”can be used interchangeably (Eccles. 3:21; 12:7; Ezek. 18:31). Deathis marked by the parting of soul/spirit and body, but it would be amistake to think that human beings are made up of separate componentparts, or that the physical body is only a dispensable shell and notessential to true humanity. The physicality of human existence in the“body” is owned and celebrated in Scripture, part of thatbeing the positive attitude to sexuality when properly expressed(Song of Songs; 1 Cor. 7) and the nonascetic nature of biblicalethics (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 2:23). The doctrine of theresurrection of the body is the fullest expression of this (1 Cor.15), in contrast to ancient Greek thought that viewed the body asinherently evil and understood salvation as the immortality of theliberated, disembodied soul.

Thedifferent words used in relation to persons are only intended torefer to and at times focus on different aspects of unified humannature. References to the “soul” may stress individualresponsibility (e.g., Ezek. 18:4 NASB: “The soul who sins willdie”). In Ps. 103:1–2, “O my soul” expressesemphatic self-encouragement to praise God and is in parallel with“all my inmost being”—that is, “my wholebeing” (an example of synecdoche: a part standing for the whole[cf. Ps. 35:10]). These are ways of referring to oneself as a personwho expresses will and intention (cf. Ps. 42:5–6, 11). The“flesh” is used to stress the weakness of mortal humanity(e.g., Isa. 40:6 RSV: “All flesh is grass”). The “heart”is the volitional center of a human being (Prov. 4:23; cf. Mark7:17–23). The emotional and empathetic reactions of humans aredescribed by reference to the organs: “liver,” “kidneys,”“bowels.”

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

Themoral responsibility of humanity is signaled from the beginning.God’s command gives permission for the man to eat from “anytree” except one (Gen. 2:16–17) and as such indicatesman’s freedom, so that this command is no great restriction.The wording “you are free to eat” reinforces the pointabout God’s generous provision. The prohibition is embedded inthe description of God’s fatherly care for the man and graciousact in placing him in the garden. The divine restriction is slightand not at all overbearing, though the serpent will seek to make itappear mean-spirited (3:1). The command and prohibition are the veryfirst words of God to the man, marking them out as of fundamentalimportance for the relationship between them. The prohibition (“youmust not eat . . .”) is an absolute one in thestyle of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21).What is placed before the man is a test that gives him theopportunity to express his loyalty to God. A relationship ofobedience and trust requires the possibility of choice and theopportunity to disobey (if that is what he wants to do). The moralnature and responsibility of individuals is not a late discovery bythe prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 18); rather, it is the presuppositionbehind the Mosaic law, for the commands of the Decalogue (“youshall not . . .”) are phrased as commands toindividuals (as the Hebrew makes clear). On the other hand, theconcept of corporate responsibility is also present (e.g., Achan’spunishment in Josh. 7).

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

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.

Bible formation and canon development are best understood inlight of historical events and theological principles. In thehistorical-theological process we learn what God did and how heengaged a variety of people to produce Scripture as the word of God.The Bible is the written revelation of the triune God, who madehimself known to his creation. The divine actions of God to revealhimself resulted in a written text recognized to be authoritative andthus copied and preserved for future generations. The process ofrecognizing and collecting authoritative books of the Scripturesoccurred over time and involved consensus.

BibleFormation

Revelation.Theprocess of Bible formation begins with God revealing. The act ofrevelation involved God communicating truth to the human writers in aprogressive and unified manner. Inspiration is the act of God theHoly Spirit, who superintended the biblical authors so that theycomposed the books of Scripture exactly as he intended. God used thebiblical writers, their personalities and their writing styles, in amanner that kept them from error in composing the original writtenproduct, the Scriptures. The resulting books of the Bible constituteGod’s permanent special revelation to humankind.

BothTestaments affirm the work of revelation along with the formation ofa body of divine writings. The OT is dominated by the phrase “thussays the Lord” and similar expressions (cf. Gen. 9:8; Josh.24:27; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:7 and contrast Ps. 135:15–19). Everypart of the OT is viewed as the word of God (Rom. 3:2). This isconfirmed by Jesus’ attitude toward the Scriptures (Matt.19:4–5; 21:42; 22:29; cf. Luke 11:50–51; 24:44).

FourNT passages help us understand the work of inspiration. A factualstatement regarding the extent and nature of inspiration is made in2 Tim. 3:16. According to 2 Pet. 1:19–20, the HolySpirit purposefully carried persons along to produce the propheticword, and 1 Cor. 2:10–13 supports the choice of the wordsin the work of composing the inspired product. Finally, Petercomments that Paul was given wisdom to produce inspired literarydocuments in the canon of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:14–18).

Authority.Books formed and authored by God in this manner are authoritative.Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliablycomposed in the originals, it is binding upon people in theirrelationship with God and other people. Biblical authority derivesfrom God’s eternal character and the content of his wordpreserved in Scripture. The inscripturated word of God isauthoritative and requires obedience.

Theauthority of God’s word is affirmed and illustrated in thecreation and fall narratives. In the fall, Adam and Eve rebelledagainst God’s command (Gen. 3:3–4) and were expelled fromthe garden. In subsequent periods of biblical history, God’sspoken and written word continued to be the basis for belief andconduct. God summarized his will in the Ten Commandments (Exod.20:1-17; Deut. 5:6–21) and held his people accountable to it(Deut. 6:2; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 17:5–23). The authoritativeword embraced by faith protects the believer from sin (Ps. 119:11).The fool is the person who rejects God’s authority (Pss. 14:1;53:1). The apostle Paul acknowledged the authority of the gospel forhis own life and ministry (Gal. 1:6–9). God the Holy Spiritimpresses upon the believer the authority of the Bible as thereliable rule for faith and practice (John 6:63).

Godmade provision for a reliable and trustworthy preservation of hisauthoritative word in the multiplicity of extant manuscripts. Godcommanded that his revealed word be copied (Deut. 17:8–18;24:8; 31:9, 25–26; 33:8–10) for administrative andpersonal purposes (Deut. 6:6; Josh. 1:8; 23:6; Prov. 3:3; 7:3).Through this process of multiplication the word of God was preserved(Ps. 119:152, 160; Isa. 40:8; cf. Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35;1 Pet. 1:22–25).

Canonization

Canonizationis the next critical step in the development of the Bible. The word“canon” (Gk. kanōn) refers to a standard, norm, orrule (Gal. 6:16; cf. Ezek. 42:16), and when applied to the Bible, itdesignates the collection of books revealed by God, divinelyinspired, and recognized by the people of God as the authoritativenorm for faith and practice. The presupposition of canonicity is thatGod spoke to his human creatures and his word was accuratelyrecorded. Since inspiration determines canonicity, the books composedby human beings under the direction of the Holy Spirit functionedauthoritatively at the time of writing. The people of God thenrecognized and collected the books that they discerned to be inspiredand authoritative (1 Thess. 2:10–16; 2 Pet. 3:15).

Thecanonical process.The challenge associated with canon and Bible formation is that theScriptures do not reveal a detailed historical process forrecognizing and collecting inspired works. An understanding of thisprocess is derived from the testimony of Jesus, biblical principles,and historical precedents.

Canonicalidentification is associated with the witness of the Holy Spirit, whoworked in connection with the believers to recognize the writtendocuments given by inspiration (1 Thess. 2:13). The Holy Spiritenabled believers to discern a book’s authority and itscompatibility with existing canonical revelation (Isa. 8:20; Acts17:11). Although the question of authorship cannot be positivelysettled for every OT or NT book, believers recognized the prophets asthe OT authors (Deut. 18:14–22) and the apostles as the NTauthors. Canonical books were recognized to bear the power of God andto contain an effective message (2 Tim. 3:15–16; Heb.4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Overtime, the authoritative books of Scripture were collected into a bodyof literature that today forms one book, the Bible. During thisprocess, some believers struggled with the message, content, andambiguous authorship of books such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,and Esther in the OT and Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter in the NT.The pattern of composition and canonical process for the OT providedthe foundation for the composition and development of the NT canon.Therefore, the NT books that came to be recognized as canonical werethose that were composed in connection with an apostle, doctrinallysound, and widely circulated and used by the churches.

Inthe collection task some texts were recognized (hom*ologoumena), somewere disputed (antilegomena), and others were rejected as unorthodox(pseudepigrapha). Historically, there is no evidence for widespreadacceptance of the present-day canon of sixty-six books until thethird century AD.

Structureand content.Overthe centuries, several canonical lists began to emerge, ofteninfluenced by particular theological conclusions. For example, theSamaritan canon, which includes only the first five books of our OT,was compiled by the Samaritans, who were hostile to anything inIsrael or Judea outside Samaria. Today, Christian traditions vary intheir inclusion or omission of the Apocrypha from their Bibles and intheir list of which books are contained in the Apocrypha.

TheBabylonian canon, accepted as standard by Jews, contains all thebooks now recognized as the OT and is divided into three parts: theLaw, the Prophets, and the Writings. This canon is also known as theTanak, an acronym derived from the Hebrew words for “law”(torah), “prophets” (nebi’im), “writings”(ketubim). This canonical list traditionally includes twenty-fourbooks (the twelve Minor Prophets are considered to be one book, asare 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, andEzra-Nehemiah). The twenty-four books of this canonical list are thesame as the thirty-nine OT books in current English Bible editions.The law or instruction section includes the first five books of Moses(Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets section is divided intothe Former and Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets are thehistorical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The LatterProphets include both the Major and the Minor Prophets. The Writingssection contains both poetic and wisdom material, along with somehistorical material.

Historicalreferences to this canonical format are found in extrabiblicalsources as early as the second century BC. The grandson of Jesus BenSira referenced a threefold canon in the prologue of the apocryphalbook Sirach (c. 190 BC); Josephus referenced it in Against Apion (AD37–95). Jesus acknowledged the threefold division in Luke 24:44(cf. Matt. 23:34). Among Christian sources, this division ispreserved in the oldest extant list of OT books, associated withBishop Melito of Sardis (AD 170). Tertullian, an early Latin churchfather (AD 160–250), Origen (AD 254), Hilary of Poitiers (AD305–366), and Jerome (AD 340–420) affirmed an OT canon oftwenty-two or twenty-four books. Most current English versions followa fourfold structure of law, history, poetry, and prophets.

Thetwenty-seven books of the NT are attested in lists associated withchurches in the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean world.Two such witnesses are the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius(AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). The canonical listassociated with Marcion and the Muratorian list represent fragmentarylists from the early part of the second century AD. In terms ofusage, a majority of church fathers recognized and used thetwenty-seven NT books in our canon. See also Apocrypha, NewTestament; Apocrypha, Old Testament.

The blessings and curses of Scripture are grounded in aworldview that understands the sovereign God to be the ultimatedispenser of each. Blessings and curses are not the outcomes ofmagicians who attempt to manipulate the gods for personal gain orretribution. Rather, God is the giver of blessing and ultimately thefinal judge who determines withdrawal or ban. He is the source ofevery good gift (James 1:17) and the one who gives power and strengthto prosper (Deut. 8:17).

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

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

Inthe NT, the Greek term eulogeō and its cognates are bestunderstood in terms of the impartation of favor, power, and benefits.The makarios word group describes a state or status of beingfortunate, happy, or privileged.

TheOT curse vocabulary includes the ideas of disgracing, makingcontemptible, and imprecation. The NT curse terminology comprises theideas of curse, slander, or consecrated to destruction.

OldTestament.Thesovereign God sometimes employs agents of blessing in his creation.The blessing extends to the nations through Abraham (Gen. 12:3), toJacob through Isaac (Gen. 26–27), and to the people through thepriests (Num. 6:24–26).

Thetheme of blessing/curse is used to structure Deut. 27–28 andLev. 26 (cf. Josh. 8:34) in the overall covenant format of thesebooks. Scholars have observed that the object of this format is notsymmetry or logical unity but fullness. From this perspective, theblessing/curse structure functions to enforce obedience for thepurpose of ensuring a relationship. The blessing of Deuteronomy alsoincludes the benefits of prosperity, power, and fertility. The curse,on the other hand, is the lack or withdrawal of benefits associatedwith the relationship.

Thecreation narratives are marked with the theme and terminology ofblessing (Gen. 1:22, 28; 2:3; cf. 5:2; 9:1). The objects of blessingin Gen. 1:22, 28 (cf. 5:2; 9:1) are the living creatures and humanbeings created in the image of God. As the revelation progresses, theblessing of God is particularized in the lives of Noah (Gen. 6–8),Abraham (Gen. 12–25) and his descendants, and the nation ofIsrael and its leadership (Gen. 26–50). In these contexts, theblessing is intended to engender offspring and to prosper recipientsin material and physical ways (compare a similar NT emphasis in Acts17:25; cf. Matt. 5:45; 6:25–33; Acts 14:17).

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

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

NewTestament.Inthe NT, blessings are not exclusively spiritual. God gives both foodand joy (Acts 14:17) and provides the necessities of life (Matt.6:25–33). The NT does connect blessing with Christ, and itfocuses attention on the spiritual quality of the gift thatoriginates from Christ himself and its intended benefit for spiritualindividuals.

Regardingcurse, the NT explains that Christ bore the curse of the law to freeus from its deadening effect (Gal. 3:10–13). Revelation 22:3anticipates a time when the curse associated with sin will becompletely removed and the blessing associated with creation willprevail.

The book of Exodus (the second book of the OT and of thePentateuch) continues the story begun in Gen. 12 of the election ofAbraham as God’s choice for the beginning of a new people.Abraham’s great-grandson Joseph was taken to Egypt as a slavebut rose to power there. Eventually, his father, Jacob, along withhis brothers and their families, made the trek to Egypt and settledthere. Both Jacob and Joseph died in Egypt, and it is here that thebook of Exodus picks up. In Egypt the Israelites at first found asafe haven, only to be enslaved later by a “new king”(Exod. 1:8). The book of Exodus tells the story of the Israelites’struggles in Egypt, their deliverance through Moses (perhaps thecentral human figure in the OT), their trek to Mount Sinai, and theircontinued movement to Canaan, the promised land.

Authorship,Date, and Historical Issues

Authorshipand date.The authorship of Exodus must be considered together with the largerissue of the authorship of the Pentateuch (see Pentateuch). This isone of the more central issues in the history of modern OTscholarship. Generally, Moses was considered the sole or essentialauthor throughout much of the history of Jewish and Christianinterpretation. This is not to say that careful readers of thePentateuch did not raise thoughtful questions concerning passagesthat were problematic for Mosaic authorship. For example, thefifth-century translator Jerome raised the question of whether Mosescould have recorded the story of his own death (Deut. 34). Seriousquestions concerning Mosaic authorship, however, did not become thedominant trend among scholars until the seventeenth century. Thepresence of numerous post-Mosaic elements as well as repetition insome key stories (e.g., the two creation stories in Gen. 1–2and the repetition in the flood narrative in Gen. 6–9)suggested that the authorship question might be more complicated thantraditionally understood. Some of these earlier discussions were notnecessarily hostile to divine inspiration or to the notion of “basic”or “essential” Mosaic authorship. Nevertheless, thescholarly debates were synthesized in the latter half of thenineteenth century by Julius Wellhausen and his well-knownDocumentary Hypothesis. His theory presented considerable challengesto traditional views of pentateuchal authorship, and the DocumentaryHypothesis soon became widely accepted throughout the scholarlyworld.

Wellhausen’sviews have undergone continual revision and refinement, as well asessential rejection. In contemporary academic dialogue, it is fair tosay that precisely who wrote the Pentateuch that we have and when itwas finalized remain open questions. A commonly accepted position,also among evangelicals, is that the Pentateuch we have today (i.e.,its final form) is not the work of someone living in the middle ofthe second millennium BC (the traditional date for the life ofMoses). The question is not of Moses’ genius and specialpreparation for the task before him, or of his having received thelaw on Mount Sinai and having recorded certain events; rather, thequestion specifically concerns the historical period in which thePentateuch as we know it came to be. And with respect to thisspecific question, contemporary biblical scholars commonly attributethe final form of the Pentateuch to later scribes (in the exilic andpostexilic eras), using older material, both written and oral, atleast some of it going back to Moses himself. Hence, terms such as“essential Mosaic authorship,” although not preciselydefined, have become common designations. References to thePentateuch as the “Law of Moses” or similar phrases donot function as authorial statements in the modern sense of the word(i.e., refer to the one sitting down and doing the writing), butrather reflect the close association between the text and the eventsthat lie behind it. We are perhaps not unwise to allow the questionof the human authorship of the Pentateuch to remain open while alsoconfessing that God is free to bring his word into existence in anyway he sees fit.

Historicity.One reason why Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has been such afocal point, however, concerns the question of the historicity ofExodus and of the Pentateuch in general. If Moses is not the authorin the usual sense of the word, and if the Pentateuch as we know itwas written by hands much removed from the events themselves, how canwe be assured of its historical reliability? This is a fair question,although it assumes that eyewitnesses (or near eyewitnesses) wouldbetter guarantee historical accuracy than those more removed from theevents. But one could just as easily argue that having somehistorical distance could make one more perceptive about thesignificance of past events. More important, however, such a viewcould appear to be limiting God’s ability to allow thePentateuch to develop through a historical process over a certainlength of time. Since God is the ultimate author, non-Mosaicauthorship does not imply an inability to produce a historicallyreliable text.

Withrespect to Exodus specifically, more serious questions concerninghistoricity have come from archaeological evidence—or better,lack of evidence. First, there are two reigning possibilities for thedate of the exodus. The traditional date is around 1446/1447 BC andis based essentially on a literal reading of 1Kings 6:1, whichputs the exodus 480 years before the fourth year of Solomon’sreign, around 966/967 BC. The alternate date is around 1270/1260 BCand is based on a symbolic reading of 1Kings 6:1 and indirectarchaeological evidence concerning “Pithom and Rameses”(Exod. 1:11) and some conquest sites. Concerning the latter, there isevidence for the destruction of some Canaanite towns, beginningaround 1230–1220 BC, which, according to the biblical record,were destroyed right after Israel’s entrance into Canaan.Hence, if the evidence for the destruction of these towns points toabout 1230–1220 BC, a rough date of 1270/1260 BC for the exodusaccounts for the intervening forty years of wilderness wandering.

However,biblical archaeologists have persistently maintained that there is nopositive archaeological evidence for the existence of Israeliteslaves in Egypt during the time when the exodus would have takenplace. This absence of evidence has been understood in very differentways by people of different camps. For some, the absence of any sortof Israelite material remains in Egypt, not to mention the lack ofany written Egyptian record of Israelite presence, is a fairly clearindication that such events never took place; modern scholarship isreplete with theories to account for the biblical record, fromcomplete fabrication to later legendizing of sparse, ancient records.Others consider the absence of written evidence to indicate Egyptianembarrassment at having been bested by a group of slaves (why wouldthey want to keep a record of that?). The absence of evidence ofspecifically Israelite material culture in Egypt is attributed eitherto Israelite assimilation into Egyptian culture or to similaritieswith other Semitic peoples in Egypt during the second millenniumBC.

Althoughthe question of the historicity of the exodus is very much an opensubject, recent work, particularly by evangelical scholars, has begunmounting arguments for the presence of Semitic peoples insecond-millennium Egypt and therefore for the historical plausibilityof Israelite presence, enslavement, and release from Egyptiancaptivity. From a scholarly point of view, this issue will not besettled in the near future, and much of the debate includes questionsof a more philosophical nature, such as “What does it mean to‘record’ history?” “What did it mean torecord history in the ancient world as opposed to our modern world?”“What type of historical account should we expect from ancientIsraelites?” These and other similar questions broaden thediscussion considerably and ensure that it will be ongoing.

Outline

Inits simplest outline, Exodus may be roughly divided into two parts,which highlight the Israelites’ departure from Egypt and theirsojourn at the foot of Mount Sinai:

I.Departure from Egypt (1–15)

II.Journey to and Arrival at Mount Sinai (16–40)

Asubdivision of sectionII can easily be justified, since twobasic events at Mount Sinai are recounted in chapters 16–40,the giving of the law and the building of the tabernacle:

I.Departure from Egypt (1–15)

II.Mount Sinai: Law (16–24)

III.Mount Sinai: Tabernacle (25–40)

‘

Thisthree-point outline gives the broad contours of Exodus, but a bitmore detail will perhaps provide a more useful presentation of thebook’s contents:

I.Departure from Egypt (1–15)

A.Prelude and call of Moses (1–6)

B.Plagues (7–12)

C.Departure (13–15)

II.Mount Sinai: Law (16–24)

A.Journey to Sinai (16–18)

B.Ten Commandments (19–20)

C.The Book of the Covenant (21–24)

III.Mount Sinai: Tabernacle (25–40)

A.Instructions for the tabernacle (25–31)

B.Rebellion and forgiveness (32–34)

C.Building the tabernacle (35–40)

Whatis immediately striking, even through such a sparse outline, is howmuch space is devoted to the events on Mount Sinai. Exodus is muchmore than a record of historical events, as one might find in amodern textbook of American history. It is, rather, a profoundtheological statement, both in its own right as well as part of thePentateuch as a whole, whose focus is not simply on the Israelites’release from Egypt but also on their arrival at Mount Sinai. Thestructure of the book, in other words, leads us to understandsomething of the book’s theology.

Theology

Creation.Already in the first chapter we see connections to Genesis, whichtell us that we cannot read Exodus in isolation. For example, Exod.1:1 closely parallels Gen. 46:8. The latter speaks of the Israelitesgoing down into Egypt, and the former picks up on this theme, thusreminding us that Israel’s presence in Egypt was not anaccident and that Exodus is a continuation of the story begun inGenesis. Likewise, the use of creation language in Exod. 1:7 (theIsraelites were fruitful, multiplying, becoming numerous, filling theearth; compare to Gen. 1:21, 28; 8:17; 9:1) signals that Israel’simpending drama is somehow connected to creation. That point is madeclearer in the chapters that follow. Perhaps most central is thecrossing of the Red Sea. As in Gen. 1:9, where the dry land appearswhere once there was water, here the dry land (Exod. 14:21) appearsto make a path through the sea.

Thereis, in fact, a fair amount of Exodus that plays on this theologicaltheme of creation and the reversal of creation. In ancient NearEastern conceptions of creation, water represented chaos. The gods’role was to tame the chaos so that the earth could be inhabited.Separating the land from the primordial sea was an important part ofthat, and this is reflected in the biblical account in Gen. 1. Theflood in Gen. 6–9 is a reversal of that creative act, where Godallows the waters of chaos to come crashing down on his creation,thus making it uninhabitable again. Exodus continues this theme, buthere creation is called upon to aid the Israelites in their escape,whereas it is used against the Egyptians. The ten plagues, forexample, are declarations that Israel’s God controls thecosmos, whereas Egypt’s gods stand by helplessly. The plague ofdarkness in particular is a graphic reversal of what God had done inGenesis, the creation of light and the separation of light fromdarkness. Israel’s deliverance from Egypt is, in other words,another act of creation: the same God who brought order to cosmicchaos in Gen. 1 is now unleashing the forces of creation to save hispeople and punish their enemies. And whereas Pharaoh’sEgyptians are able to reproduce the first sign and the first twoplagues, it is only Israel’s God who can end the plagues andrestore order to chaos.

Israelhas been delivered from Egypt for a purpose, and that purpose beginsto become clear in the chapters that follow their departure. Thenewly created people of Israel are not delivered from Egypt so thatthey can be “free” from bondage. The key struggle in theopening chapters of Exodus, indeed, the whole reason for the tenplagues, is to determine to whom Israel belongs, whether to Pharaohor to Yahweh, Israel’s God. The Hebrew word ’abad canmean both “serve” (in the sense of servitude) and“worship.” In a wonderful play on words, the questionbeing asked in the opening chapters is “Whom will Israel ’abad,Pharaoh or Yahweh?” But Yahweh claims his people, not so thatthey can be liberated to go where they please, but rather so thatthey are free to move from serving/worshiping Pharaoh toserving/worshiping Yahweh on Mount Sinai.

Thisis why so much of Exodus concerns the journey to Mount Sinai and whathappens there. Much of the “action” may end by chapter19, but the reason for the action is to get the Israelites to MountSinai so that they can begin their proper life of service to Yahwehand Yahweh alone. And this service involves two things: properbehavior (law) and proper worship (tabernacle). These are the maintopics of the remainder of the book of Exodus. And the fact that somuch text is dedicated to these two topics, which may be ofrelatively little interest to Christian readers, is an indication oftheir central importance to the theology of theOT.

Law.It is important to understand that the law was given to theIsraelites after they had been redeemed from Egypt, not before. Thelaw is a gift to those who have been saved. It is not something to befollowed in order to become saved. Israel is, as we read in Exod.4:22–23, God’s son. This is why Israel was delivered fromEgypt, and this is why Israel was given the gift of the law.

Thepurpose of the law, therefore, was not to prove to God that hispeople were somehow worthy of his covenant with them. The law wasgiven so that Israel would be molded into a new people, one whosehearts were wholly devoted to God and so could be the instrumentthrough which not only Israel but also the nations themselves wouldbe blessed (see Gen. 12:1–3). As Exod. 19:6 puts it, Israel isto become a “kingdom of priests”—that is, the “holynation” that would perform the mediatorial role of blessing thenations. The law, therefore, was not a burden but a delight, a giftfrom God to a redeemed people.

Also,the laws that God gives in Exodus are not necessarily new, as if noone had ever heard of these sorts of things before. Murder andadultery were considered to be wrong long before the Ten Commandmentswere given. Likewise, the laws of Exod. 21–23 (often referredto as the Book of the Covenant) are not new but rather reflect otherancient law codes much older than Israel’s (regardless of whenone dates the exodus). What makes these laws different, however, isthat these are the laws that Yahweh, the true God, gives to hispeople; these are the laws that reflect his character and, if theIsraelites follow them, will ensure that they reflect God’scharacter to one another and the surrounding nations. In other words,the law performs not so much an exclusionary role as a missionalrole. Or perhaps better, the Israelites are being trained to beseparate, and different, from surrounding peoples in order toproperly fulfill their holy, mediating, priestly function.

Tabernacle.The section on the tabernacle begins in chapter 25 and extends to theend of the book, chapter 40. In between is an important episode, therebellion involving the making of the golden calf. Just as the lawrepresents much more than “rules to live by,” thetabernacle is more than just a building for sacrificing animals. Theimportance of the tabernacle can be seen by focusing on some keyelements.

Chapters25–31 provide the list of instructions for the tabernacle. Forcenturies, rabbis and biblical scholars have noticed a pattern inthese chapters. Seven times the phrase is repeated “The Lordsaid to Moses,” and the seventh time is in 31:12 to introducethe topic of Sabbath observance. Just like the creation of the cosmosin Gen. 1, the tabernacle is a product of a six-stage creative act(“And the Lord said”) followed by rest. Some havesuggested that the tabernacle is a microcosm of creation: forexample, cherubim are worked into the curtains, so to look up is tolook at the heavens; the lampstand is a sort of tree of life, as inthe garden of Eden. To be in the tabernacle is to be in touch withcreation as it was meant to be, in the garden apart from the chaos oflife outside.

Chapters35–40 relay how the instructions are carried out. This sectionbegins with reference to the Sabbath (35:1–3), which is how thefirst section ends. In between, we find the episode of the goldencalf (chaps. 32–34), which is about false worship. TheIsraelites nearly succeed in undoing all that God had planned inbringing his people out of Egypt. Still, through Moses’intervention, God’s plan is not thwarted, and so chapter 35does not miss a beat, picking up where chapter 31 leaves off, withthe Sabbath. Some scholars see here a pattern of creation (chaps.25–31), fall (chaps. 32–34), and redemption (chaps.35–40).

Thetabernacle is an important theological entity in Exodus: it is heavenon earth. It is a truly holy space where God communes with his holy(law-keeping) people. This is the ultimate purpose of the exodus: tocreate a people who embody God’s character and who worship himin purity. Then God would be with his people wherever they go(40:36–38).

The book of Genesis (“Origins”) is well namedbecause it provides the foundation for the rest of the Bible andspeaks of the beginnings of the world, humanity, sin, redemption, thepeople of God, covenant, marriage, Sabbath, work, and much more.Genesis is the first chapter of the Pentateuch, a five-part story ofthe origins of the nation of Israel. Genesis is the preamble to thataccount, leading up to the pivotal moment of the exodus and the movetoward the promised land.

Authorship

Asnoted above, Genesis is the opening to the Pentateuch as a whole, sothe question of the authorship of Genesis is connected to thequestion of the authorship of the Pentateuch as a whole. Genesis (andthe entire Pentateuch) is anonymous, though Moses is said to havewritten down certain traditions that were included in the Pentateuch(Exod. 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:22).

Latertradition speaks of the “law of Moses” (Josh. 1:7–8)or the “Book of Moses” (2Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18;Neh. 13:1), though it is not certain whether these refer to theentire Pentateuch or merely to portions of it that were associatedwith Moses. The NT writers, as well as Jesus himself, speak of thePentateuch in connection with Moses (e.g., Matt. 19:7; 22:24; Mark7:10; 12:26; John 1:17; 5:46; 7:23).

Thequestion of Moses’ role in writing the Pentateuch is morecomplicated, however. For instance, there are indications thatGenesis was updated well after the death of Moses. Traditionally,these passages are called “post-Mosaica,” because theycontain information that could be available only after the death ofMoses. For example, Deut. 34 speaks of Moses’ death and burial.Apparently so much time has elapsed since his death that the writercan say, “to this day no one knows where his grave is”(v. 6). The writer then states, “since then, no prophet hasrisen in Israel like Moses” (v. 10), which also presumes aconsiderable length of time has passed. Other examples include Gen.11:31, which refers to Abraham’s hometown as “Ur of theChaldeans.” Although Ur was a very ancient city, the Chaldeanswere an Aramaic-speaking tribe that only occupied Ur long after thetime of Moses. Similarly, in Gen. 14:14 a city by the name of “Dan”is mentioned, but we know from Judg. 18 that this city only receivedthis name during the period of the judges.

Despitethese considerations, some scholars are still comfortable ascribingsome “essential” authorship role to Moses. (For the mainalternative theory for the authorship and date of the writing ofGenesis, see Documentary Hypothesis; Pentateuch.)

Structureand Outline

Genesismay be outlined in more than one way. One method is to follow thetoledot formulas that serve as an organizing structure for the book.The phrase “these are the toledot of X” (where X is thepersonal name of the character whose sons are the subject of thenarrative that follows) is repeated ten times: 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1;11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1 (cf. 36:9); 37:2 (see also 10:32; 25:13).For instance, Gen. 11:27 begins, “These are the toledot ofTerah” (NIV: “This is the account of Terah’s familyline”), while the account that follows is the story of Terah’sson Abraham. Toledot is best translated as “family history”or “account.” Hence, one can take Genesis as having aprologue (1:1–2:3) followed by ten episodes.

Interms of content and style, the book falls into three main units asfollows:

I.The Primeval History (Gen. 1:1–11:26)

II.The Patriarchal Narrative (Gen. 11:27–36:43)

III.The Joseph Story (Gen. 37–50)

I.The primeval history (Gen. 1:1–11:26).The book opens with an account of creation given in two parts.Genesis 1:1–2:4a provides a creation account that describes thesix days in which God created the heavens and the earth, followed bya seventh day of rest. Genesis 2:4b–25 then provides a secondaccount of creation, this time with a focus on the creation of Adamand Eve. Genesis 3 then narrates the first sin of humanity, whichintroduces sin and death into the world. Genesis 4–11 providesfour additional stories (the murder of Abel by Cain, theintermarrying of the “sons of God” with the “daughtersof men,” the flood, and the tower of Babel). These stories showa creation gone wrong, God’s move to start over again with Noahand his family, and the persistence of sin thereafter. All of thisleads to the story of the patriarchs, where God’s plan to setthings right takes a decisive turn. These stories are connected bygenealogies that mark the march of time as well as providesignificant theological commentary.

II.The patriarchal narrative (Gen. 11:27–36:43).The middle section of the book of Genesis turns its attention to thepatriarchs, so called because they are the fathers of the nation ofIsrael. The style of the book changes at this point, so that ratherthan following the story of all the world and moving at a fast pace,the narrative slows down and focuses on God creating a people to obeyhim and to bring those blessings to the whole world (12:1–3).God now determines to restore the blessing lost at Eden by reachingthe world through the descendants of one individual, Abraham.

Abraham’sfather, Terah, took Abram (as Abraham was then known), Abram’swife Sarai (Sarah), and Terah’s grandson Lot and left Ur tosettle in Harran in northern Mesopotamia. No explanation is givenwhy. While they are settled in Harran, God commands Abraham to leaveUr in Mesopotamia and travel to Canaan. God promises that he willmake him a great nation (implying land and many descendants), andthat he will be blessed and will be a blessing to the nations (Gen.12:1–3). That blessing requires Abraham and Sarah to havechildren, and this sets up much of the drama of his story. OftenAbraham reacts in fear and not faith, but at the end of his story hehas a solid confidence in God’s ability to take care of him andbring all the promises to fulfillment (Gen. 22).

Isaac,not Ishmael (Abraham’s son through Sarah’s maidservantHagar; see Gen. 16), is the conduit of the promises to futuregenerations. Even so, Isaac is not a highly developed character inthe book of Genesis, although his near sacrifice in Gen. 22 iscertainly a matter of great interest. The episode in his life thatreceives the lengthiest attention is the courtship with Rebekah (Gen.24), and there the focus is primarily on her.

Theaccount of Isaac’s life gives way to an account of his sonJacob. Jacob is a complex character. The first episodes of his storyare about how he, the younger, inherits the blessing and becomes theconduit for the promise rather than his older brother, Esau. Jacobbecomes an example of how God uses the foolish things of the world toaccomplish his purposes. That the story of the patriarchs is apreamble to the story of the founding of Israel becomes obvious whenJacob’s name is changed to “Israel” after he fightswith God (Gen. 32:22–32) and his wives give birth to twelvesons, who give their names to the twelve tribes of Israel.

III.The Joseph story (Gen. 37–50).The third section of Genesis focuses on the twelve sons of Jacob, inparticular Joseph. A main theme seems to be God’s providentialpreservation of the family of the promise, in the context of adevastating famine. Joseph himself expresses the theme of thissection at the end of the narrative, after his father dies and hisbrothers now wonder whether he will seek revenge against them. Hereassures them by his statement that although they had meant theiractions to harm him, he knows that God has used these very actionsfor good, for the salvation of the family of God (Gen. 50:19–20).Yes, they had just wanted to get rid of him, but God has used theirjealousy to bring Joseph to Egypt. The wife of his owner had wantedto frame him for rape, but God has used this false accusation inorder to have him thrown into jail, where he meets two of Pharaoh’schief advisers. He had demonstrated to them his ability to interpretdreams, so when the chief cupbearer is restored to a position ofinfluence, he can advise Pharaoh himself to turn to Joseph tointerpret his disturbing dreams. These dreams have allowed Pharaoh,with Joseph’s help, to prepare for the famine. Joseph has risento great prominence in Egypt, so when the famine comes, he is in aposition to help his family, and the promise can continue to the nextgenerations.

Amongother secondary, yet important, themes of the Joseph narrative arethe rising prominence of Judah and the lessening significance ofReuben. Judah at first is pictured as self-serving (Gen. 38), but bythe end of the story he is willing to sacrifice himself for the goodof his father and family (Gen. 44:18–34). This story thusdemonstrates why the descendants of Judah have dominance over thedescendants of the firstborn, Reuben, in later Israelite history.Also, the Joseph story recounts how Israel came to Egypt. This setsup the events of the book of Exodus.

Styleand Genre

Style.Genesis is written in Hebrew prose of a high literary style. Wordsare carefully chosen not only to communicate the message of the bookbut also to attract the reader’s interest and attention.

Genre.Genesis is an account of the origins of the cosmos, humanity, and thepeople of God. Thus, it is proper to refer to the book as a work ofhistory. Of course, there is more than one type of history. Somehistories focus on wars, others on economics or politics. Moreover,Genesis is not history in the modern sense but follows ancientconventions, which do not call for scrupulous accuracy. The centralconcern of Genesis, as with the majority of biblical histories, isthe relationship between God and his people. So, it is appropriate toidentify Genesis as a theological history.

Somereaders misunderstand the nature of the historical information thatthe book provides. For example, Gen. 1–2 communicates to thereader that it is the true God, not a god such as the BabylonianMarduk or the Canaanite Baal, who created the cosmos. The way some ofthe stories are told provides a challenge to rival stories from otherancient religions. One example is how the Bible describes thecreation of Adam from the dust of the ground and the breath of God.This contrasts with the Mesopotamian creation account Enuma Elish, inwhich the god Marduk creates the first humans from the clay of theearth and the blood of a demon god. The biblical flood story also maybe compared to other ancient flood stories, especially the account ofthe flood found in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. Genesis clearlyinteracts with such mythological stories to communicate importanttruths about the primeval period.

Message

Therich and complex book of Genesis pre-sents a profound messageconcerning God and his relationship with human beings. This shortarticle cannot do justice to the book’s depth and importance,but it can point to what is perhaps its most important theme: God’sblessing.

Genesis1–2 teaches that God created Adam and Eve and blessed them.They had everything they needed in the garden of Eden. They enjoyed aperfectly harmonious relationship with God and with each other. Theywanted for nothing.

Genesis3 explains how this blessed existence was disrupted. By choosing torebel against God, Adam and Eve ruptured their relationship with Godand, in consequence, with each other as well. They were expelled fromthe garden of Eden.

Evenin the midst of his judgment, however, God began the work ofrestoring the blessing to his human creatures (Gen. 3:15). Thusbegins the relentless work of God to bring restoration to his people.

NewTestament Connections

Genesisis the foundation not just of the Pentateuch, and not just of the OT,but of the entire Bible. The story that begins with creation and fallis followed by the history of redemption, which continues into the NTand which understands Jesus Christ as the one whose death andresurrection serve to restore God’s blessing to his people. Thefull restoration of relationship awaits the consummation of historyand the new Jerusalem, which is described in language telling us thatheaven is a restoration (and more) of the conditions enjoyed by Adamand Eve in the garden of Eden (Rev. 21–22, esp. Rev. 22:2).

Ofthe many allusions to and quotations of Genesis found in the NT, onlya few representative examples may be described here.

Paulpoints to the Abrahamic promise of the seed in Gen. 12:1–3 andproclaims that Jesus is that seed (Gal. 3:15–16). This claim issurprising in light of the OT’s clear understanding that it wasthe multiple descendants of Abraham constituting Israel who fulfilledthis promise (Gen. 15:15). Paul would have known this, but herecognizes that Jesus is the ultimate descendant of Abraham, and thatanyone who belongs to Jesus, Jew or Gentile, is also a participant inthe Abrahamic promise (Gal. 3:29).

Asecond example comes from the way in which the author of Hebrewscites the Melchizedek tradition of Gen. 14:17–20. In Genesis,Melchizedek is a mysterious figure who is introduced as thepriest-king of Salem (Jerusalem), whom Abraham acknowledges as afellow worshiper of the true God. In order to make his argument thatJesus is the ultimate priest, the author of Hebrews connects Jesuswith Melchizedek rather than with Aaron and asserts the superiorityof Melchizedek because Abraham (and thus also Levi, Aaron’sancestor) paid respects to this man (Heb. 7:1–10).

Afinal example comes from the Joseph narrative. Earlier, we observedthat the narrative shows how God used the evil actions of people inorder to save many people. In this, the Joseph narrative anticipatesthe death of Christ, who was nailed to the cross by the hands ofwicked people, but God used this very action to accomplish a muchgreater salvation than he did through Joseph (see Acts 2:22–24).

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

TheEnglish names for the books of the Pentateuch came from the LatinVulgate, based on the Greek Septuagint. These appellations are mainlydescriptive of their content. Genesis derives from “generations”or “origin,” Exodus means “going out,”Leviticus represents priestly (Levitical) service, Numbers refers tothe censuses taken in the book, and Deuteronomy indicates “secondlaw” because of Moses’ rehearsal of God’s commands(see Deut. 17:18). The Hebrew designations derive from opening wordsin each book. Beresh*t (Genesis) means “in the beginning”;Shemot (Exodus), “[these are] the names”; Wayyiqra’(Leviticus), “and he called”; Bemidbar (Numbers), “inthe desert”; and Debarim (Deuteronomy), “[these are] thewords.”

Referringto the Pentateuch as “Torah” or the “Law”reflects the climactic reception of God’s commands at MountSinai, which were to govern Israel’s life and worship in thepromised land, including their journey to get there. However, callingthe Pentateuch the “Law” can be a bit misleading becausethere are relatively few passages that simply list a set of commands,and all law passages are set within a broad narrative. The Pentateuchis a grand story that begins on a universal scale with the creationof the cosmos and ends on the plains of Moab as the readeranticipates the fulfillment of God’s plan to redeem a fallenworld through his chosen people. The books offer distinct qualitiesand content, but they are also inherently dependent upon one another,as the narrative remains unbroken through the five volumes. Genesisends with Jacob’s family in Egypt, and, though many years havepassed, this is where Exodus begins. Leviticus outlines cultic lifeat the tabernacle (constructed at the end of Exodus) and even beginswithout a clear subject (“And he called...”),which requires the reader to supply “the Lord” from thelast verse of Exodus. Numbers begins with an account of Israel’sfighting men as the nation prepares to leave Sinai, and Deuteronomyis Moses’ farewell address to the nation on the cusp of thepromised land.

Authorshipand Composition

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

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

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

Variousdocumentary theories of composition have flourished over the lastcentury of pentateuchal scholarship and still have many adherents.However, lack of scholarly agreement about the dating and characterof the sources and the rise of other literary approaches to the texthave many conservative and liberal scholars calling into question theaccuracy and even interpretive benefit of the source theories.Moreover, if the literary observations used to create sourcedistinctions can be explained in other ways, then the DocumentaryHypothesis is significantly undermined.

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

PrimevalHistory (Gen. 1–11)

Itis possible to divide Genesis into two parts based upon subjectmatter: the origin of creation and humankind’s call, fall, andpunishment (chaps 1–11), and the origin of a family that wouldbecome God’s conduit of salvation and blessing for the world(chaps. 12–50).

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

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

Asone progresses through chapters 1–11, the story quickly changesfrom what God has established as “very good” to discord,sin, and shame. Chapter 3 reflects the “fall” of humanityas Adam and Eve sin in eating from the forbidden tree in directdisobedience to God. The serpent shrewdly deceives the first couple,and thus all three incur God’s curses, which extend tounlimited generations. Sin that breaks the vertical relationshipbetween God and humanity intrinsically leads to horizontal strifebetween humans. Sin and disunity on the earth only intensify as onemoves from the murder story of Cain and Abel in chapter 4 to theflood in chapters 5–9. Violence, evil, and disorder have sopervaded the earth that God sends a deluge to wipe out all livingthings, save one righteous man and his family, along with an ark fullof animals. God makes the first covenant recorded in the biblicalnarrative with Noah (6:18), promising to save him from the flood ashe commands Noah to build an ark and gather food for survival. Noahfulfills all that God has commanded (6:22; 7:5), and God remembershis promise (8:1). This is the prototypical salvation story for therest of Scripture.

Chapter9 reflects a new start for humanity and all living things as thecreation mandate to “be fruitful and increase in number; fillthe earth and subdue it,” first introduced in 1:28, is restatedalong with the reminder that humankind is made in God’s image(1:27). Bearing the image involves new responsibilities andstipulations in the postdiluvian era (9:2–6). There will beenmity between humans and animals, animals are now appropriate food,and yet lifeblood will be specially revered. God still requiresaccountability for just and discriminate shedding of blood andorderly relationships, as he has proved in the deluge, but now herelinquishes this responsibility to humankind. In return, Godpromises never to destroy all flesh again, and he will set therainbow in the sky as a personal reminder. Like the covenant withNoah in 6:18, the postdiluvian covenant involves humankind fulfillingcommands (9:1–7) and God remembering his covenant (9:8–17),specially termed “everlasting” (9:16).

Theprimeval commentary on humankind’s unabating sinful condition(e.g., 6:5; 8:21) proves true as Noah becomes drunk and naked and hisson Ham (father of Canaan) shames him by failing to conceal hisfather’s negligence. Instead of multiplying, filling, andsubduing the earth as God has intended, humankind collaborates tomake a name for itself by building a sort of stairway to heavenwithin a special city (11:4). God foils such haughty plans byscattering the people across the earth and confusing their language.Expressed in an orderly chiastic structure, the story of the tower ofBabel demonstrates that God condescends (11:5) to set things straightwith humanity.

Patriarchs(Gen. 12–50)

Althoughthe primeval history is foundational for understanding the rest ofthe Bible, more space in Genesis is devoted to the patriarchalfigures Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In general, the Abrahamicnarrative spans chapters 12–25, the story of Isaac serves as atransition to the Jacob cycle of chapters 25–37, and the Josephnarrative finishes the book of Genesis in chapters 37–50.

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

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

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

AlthoughJacob and his family are already living in Canaan, God intends forthem to move to Egypt and grow into a powerful nation beforefulfilling their conquest of the promised land (see 15:13–16).The story of Joseph explains how the family ends up in Egypt at theclose of Genesis. Joseph is specially loved by his father, whichelicits significant jealousy from his brothers, who sell him off tosome nomads and fabricate the alibi that he has been killed by a wildbeast. Joseph winds up in Pharaoh’s household and eventuallybecomes his top official. When famine strikes Canaan years later,Joseph’s brothers go to Egypt to purchase food from the royalcourt, and Joseph reveals his identity to them in an emotionalreunion. Jacob’s entire family moves to Egypt to live for atime in prosperity under Joseph’s care. The Joseph storyillustrates the mysterious relationship of human decision and divinesovereignty (50:20).

Liberationfrom Egypt (Exod. 1–18)

Genesisshows how Abraham develops into a large family. Exodus shows how thisfamily becomes a nation—enslaved, freed, and then taught theways of God. Although it appears that Exodus continues a rivetingstory of God’s chosen people, it is actually the identity andpower of God that take center stage.

Manyyears have passed since Joseph’s family arrived in Egypt. TheHebrews’ good standing in Egypt has also diminished as theirmultiplication and fruitfulness during the intervening period—justas God had promised Abraham (Gen. 17:4–8)—became anational threat to the Egyptians. Abraham’s family will spendtime in Egyptian slavery before being liberated with many possessionsin hand (cf. Gen. 15:13–14).

Inthe book of Exodus the drama of suffering and salvation serves as thevehicle for God’s self-disclosure to a single man, Moses. Mosesis an Israelite of destiny even from birth, as he providentiallyavoids infant death and rises to power and influence in Pharaoh’shousehold. Moses never loses his passion for his own people, and hekills an Egyptian who was beating a fellow Hebrew. Moses flees toobscurity in the desert, where he meets God and his call to lead hispeople out of Egypt and to the promised land (3:7–8; 6:8). Likethe days of Noah’s salvation, God has remembered his covenantwith the patriarchs and responded to the groans of his people inEgypt (2:24; 6:4–5; cf. Gen. 8:1). God reveals himself, and hispersonal name “Yahweh” (“I am”), to Moses inthe great theophany of the burning bush at Mount Horeb (Sinai), thesame place where later he will receive God’s law. Moses doubtshis own ability to carry out the task of confronting Pharaoh andleading the exodus, but God foretells that many amazing signs andwonders not only will make the escape possible but also willultimately reveal the mighty nature of God to the Hebrews, Egypt, andpresumably the world (6:7; 7:5).

Thispromise of creating a nation of his people through deliverance issuccinctly conveyed in the classic covenant formula that findssignificance in the rest of the OT: “I will take you as my ownpeople, and I will be your God” (6:7). Wielding great powerover nature and at times even human decision, God “hardens”Pharaoh’s heart and sends ten plagues to demonstrate his favorfor his own people and wrath against their enemy nation. The tenthplague on the firstborn of all in Egypt provides the context for thePassover as God spares the firstborn of Israel in response to theplacement of sacrificial blood on the doorposts of their homes.Pharaoh persists in the attempt to overtake the Israelites in thedesert, where the power of God climaxes in parting the Red Sea (orSea of Reeds). The Israelites successfully pass through, buttheEgyptian army drowns in pursuit. This is the great salvationevent of the OT.

Thesong of praise for God’s deliverance (15:1–21) quicklyturns to cries of groaning in the seventy days following the exodusas the people of the nation, grumbling about their circ*mstances inthe desert, quickly demonstrate their fleeting trust in the one whohas saved them (Exod. 15:22–18:27). When a shortage of waterand food confronts the people, their faith in God’s care provesshallow, and they turn on Moses. Even though the special marks ofGod’s protection have been evident in the wilderness throughthe pillars of cloud and fire, the angel of God, the provision ofmanna and quail, water from the rock, and the leadership of Moses,the nation continually fails God’s tests of trust and obedience(16:4; cf. 17:2; 20:20). Yet God continues to endure with his peoplethrough the leadership of Moses.

Sinai(Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10)

Mostof the pentateuchal narrative takes place at Mount Sinai. It is therethat Israel receives national legislation and prescriptions for thetabernacle, the priesthood, feasts and festivals, and othercovenantal demands for living as God’s chosen people. Theeleven-month stay at Sinai takes the biblical reader through thecenter of the Pentateuch, covering approximately the last half ofExodus, all of Leviticus, and the first third of Numbers, before thenation leaves this sacred site and sojourns in the wilderness.Several key sections of the Pentateuch fall withinthe Sinaistory: the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17), the Book of the Covenant(Exod. 20:22–23:33), the tabernacle prescriptions (Exod.25–31), the tabernacle construction (Exod. 35–40), themanual on ritual worship (Lev. 1–7), and the Holiness Code(Lev. 17–27).

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

TheIsraelites’ stay at Sinai opens with one of the greatesttheophanies of the Bible: God speaks aloud to the people (Exod.19–20) and then is envisioned as a consuming fire (Exod. 24).After communicating the Ten Commandments (“ten words”)directly to the people (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4), Mosesmediates the rest of the detailed obligations that will govern thefuture life of the nation. The covenant is ratified in ceremonialfashion (Exod. 24), and the Israelites vow to fulfill all that hasbeen spoken. God expects Israel to be a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) withwhom he may dwell, but Moses descends Sinai only to find that theIsraelites have already violated the essence of the Decalogue byfashioning a golden calf to worship as that which delivered them fromEgypt (Exod. 32). This places Israel’s future and calling injeopardy, but Moses intercedes for his people, and God graciouslypromises to preserve the nation and abide with it in his mercy, evenwhile punishing the guilty. This becomes prototypical of God’srelationship with his people in the future (Exod. 34:6–7).

Exodusends with the consecration of the tabernacle and the descent of God’spresence there. With the tent of worship in order, the priesthood andits rituals can be officially established. Leviticus reflects divineinstructions for how a sinful people may live safely in closeproximity to God. Holy living involves dealing with sin andminimizing the need for atonement, purification, and restitution. Thesacrificial and worship system established in Leviticus is based on aworldview of order, perfection, and purity, which should characterizea people who are commanded, “Be holy because I, the Lord yourGod, am holy’ (Lev. 19:2; cf. 11:44–45; 20:26). Withthese rules in place, the Israelites can make final preparations todepart Sinai and move forward on their journey. Numbers 1–10spans a nineteen-day period of such activities as the Israelitesbegin to focus on dispossessing their enemies. These chapters reflecta census of fighting men, the priority of purity, the dedication ofthe tabernacle, and the observance of the Passover before commencingthe quest to Canaan.

WildernessJourney (Num. 10:11–36:13)

Therest of the book of Numbers covers the remainder of a forty-yearstretch of great peaks and valleys in the faith and future of thenation. Chapters 11–25 recount the various events that show theexodus generation’s lack of trust in God. Chapters 26–36reveal a more positive section whereby a new generation prepares forthe conquest. With the third section of Numbers framed by episodesinvolving the inheritance rights of Zelophehad’s daughters(27:1–11; 36:1–13), it is clear that the story has turnedtothe future possession of the land.

Afterthe departure from Sinai, the narrative consists of a number ofIsraelite complaints in the desert. The Israelites have grown tiredof manna and ironically crave the food of Egypt, which they recall asfree fish, fruits, and vegetables. Having forgotten the hardship oflife in slavery, about which they had cried out to God, now thenation is crying out for a lifestyle of old. Moses becomes sooverwhelmed with the complaints of the people that God providesseventy elders, who, to help shoulder the leadership burden, willreceive the same prophetic spirit given to Moses.

Inchapters 13–14 twelve spies are sent out from Kadesh Barnea toperuse Canaan, but the people’s lack of faith to procure theland from the mighty people there proves costly. This final exampleof distrust moves God to punish and purify the nation. Theunbelieving generation will die in the wilderness during a forty-yearperiod of wandering.

Thediscontent in the desert involves not only food and water but alsoleadership status. Moses’ own brother and sister resent hisspecial relationship with God and challenge his exclusive authority.Later, Aaron’s special high priesthood is threatened as anotherLevitical family (Korah) vies for preeminence. Through a sequence ofsigns and wonders, God makes it clear that Moses and Aaron haveexclusive roles in God’s economy. Due to the deaths related toKorah’s rebellion and the fruitless staffs that represent thetribes of Israel, the nation’s concern about sudden extinctionin the presence of a holy God is appeased through the eternalcovenant of priesthood granted to Aaron’s family (chap. 18). Heand the Levites, at the potential expense of their own lives and aspart of their priestly service, will be held accountable for keepingthe tabernacle pure of encroachers.

Evenafter the people’s significant rebellion and punishment, Godcontinues to prove his faithfulness to his word. Hope is restored forthe nation as the Abrahamic promises of blessing are rehearsed fromthe mouth of Balaam, a Mesopotamian seer. The Israelites will indeedone day be numerous (23:10), enjoy the presence of God (23:21), beblessed and protected (24:9), and have a kingly leader (24:17). Thiswonderful mountaintop experience of hope for the exodus generation istragically countered by an even greater event of apostasy in thesubsequent scene. Reminiscent of the incident of the golden calf,when pagan revelry in the camp had foiled Moses’ interactionwith God on Sinai, apostasy at the tabernacle undermines Balaam’soracles of covenant fulfillment. Fornication with Moabite women notonly joins the nation to a foreign god but also betrays God’sholiness at his place of dwelling. If not for the zeal of Aaron’sgrandson Phinehas, who puts an end to the sin, the ensuing plaguecould have finished the nation. For his righteous action, Phinehas isawarded an eternal priesthood and ensures a future for the nation andAaron’s priestly lineage.

Inchapter 26 a second census of fighting men indicates that the old,unbelieving exodus generation has officially died off (except forJoshua and Caleb), and God is proceeding with a new people. Goddispossesses the enemies of the new generation; reinstates the tribalboundaries of the land; reinstates rules concerning worship, service,and bloodshed; and places Joshua at the helm of leadership. Chapters26–36 mention no deaths or rebellions as the nationoptimistically ends its journey in Moab, just east of the promisedland.

Moses’Farewell (Deuteronomy)

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

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

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

Formuch of the middle and end of the twentieth century, Deuteronomy hasreceived a significant amount of attention for its apparentresemblance in structure and content to ancient Hittite and Assyriantreaties. Scholars debate the extent of similarity, but it ispossible that Deuteronomy reflects a suzerain-vassal treaty formbetween Israel and God much like the common format between nations inthe ancient Near East. Although comparative investigation of thistype can be profitable for interpretation, it is prudent to beconservative when outlining direct parallels, since Deuteronomy isnot a legal document but rather a dramatic narrative of God’sredemptive interaction with the world.

Bible formation and canon development are best understood inlight of historical events and theological principles. In thehistorical-theological process we learn what God did and how heengaged a variety of people to produce Scripture as the word of God.The Bible is the written revelation of the triune God, who madehimself known to his creation. The divine actions of God to revealhimself resulted in a written text recognized to be authoritative andthus copied and preserved for future generations. The process ofrecognizing and collecting authoritative books of the Scripturesoccurred over time and involved consensus.

BibleFormation

Revelation.Theprocess of Bible formation begins with God revealing. The act ofrevelation involved God communicating truth to the human writers in aprogressive and unified manner. Inspiration is the act of God theHoly Spirit, who superintended the biblical authors so that theycomposed the books of Scripture exactly as he intended. God used thebiblical writers, their personalities and their writing styles, in amanner that kept them from error in composing the original writtenproduct, the Scriptures. The resulting books of the Bible constituteGod’s permanent special revelation to humankind.

BothTestaments affirm the work of revelation along with the formation ofa body of divine writings. The OT is dominated by the phrase “thussays the Lord” and similar expressions (cf. Gen. 9:8; Josh.24:27; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:7 and contrast Ps. 135:15–19). Everypart of the OT is viewed as the word of God (Rom. 3:2). This isconfirmed by Jesus’ attitude toward the Scriptures (Matt.19:4–5; 21:42; 22:29; cf. Luke 11:50–51; 24:44).

FourNT passages help us understand the work of inspiration. A factualstatement regarding the extent and nature of inspiration is made in2 Tim. 3:16. According to 2 Pet. 1:19–20, the HolySpirit purposefully carried persons along to produce the propheticword, and 1 Cor. 2:10–13 supports the choice of the wordsin the work of composing the inspired product. Finally, Petercomments that Paul was given wisdom to produce inspired literarydocuments in the canon of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:14–18).

Authority.Books formed and authored by God in this manner are authoritative.Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliablycomposed in the originals, it is binding upon people in theirrelationship with God and other people. Biblical authority derivesfrom God’s eternal character and the content of his wordpreserved in Scripture. The inscripturated word of God isauthoritative and requires obedience.

Theauthority of God’s word is affirmed and illustrated in thecreation and fall narratives. In the fall, Adam and Eve rebelledagainst God’s command (Gen. 3:3–4) and were expelled fromthe garden. In subsequent periods of biblical history, God’sspoken and written word continued to be the basis for belief andconduct. God summarized his will in the Ten Commandments (Exod.20:1-17; Deut. 5:6–21) and held his people accountable to it(Deut. 6:2; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 17:5–23). The authoritativeword embraced by faith protects the believer from sin (Ps. 119:11).The fool is the person who rejects God’s authority (Pss. 14:1;53:1). The apostle Paul acknowledged the authority of the gospel forhis own life and ministry (Gal. 1:6–9). God the Holy Spiritimpresses upon the believer the authority of the Bible as thereliable rule for faith and practice (John 6:63).

Godmade provision for a reliable and trustworthy preservation of hisauthoritative word in the multiplicity of extant manuscripts. Godcommanded that his revealed word be copied (Deut. 17:8–18;24:8; 31:9, 25–26; 33:8–10) for administrative andpersonal purposes (Deut. 6:6; Josh. 1:8; 23:6; Prov. 3:3; 7:3).Through this process of multiplication the word of God was preserved(Ps. 119:152, 160; Isa. 40:8; cf. Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35;1 Pet. 1:22–25).

Canonization

Canonizationis the next critical step in the development of the Bible. The word“canon” (Gk. kanōn) refers to a standard, norm, orrule (Gal. 6:16; cf. Ezek. 42:16), and when applied to the Bible, itdesignates the collection of books revealed by God, divinelyinspired, and recognized by the people of God as the authoritativenorm for faith and practice. The presupposition of canonicity is thatGod spoke to his human creatures and his word was accuratelyrecorded. Since inspiration determines canonicity, the books composedby human beings under the direction of the Holy Spirit functionedauthoritatively at the time of writing. The people of God thenrecognized and collected the books that they discerned to be inspiredand authoritative (1 Thess. 2:10–16; 2 Pet. 3:15).

Thecanonical process.The challenge associated with canon and Bible formation is that theScriptures do not reveal a detailed historical process forrecognizing and collecting inspired works. An understanding of thisprocess is derived from the testimony of Jesus, biblical principles,and historical precedents.

Canonicalidentification is associated with the witness of the Holy Spirit, whoworked in connection with the believers to recognize the writtendocuments given by inspiration (1 Thess. 2:13). The Holy Spiritenabled believers to discern a book’s authority and itscompatibility with existing canonical revelation (Isa. 8:20; Acts17:11). Although the question of authorship cannot be positivelysettled for every OT or NT book, believers recognized the prophets asthe OT authors (Deut. 18:14–22) and the apostles as the NTauthors. Canonical books were recognized to bear the power of God andto contain an effective message (2 Tim. 3:15–16; Heb.4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Overtime, the authoritative books of Scripture were collected into a bodyof literature that today forms one book, the Bible. During thisprocess, some believers struggled with the message, content, andambiguous authorship of books such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,and Esther in the OT and Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter in the NT.The pattern of composition and canonical process for the OT providedthe foundation for the composition and development of the NT canon.Therefore, the NT books that came to be recognized as canonical werethose that were composed in connection with an apostle, doctrinallysound, and widely circulated and used by the churches.

Inthe collection task some texts were recognized (hom*ologoumena), somewere disputed (antilegomena), and others were rejected as unorthodox(pseudepigrapha). Historically, there is no evidence for widespreadacceptance of the present-day canon of sixty-six books until thethird century AD.

Structureand content.Overthe centuries, several canonical lists began to emerge, ofteninfluenced by particular theological conclusions. For example, theSamaritan canon, which includes only the first five books of our OT,was compiled by the Samaritans, who were hostile to anything inIsrael or Judea outside Samaria. Today, Christian traditions vary intheir inclusion or omission of the Apocrypha from their Bibles and intheir list of which books are contained in the Apocrypha.

TheBabylonian canon, accepted as standard by Jews, contains all thebooks now recognized as the OT and is divided into three parts: theLaw, the Prophets, and the Writings. This canon is also known as theTanak, an acronym derived from the Hebrew words for “law”(torah), “prophets” (nebi’im), “writings”(ketubim). This canonical list traditionally includes twenty-fourbooks (the twelve Minor Prophets are considered to be one book, asare 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, andEzra-Nehemiah). The twenty-four books of this canonical list are thesame as the thirty-nine OT books in current English Bible editions.The law or instruction section includes the first five books of Moses(Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets section is divided intothe Former and Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets are thehistorical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The LatterProphets include both the Major and the Minor Prophets. The Writingssection contains both poetic and wisdom material, along with somehistorical material.

Historicalreferences to this canonical format are found in extrabiblicalsources as early as the second century BC. The grandson of Jesus BenSira referenced a threefold canon in the prologue of the apocryphalbook Sirach (c. 190 BC); Josephus referenced it in Against Apion (AD37–95). Jesus acknowledged the threefold division in Luke 24:44(cf. Matt. 23:34). Among Christian sources, this division ispreserved in the oldest extant list of OT books, associated withBishop Melito of Sardis (AD 170). Tertullian, an early Latin churchfather (AD 160–250), Origen (AD 254), Hilary of Poitiers (AD305–366), and Jerome (AD 340–420) affirmed an OT canon oftwenty-two or twenty-four books. Most current English versions followa fourfold structure of law, history, poetry, and prophets.

Thetwenty-seven books of the NT are attested in lists associated withchurches in the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean world.Two such witnesses are the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius(AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). The canonical listassociated with Marcion and the Muratorian list represent fragmentarylists from the early part of the second century AD. In terms ofusage, a majority of church fathers recognized and used thetwenty-seven NT books in our canon. See also Apocrypha, NewTestament; Apocrypha, Old Testament.

The government-sanctioned killing of a perpetrator of aserious offense. The biblical portrayal of capital punishmentinvolves the concept as a God-ordained institution related to thevalue of humanity and the necessary recompense for the corruption ormurder of that ideal (Gen. 9:6).

Methodsof capital punishment.The methods of capital punishment listed in the Scriptures areseveral. The most common method was stoning (Lev. 24:16; Num.15:32–36; Deut. 13:1–10; 17:2–5), and this requiredthat the primary witnesses for the prosecution be the first to takeup stones against the accused. The burning of a person was rare, butit was commanded for certain sexual crimes (Lev. 20:14). In the storyof Judah and Tamar, before learning the true nature of her pregnancy,Judah ordered his daughter-in-law to be burned to death outside thecity (Gen. 38:24). On occasion, the method of punishment involvedbeing run through by a weapon: Phinehas impaled an Israelite and hisMidianite lover with a spear in order to soothe the wrath of God andstop a plague (Num. 25:7–8); Canaanites under the kherem(divine command of total destruction) were to be put to the sword(Deut. 13:15), and God commanded that anyone who touched Mount Sinaibe shot through with arrows (Exod. 19:13). Beheading seems to havebeen practiced for crimes against royalty, though there are nomandates concerning it (2 Sam. 16:9; 2 Kings 6:31–32).Other forms of capital punishment included impalement or placementupon a wooden stake (Ezra 6:11; Esther 2:23). Although someunderstand this to be a form of hanging, archaeological evidence andunderstandings of the cultures of the time suggest that impalement ismore likely. Finally, the Romans took the punishment of crucifixionthat they had learned from Carthage and applied it with vigor tothose guilty of insurrection (Luke 23:13–33).

Offensesleading to capital punishment.With respect to Israel, the list of offenses deemed worthy of capitalpunishment primarily focused upon human interrelations, though a fewcrimes listed did involve the breaking of covenant stipulationsinvolving one’s direct relationship with God. From this lattergroup, crimes such as witchcraft and divination (Exod. 22:18; Lev.20:27; Deut. 18:20), profaning the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–17),idolatry (Lev. 20:1–5), and blasphemy (Lev. 24:14–16;Matt. 26:65–66) were included. In these laws one sees theexpression of God’s wrath and jealousy for his position in thelives of those who claim to be his. Mandates demanding death inresponse to some sort of corruption of the human ideal included actssuch as costing another person his or her life, sexual aberrations,and familial relationships. Anyone who committed murder (Exod.21:12), put another’s life at risk by giving false testimony ina trial (Deut. 19:16–21), or enslaved a person wrongfully(Exod. 21:16) could be considered to have cost someone’s life.Sexual aberrations regarded as worthy of death included sexual actsof bestial*ty, incest, and hom*osexuality (Exod. 22:19; Lev.20:11–17), rape (Deut. 22:23–27), adultery (Lev.20:10–12), and sexual relations outside of marriage (Lev. 21:9;Deut. 22:20–24). The final group of familial relationshipsprimarily applies to the crass rebellion of children against theirparents (Deut. 21:18–21).

Attimes, the righteous faced capital punishment for their beliefs. Forexample, at the hands of government faithful saints of God were sawnin two (Heb. 11:37 [a Jewish tradition may indicate that the prophetIsaiah died in such a manner]), stoned (Acts 7:58–59), andbeheaded (Mark 6:27; Acts 12:2). At other times, attempts were madeto inflict such punishment, but God intervened. In these examples,the punishments that God prevented include consumption by lions (Dan.6), burning in a fiery furnace (Dan. 3), being thrown over a cliff(Luke 4:29–30), and stoning (Acts 14:19).

Capitalpunishment today.Severalopinions persist regarding the appropriateness of continuing thepractice of capital punishment in the modern era. For some, passagesexpressing a command concerning such types of punishment are eitherdescriptive of what was going on or fall under the principle of aculture that no longer exists, so their laws are no longer relevant.Indeed, few today would enforce capital punishment for the samecrimes that Israel punished with death. For these individuals, thequestion then becomes whether Scripture, which required capitalpunishment at the time it was written, permits capital punishmenttoday. Those who are consistent will admit that if there is nomandate to require it, it must also be admitted that there is nomandate preventing its use as well.

Onthe other side are those who argue that while one cannot directlyapply the laws of the OT to today’s situation, the principleexpressed, particularly as it pertains to value of humanity, demandsthe continuation of capital punishment at least in response toheinous crimes that cost an individual his or her life, eitherliterally as with murder, or more figuratively (but just as real) aswith rape. For these people, it is significant that the requirementsof capital punishment for murder precede the giving of the law (Gen.9:6). Since the status of humanity in the eyes of God has notaltered, neither has his prescribed method of dealing with thosecrimes been lifted; here the principle requires the practice (Rom.13:4).

Theanswers are not easy, but they are important. The biblical textit*elf regularly balances the expected payment for sins worthy of thedeath penalty with expressions of grace (Gen. 4:15; Josh. 6:22–23).Furthermore, one must account for the perfect knowledge of God andhis execution of his fully justified wrath in contrast to theimperfect knowledge of humanity and the inequalities that sometimesfind expression in modern court settings. Finding the balance betweenholding a biblical worldview that appropriately seeks justice and oneregulated by grace is difficult enough in terms of interpersonalrelationships; when it is moved to the greater scope of society as awhole, the questions are even more significant and even moredifficult to answer. See also Crimes and Punishments.

There are several censuses in Scripture, and their concern is not simply to account for the number of people or the number of men available for military service; they also have a literary and theological function.

In the creation narrative in Gen. 1–11 the fulfillment of the creation mandate is accounted for through the genealogy of Adam (Gen. 5) and the genealogy of the sons of Noah (Gen. 9:18–19; 10:1–32), which serve as a type of census. The creation narrative has a universal scope; it attempts to account for the total human population on earth.

Census lists are given for the Abrahamic family (Abraham-Isaac-Jacob line) as it grows to become a nation in accordance with God’s promise to Abraham of a great nation and innumerable offspring (Gen. 12:1–3; 15:5). The total number of Jacob’s descendants who went to Egypt was seventy (Gen. 46:8–27; Exod. 1:1–4). This old generation of Israel passed, and a new generation was born that was fruitful, multiplied, and became exceedingly numerous (Exod. 1:6–7). The total number of men of at least twenty years of age who came out of Egypt was 603,550 (Num. 1:1–46; cf. Exod. 12:37–38), and of the new generation that stood on the verge of entering the Promised Land, 601,730 (Num. 26:1–51).

In the book of Numbers there are two census accounts (actually, military registrations). These are important to the structure and theme of the book. The theme of Numbers has to do with the judgment on the first generation (the object of the census in Num. 1) and the hope for the second generation, which will enter the Promised Land (the object of the second census).

David conducted a census to measure his military power, but this is condemned by God and regarded as satanic (2 Sam. 24:1–17; 1 Chron. 21:1–30). For the Chronicler, any attempt to account for the total number of Israelite men twenty years and older, similar to the census in the book of Numbers, is regarded as challenging God’s promise to make Israel as numerous as the stars (1 Chron. 29:23–26).

Ezra and Nehemiah contain census lists of the returnees from exile: under Zerubbabel, 42,360 men returned (Ezra 2:1–66; Neh. 7:4–73), and under Ezra, 1,496 men (Ezra 8:1–14).

In the NT, Jesus participates in the universal census that encompasses not only Israel but other nations as well—a census of the entire Roman world (Luke 2:1–7). The census motif reaches its fulfillment when a great multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language will stand before the throne and in front of the Lamb, symbolized by the 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel, 12,000 from each tribe (Rev. 7:4–10).

Broadly speaking, child abuse refers to physical maltreatment and/or sexual molestation of a child. Often both occur together. In child abuse, legal, moral, and psychological domains are affected. A natural dependence, trust, and frailty define a child, with adulthood typically starting around age eighteen.

Child abuse brings chaos where the Creator blessed with fruitful life (Gen. 1:28; 9:7). Children signify one of God’s richest blessings (Ps. 127:3–6). Pharaoh’s pogrom against the Hebrew children only served to highlight the midwives who “feared God” and chose to foster rather than harm life (Exod. 1:15–22). Orphans lacked parental protection and uniquely came under God’s care as the “helper of fatherless” (Ps. 10:14, 18; cf. James 1:27).

Sadly, one in three girls and one in five boys are sexually abused, 14 percent under the age of six. Most sexual abuse is incest, perpetrated by known providers, often the father. But fathers are exhorted not to even “exasperate” their children (Eph. 6:4; cf. Col. 3:21). For an abused child, their bridging metaphors for God (e.g., “father” and “mother”) can be permanently crushed.

Fortunately, the abused child can find a “spiritual family” in the church (cf. Mark 10:28–30). But woe to those who cause “one of these little ones—those who believe in me” to stumble (Matt. 18:1–6).

Cities in the OT period that were divinely designated placesof asylum to which a manslayer might flee for safety (Exod.21:12–14). Refuge was provided in these cities for themanslayer from family members of the slain person who were seeking toavenge the death of their relative. According to the principle of lextalionis enshrined in OT revelation and subsequent Israelite law(Gen. 9:5–6; Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17), the deathpenalty applied to the willful murderer. In ancient Israel the sacredduty of punishing a murderer was placed in the hands of the closestrelative of the murdered person (“the avenger of blood”).The manslayer was admitted to the city of refuge only after statinghis case before the city’s elders at the city gate (Josh.20:4–5), for this provision applied only to those implicated inan accidental or unintentional death. This institution gave theaccused person an opportunity to stand trial before a legal assemblyand possibly be acquitted (Num. 35:12). After the death of the highpriest (marking the end of an era), the acquitted manslayer was freeto return home (Josh. 20). The manslayer who left the city beforethat time could be killed by the avenger of blood with impunity. InDeuteronomy, with its “holy land” theology, the safety ofa person who accidentally killed another prevented the defilement ofthe land: “Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed inyour land, which the Lord your God is giving you as your inheritance,and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed” (Deut. 19:10).More widely, the provision reflects the moral character of the God ofIsrael and the humane spirit of OT legislation that sought to limitvengeance and the blood feuds that easily resulted.

Theywere six cities of refuge, chosen out of the forty-eight Leviticalcities (Num. 34:6–15). Three of these cities were on the eastside of the Jordan River, and three on the west. The cities were wellspaced and centrally located, so that there was ready access to acity of refuge wherever a person happened to live in Israeliteterritory. Roads were to be built to the cities to assist the personfleeing (Deut. 19:3). The eastern cities were set apart by Moses(Deut. 4:41–43), and the western ones by Joshua (Josh. 20). Thethree in Cisjordan (the Promised Land proper) were, from north tosouth, Kedesh in Naphtali, Shechem in Ephraim, and Kiriath Arba(= Hebron) in Judah. The matching three cities in Transjordanwere, from south to north, Bezer in Reubenite territory, Ramoth inthe tribal allotment of Gad, and Golan in Bashan.

Thisinstitution extended and broadened the primitive custom of amanslayer finding safety in the sanctuary (Exod. 21:14). In thewilderness period, with all Israel encamped around a centralsanctuary, this was all that was required. The entrance into the landand the spreading out of the tribes required the establishment ofdesignated cities of refuge. The earlier custom is reflected in1 Kings 1:50–53; 2:28–35, wherein Adonijah and Joab,who feared for their lives because of the wrath of Solomon, aredescribed as “clinging to the horns of the altar.” Thisdrastic procedure did not, however, prevent the death of Joab at thehands of Benaiah, Solomon’s executioner. A similar custom ofsanctuaries as places of asylum is found in other ancient cultures(e.g., Phoenician, Syrian, Greek, and Roman). This socialunderstanding is also reflected in the Psalter, wherein the temple isdescribed as a place of spiritual refuge (e.g., Pss. 27:5; 31:20;61:4; 91:1–2).

Cities in the OT period that were divinely designated placesof asylum to which a manslayer might flee for safety (Exod.21:12–14). Refuge was provided in these cities for themanslayer from family members of the slain person who were seeking toavenge the death of their relative. According to the principle of lextalionis enshrined in OT revelation and subsequent Israelite law(Gen. 9:5–6; Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17), the deathpenalty applied to the willful murderer. In ancient Israel the sacredduty of punishing a murderer was placed in the hands of the closestrelative of the murdered person (“the avenger of blood”).The manslayer was admitted to the city of refuge only after statinghis case before the city’s elders at the city gate (Josh.20:4–5), for this provision applied only to those implicated inan accidental or unintentional death. This institution gave theaccused person an opportunity to stand trial before a legal assemblyand possibly be acquitted (Num. 35:12). After the death of the highpriest (marking the end of an era), the acquitted manslayer was freeto return home (Josh. 20). The manslayer who left the city beforethat time could be killed by the avenger of blood with impunity. InDeuteronomy, with its “holy land” theology, the safety ofa person who accidentally killed another prevented the defilement ofthe land: “Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed inyour land, which the Lord your God is giving you as your inheritance,and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed” (Deut. 19:10).More widely, the provision reflects the moral character of the God ofIsrael and the humane spirit of OT legislation that sought to limitvengeance and the blood feuds that easily resulted.

Theywere six cities of refuge, chosen out of the forty-eight Leviticalcities (Num. 34:6–15). Three of these cities were on the eastside of the Jordan River, and three on the west. The cities were wellspaced and centrally located, so that there was ready access to acity of refuge wherever a person happened to live in Israeliteterritory. Roads were to be built to the cities to assist the personfleeing (Deut. 19:3). The eastern cities were set apart by Moses(Deut. 4:41–43), and the western ones by Joshua (Josh. 20). Thethree in Cisjordan (the Promised Land proper) were, from north tosouth, Kedesh in Naphtali, Shechem in Ephraim, and Kiriath Arba(= Hebron) in Judah. The matching three cities in Transjordanwere, from south to north, Bezer in Reubenite territory, Ramoth inthe tribal allotment of Gad, and Golan in Bashan.

Thisinstitution extended and broadened the primitive custom of amanslayer finding safety in the sanctuary (Exod. 21:14). In thewilderness period, with all Israel encamped around a centralsanctuary, this was all that was required. The entrance into the landand the spreading out of the tribes required the establishment ofdesignated cities of refuge. The earlier custom is reflected in1 Kings 1:50–53; 2:28–35, wherein Adonijah and Joab,who feared for their lives because of the wrath of Solomon, aredescribed as “clinging to the horns of the altar.” Thisdrastic procedure did not, however, prevent the death of Joab at thehands of Benaiah, Solomon’s executioner. A similar custom ofsanctuaries as places of asylum is found in other ancient cultures(e.g., Phoenician, Syrian, Greek, and Roman). This socialunderstanding is also reflected in the Psalter, wherein the temple isdescribed as a place of spiritual refuge (e.g., Pss. 27:5; 31:20;61:4; 91:1–2).

Those individual entitlements protected by a government, such as due process and equal protection under the law (cf. Amendments 13 and 14 of the U.S. Constitution). God gives secular rulers the authority to legislate, enforce, and interpret civil laws; he has therefore entrusted them with administering justice, which includes protecting civil rights (Rom. 13:1–7; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13–14; cf. Matt. 22:21). Until Christ returns to rule his kingdom on earth, the church must defer the protection of civil rights to the state (see John 18:36).

Nonetheless, as Christians preach the gospel, they can embody and promote the principles characteristic of God’s kingdom. Since God created man and woman in his own image and likeness (Gen. 1:26), Christians ought to practice and promote the respect and dignity of all people. All humans bear God’s image regardless of the circ*mstances of their birth, and whether or not they are Christians. Hence, the Bible explicitly grounds the rights to life (Gen. 9:6) and fair treatment (James 3:9) in the principle of the divine image. For these reasons, believing citizens do well to advocate a society that serves justice regardless of an individual or group’s race, ethnicity, religion, sex, or class.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.

OldTestament

SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.

Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.

Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.

Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.

Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.

Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).

NewTestament

Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.

OldTestament

SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.

Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.

Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.

Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.

Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.

Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).

NewTestament

Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.

OldTestament

SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.

Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.

Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.

Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.

Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.

Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).

NewTestament

Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.

OldTestament

SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.

Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.

Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.

Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.

Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.

Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).

NewTestament

Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

The Bible is full of teeming creatures and swarming things.These creatures, insects, often play significant roles in the storiesand the events described in them. From the first chapter of the Bibleto the very last book, these flying, creeping, hopping, and crawlingthings are prominent.

Termsfor Insects

Insectsare described in the Bible with both general and specific terms. Inthe OT, there are three general terms for insects and twenty termsused to refer to specific types of insects. In the NT, two differenttypes of insects are referenced: gnats and locusts.

Thetwo most common general terms for insects are variously translated.Terms and phrases used to describe them include “livingcreatures” (Gen. 1:20), “creatures that move along theground” (Gen. 1:24–26; 6:7, 20; 7:8, 14, 23; 8:17, 19;Lev. 5:2; Ezek. 38:20; Hos. 2:18), that which “moves”(Gen. 9:3), “swarming things” (Lev. 11:10), “flyinginsects” (Lev. 11:20–21, 23; Deut. 14:19), “creatures”(Lev. 11:43), “crawling things” (Lev. 22:5; Ezek. 8:10),“reptiles” (1Kings 4:33), “teeming creatures”(Ps. 104:25), “small creatures” (Ps. 148:10), and “seacreatures” (Hab. 1:14). The other general term for insects isused with reference to swarms of insects, typically flies (Exod.8:21–22, 24, 29; Pss. 78:45; 105:31). Specific insects named inScripture are listed below.

Ants.Ants are used in Proverbs as an example of and encouragement towardwisdom. In 6:6 ants serve as an example for sluggards to reform theirslothful ways. Also, in 30:25 ants serve as an example of creaturesthat, despite their diminutive size, are wise enough to make advancepreparations for the long winter.

Bees.Beesare used both literally and figuratively in Scripture. Judges 14:8refers to honeybees, the product of which becomes the object ofSamson’s riddle. The other three uses of bees in the OT arefigurative of swarms of enemies against God’s people (Deut.1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18).

Fleas.Fleasare referenced in the OT only by David to indicate his insignificancein comparison with King Saul (1Sam. 24:14; 26:20). The irony ofthe comparison becomes clear with David’s later ascendancy.

Flies.The plague of flies follows that of gnats on Egypt (Exod. 8:20–31).Although the gnats are never said to have left Egypt, the flies areremoved upon Moses’ prayer. In Eccles. 10:1 the stench of deadflies is compared to the impact that folly can have on the wise. InIsa. 7:18 flies represent Egypt being summoned by God as his avengingagents on Judah’s sin. In addition, one of the gods in Ekronwas named “Baal-Zebub,” which means “lord of theflies” (2Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). The reference toSatan in the NT using a similar name is likely an adaptation of theOT god of Ekron (Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15,18–19).

Gnats.Gnats are distinguished from flies in the OT, though the distinctionis not always apparent. Gnats are employed by God in the third plagueon Egypt (Exod. 8:16–19), while flies form the means ofpunishment in the fourth plague. The two are listed together in Ps.105:31 and appear parallel, though the former may be a reference to aswarm. Gnats were also used by Jesus to illustrate the hypocrisy ofthe Pharisees and the scribes (Matt. 23:24).

Hornets.TheBible uses hornets in Scripture as an agent of God’sdestruction. The term occurs three times in the OT. In eachoccurrence these stinging insects refer to God’s expulsion ofthe Canaanites from the land that God promised to his people. Thefirst two times, Exod. 23:28 and Deut. 7:20, hornets are used inreference to a promise of what God will do; the third time, Josh.24:12, they illustrate what God did.

Locusts.Of particular interest is the use of locusts in the Bible. The termor a similar nomenclature occurs close to fifty times in the NIV.Locusts demonstrate a number of characteristics in Scripture. First,they are under God’s control (Exod. 10:13–19). As such,they have no king (Prov. 30:27). They serve God’s purposes.Second, locusts often occur in very large numbers or swarms (Judg.6:5; Jer. 46:23; Nah. 3:15). At times, their numbers can be so largeas to cause darkness in the land (Exod. 10:15). Third, in largenumbers these insects have been known to ravage homes, devour theland, devastate fields, and debark trees (Exod. 10:12–15; Deut.28:38; 1Kings 8:37; 2Chron. 7:13; Pss. 78:46; 105:34;Isa. 33:4; Joel 1:4–7). Due to their fierceness, they werecompared to horses (Rev. 9:7). Fourth, locusts hide at night (Nah.3:17). Finally, certain types of locusts were used as food.

Moths.Mothsare referred to seven times in the OT and four times in the NT. Jobuses moths to illustrate the fragility of the unrighteous before God(4:19) and the impermanence of their labors (27:18). The otherreferences to moths in Scripture present them as the consumers of thewealth (garments) and pride of humankind as a means of God’sjudgment (Job 13:28; Ps. 39:11; Isa. 50:9; 51:8; Hos. 5:12; Matt.6:19–20; Luke 12:33; James 5:2).

Functionsof Insects in Scripture

Asagents in God’s judgment.Insects serve a variety of functions in Scripture. Most notably,insects serve as agents of judgment from God. The OT indicates howinsects were used as judgment on both Israel and their enemies.

Moseswarned of God’s judgment for Israel’s violation of thecovenant. He advised Israel that as a consequence of their sin, theywould expend much labor in the field but harvest little, because thelocusts would consume them (Deut. 28:38).

Solomon,in his prayer of dedication at the temple, beseeched God regardingjudgment that he might send in the form of grasshoppers to besiegethe land. He asked that when the people of God repent and pray, Godwould hear and forgive (2Chron. 6:26–30). God similarlyresponded by promising that when he “command[s] locusts todevour the land” as judgment for sin, and his people humblethemselves and pray, he will heal and forgive (2Chron. 7:13–14;cf. 1Kings 8:37).

Thepsalmist reminded Israel of God’s wonderful works in theirpast, one of which was his use of insects as a means of his judgment(Ps. 78:45–46; cf. 105:34).

Joel1:4 and 2:25 describe God’s judgment on Israel for theirunfaithfulness in successive waves of intensity (cf. Deut. 28:38, 42;2Chron. 6:28; Amos 4:9–10; 7:1–3). The devastationled to crop failure, famine, destruction of vines and fig trees, andgreat mourning. The severity of the judgment is described as beingunlike anything anyone in the community had ever experienced (Joel1:2–3).

Locustsare the subject of one of the visions of the prophet Amos. In thevision, God showed him the destructive power of these insects as ameans of judgment. Upon seeing the vision, the prophet interceded forthe people, and God relented (Amos 7:1–3).

Insectswere also used as judgments on Israel’s enemies. In the plagueson Egypt, insects were the agents of the third, fourth, and eighthplagues. The third plague (Exod. 8:16–19) was gnats.Interestingly, this was the first of Moses’ signs that themagicians of Pharaoh could not reproduce. Their response to theEgyptian king was that this must be the “finger of God.”There is no record of the gnats ever leaving Egypt, unlike the otherplagues.

Thefourth plague was flies (Exod. 8:20–32). Here the Biblespecifically indicates a distinction between the land of Goshen,where the Israelites dwelled, and the rest of the land of Egypt. Theflies covered all of Egypt except Goshen. This plague led toPharaoh’s first offer of compromise. Once Moses prayed and theflies left Egypt, Pharaoh hardened his heart.

Theeighth plague was in the form of locusts (Exod. 10:1–20). Inresponse to this plague, Pharaoh’s own officials complained tohim, beseeching him to let Israel leave their country lest it beentirely destroyed. The threat of this plague led to Pharaoh’ssecond offer of compromise. Once the locusts began to devastate theland of Egypt, Pharaoh confessed his sin before God, but as soon asthe locusts were removed, his heart again became hardened. Thus,three of the ten plagues on Egypt were in the form of insects.

Atthe end of a series of “woe” passages, the prophet Isaiahproclaimed God’s judgment against the enemies of his peoplebecause of their oppression. In the end, those who plundered willthemselves be plundered, as if by a “swarm of locusts”(Isa. 33:1–4; cf. Jer. 51:14, 27).

Insectswere also used as judgment on people who dwelled in the land ofIsrael prior to Israel’s occupation. Both before and after theevent took place, the Bible describes how God sent hornets to helpdrive out the occupants of the land of Canaan in preparation forIsrael’s arrival. This is described as part of God’sjudgment on these nations for their sins against him (Exod. 23:28;Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12).

Asfood.Insects also are mentioned in Scripture as food. Certain types oflocusts are listed as clean and eligible for consumption. The NTdescribes the diet of John the Baptist, which consisted of locustsand wild honey—a diet entirely dependent on insects (Matt. 3:4;Mark 1:6). The OT also notes Samson enjoying the labor of bees asfood (Judg. 14:8–9).

Usedfiguratively.Most often, insects are used figuratively in Scripture. They are usedin the proverbs of Scripture to illustrate wisdom. The sages wroteabout ants (Prov. 6:6; 30:25), locusts (Prov. 30:27), and even deadflies (Eccles. 10:1) both to extol wisdom and to encourage itsdevelopment in humankind.

Anotherfigurative use of insects is in the riddle about bees and honey posedby Samson to the Philistines (Judg. 14:12–18). As noted above,Samson ate honey (Judg. 14:8–9; cf. 1Sam. 14:25–29,43). Also, Scripture describes the promised land as a place of “milkand honey.”

Insectsalso are used to symbolize pursuing enemies (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12;Isa. 7:18), innumerable forces (Judg. 6:5; 7:12; Ps. 105:34; Jer.46:23; Joel 2:25), insignificance (Num. 13:33; 1Sam. 24:14;26:20; Job 4:19; 27:18; Ps. 109:23; Eccles. 12:5; Isa. 40:22),vulnerability (Job 4:19), God’s incomparable nature (Job39:20), the brevity of life (Ps. 109:23), wisdom and organization(Prov. 30:27), and an invading army (Isa. 7:18; Jer. 51:14, 27), andthey are employed in a taunt against Israel’s enemies (Nah.3:15–17), a lesson on hypocrisy (Matt. 23:24), and an image ofeschatological judgment (Rev. 9:4–11).

ScripturalTruths about Insects

1.Insectsare part of God’s creation.Inview of all the uses of insects in Scripture, several key truthsemerge. First, insects are a part of the totality of God’screation. The very first chapter of the Bible uses one of the generalterms for insects as part of God’s creative activity on thesixth day of creation (Gen. 1:24). After God reviewed the creation onthat day, his assessment of it, including the insects, was that itwas “good” (1:25).

2.Insectsare under God’s control.Asecond scriptural truth related to insects in the Bible is that theyare under God’s control. In Deut. 7:20 God promised to sendhornets ahead of the children of Israel to prepare the promised landfor their arrival. Also, in Joel 2:25, when God promised to repairthe damage to the land caused by the locusts, he described them as“my great army that I sent.” Thus, the picture emergesthat what God has created, he alone reserves the authority tocontrol.

3.Insectsare cared for by God. A final truth regarding insects in Scripture isthat God takes care of them. Just as Jesus explained God’s carefor the birds of the air (Matt. 7:26), the psalmist explained thatall of God’s creation, specifically insects, “look to youto give them their food at the proper time” (Ps. 104:25–27).The conclusion of the psalmist is appropriate for all of God’screation: “When you hide your face, they are terrified; whenyou take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When yousend your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of theground” (104:29–30). Thus, in the end, God creates, Godcontrols, and God cares—a lesson that all of God’screation shares.

The foundational story in all of the OT is the story ofcreation, found in Gen. 1–2. Throughout the history ofinterpretation there have been many approaches to understanding thesechapters. In the modern world, discoveries from both science andarchaeology have challenged some traditional convictions, and debatescontinue to rage. Still, what Gen. 1–2 communicates isgenerally clear: (1) it establishes Yahweh, the God of Israel,as the God by whose word all exists; (2) it presents for ancientreaders a compelling argument for why they should worship Israel’sGod and not other gods of the ancient world. On this second point, itmust be remembered that Israel’s belief in one God flew in theface of contemporary religious notions, where each nation had a highgod along with lesser gods. Hence, when reading Gen. 1–2, wemust keep in mind its ancient polemical dimension rather thanapproaching it with modern expectations.

Thediffering perspectives of Genesis 1 and 2. Evena quick reading of Gen. 1–2 shows that the perspectives oncreation in the two chapters are somewhat different. Genesis 1 isordered famously as a seven-day process, whereby humanity is createdas the pinnacle of God’s work on day six. On the seventh day,as is well known, God rested. Much has been made among someChristians about the need to read this chapter literally, but that nolonger seems to be the dominant view. Much less is a scientificexplanation winning the day (where the details of the text correspondto certain scientific models, which are themselves disputed). Acommonly accepted understanding of these chapters among Christiansgoes by various names, and it attempts to account for the poeticstructure of Gen. 1. In Gen. 1:2 we read that the earth was “formlessand empty.” What follows is a description of God providing“form” in days one through three and then a correspondingfilling of the “emptiness” in days four through six.Hence, in day one God separates light from darkness, and in day fourhe fills the void with the sun, the moon, and the stars. Day twoyields the expanses between the waters and the sky, and day fivefills the voids with water creatures and sky creatures. Day threeyields the land and vegetation, and day six fills the void with landcreatures, the crowning achievement being humanity.

Genesis2 provides a different perspective on the events. It seems thathumanity is created before there were any shrubs or plants. Apartfrom this difference in order, more important is the focus on Adamand Eve and their role in creation, as those called to work the landtogether. These two perspectives are not contradictory, since one caneasily understand Gen. 2 as explicating Gen. 1:26–30. Modernscholarship has largely assigned these two versions to two differentliterary sources (see Documentary Hypothesis), a theory based notonly on the different perspectives of the two stories but also onother differences, such as language and style. Regardless of thealleged origins of these stories, however, they are presented to ustogether in the OT. As a unit, along with what follows in Gen. 3–11,these early chapters in Genesis in some ways stand in stark contrastto creation stories of the ancient Mesopotamian world, while at thesame time adopting many of the concepts and much of the language ofthose stories.

Modernand ancient questions.To enter into this discussion is to ask, “What are theseopening chapters of Genesis trying to say? How did the Israeliteshear the creation story in Genesis?” It sometimes is temptingto read the creation story and ask modern questions. For example,“How does the Genesis creation narrative conform to scientificknowledge?” Modern questions such as these are not, in and ofthemselves, out of bounds. In fact, they may be unavoidable to acertain degree. But we must remember that ancient Israelites did notask such questions. In the ancient Near East described in Genesis,which is thousands of years old, there was no science in any senseclose to the way we think of it today.

Thecreation story was written not to answer modern questions but ratherto address Israel’s questions. Beginning about the middle ofthe nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century,archaeologists discovered a number of creation stories from differentpeoples of the ancient Near East that help put the biblical accountin context. These accounts tell stories of creation in which a numberof gods are responsible. In one prominent example from ancientBabylon, creation was a result of a bloody conflict among the gods.Genesis 1 shares some of the descriptions of one or more of theseother accounts (e.g., light exists before the creation of the sun,the moon, and the stars).

Thetheology of creation.Where Gen. 1 stands out is in its insistence that Israel’s Godalone created the world through his spoken word. The purpose of sucha declaration is not to satisfy contemporary intellectual curiositiesabout the nature of matter or the first moments of the universe’sexistence. Its purpose is to declare to the Israelites that theirGod, not the gods of the ancient world, is responsible for everythingthere is, and that he alone is the one, therefore, who is worthy oftheir worship. The creation story is not an intellectual exercise butrather a deeply religious one. The Israelites lived in a world whereevery surrounding nation had a plurality of gods (pantheon). TheIsraelites were different. They had one God, and this is the messagethat rings loud and clear from Gen. 1.

ThatYahweh, Israel’s God, is alone the creator is not an abstracttheological statement. It is a call to worship. This is why, forexample, numerous passages in the OT burst out in praise of Yahwehthe creator. One example is Ps. 19. God’s glory is so great andso apparent that even creation itself is said to speak of it. Thepsalm uses specific Genesis language: the “heavens” andthe “firmament” proclaim what God has done (these wordsoccur in Gen. 1:1, 6–8, and the Hebrew words in Gen. 1 and Ps.19 are the same). Even though the heavens and the firmament have nopowers of speech, as the psalm tells us (19:3–4), neverthelessthey are “heard” throughout the world because of theawesomeness of the sun’s circuit (19:5–6). The message isthis: if you want to see how great God is, look up.

Butthe psalm does not end there. David is not simply interested in acontemplative posture for his people. Six verses about creation arefollowed, somewhat abruptly, by eight verses about the law. Clearly,a connection between them is being established, and that connectionseems to be fairly straightforward: knowing God as creator shouldhave an effect on how you behave. The God who created the heavens isalso the God who gave you the law, David seems to be saying. And asworthy as God is of praise for the creation (even the heavens and thefirmament join in), so too is the law. It is to be desired more thangold or sweet honey (v. 10). Knowing God as creator has verypractical implications.

Creationand re-creation. Anotherimportant recurrence of creation in the OT, which also has practicalimplications, concerns God’s saving activity. In brief,according to the OT (and the NT as well), when God saves his people,it is an act of “re-creation.” One can see this themedeveloped in numerous places. For example, God is Israel’s“maker” in texts such as Ps. 95:6; Hos. 8:14. These twotexts are found in the context of God having delivered the Israelitesfrom Egypt; their deliverance corresponds to their “creation”as God’s people. Similarly, Isa. 43:14–17 concernsIsrael’s captivity in Babylon and what God will do to deliverhis people. The prophecy describes their deliverance by using“exodus” language and in doing so refers to Yahweh asIsrael’s “Creator” (v. 15).

Thisconnection between creation and redemption (re-creation) is also wellarticulated in the NT. For example, the opening words of John’sGospel echo the very first verses of the Bible: “in thebeginning.” With the coming of Christ, there is a newbeginning. His act of redemption is described as the act of a secondor new Adam (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:22). When oneconfesses faith in Christ, one is “born again” or “fromabove” (John 3:3, 7; see also John 1:13; 1 Pet. 1:3, 23).To be a Christian is to start over, to begin anew, or as Paul put it,“If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old hasgone, the new is here!” (2 Cor. 5:17). And in Rev. 22:2paradise is described as containing a “tree of life,” towhich God’s people once again have access. At the end, in otherwords, it will be as it was in the beginning. In the coming of Christwe see a new creation. That new creation is inaugurated in his firstcoming, where the church, his redeemed people, by the power of theSpirit, live as newly created beings in a fallen world. At his secondcoming, this new creation will be complete, and all creation will beredeemed.

Death is commonly defined as the end of physical life,wherein the normal biological processes associated with life (such asrespiration) cease. This definition, however, does not adequatelyencompass the varied nuances associated with death in the Bible.

TheBeginning of Death

Deathis introduced in the Bible as the penalty for transgressing theprohibition against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of goodand evil—a contrast to Mesopotamia, where death was part of thedivine design of human beings. In Gen. 2:16–17 God tells thefirst man, “When you eat from [the fruit of the tree] you willcertainly die.” The consequences of eating provide a usefulbasis for discussing the nature of death from a biblical perspective.

First,as is apparent from the subsequent narrative, neither the man nor thewoman experiences physical, biological death immediately after eatingthe fruit. In this way, Gen. 2–3 reflects the common biblicalnotion that death refers to more than just biological death, pointingto the more significant aspect of death that embodies alienation andseparation from the source of life, God. The point is presupposed byJesus when he offers life to those who are dead (John 5:24), and byPaul when he proclaims that before Christ all were dead in their sinsand transgressions (Eph. 2:1, 5). It is also reflected in the commonpunishment prescribed in the Pentateuch whereby offenders were cutoff from the people (Gen. 17:14; Exod. 12:15, 19; 30:38; cf. Gen.9:11; Exod. 9:15). Within Gen. 2–3, death arrives with loss ofaccess to the tree of life in the garden. Biologically, the first manand woman may continue to live for a while outside the garden, buttheir fate is sealed when they are cut off from the garden and theintimate fellowship with the Creator that had been enjoyed therein.

Second,the strong implication of Gen. 2:16–17 is that human beings, asoriginally created, were not subject to death (see also Rom. 5:12;6:23; 1Cor. 15:21). This does not mean that they were immortalin the same manner as God (cf. 1Tim. 6:16), but rather thatthey were contingently immortal: they were not subject to death butsustained by their relationship to the life-giving God through theprovision of the tree of life (cf. Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14). Once theywere cut off from the source of life, death ensued.

Theaccount of the arrival of death in Gen. 3, however, tells us littleabout how death affected animals, since the Bible consistentlypresents a predominantly human focus. While Eccles. 3:21 affirmshuman ignorance over the relative postmortem fate of humans andanimals, little else is said on the matter. Similarly, it is notentirely clear whether death is introduced as a punishment for sinfor humans only (and so whether animals could have died prior to thefall) or whether animals were perceived as sharing in immortalityprior to the fall.

Deathin the Old Testament

Deathis frequently depicted negatively throughout the OT. Aside from itsinitial presentation as a divine punishment for sin, it is presentedas that which seeks out and devours life and is terrifying (Pss.18:4–5; 55:4; Prov. 30:15–16; Hab. 2:5). For the authorof Ecclesiastes, death is that which ultimately undermines anypossible value that life may otherwise have (e.g., Eccles. 9:3). Thetragedy of death, in the OT, is that it results in separation, fromGod (as noted above in the context of Gen. 2–3) and frompeople. The psalms, for example, frequently cite the finality andprofundity of death’s effects (e.g., Pss. 6:5; 88:5; 115:17;cf. Isa. 38:18). Even those few passages that appear to present deathmore positively (e.g., Job 3:13, 17) ultimately serve to highlightthe appalling circ*mstances of the speaker’s life rather thanany blessed state of the dead (for a similar idea in the NT, seeRev.9:6).

TheOT does, however, depict death as the natural end of life, and a gooddeath as one that arrives only after a long and prosperous life. SoAbraham (Gen. 25:8), Isaac (Gen. 35:29), and Job (Job 42:16–17)are said to live long lives before they die. Furthermore, somepassages refer to the person being “gathered to his people,”suggesting some form of reunion with previous generations in death,presumably in Sheol, although the location and state of the dead arenever explicated. Isaiah can even include the idea of death withinlanguage used to describe the ideal future world (Isa. 65:20).

Althoughthere are no laws relating to the manner in which the bodies of thedead were to be handled, all the descriptive indicators show thatburial was normative, often in a family tomb or plot (e.g., Gen. 23;cf. 1Kings 13:22). Indeed, the importance of an appropriateburial is apparent in Ecclesiastes’ comment that a stillbornchild is better off than someone who lives a long life but receivesno burial (Eccles. 6:3) and in the prophets’ presentation ofthose not buried as being accursed (Jer. 8:2; 14:16;16:4).

Lifeafter Death in the Old Testament

Beliefin some form of postmortem existence was common in many parts of theancient world. In Egypt, an elaborate set of beliefs relating to thestate of those who had died included the possibility of an ongoingexistence that could even surpass what one may have experiencedbefore death (although such an opportunity was a reasonableexpectation only for the upper classes, while the general populationprobably had more modest expectations of the nature of theirexistence in the afterlife). By way of contrast, Mesopotamian beliefsdepicted a far darker and more troubling afterlife for all but thevery few whose lives and deaths were sufficiently blessed to ensurethem some degree of postmortem comfort. For the remainder, there waslittle hope for any positive experience following death.

TheOT, however, has little to say about the state of those who havedied. The widespread belief in some form of continued existencebeyond biological death in the ancient world suggests that, in theabsence of contrary data in the Bible, the people of Israel probablyassumed that some aspect of a person persisted beyond death.Furthermore, there are hints that this may have been the case, suchas the raising of Samuel’s shade by the medium at Endor (1Sam.28), the escape from death of Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2Kings2:11), the revivification of the body dropped on Elisha’s bones(2Kings 13:21), and expressions used to refer to death such as“gathered to his people” (Gen. 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29;Num. 27:13; Deut. 32:50; cf. Gen. 47:30; Deut. 31:16). The dead(sometimes referred to by the term repa’im, “shades/spiritsof the dead”) were thought to dwell in Sheol, generallydescribed as under the earth (e.g., Ezek. 31:14). Beyond this, thereare prophetic expectations that God will ultimately destroy death(e.g., Isa. 25:8), and that God does not take pleasure in anyone’sdeath (Ezek. 18:23, 32).

Deathin the New Testament

TheNT continues, and in some places expands upon, the negative view ofdeath presented in the OT. The notion that death is a consequence ofand punishment for the sinful state that imprisons all humanity isstated emphatically (e.g., Rom. 3:23; 6:23) and reinforced by thenotion that, although biologically alive, sinful humans are dead intheir sin and so incapable of reviving themselves (Eph. 2:1). Death,according to Paul, is the last enemy (1Cor. 15:26), and yet todie is gain (Phil. 1:21–24) because it heralds being withChrist, which, explains Paul, “is better by far” thanbeing alive in this body in this world.

Centralto both the message of the Bible and to the significance of death inthe Bible is the death of the Messiah, God’s Son. Jesus’death provides the basis for countering the consequences of theoriginal rebellion against God by the first couple (2Cor.5:21). Consequently, Paul could write that Jesus’ death itselfdestroyed death (2Tim. 1:10). Furthermore, the life that Jesusoffers—eternal life—is available to the believer in thepresent (John 3:36; 5:24), prior to the time when death is ultimatelyabolished, such that Jesus could assert that all those who believe inhim will live even though they die (John 11:25–26).

TheNT expands somewhat on the details relating to the state of the deadfrom the OT. For one thing, the existence of an afterlife is clearlypresented. Furthermore, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke16:19–31) reflects a more comprehensive understanding of theexistence of distinctions among those who have died, such that therich man is said to be suffering in Hades (Gk. hadēs, used inthe LXX to translate Heb. she’ol in the OT), while Lazarus isfar off with Abraham and being comforted. Although there is a dangerin reading too much into a parable, the detail appears to reflectsomething of the expanded understanding of the afterlife among somein Jesus’ day.

TheNT makes several references to a “second death” (Rev.2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8; cf. Jude 12). The expression refers to thestate of eternal judgment under God’s wrath, a death from whichthere will be no escape. But those who remain faithful to Christ willnot experience this second death (Rev. 20:6), and in their dwellingplace with God, the new Jerusalem, death will be no more (21:4).

Recounted in Gen. 6:5–9:19, the flood is the event whereby God destroys all creatures except for Noah, his family, and a gathering of animals. The account is highly literary and God-centered. It opens and closes with Noah’s three sons (6:10; 9:18–19). Noah’s obedience is highlighted (7:5, 9, 16). God is the protagonist, and Noah remains silent.

Terminology. The Hebrew word for “flood” is mabbul, and the Greek word is kataklysmos. Outside of the Gen. 6–9 narrative and references to the flood in Gen. 10:1, 32; 11:10, mabbul occurs only in Ps. 29:10, probably a reference to the primordial water stored above the firmament in jars (cf. Gen. 1:7; 7:11). The LXX translates mabbul with kataklysmos in Sir. 40:10; 44:17–18; 4 Macc. 15:31. Hebrew Sirach and the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon also use mabbul for the flood (Sir. 44:17; 1QapGenar 12:9–10). All four uses of kataklysmos in the NT refer to the flood (Matt. 24:38–39; Luke 17:27; 2Pet. 2:5).

The flood narrative. In Gen. 6:5–22, God observes the grand scale of human wickedness, determines to destroy all life, and selects righteous Noah to build an ark. God’s “seeing” is judicial investigation (6:5, 13) that counters the sons of God who “saw” (6:2), just as his pained heart counters humankind’s wicked heart (6:5–6). God’s second statement, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race” (6:7), is his judicial sentence (cf. 3:15–19), affecting all life in the domain of human care (1:28; cf. Job 38:41; Ps. 36:6; Hos. 4:3; Joel 1:20).

The earth’s corruption and violence (Gen. 6:12–13) reflect a spectrum of evil that has despoiled a creation that was once “very good” (1:31; cf. 6:17; 7:21; 8:17; 9:11). God’s destruction responds to the moral corruption of the earth. The ark is a rectangular vessel designed for floating rather than sailing (6:14–15). Noah builds a microcosm of the earth to save its life. The boat’s windowlike openings and three decks reflect the cosmology of Gen. 1 (heavens, water, earth [cf. 6:16]). God makes a promise that Noah will survive and receive a covenant from God (6:18), fulfilled in the Noahic covenant following the flood (9:9, 11, 14–17).

Genesis 7:1–24 recounts the boarding of the ark and then the rising waters. Two numbering systems are used by the narrator in the flood narrative: one for dates of Noah’s age (day, month, year) and one for periods between flood stages. Both systems number between 365 and 370 days. The flood is portrayed as a reversal of the second and third days of creation. Watery boundaries that God once separated collapse (cf. 1:6–10). The rising flood is described in three phases: rising and lifting the ark (7:17), increasing greatly and floating the ark on the surface (7:18), and covering all the high mountains (7:19). Total destruction is amplified by reversing the order of creation—people, animals, birds (7:23)—with “all/every” occurring repeatedly in 7:21–23.

Genesis 8:1–22 recounts the disembarking and Noah’s sacrifice. Genesis 8:1 is the structural and theological center, with God fulfilling (=“remember”) his covenant promise for Noah’s safety. The ark rests on one mountain within the range in eastern Turkey (Kurdistan). The earth’s drying occurs as a process (8:3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14), and echoes of creation reappear (e.g., “wind” [8:1; cf. 1:2]). Although the old curse is not lifted (cf. 5:29), God promises not to add to it (8:21). The flood has not reformed the human heart; it has only stopped the violence. God’s oath of restoration reaffirms the seamless rhythm of seasons that comprise a full year (8:22).

Genesis 9:1–19 recounts the restoration of world order. Since murder was part of the antediluvian violence (6:11, 13), God’s law recalibrates earthly morality (9:5). God’s second postdiluvian speech encodes his plan for the broader preservation of creation (9:8–17). “My rainbow” is God’s confirming sign (9:13). The meteorological phenomenon of the storm is now harnessed as an image of peace. The cosmic warrior “hangs up” his bow in divine disarmament. Humankind now shares the responsibility of justice with God, illustrated in Noah’s first speech of cursing and blessing (9:20–27).

Ancient Near Eastern parallels. Without literary dependence on the biblical story, parallels to the biblical account exist in the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic, Gilgamesh TabletXI, and the Sumerian King List. The exact relationship between the biblical account and these Near Eastern accounts is a debated subject. Perhaps they are variants of a similar story based on the same historical event.

Geography

Whereasthe principal direction in the modern world is north, in the ancientworld different cultures used a variety of orientations as theysought to describe their relationship to their geographicalenvironment. In Israel the primary direction was determined by thesunrise: east. This is reflected in Hebrew, where the main word usedto refer to east as a direction was qedem, which could also be usedto simply refer to that which was directly ahead or in front of thespeaker (e.g., Ps. 139:5). Elsewhere, east is designated by the termsmizrakh (“rising” [Josh. 11:3]) or mizrakh hashamesh(“rising of the sun” [Num. 21:11]), both of which derivefrom the direction of sunrise. By way of contrast, in Egypt theprimary direction was south, in alignment with the source of the NileRiver.

Theancient world employed the same notion of four cardinal directions,which persists to the present, and the terminology related to thesewas influenced by the choice of primary direction. Thus, in Israelnorth is often designated by “left”; south could bedesignated by “right,” and west by “behind.”In addition, directions could be specified by reference togeographical features found in those directions. North could bespecified by the word tsapon, which was derived from the name of anorthern Syrian mountain (Zaphon); south by negeb, a name for theregion south of Israel (Negev); and west by yam (“sea”),since the Mediterranean Sea lay to the west.

Symbolism

Asidefrom their purely geographical significance, the directions also cameto bear figurative significance. Some caution is warranted inassigning symbolic significance to language, for there is danger ofreading invalid meanings into texts. Furthermore, given the ambiguityinherent in the use of terms to refer to directions, which also havealternate significances, there is danger of assigning a symbolicmeaning to the direction that actually resides in the alternate. So,for example, while yam (“sea”) carries significantsymbolic overtones in the Bible, this association does not appear tohave been extended to encompass the term when used to designate awesterly direction.

Eastand west.Nonetheless, there is, for example, probably some significance in theexpulsion from Eden and progressive movement eastward to the tower ofBabel through Gen. 1–11, followed by a return to the promisedland, which was approached by reversing the easterly migration andreturning toward Eden. Eden itself was said to lie “in theeast” (Heb. miqqedem; Gen. 2:8), although the same Hebrewexpression in Pss. 74:12; 77:5, 11; 78:2; 143:5 means “inancient times,” and there is perhaps a deliberate ambiguity inthe use of the expression in Gen. 2:8. In Isa. 2:6 the east is thesource of influences on the people that lead them astray. Followingthe exile, Ezekiel sees the glory of God returning to the temple fromthe east (Ezek. 43:1–2). Thus, when used symbolically, “east”is often viewed negatively or else may be used to mark a connectionwith distant antiquity (Gen. 2:8; Job 1:3). Any symbolic significanceassigned to west appears primarily to be associated with it being theantithesis of east. The distance between east and west was usedpoetically to express vast distance (Ps. 103:12).

Northand south.North is significant for two primary reasons. First, it is thedirection from which invading armies most often descended upon Israel(Jer. 1:13) as well as from which Babylon’s destruction is saidto come (Jer. 50:3). In light of this, Ezekiel’s vision of Godapproaching from the north strikes an ominous tone of impendingjudgment (Ezek. 1:1–4). Second, in Canaanite mythology theabode of the gods, and specifically Baal, lay to the north, on MountZaphon. Thus, the king of Babylon’s plans in Isa. 14:13 amountto a claim to establish himself as one of the gods. In contrast tothis, Ps. 48:2 pre-sents Mount Zion as supplanting Mount Zaphon andthus implicitly presents Israel’s one God as supplanting theCanaanite pantheon.

Aswith west, there is little symbolic significance associated with thedirection south in the Bible, aside from its use in combination withother directions.

Thefour directions.The four directions (or sometimes just pairs of directions) are usedtogether to describe both the scattering of the Israelites as well astheir being gathered by God back to the promised land (Ps. 107:3;Isa. 43:5–6; Luke 13:29). They are also used together toexpress the extent of the promised land (Gen. 13:14) or else todescribe something that is all-encompassing (1Chron. 9:24).

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

Thispoetic justice pervades the OT in the judgment and exile of Adam andEve (Gen. 3:8–24), Cain’s sentence and blood revenge(Gen. 4:15, 24), and the worldwide flood and annihilation (Gen. 6–9)(cf. Exod. 21:20–21; Deut. 30:15–20; Josh. 7; Amos3:14–15; Mic. 2:1–3). Such stories reveal a sovereign Godacting as an external agent who exacts punishment in light of hisintentions for creation. For Israel, retribution is the exercise ofYahweh’s legal rights in an attempt to restore covenantfellowship (Lev. 26:40–45). Although serious tensionsexist—sometimes the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer—thisdoes not alter the grand scheme of Scripture (Job 33; Jer. 12:1–4).In some scenarios, only the next lifetime will fully bring justiceand reward (Ps. 49:5–15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rev.22:1–5). Deep wisdom, however, embraces mystery and understandsthe limits of human agency (Gen. 50:19–20; James 1:5).

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

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

Geography

Whereasthe principal direction in the modern world is north, in the ancientworld different cultures used a variety of orientations as theysought to describe their relationship to their geographicalenvironment. In Israel the primary direction was determined by thesunrise: east. This is reflected in Hebrew, where the main word usedto refer to east as a direction was qedem, which could also be usedto simply refer to that which was directly ahead or in front of thespeaker (e.g., Ps. 139:5). Elsewhere, east is designated by the termsmizrakh (“rising” [Josh. 11:3]) or mizrakh hashamesh(“rising of the sun” [Num. 21:11]), both of which derivefrom the direction of sunrise. By way of contrast, in Egypt theprimary direction was south, in alignment with the source of the NileRiver.

Theancient world employed the same notion of four cardinal directions,which persists to the present, and the terminology related to thesewas influenced by the choice of primary direction. Thus, in Israelnorth is often designated by “left”; south could bedesignated by “right,” and west by “behind.”In addition, directions could be specified by reference togeographical features found in those directions. North could bespecified by the word tsapon, which was derived from the name of anorthern Syrian mountain (Zaphon); south by negeb, a name for theregion south of Israel (Negev); and west by yam (“sea”),since the Mediterranean Sea lay to the west.

Symbolism

Asidefrom their purely geographical significance, the directions also cameto bear figurative significance. Some caution is warranted inassigning symbolic significance to language, for there is danger ofreading invalid meanings into texts. Furthermore, given the ambiguityinherent in the use of terms to refer to directions, which also havealternate significances, there is danger of assigning a symbolicmeaning to the direction that actually resides in the alternate. So,for example, while yam (“sea”) carries significantsymbolic overtones in the Bible, this association does not appear tohave been extended to encompass the term when used to designate awesterly direction.

Eastand west.Nonetheless, there is, for example, probably some significance in theexpulsion from Eden and progressive movement eastward to the tower ofBabel through Gen. 1–11, followed by a return to the promisedland, which was approached by reversing the easterly migration andreturning toward Eden. Eden itself was said to lie “in theeast” (Heb. miqqedem; Gen. 2:8), although the same Hebrewexpression in Pss. 74:12; 77:5, 11; 78:2; 143:5 means “inancient times,” and there is perhaps a deliberate ambiguity inthe use of the expression in Gen. 2:8. In Isa. 2:6 the east is thesource of influences on the people that lead them astray. Followingthe exile, Ezekiel sees the glory of God returning to the temple fromthe east (Ezek. 43:1–2). Thus, when used symbolically, “east”is often viewed negatively or else may be used to mark a connectionwith distant antiquity (Gen. 2:8; Job 1:3). Any symbolic significanceassigned to west appears primarily to be associated with it being theantithesis of east. The distance between east and west was usedpoetically to express vast distance (Ps. 103:12).

Northand south.North is significant for two primary reasons. First, it is thedirection from which invading armies most often descended upon Israel(Jer. 1:13) as well as from which Babylon’s destruction is saidto come (Jer. 50:3). In light of this, Ezekiel’s vision of Godapproaching from the north strikes an ominous tone of impendingjudgment (Ezek. 1:1–4). Second, in Canaanite mythology theabode of the gods, and specifically Baal, lay to the north, on MountZaphon. Thus, the king of Babylon’s plans in Isa. 14:13 amountto a claim to establish himself as one of the gods. In contrast tothis, Ps. 48:2 pre-sents Mount Zion as supplanting Mount Zaphon andthus implicitly presents Israel’s one God as supplanting theCanaanite pantheon.

Aswith west, there is little symbolic significance associated with thedirection south in the Bible, aside from its use in combination withother directions.

Thefour directions.The four directions (or sometimes just pairs of directions) are usedtogether to describe both the scattering of the Israelites as well astheir being gathered by God back to the promised land (Ps. 107:3;Isa. 43:5–6; Luke 13:29). They are also used together toexpress the extent of the promised land (Gen. 13:14) or else todescribe something that is all-encompassing (1Chron. 9:24).

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).

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

The name “Hittite” derives from the name of the Hittitehomeland: Hatti. The Bible refers to “children (daughters) ofHeth” and “Hittite” or “Hittites.”

Historicaloverview.Hittite precursors appeared in Anatolia (Turkey) during the thirdmillennium. Of unknown origin, their language was Indo-Europeanrather than Semitic like Hebrew. During the second millennium aHittite kingdom emerged, with Hattusa (modern Bogazkale) as itscapital. HattusiliI (c. 1650 BC) was the first Hittite king ofhistorical rec-ord. He gained control of the trade routes andeliminated regional threats. He also established a Hittite law code,and under him Hittite literature flourished. His son, MursiliI,sacked Babylon, ending Hammurabi’s dynasty (1595BC).

Hittiteinfluence greatly increased under TadhaliyaII (c. 1400 BC) andespecially under SuppiluliumaI (c. 1350 BC). At its height, theHittite Empire spanned from central Anatolia to northern Syria(including Ugarit and Amurru), controlling various vassal states. TheHittites skirmished briefly with Egypt over territory in northernSyria (MuwatalliII engaged RamessesII at Qadesh in 1275BC), and then followed a period of negotiated peace and increasedcontact between the two kingdoms. In contrast, dealings with Assyria,typically strained, eventually led to defeat and loss of Hittiteterritory (late thirteenth century).

Shortlythereafter, the Hittite Empire, weakened by uprisings and defectionsamong its territories, succumbed to the upheavals of the period. Inits wake rose numerous minor states (e.g., Karkamis and Hamath) thatsaw themselves as successors to the Hittite Empire and perpetuatedHittite culture. These are referred to collectively as theNeo-Hittite states; Karkamis was the last to fall to theNeo-Assyrians (717BC).

Hittitesin the Bible.According to the Bible, the Hittites descended from Canaan (Gen.10:15; 1Chron. 1:13 [the NIV reads “Hittites” forthe proper name “Heth”) and were destined to besubjugated—for example, by the Israelites (see Gen. 9:25–27).Genesis portrays the patriarchs in regular contact with Hittites,through which we learn of several Hittite individuals. Abrahampurchased a cave and surrounding field from “Ephron theHittite” (Gen. 23). Esau took Hittite wives (27:46); however,discrepancies exist concerning their names and ethnicities (cf.26:34; 28:9; 36:2–3).

TheOT consistently mentions the Hittites among those peoples whom theIsraelites would dispossess upon entering the promised land (Gen.15:18–21; Exod. 3:8). Yahweh vowed to drive them out before theIsraelites (Exod. 23:28 [cf. v.23]), while the Israelites wereinstructed to eradicate their presence from the land (Deut. 7:1–2;20:17). The Israelites only partly succeeded, eventually settlingamong the other peoples (Judg. 3:5–6).

Duringthis time, the Hittites are depicted as occupying the central hillcountry between the coastal plain to the west and the Dead Sea to theeast (Num. 13:29; Josh. 9:1), though Josh. 1:4 refers to the entireregion of Canaan and Transjordan as “the Hittite country.”This perhaps recalls Hittite influence upon the region, revealing ageneric or political (versus ethnic) use of the term.

Furtherreferences pertain to the monarchic period. David had several closeHittite associates: Ahimelek, of whom nothing else is known (1Sam.26:6), and Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband and a member of David’sbodyguard (2Sam. 11:3; 23:39). Under Solomon’s reignHittites were conscripted for forced labor (1Kings 9:20).Solomon also conducted trade between Egypt and Hittite states to thenorth (10:29), taking for himself Hittite wives (11:1). The finalreference to extant Hittites comes from Joram’s reign, in themid-ninth century BC (2Kings 7:6).

Duringthe exile and afterward, the Hittites became a byword (Ezek. 16:3,45), exemplifying practices from which pious Jews sought to distancethemselves (Ezra 9:1).

Conclusions.Identification of the biblical Hittites with those of Anatoliaremains problematic. Clearly, Israel had contact with laterNeo-Hittite states during its monarchic period (see 2Sam.8:9–10; 1Kings 10:29; 11:1). Nevertheless, archaeologydoes not support a Hittite presence in the Judean hill country at thetime of the conquest. Thus, the biblical Hittites may have been anunrelated, unidentified people inhabiting Canaan; alternately,“Hittites” (and the like) may have conveyed rhetoricallythe idea of “otherness, inferiority” (already anticipatedby Gen. 9–10; cf. Ezek. 16:3, 45; Ezra 9:1).

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.

OldTestament

SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.

Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.

Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.

Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.

Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.

Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).

NewTestament

Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.

There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin;hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, orportrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of thedriving forces of the entire Bible.

Sinin the Bible

OldTestament.Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’scommandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree ofthe knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. WhenAdam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete.They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaveswere inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with theirattempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent,Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).

Inthe midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways thatsin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised toput hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of thewoman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blowupon the offspring of the woman, the offspring ofthe womanwould defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequatecovering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implicationis that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adamand Eve, covering their sin.

InGen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on fulldisplay. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able toeradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humansgathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make aname for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them toscatter across the earth (11:1–9).

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

Despitethese provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke itscovenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under thereign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people,including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder(2Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wivesand concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods(1Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israeland Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry becamerampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judahin 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised toraise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as aguilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

AfterGod’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that thegreat prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, wereat hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remainedunder foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell ofSolomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Beforelong, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning awayfrom him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administrationof the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failedto properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).

NewTestament.During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longingfor God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last,when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it wasrevealed that he would “save his people from their sins”(Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, Johnthe Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism ofrepentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereasboth Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to bethe 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 theSuffering 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 wrathof God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. Withhis justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify allwho are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). Whatneither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, JesusChrist did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).

Afterhis resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers beganproclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus didand calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one ofyou, 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 againstthem (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believerscontinue 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 newheaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse(Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).

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

Definitionand Terminology

Definitionof sin. Althoughno definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of theconcept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conformto God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action,orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered thatGod’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character,so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather isa personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited toactions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen.4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature ashuman beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.

Terminology.TheBible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying themis not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and useof the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one ofthe following four categories.

1.Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator andruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’sself-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankindfoolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom.1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows tohumans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31).Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodlinessor impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa.9:17; 1Pet. 4:18).

2.Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from thelawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass”picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or thecrossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42;Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’slaw, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45;Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violatinghis statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result isguilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’slaw is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectivelyfeels guilt.

3.Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what isgood. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what isgood (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contraststhe upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could alsoinclude here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speakof perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequentmention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievousdeparture from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27;1Cor. 5:1–11).

4.Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individualhad to be in a state of purity before him. While a person couldbecome impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating womanwas impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity”clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek.24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Althoughit is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, inother places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7;Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).

Metaphors

Inaddition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible usesseveral metaphors or images to describe it. The following four areamong the more prominent.

Missingthe mark.In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin”have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sinis reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that aperson simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it isthat he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9;Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional ornot, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num.15:30).

Departingfrom the way.Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in thewisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of therighteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19).Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways,but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18).Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed bytheir own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).

Adultery.Since God’s relationship with his people is described as amarriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32),it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness asadultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous womanvividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them ofspiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52).When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate inidolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1Cor.6:12–20; 10:1–22).

Slavery.Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clearthat Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture ofits far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7;49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to thosewho do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything thatpleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic powerthat is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare(Rom. 7:7–25).

Scopeand Consequences

Sindoes not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage alongwith it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.

Scope.The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As aresult of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist humanefforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen.3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under theweight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2Chron.36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation aswell (Rom. 8:19–22).

Sinaffects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions,motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom.3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “totaldepravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful asthey could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is taintedby sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as asinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societalstructures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economicmarkets, to name but a few.

Consequences.Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’sneighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sinhas consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level.Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen.2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty inGod’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, andsubjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20;5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict betweenindividuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breedsmistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closestrelationships.

Conclusion

Nosubject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding ofsin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As thePuritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ willnot be sweet.”

The Bible is full of teeming creatures and swarming things.These creatures, insects, often play significant roles in the storiesand the events described in them. From the first chapter of the Bibleto the very last book, these flying, creeping, hopping, and crawlingthings are prominent.

Termsfor Insects

Insectsare described in the Bible with both general and specific terms. Inthe OT, there are three general terms for insects and twenty termsused to refer to specific types of insects. In the NT, two differenttypes of insects are referenced: gnats and locusts.

Thetwo most common general terms for insects are variously translated.Terms and phrases used to describe them include “livingcreatures” (Gen. 1:20), “creatures that move along theground” (Gen. 1:24–26; 6:7, 20; 7:8, 14, 23; 8:17, 19;Lev. 5:2; Ezek. 38:20; Hos. 2:18), that which “moves”(Gen. 9:3), “swarming things” (Lev. 11:10), “flyinginsects” (Lev. 11:20–21, 23; Deut. 14:19), “creatures”(Lev. 11:43), “crawling things” (Lev. 22:5; Ezek. 8:10),“reptiles” (1Kings 4:33), “teeming creatures”(Ps. 104:25), “small creatures” (Ps. 148:10), and “seacreatures” (Hab. 1:14). The other general term for insects isused with reference to swarms of insects, typically flies (Exod.8:21–22, 24, 29; Pss. 78:45; 105:31). Specific insects named inScripture are listed below.

Ants.Ants are used in Proverbs as an example of and encouragement towardwisdom. In 6:6 ants serve as an example for sluggards to reform theirslothful ways. Also, in 30:25 ants serve as an example of creaturesthat, despite their diminutive size, are wise enough to make advancepreparations for the long winter.

Bees.Beesare used both literally and figuratively in Scripture. Judges 14:8refers to honeybees, the product of which becomes the object ofSamson’s riddle. The other three uses of bees in the OT arefigurative of swarms of enemies against God’s people (Deut.1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18).

Fleas.Fleasare referenced in the OT only by David to indicate his insignificancein comparison with King Saul (1Sam. 24:14; 26:20). The irony ofthe comparison becomes clear with David’s later ascendancy.

Flies.The plague of flies follows that of gnats on Egypt (Exod. 8:20–31).Although the gnats are never said to have left Egypt, the flies areremoved upon Moses’ prayer. In Eccles. 10:1 the stench of deadflies is compared to the impact that folly can have on the wise. InIsa. 7:18 flies represent Egypt being summoned by God as his avengingagents on Judah’s sin. In addition, one of the gods in Ekronwas named “Baal-Zebub,” which means “lord of theflies” (2Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). The reference toSatan in the NT using a similar name is likely an adaptation of theOT god of Ekron (Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15,18–19).

Gnats.Gnats are distinguished from flies in the OT, though the distinctionis not always apparent. Gnats are employed by God in the third plagueon Egypt (Exod. 8:16–19), while flies form the means ofpunishment in the fourth plague. The two are listed together in Ps.105:31 and appear parallel, though the former may be a reference to aswarm. Gnats were also used by Jesus to illustrate the hypocrisy ofthe Pharisees and the scribes (Matt. 23:24).

Hornets.TheBible uses hornets in Scripture as an agent of God’sdestruction. The term occurs three times in the OT. In eachoccurrence these stinging insects refer to God’s expulsion ofthe Canaanites from the land that God promised to his people. Thefirst two times, Exod. 23:28 and Deut. 7:20, hornets are used inreference to a promise of what God will do; the third time, Josh.24:12, they illustrate what God did.

Locusts.Of particular interest is the use of locusts in the Bible. The termor a similar nomenclature occurs close to fifty times in the NIV.Locusts demonstrate a number of characteristics in Scripture. First,they are under God’s control (Exod. 10:13–19). As such,they have no king (Prov. 30:27). They serve God’s purposes.Second, locusts often occur in very large numbers or swarms (Judg.6:5; Jer. 46:23; Nah. 3:15). At times, their numbers can be so largeas to cause darkness in the land (Exod. 10:15). Third, in largenumbers these insects have been known to ravage homes, devour theland, devastate fields, and debark trees (Exod. 10:12–15; Deut.28:38; 1Kings 8:37; 2Chron. 7:13; Pss. 78:46; 105:34;Isa. 33:4; Joel 1:4–7). Due to their fierceness, they werecompared to horses (Rev. 9:7). Fourth, locusts hide at night (Nah.3:17). Finally, certain types of locusts were used as food.

Moths.Mothsare referred to seven times in the OT and four times in the NT. Jobuses moths to illustrate the fragility of the unrighteous before God(4:19) and the impermanence of their labors (27:18). The otherreferences to moths in Scripture present them as the consumers of thewealth (garments) and pride of humankind as a means of God’sjudgment (Job 13:28; Ps. 39:11; Isa. 50:9; 51:8; Hos. 5:12; Matt.6:19–20; Luke 12:33; James 5:2).

Functionsof Insects in Scripture

Asagents in God’s judgment.Insects serve a variety of functions in Scripture. Most notably,insects serve as agents of judgment from God. The OT indicates howinsects were used as judgment on both Israel and their enemies.

Moseswarned of God’s judgment for Israel’s violation of thecovenant. He advised Israel that as a consequence of their sin, theywould expend much labor in the field but harvest little, because thelocusts would consume them (Deut. 28:38).

Solomon,in his prayer of dedication at the temple, beseeched God regardingjudgment that he might send in the form of grasshoppers to besiegethe land. He asked that when the people of God repent and pray, Godwould hear and forgive (2Chron. 6:26–30). God similarlyresponded by promising that when he “command[s] locusts todevour the land” as judgment for sin, and his people humblethemselves and pray, he will heal and forgive (2Chron. 7:13–14;cf. 1Kings 8:37).

Thepsalmist reminded Israel of God’s wonderful works in theirpast, one of which was his use of insects as a means of his judgment(Ps. 78:45–46; cf. 105:34).

Joel1:4 and 2:25 describe God’s judgment on Israel for theirunfaithfulness in successive waves of intensity (cf. Deut. 28:38, 42;2Chron. 6:28; Amos 4:9–10; 7:1–3). The devastationled to crop failure, famine, destruction of vines and fig trees, andgreat mourning. The severity of the judgment is described as beingunlike anything anyone in the community had ever experienced (Joel1:2–3).

Locustsare the subject of one of the visions of the prophet Amos. In thevision, God showed him the destructive power of these insects as ameans of judgment. Upon seeing the vision, the prophet interceded forthe people, and God relented (Amos 7:1–3).

Insectswere also used as judgments on Israel’s enemies. In the plagueson Egypt, insects were the agents of the third, fourth, and eighthplagues. The third plague (Exod. 8:16–19) was gnats.Interestingly, this was the first of Moses’ signs that themagicians of Pharaoh could not reproduce. Their response to theEgyptian king was that this must be the “finger of God.”There is no record of the gnats ever leaving Egypt, unlike the otherplagues.

Thefourth plague was flies (Exod. 8:20–32). Here the Biblespecifically indicates a distinction between the land of Goshen,where the Israelites dwelled, and the rest of the land of Egypt. Theflies covered all of Egypt except Goshen. This plague led toPharaoh’s first offer of compromise. Once Moses prayed and theflies left Egypt, Pharaoh hardened his heart.

Theeighth plague was in the form of locusts (Exod. 10:1–20). Inresponse to this plague, Pharaoh’s own officials complained tohim, beseeching him to let Israel leave their country lest it beentirely destroyed. The threat of this plague led to Pharaoh’ssecond offer of compromise. Once the locusts began to devastate theland of Egypt, Pharaoh confessed his sin before God, but as soon asthe locusts were removed, his heart again became hardened. Thus,three of the ten plagues on Egypt were in the form of insects.

Atthe end of a series of “woe” passages, the prophet Isaiahproclaimed God’s judgment against the enemies of his peoplebecause of their oppression. In the end, those who plundered willthemselves be plundered, as if by a “swarm of locusts”(Isa. 33:1–4; cf. Jer. 51:14, 27).

Insectswere also used as judgment on people who dwelled in the land ofIsrael prior to Israel’s occupation. Both before and after theevent took place, the Bible describes how God sent hornets to helpdrive out the occupants of the land of Canaan in preparation forIsrael’s arrival. This is described as part of God’sjudgment on these nations for their sins against him (Exod. 23:28;Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12).

Asfood.Insects also are mentioned in Scripture as food. Certain types oflocusts are listed as clean and eligible for consumption. The NTdescribes the diet of John the Baptist, which consisted of locustsand wild honey—a diet entirely dependent on insects (Matt. 3:4;Mark 1:6). The OT also notes Samson enjoying the labor of bees asfood (Judg. 14:8–9).

Usedfiguratively.Most often, insects are used figuratively in Scripture. They are usedin the proverbs of Scripture to illustrate wisdom. The sages wroteabout ants (Prov. 6:6; 30:25), locusts (Prov. 30:27), and even deadflies (Eccles. 10:1) both to extol wisdom and to encourage itsdevelopment in humankind.

Anotherfigurative use of insects is in the riddle about bees and honey posedby Samson to the Philistines (Judg. 14:12–18). As noted above,Samson ate honey (Judg. 14:8–9; cf. 1Sam. 14:25–29,43). Also, Scripture describes the promised land as a place of “milkand honey.”

Insectsalso are used to symbolize pursuing enemies (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12;Isa. 7:18), innumerable forces (Judg. 6:5; 7:12; Ps. 105:34; Jer.46:23; Joel 2:25), insignificance (Num. 13:33; 1Sam. 24:14;26:20; Job 4:19; 27:18; Ps. 109:23; Eccles. 12:5; Isa. 40:22),vulnerability (Job 4:19), God’s incomparable nature (Job39:20), the brevity of life (Ps. 109:23), wisdom and organization(Prov. 30:27), and an invading army (Isa. 7:18; Jer. 51:14, 27), andthey are employed in a taunt against Israel’s enemies (Nah.3:15–17), a lesson on hypocrisy (Matt. 23:24), and an image ofeschatological judgment (Rev. 9:4–11).

ScripturalTruths about Insects

1.Insectsare part of God’s creation.Inview of all the uses of insects in Scripture, several key truthsemerge. First, insects are a part of the totality of God’screation. The very first chapter of the Bible uses one of the generalterms for insects as part of God’s creative activity on thesixth day of creation (Gen. 1:24). After God reviewed the creation onthat day, his assessment of it, including the insects, was that itwas “good” (1:25).

2.Insectsare under God’s control.Asecond scriptural truth related to insects in the Bible is that theyare under God’s control. In Deut. 7:20 God promised to sendhornets ahead of the children of Israel to prepare the promised landfor their arrival. Also, in Joel 2:25, when God promised to repairthe damage to the land caused by the locusts, he described them as“my great army that I sent.” Thus, the picture emergesthat what God has created, he alone reserves the authority tocontrol.

3.Insectsare cared for by God. A final truth regarding insects in Scripture isthat God takes care of them. Just as Jesus explained God’s carefor the birds of the air (Matt. 7:26), the psalmist explained thatall of God’s creation, specifically insects, “look to youto give them their food at the proper time” (Ps. 104:25–27).The conclusion of the psalmist is appropriate for all of God’screation: “When you hide your face, they are terrified; whenyou take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When yousend your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of theground” (104:29–30). Thus, in the end, God creates, Godcontrols, and God cares—a lesson that all of God’screation shares.

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

Thispoetic justice pervades the OT in the judgment and exile of Adam andEve (Gen. 3:8–24), Cain’s sentence and blood revenge(Gen. 4:15, 24), and the worldwide flood and annihilation (Gen. 6–9)(cf. Exod. 21:20–21; Deut. 30:15–20; Josh. 7; Amos3:14–15; Mic. 2:1–3). Such stories reveal a sovereign Godacting as an external agent who exacts punishment in light of hisintentions for creation. For Israel, retribution is the exercise ofYahweh’s legal rights in an attempt to restore covenantfellowship (Lev. 26:40–45). Although serious tensionsexist—sometimes the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer—thisdoes not alter the grand scheme of Scripture (Job 33; Jer. 12:1–4).In some scenarios, only the next lifetime will fully bring justiceand reward (Ps. 49:5–15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rev.22:1–5). Deep wisdom, however, embraces mystery and understandsthe limits of human agency (Gen. 50:19–20; James 1:5).

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

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

The concept of justice pervades the Bible, especially, thoughnot exclusively, the OT. The key biblical terms that convey thisconcept include mishpat, tsedeq/tsedaqah, yashar in the OT and thedik- word group in the NT (whose noun and verb forms are translatedrespectively as “righteous” and “justify” ortheir respective cognates). The biblical concept of justice is anembodiment of two contemporary concepts: righteousness and justice.The former designates compliance with the divine norm, while thelatter emphasizes conformity to a societal standard of what is rightand equitable. Focusing exclusively on the latter hinders the correctunderstanding of justice in the biblical sense. Additionally, thebiblical understanding of this concept is encumbered by the use ofdiffering English terms to translate the same Hebrew or Greek terms.

Mishpatand Tsedaqah

Mishpatinherently encompasses the idea of judicial activism consisting inthe provision of standard criteria (legislation, instructions,directives) for conduct and adjudication, and/or the actualarbitration between parties with the goal of ascertaining culpabilityor otherwise and administering the requisite sanctions or acquittal.Tsedaqah, on the other hand, emphasizes the established norm of justorder for right conduct both in the larger society and forindividuals. Whereas mishpat emphasizes the action that seeks toestablish or enforce right patterns of behavior for the common good,tsedaqah stresses the practice (or lack thereof) of such a norm insociety, or between individuals, or an individual’s compliancewith such a norm.

Whenused in combination as a hendiadys (or word pair), these two termssignify an inherent requirement for conformity to an established norm(whether in the religious sphere or in civil society) or therequirement of loyalty or right conduct between individuals. To theperson who stands to benefit from this norm, it approximates a right(i.e., a claim). Conversely, implicit duty is placed upon the personwho ensures the conformity to such an established norm. This fact isbetter appreciated when we reckon with the covenantal nature ofrequirements for justice in the ancient world, in which both partieshave both claim and responsibility. Broadly speaking, this conceptalso implies good governance, which accrues order to life and commonbenefits to all members of the community.

Thisidea is exemplified even in passages that do not use this precisephraseology (mishpat utsedaqah). Judah’s widoweddaughter-in-law, Tamar, had an inherent right to be provided with a(kinsman-redeemer) husband to raise up progeny for her deceasedhusband, while Judah had the incumbent duty of giving her in leviratemarriage to his surviving son. When Judah failed to execute his duty,Tamar entrapped him into an incestuous relationship, from which sheconceived. When condemned to die for adultery in a clannish courtsetting, Tamar revealed the identity of her unborn child’sfather, to which Judah responded by saying, “She is morerighteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah”(Gen. 38:26). That is, she acted more in conformity to the norm thanhe did. In another instance, Yahweh, while challenging the Judeansconcerning their loyalty to him in a covenant lawsuit setting, asks,“A son honors his father, and a slave his master. If I am afather, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is therespect due me?” (Mal. 1:6). It is Yahweh’s right asfather and master to receive honor and respect, while it is theirduty to give him both.

Godas the Source and Model of Justice

Tobe just, then, implies conformity to that which is right—yashar(the standard or norm). In Scripture, this standard is the revealeddivine will and character. Compliance to it is often expressed inbiblical narrative as doing what is “right [or good] in theLord’s sight” (Deut. 6:18; 12:28; 1Kings 14:8;22:43), while its antithesis is doing what is “evil in the eyesof the Lord” (Judg. 2:11; 1Kings 11:6; 14:22) or doingwhat some human figure(s) “saw fit” (Deut. 12:8; Judg.17:6; 21:25).

Therefore,the source of justice is God himself. It flows from his essentialcharacter as one who is both just and righteous, whose actions areflawless, perfect, upright, and just (Deut. 32:4; 1Sam. 12:7;2Sam. 22:31; Job 37:23; Ps. 89:14). God is the righteouslawgiver, hence the one who establishes the norm for right conduct(Deut. 4:4–8; Ps. 19:7–9). He requires justice of all hiscreatures (cf. Gen. 9:5–6; Exod. 21:12, 28–29). God alsojudges 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 humancommunity, however, he delegates to its leaders, such as civilmagistrates or political officials, and requires them to execute thisresponsibility 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 ofjustice in the human community is not limited to its leaders only; itis incumbent upon everyone therein (Ps. 15:1–5; Mic. 6:8; Zech.7:9; 8:17; Matt. 23:23).

Executingjustice requires doing all that is essential to bring about thedivine order implicit in creation and explicit in revealed truth, toproduce harmony in all relationships in which humankind is involved(divine-human, human-human, and human-nature). This has the twofoldresult of restraining evil and advancing the benefits of just livingwithin the human society. Thus, the fruits of justice are to be seenin all spheres of human life, such as spirituality (2Cor.5:17–21), morality and ethics (Phil. 4:8; Col. 3:5–9;Titus 2:11–13), social justice (Exod. 22:21–24; Isa.56:1; Amos 2:6–7; Ezek. 22:7–29; James 2:1–9), andeconomic justice (Amos 5:11; 8:4–6; James 5:1–6), as wellas in the environment (Deut. 20:19–20; Pss. 96:9–13;104:1–31; Eccles. 2:5–6; Rom. 8:19–22).

Additionally,the outworking of justice produces (re)distribution and retribution.Distribution means that those blessed materially share of theirblessings with those in need (Deut. 15:1–15; Ps. 112:5–9;Prov. 28:27; Isa. 58:1–11; 2Cor. 8–9). Retributionrelates to the vindication and deliverance of the oppressed andjudgment on the wicked (1Sam. 2:7–10; Job 36:5–10;Ps. 72:4; Luke 4:17–20). This is both attested in biblicalIsrael’s experience (Isa. 1:17–20; 5:1–9; Jer.5:26–29; Mic. 2:1–3) and is being anticipated at thefinal judgment (Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:1–3; Matt. 25:31–46;2Thess. 1:5–10). The vindicated obtain God’s loveand grace, while the judged receive his justice. Justice and love,therefore, are the two sides of God’s holiness.

When one or more of a person’s vital bodily systemsfails to function without the aid of medical technology, physiciansand family members must sometimes make the painful decision to eithercontinue or end life support. Some people decide for themselves inadvance and record their wishes in a living will.

Thisraises important ethical questions. When is a person dead? To whatextent and with what measures should life be preserved? Does qualityof life matter? More specifically, should “life” or“personhood” be defined by the ability to choose? Byconsciousness? By neocortical function?

Inlight of these dilemmas, the mind-body relationship deservesparticular Christian reflection. Somehow, mind and body form anorganic, unified creature made in God’s image. Human life istherefore of highest value in creation (Gen. 1:26; 9:6). Also worthconsideration is the physical, bodily nature of the resurrection(1Cor. 15). Scripture’s high regard for the body seems tocall into question ethical paradigms that downplay the desirabilityof preserving it. In any case, the beginning and the end point forsomeone faced with difficult medical choices is the apostle’sexhortation to act in faith, hope, and love (1Cor. 13:13).

Because Scripture sees all things as providentially arrangedand sustained by God’s sovereign power at all times (Heb. 1:3),miracles are not aberrations in an otherwise closed and mechanicaluniverse. Nor are miracles raw demonstrations of divinity designed toovercome prejudice or unbelief and to convince people of theexistence of God (Mark 8:11–12). Still less are they cleverconjuring tricks involving some kind of deception that can beotherwise explained on a purely scientific basis. Rather, God in hisinfinite wisdom sometimes does unusual and extraordinary things tocall attention to himself and his activity. Miracles are divinelyordained acts of God that dramatically alert us to the presence ofhis glory and power and advance his saving purposes in redemptivehistory.

Terminology

Thebiblical writers describe miracles with various terms, such as“signs,” “wonders,” and “miracles”(or “powers”), which can carry various connotations. Asthe word “sign” suggests, divine miracles are significantand should cause us to think more deeply about God in a way that goesbeyond mere amazement or curiosity (Exod. 4:30–31; John 2:11).Not all of God’s signs are miraculous. Some are given as partof his ordering of the natural world (Gen. 1:14) or as anencouragement to faith that God will do as he has said (e.g., therainbow in Gen. 9:8–17; the blood of the Passover lamb in Exod.12:13). (See also Sign.)

Oftencoupled with signs are “wonders” (Jer. 32:21; John 4:48;2Cor. 12:12). If the depiction of miracles as “signs”indicates an appeal to the intellect, that of “wonders”points to the emotions. Miracles evoke astonishment and awe at theone who did them.

TheNT word “miracle” carries the meaning of power andtherefore points to the supernatural source of these events (Luke10:13; Acts 8:13).

Miraclesin the Bible

OldTestament.In the OT, miracles are not evenly distributed but rather are foundin greater number during times of great redemptive significance, suchas the exodus and the conquest of Canaan. Miracles were performedalso during periods of apostasy, such as in the days of theninth-century prophets Elijah and Elisha. Common to both of theseeras is the powerful demonstration of the superiority of God overpagan deities (Exod. 7–12; 1Kings 18:20–40).

NewTestament. Inthe NT, miracles often are acts of compassion, but more significantlythey attest the exalted status of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:22) andthe saving power of his word (Heb. 2:3–4). In the SynopticGospels, they reveal the coming of God’s kingdom and theconquest of Satan’s dominion (Matt. 8:16–17; 12:22–30;Mark 3:27). They point to the person of Jesus as the promised Messiahof OT Scripture (Matt. 4:23; 11:4–6). John shows a preferencefor the word “signs,” and his Gospel is structured aroundthem (John 20:30–31). According to John, the signs that Jesusperformed were such that only the one who stood in a uniquerelationship to the Father as the Son of God could do them.

Miraclesand faith.Just as entrenched skepticism is injurious to faith, so too is naivecredulity, for although signs and wonders witness to God, falseprophets also perform them “to deceive, if possible, even theelect” (Matt. 24:24). Christians are to exercise discernmentand not be led astray by such impostors (Matt. 7:15–20).

Therelationship between miracles and faith is not as straightforward assometimes supposed. Miracles do not necessarily produce faith, nordoes faith necessarily produce miracles. Miracles were intended tobring about the faith that leads to eternal life (John 20:31), butnot all who witnessed them believed (John 10:32). Additionally, Jesusregarded a faith that rested only on the miracle itself as precarious(Mark 8:11–13; John 2:23–25; 4:48), though better than nofaith at all (John 10:38). Faith that saves must ultimately find itsgrounding in the person of Jesus as the Son of God.

Itis also clear that although Jesus always encouraged faith in thosewho came to him for help (Mark 9:23), and that he deliberatelylimited his miraculous powers in the presence of unbelief (Mark 6:5),many of his miracles were performed on those who did not or could notexercise faith (Matt. 12:22; Mark 1:23–28; 5:1–20; Luke14:1–4).

Thefact that Jesus performed miracles was never an issue; rather, hisopponents disputed the source of his power (Mark 3:22). Argumentsabout his identity were to be settled by appeal not to miracles butto the word of God (Matt. 22:41–46).

Thefunction of miracles.Miracle accounts function in a symbolic and prophetic manner. Hence,the cursing of the fig tree was prophetic of the coming judgment(Mark 11:12–21). The unusual two-stage healing of the blind manof Bethsaida symbolized Peter’s incomplete understanding ofJesus’ messiahship (Mark 8:22–33).

Themiraculous element of Jesus’ ministry carries an eschatologicalsignificance, pointing to the order of things in the age to come. Forexample, the nature miracles (Mark 4:35–41) look forward to theredemption of creation itself, which is presently subject tofrustration and decay (Rom. 8:20–21); the healing miraclespoint to a day when disease and deformity will be abolished (Rev.21:4); and miracles in which the dead are raised to life anticipate atime when death itself will be no more (Rev. 20:14; 21:4). From thisperspective, the miracles are a gracious foretaste of a far moreglorious future.

Murder is distinguishable in the Bible from the largercategory of killing. Thus, the sixth commandment (Exod. 20:13) isappropriately translated by the NIV and other versions as “Youshall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.”The taking of lives in warfare, for example, would not have beenconsidered murder. The word used in Exod. 20:13, ratsakh, occursapproximately fifty times in the OT and never refers to killing inbattle, in contrast to two other words for “kill” thattogether occur over three hundred times and quite often refer tobattle contexts. Ezekiel 21:22 (21:27 MT) might appear to be anexception, but ratsakh (NIV: “slaughter”) is probablyused there to indicate the slaying of innocent people rather thanmilitary combatants.

Ratsakh,however, can also refer to unintentional killing or manslaughter(e.g., Num. 35:11); thus, the word does not necessarily mean “murder”but rather refers to the taking of any innocent life, whetherintentionally or accidentally. The lone exception in Num. 35:30 isonly apparently so; it is rather a statement of poetic justice: “themurderer shall be murdered.”

Theprohibition against murder is grounded in the image-bearing characterof humankind. Human beings are made in the image of God; therefore,to kill an innocent person is equivalent to striking out against God(Gen. 9:6).

Significantly,Jesus viewed his own approaching death in Jerusalem as a murder in along line of murders stretching from the murder of Abel by Cain,through the killing of the OT prophets, to himself (Matt. 21:33–46;23:29–39; Luke 11:47–54; 20:9–20).

Murder is distinguishable in the Bible from the largercategory of killing. Thus, the sixth commandment (Exod. 20:13) isappropriately translated by the NIV and other versions as “Youshall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.”The taking of lives in warfare, for example, would not have beenconsidered murder. The word used in Exod. 20:13, ratsakh, occursapproximately fifty times in the OT and never refers to killing inbattle, in contrast to two other words for “kill” thattogether occur over three hundred times and quite often refer tobattle contexts. Ezekiel 21:22 (21:27 MT) might appear to be anexception, but ratsakh (NIV: “slaughter”) is probablyused there to indicate the slaying of innocent people rather thanmilitary combatants.

Ratsakh,however, can also refer to unintentional killing or manslaughter(e.g., Num. 35:11); thus, the word does not necessarily mean “murder”but rather refers to the taking of any innocent life, whetherintentionally or accidentally. The lone exception in Num. 35:30 isonly apparently so; it is rather a statement of poetic justice: “themurderer shall be murdered.”

Theprohibition against murder is grounded in the image-bearing characterof humankind. Human beings are made in the image of God; therefore,to kill an innocent person is equivalent to striking out against God(Gen. 9:6).

Significantly,Jesus viewed his own approaching death in Jerusalem as a murder in along line of murders stretching from the murder of Abel by Cain,through the killing of the OT prophets, to himself (Matt. 21:33–46;23:29–39; Luke 11:47–54; 20:9–20).

Murder is distinguishable in the Bible from the largercategory of killing. Thus, the sixth commandment (Exod. 20:13) isappropriately translated by the NIV and other versions as “Youshall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.”The taking of lives in warfare, for example, would not have beenconsidered murder. The word used in Exod. 20:13, ratsakh, occursapproximately fifty times in the OT and never refers to killing inbattle, in contrast to two other words for “kill” thattogether occur over three hundred times and quite often refer tobattle contexts. Ezekiel 21:22 (21:27 MT) might appear to be anexception, but ratsakh (NIV: “slaughter”) is probablyused there to indicate the slaying of innocent people rather thanmilitary combatants.

Ratsakh,however, can also refer to unintentional killing or manslaughter(e.g., Num. 35:11); thus, the word does not necessarily mean “murder”but rather refers to the taking of any innocent life, whetherintentionally or accidentally. The lone exception in Num. 35:30 isonly apparently so; it is rather a statement of poetic justice: “themurderer shall be murdered.”

Theprohibition against murder is grounded in the image-bearing characterof humankind. Human beings are made in the image of God; therefore,to kill an innocent person is equivalent to striking out against God(Gen. 9:6).

Significantly,Jesus viewed his own approaching death in Jerusalem as a murder in along line of murders stretching from the murder of Abel by Cain,through the killing of the OT prophets, to himself (Matt. 21:33–46;23:29–39; Luke 11:47–54; 20:9–20).

Murder is distinguishable in the Bible from the largercategory of killing. Thus, the sixth commandment (Exod. 20:13) isappropriately translated by the NIV and other versions as “Youshall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.”The taking of lives in warfare, for example, would not have beenconsidered murder. The word used in Exod. 20:13, ratsakh, occursapproximately fifty times in the OT and never refers to killing inbattle, in contrast to two other words for “kill” thattogether occur over three hundred times and quite often refer tobattle contexts. Ezekiel 21:22 (21:27 MT) might appear to be anexception, but ratsakh (NIV: “slaughter”) is probablyused there to indicate the slaying of innocent people rather thanmilitary combatants.

Ratsakh,however, can also refer to unintentional killing or manslaughter(e.g., Num. 35:11); thus, the word does not necessarily mean “murder”but rather refers to the taking of any innocent life, whetherintentionally or accidentally. The lone exception in Num. 35:30 isonly apparently so; it is rather a statement of poetic justice: “themurderer shall be murdered.”

Theprohibition against murder is grounded in the image-bearing characterof humankind. Human beings are made in the image of God; therefore,to kill an innocent person is equivalent to striking out against God(Gen. 9:6).

Significantly,Jesus viewed his own approaching death in Jerusalem as a murder in along line of murders stretching from the murder of Abel by Cain,through the killing of the OT prophets, to himself (Matt. 21:33–46;23:29–39; Luke 11:47–54; 20:9–20).

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).

(1)Theeighth descendant listed in the line of Seth and the grandson ofMethuselah, Noah was used by God to preserve the human race throughthe flood. His name means “rest,” chosen because hisfather, Lamech, believed that God would use his son to bring restfrom the toil of life resulting from the fall (Gen. 5:29). Enoch washis great-grandfather, and like him, Noah is described as one who“walked faithfully with God” (Gen. 6:9; cf. 5:22, 24). Hewas the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Hisstory is told mainly in Gen. 6–9. Because of its greatwickedness, God resolved to destroy the human race. But Noah foundgrace in God’s sight, so God instructed him to build a largeboat as directed and to take aboard provisions for his family as wellas selected representatives of animal life. Noah dutifully obeyed,and his family thus was preserved through the ensuing catastrophe.From them the earth was repopulated (Gen. 10), and Noah was therecipient of various directives for the governance of thepostdiluvian world, often referred to as the Noahic covenant (Gen.9:1–17). Noah’s personal story ends with the curiousepisode of him getting drunk and subsequently cursing a son of Hamfor some offense that Ham committed, the nature of which is describedonly as seeing “the nakedness of his father” (Gen. 9:22ESV, NRSV, NASB). His age at the time of his death is given as 950.

Noahis mentioned two other times in the OT. God cites his promise thatthe “waters of Noah” never again would destroy the earthto affirm his covenant faithfulness to Israel (Isa. 54:9), and inanother text groups Noah together with Job and Daniel as those whocould deliver themselves by their righteousness, but not disobedientIsrael (Ezek. 14:14, 20). In the NT, Jesus cites the conditions inNoah’s day as being representative of conditions at the time ofhis coming (Matt. 24:37–38; Luke 17:26–27). Petermentions Noah twice, once to refer to the spirits of those whoperished in the flood (1Pet. 3:20) and once to use Noah as anexample of God’s ability to deliver his people (2Pet.2:5). Hebrews 11:7 lists Noah as a hero of faith.

(2)Oneof the five daughters of Zelophehad. Their petition for a portion oftheir deceased father’s property helped set a precedent forinheritance law in ancient Israel (Num. 27:1–11; cf. Josh.17:1–6). When it came time for the daughters of Zelophehad tomarry, a further decree was issued that inherited land must not passfrom tribe to tribe (Num. 36).

Geography

Whereasthe principal direction in the modern world is north, in the ancientworld different cultures used a variety of orientations as theysought to describe their relationship to their geographicalenvironment. In Israel the primary direction was determined by thesunrise: east. This is reflected in Hebrew, where the main word usedto refer to east as a direction was qedem, which could also be usedto simply refer to that which was directly ahead or in front of thespeaker (e.g., Ps. 139:5). Elsewhere, east is designated by the termsmizrakh (“rising” [Josh. 11:3]) or mizrakh hashamesh(“rising of the sun” [Num. 21:11]), both of which derivefrom the direction of sunrise. By way of contrast, in Egypt theprimary direction was south, in alignment with the source of the NileRiver.

Theancient world employed the same notion of four cardinal directions,which persists to the present, and the terminology related to thesewas influenced by the choice of primary direction. Thus, in Israelnorth is often designated by “left”; south could bedesignated by “right,” and west by “behind.”In addition, directions could be specified by reference togeographical features found in those directions. North could bespecified by the word tsapon, which was derived from the name of anorthern Syrian mountain (Zaphon); south by negeb, a name for theregion south of Israel (Negev); and west by yam (“sea”),since the Mediterranean Sea lay to the west.

Symbolism

Asidefrom their purely geographical significance, the directions also cameto bear figurative significance. Some caution is warranted inassigning symbolic significance to language, for there is danger ofreading invalid meanings into texts. Furthermore, given the ambiguityinherent in the use of terms to refer to directions, which also havealternate significances, there is danger of assigning a symbolicmeaning to the direction that actually resides in the alternate. So,for example, while yam (“sea”) carries significantsymbolic overtones in the Bible, this association does not appear tohave been extended to encompass the term when used to designate awesterly direction.

Eastand west.Nonetheless, there is, for example, probably some significance in theexpulsion from Eden and progressive movement eastward to the tower ofBabel through Gen. 1–11, followed by a return to the promisedland, which was approached by reversing the easterly migration andreturning toward Eden. Eden itself was said to lie “in theeast” (Heb. miqqedem; Gen. 2:8), although the same Hebrewexpression in Pss. 74:12; 77:5, 11; 78:2; 143:5 means “inancient times,” and there is perhaps a deliberate ambiguity inthe use of the expression in Gen. 2:8. In Isa. 2:6 the east is thesource of influences on the people that lead them astray. Followingthe exile, Ezekiel sees the glory of God returning to the temple fromthe east (Ezek. 43:1–2). Thus, when used symbolically, “east”is often viewed negatively or else may be used to mark a connectionwith distant antiquity (Gen. 2:8; Job 1:3). Any symbolic significanceassigned to west appears primarily to be associated with it being theantithesis of east. The distance between east and west was usedpoetically to express vast distance (Ps. 103:12).

Northand south.North is significant for two primary reasons. First, it is thedirection from which invading armies most often descended upon Israel(Jer. 1:13) as well as from which Babylon’s destruction is saidto come (Jer. 50:3). In light of this, Ezekiel’s vision of Godapproaching from the north strikes an ominous tone of impendingjudgment (Ezek. 1:1–4). Second, in Canaanite mythology theabode of the gods, and specifically Baal, lay to the north, on MountZaphon. Thus, the king of Babylon’s plans in Isa. 14:13 amountto a claim to establish himself as one of the gods. In contrast tothis, Ps. 48:2 pre-sents Mount Zion as supplanting Mount Zaphon andthus implicitly presents Israel’s one God as supplanting theCanaanite pantheon.

Aswith west, there is little symbolic significance associated with thedirection south in the Bible, aside from its use in combination withother directions.

Thefour directions.The four directions (or sometimes just pairs of directions) are usedtogether to describe both the scattering of the Israelites as well astheir being gathered by God back to the promised land (Ps. 107:3;Isa. 43:5–6; Luke 13:29). They are also used together toexpress the extent of the promised land (Gen. 13:14) or else todescribe something that is all-encompassing (1Chron. 9:24).

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

TheEnglish names for the books of the Pentateuch came from the LatinVulgate, based on the Greek Septuagint. These appellations are mainlydescriptive of their content. Genesis derives from “generations”or “origin,” Exodus means “going out,”Leviticus represents priestly (Levitical) service, Numbers refers tothe censuses taken in the book, and Deuteronomy indicates “secondlaw” because of Moses’ rehearsal of God’s commands(see Deut. 17:18). The Hebrew designations derive from opening wordsin each book. Beresh*t (Genesis) means “in the beginning”;Shemot (Exodus), “[these are] the names”; Wayyiqra’(Leviticus), “and he called”; Bemidbar (Numbers), “inthe desert”; and Debarim (Deuteronomy), “[these are] thewords.”

Referringto the Pentateuch as “Torah” or the “Law”reflects the climactic reception of God’s commands at MountSinai, which were to govern Israel’s life and worship in thepromised land, including their journey to get there. However, callingthe Pentateuch the “Law” can be a bit misleading becausethere are relatively few passages that simply list a set of commands,and all law passages are set within a broad narrative. The Pentateuchis a grand story that begins on a universal scale with the creationof the cosmos and ends on the plains of Moab as the readeranticipates the fulfillment of God’s plan to redeem a fallenworld through his chosen people. The books offer distinct qualitiesand content, but they are also inherently dependent upon one another,as the narrative remains unbroken through the five volumes. Genesisends with Jacob’s family in Egypt, and, though many years havepassed, this is where Exodus begins. Leviticus outlines cultic lifeat the tabernacle (constructed at the end of Exodus) and even beginswithout a clear subject (“And he called...”),which requires the reader to supply “the Lord” from thelast verse of Exodus. Numbers begins with an account of Israel’sfighting men as the nation prepares to leave Sinai, and Deuteronomyis Moses’ farewell address to the nation on the cusp of thepromised land.

Authorshipand Composition

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

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

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

Variousdocumentary theories of composition have flourished over the lastcentury of pentateuchal scholarship and still have many adherents.However, lack of scholarly agreement about the dating and characterof the sources and the rise of other literary approaches to the texthave many conservative and liberal scholars calling into question theaccuracy and even interpretive benefit of the source theories.Moreover, if the literary observations used to create sourcedistinctions can be explained in other ways, then the DocumentaryHypothesis is significantly undermined.

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

PrimevalHistory (Gen. 1–11)

Itis possible to divide Genesis into two parts based upon subjectmatter: the origin of creation and humankind’s call, fall, andpunishment (chaps 1–11), and the origin of a family that wouldbecome God’s conduit of salvation and blessing for the world(chaps. 12–50).

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

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

Asone progresses through chapters 1–11, the story quickly changesfrom what God has established as “very good” to discord,sin, and shame. Chapter 3 reflects the “fall” of humanityas Adam and Eve sin in eating from the forbidden tree in directdisobedience to God. The serpent shrewdly deceives the first couple,and thus all three incur God’s curses, which extend tounlimited generations. Sin that breaks the vertical relationshipbetween God and humanity intrinsically leads to horizontal strifebetween humans. Sin and disunity on the earth only intensify as onemoves from the murder story of Cain and Abel in chapter 4 to theflood in chapters 5–9. Violence, evil, and disorder have sopervaded the earth that God sends a deluge to wipe out all livingthings, save one righteous man and his family, along with an ark fullof animals. God makes the first covenant recorded in the biblicalnarrative with Noah (6:18), promising to save him from the flood ashe commands Noah to build an ark and gather food for survival. Noahfulfills all that God has commanded (6:22; 7:5), and God remembershis promise (8:1). This is the prototypical salvation story for therest of Scripture.

Chapter9 reflects a new start for humanity and all living things as thecreation mandate to “be fruitful and increase in number; fillthe earth and subdue it,” first introduced in 1:28, is restatedalong with the reminder that humankind is made in God’s image(1:27). Bearing the image involves new responsibilities andstipulations in the postdiluvian era (9:2–6). There will beenmity between humans and animals, animals are now appropriate food,and yet lifeblood will be specially revered. God still requiresaccountability for just and discriminate shedding of blood andorderly relationships, as he has proved in the deluge, but now herelinquishes this responsibility to humankind. In return, Godpromises never to destroy all flesh again, and he will set therainbow in the sky as a personal reminder. Like the covenant withNoah in 6:18, the postdiluvian covenant involves humankind fulfillingcommands (9:1–7) and God remembering his covenant (9:8–17),specially termed “everlasting” (9:16).

Theprimeval commentary on humankind’s unabating sinful condition(e.g., 6:5; 8:21) proves true as Noah becomes drunk and naked and hisson Ham (father of Canaan) shames him by failing to conceal hisfather’s negligence. Instead of multiplying, filling, andsubduing the earth as God has intended, humankind collaborates tomake a name for itself by building a sort of stairway to heavenwithin a special city (11:4). God foils such haughty plans byscattering the people across the earth and confusing their language.Expressed in an orderly chiastic structure, the story of the tower ofBabel demonstrates that God condescends (11:5) to set things straightwith humanity.

Patriarchs(Gen. 12–50)

Althoughthe primeval history is foundational for understanding the rest ofthe Bible, more space in Genesis is devoted to the patriarchalfigures Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In general, the Abrahamicnarrative spans chapters 12–25, the story of Isaac serves as atransition to the Jacob cycle of chapters 25–37, and the Josephnarrative finishes the book of Genesis in chapters 37–50.

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

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

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

AlthoughJacob and his family are already living in Canaan, God intends forthem to move to Egypt and grow into a powerful nation beforefulfilling their conquest of the promised land (see 15:13–16).The story of Joseph explains how the family ends up in Egypt at theclose of Genesis. Joseph is specially loved by his father, whichelicits significant jealousy from his brothers, who sell him off tosome nomads and fabricate the alibi that he has been killed by a wildbeast. Joseph winds up in Pharaoh’s household and eventuallybecomes his top official. When famine strikes Canaan years later,Joseph’s brothers go to Egypt to purchase food from the royalcourt, and Joseph reveals his identity to them in an emotionalreunion. Jacob’s entire family moves to Egypt to live for atime in prosperity under Joseph’s care. The Joseph storyillustrates the mysterious relationship of human decision and divinesovereignty (50:20).

Liberationfrom Egypt (Exod. 1–18)

Genesisshows how Abraham develops into a large family. Exodus shows how thisfamily becomes a nation—enslaved, freed, and then taught theways of God. Although it appears that Exodus continues a rivetingstory of God’s chosen people, it is actually the identity andpower of God that take center stage.

Manyyears have passed since Joseph’s family arrived in Egypt. TheHebrews’ good standing in Egypt has also diminished as theirmultiplication and fruitfulness during the intervening period—justas God had promised Abraham (Gen. 17:4–8)—became anational threat to the Egyptians. Abraham’s family will spendtime in Egyptian slavery before being liberated with many possessionsin hand (cf. Gen. 15:13–14).

Inthe book of Exodus the drama of suffering and salvation serves as thevehicle for God’s self-disclosure to a single man, Moses. Mosesis an Israelite of destiny even from birth, as he providentiallyavoids infant death and rises to power and influence in Pharaoh’shousehold. Moses never loses his passion for his own people, and hekills an Egyptian who was beating a fellow Hebrew. Moses flees toobscurity in the desert, where he meets God and his call to lead hispeople out of Egypt and to the promised land (3:7–8; 6:8). Likethe days of Noah’s salvation, God has remembered his covenantwith the patriarchs and responded to the groans of his people inEgypt (2:24; 6:4–5; cf. Gen. 8:1). God reveals himself, and hispersonal name “Yahweh” (“I am”), to Moses inthe great theophany of the burning bush at Mount Horeb (Sinai), thesame place where later he will receive God’s law. Moses doubtshis own ability to carry out the task of confronting Pharaoh andleading the exodus, but God foretells that many amazing signs andwonders not only will make the escape possible but also willultimately reveal the mighty nature of God to the Hebrews, Egypt, andpresumably the world (6:7; 7:5).

Thispromise of creating a nation of his people through deliverance issuccinctly conveyed in the classic covenant formula that findssignificance in the rest of the OT: “I will take you as my ownpeople, and I will be your God” (6:7). Wielding great powerover nature and at times even human decision, God “hardens”Pharaoh’s heart and sends ten plagues to demonstrate his favorfor his own people and wrath against their enemy nation. The tenthplague on the firstborn of all in Egypt provides the context for thePassover as God spares the firstborn of Israel in response to theplacement of sacrificial blood on the doorposts of their homes.Pharaoh persists in the attempt to overtake the Israelites in thedesert, where the power of God climaxes in parting the Red Sea (orSea of Reeds). The Israelites successfully pass through, buttheEgyptian army drowns in pursuit. This is the great salvationevent of the OT.

Thesong of praise for God’s deliverance (15:1–21) quicklyturns to cries of groaning in the seventy days following the exodusas the people of the nation, grumbling about their circ*mstances inthe desert, quickly demonstrate their fleeting trust in the one whohas saved them (Exod. 15:22–18:27). When a shortage of waterand food confronts the people, their faith in God’s care provesshallow, and they turn on Moses. Even though the special marks ofGod’s protection have been evident in the wilderness throughthe pillars of cloud and fire, the angel of God, the provision ofmanna and quail, water from the rock, and the leadership of Moses,the nation continually fails God’s tests of trust and obedience(16:4; cf. 17:2; 20:20). Yet God continues to endure with his peoplethrough the leadership of Moses.

Sinai(Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10)

Mostof the pentateuchal narrative takes place at Mount Sinai. It is therethat Israel receives national legislation and prescriptions for thetabernacle, the priesthood, feasts and festivals, and othercovenantal demands for living as God’s chosen people. Theeleven-month stay at Sinai takes the biblical reader through thecenter of the Pentateuch, covering approximately the last half ofExodus, all of Leviticus, and the first third of Numbers, before thenation leaves this sacred site and sojourns in the wilderness.Several key sections of the Pentateuch fall withinthe Sinaistory: the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17), the Book of the Covenant(Exod. 20:22–23:33), the tabernacle prescriptions (Exod.25–31), the tabernacle construction (Exod. 35–40), themanual on ritual worship (Lev. 1–7), and the Holiness Code(Lev. 17–27).

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

TheIsraelites’ stay at Sinai opens with one of the greatesttheophanies of the Bible: God speaks aloud to the people (Exod.19–20) and then is envisioned as a consuming fire (Exod. 24).After communicating the Ten Commandments (“ten words”)directly to the people (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4), Mosesmediates the rest of the detailed obligations that will govern thefuture life of the nation. The covenant is ratified in ceremonialfashion (Exod. 24), and the Israelites vow to fulfill all that hasbeen spoken. God expects Israel to be a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) withwhom he may dwell, but Moses descends Sinai only to find that theIsraelites have already violated the essence of the Decalogue byfashioning a golden calf to worship as that which delivered them fromEgypt (Exod. 32). This places Israel’s future and calling injeopardy, but Moses intercedes for his people, and God graciouslypromises to preserve the nation and abide with it in his mercy, evenwhile punishing the guilty. This becomes prototypical of God’srelationship with his people in the future (Exod. 34:6–7).

Exodusends with the consecration of the tabernacle and the descent of God’spresence there. With the tent of worship in order, the priesthood andits rituals can be officially established. Leviticus reflects divineinstructions for how a sinful people may live safely in closeproximity to God. Holy living involves dealing with sin andminimizing the need for atonement, purification, and restitution. Thesacrificial and worship system established in Leviticus is based on aworldview of order, perfection, and purity, which should characterizea people who are commanded, “Be holy because I, the Lord yourGod, am holy’ (Lev. 19:2; cf. 11:44–45; 20:26). Withthese rules in place, the Israelites can make final preparations todepart Sinai and move forward on their journey. Numbers 1–10spans a nineteen-day period of such activities as the Israelitesbegin to focus on dispossessing their enemies. These chapters reflecta census of fighting men, the priority of purity, the dedication ofthe tabernacle, and the observance of the Passover before commencingthe quest to Canaan.

WildernessJourney (Num. 10:11–36:13)

Therest of the book of Numbers covers the remainder of a forty-yearstretch of great peaks and valleys in the faith and future of thenation. Chapters 11–25 recount the various events that show theexodus generation’s lack of trust in God. Chapters 26–36reveal a more positive section whereby a new generation prepares forthe conquest. With the third section of Numbers framed by episodesinvolving the inheritance rights of Zelophehad’s daughters(27:1–11; 36:1–13), it is clear that the story has turnedtothe future possession of the land.

Afterthe departure from Sinai, the narrative consists of a number ofIsraelite complaints in the desert. The Israelites have grown tiredof manna and ironically crave the food of Egypt, which they recall asfree fish, fruits, and vegetables. Having forgotten the hardship oflife in slavery, about which they had cried out to God, now thenation is crying out for a lifestyle of old. Moses becomes sooverwhelmed with the complaints of the people that God providesseventy elders, who, to help shoulder the leadership burden, willreceive the same prophetic spirit given to Moses.

Inchapters 13–14 twelve spies are sent out from Kadesh Barnea toperuse Canaan, but the people’s lack of faith to procure theland from the mighty people there proves costly. This final exampleof distrust moves God to punish and purify the nation. Theunbelieving generation will die in the wilderness during a forty-yearperiod of wandering.

Thediscontent in the desert involves not only food and water but alsoleadership status. Moses’ own brother and sister resent hisspecial relationship with God and challenge his exclusive authority.Later, Aaron’s special high priesthood is threatened as anotherLevitical family (Korah) vies for preeminence. Through a sequence ofsigns and wonders, God makes it clear that Moses and Aaron haveexclusive roles in God’s economy. Due to the deaths related toKorah’s rebellion and the fruitless staffs that represent thetribes of Israel, the nation’s concern about sudden extinctionin the presence of a holy God is appeased through the eternalcovenant of priesthood granted to Aaron’s family (chap. 18). Heand the Levites, at the potential expense of their own lives and aspart of their priestly service, will be held accountable for keepingthe tabernacle pure of encroachers.

Evenafter the people’s significant rebellion and punishment, Godcontinues to prove his faithfulness to his word. Hope is restored forthe nation as the Abrahamic promises of blessing are rehearsed fromthe mouth of Balaam, a Mesopotamian seer. The Israelites will indeedone day be numerous (23:10), enjoy the presence of God (23:21), beblessed and protected (24:9), and have a kingly leader (24:17). Thiswonderful mountaintop experience of hope for the exodus generation istragically countered by an even greater event of apostasy in thesubsequent scene. Reminiscent of the incident of the golden calf,when pagan revelry in the camp had foiled Moses’ interactionwith God on Sinai, apostasy at the tabernacle undermines Balaam’soracles of covenant fulfillment. Fornication with Moabite women notonly joins the nation to a foreign god but also betrays God’sholiness at his place of dwelling. If not for the zeal of Aaron’sgrandson Phinehas, who puts an end to the sin, the ensuing plaguecould have finished the nation. For his righteous action, Phinehas isawarded an eternal priesthood and ensures a future for the nation andAaron’s priestly lineage.

Inchapter 26 a second census of fighting men indicates that the old,unbelieving exodus generation has officially died off (except forJoshua and Caleb), and God is proceeding with a new people. Goddispossesses the enemies of the new generation; reinstates the tribalboundaries of the land; reinstates rules concerning worship, service,and bloodshed; and places Joshua at the helm of leadership. Chapters26–36 mention no deaths or rebellions as the nationoptimistically ends its journey in Moab, just east of the promisedland.

Moses’Farewell (Deuteronomy)

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

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

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

Formuch of the middle and end of the twentieth century, Deuteronomy hasreceived a significant amount of attention for its apparentresemblance in structure and content to ancient Hittite and Assyriantreaties. Scholars debate the extent of similarity, but it ispossible that Deuteronomy reflects a suzerain-vassal treaty formbetween Israel and God much like the common format between nations inthe ancient Near East. Although comparative investigation of thistype can be profitable for interpretation, it is prudent to beconservative when outlining direct parallels, since Deuteronomy isnot a legal document but rather a dramatic narrative of God’sredemptive interaction with the world.

A technical term for “promise” does not appear inthe OT, but its concept is present throughout Scripture. God unfoldsthe history of redemption by employing the idea of promises. Thewriters of the NT repeatedly assert that Jesus Christ has fulfilledGod’s promises in the OT (e.g., Luke 24:44–48; 1Cor.15:3–8).

OldTestament

Thepromises in the OT are closely related to the history of salvation.At each stage of redemptive history, God delivered a new messageabout redemption, usually in the form of a covenant. Immediatelyafter the fall of humankind, God first revealed his plan ofsalvation: the promise that the seed of the woman would ultimatelycrush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). After the flood, God madea covenant with Noah, promising never again to destroy the earth witha flood (Gen. 8:21–9:17).

Mostremarkable is the promise that God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob(Gen. 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 17:4–8; 22:17–18;26:1–5; 28:13–15). God called Abraham in order to givehim three specific blessings: the land, descendants, and the channelof blessing among the nations. As a sign of his promise, God made acovenant of circumcision with Abraham and his descendants (17:10–14).With Isaac (26:1–5) and Jacob (28:13–15), God repeatedlyreconfirmed the promise made to Abraham. At the time of the exodusand later the settlement in Canaan, God’s promise to Abrahamwas partially fulfilled by multiplying his descendants into millionsand by giving them the promised land.

AtMount Sinai, God made another covenant with the Israelites. In thiscovenant, God promised that they would be his “treasuredpossession” among the nations if they would obey him and keephis covenant (Exod. 19:5). God’s special blessings werepronounced for them to be “a kingdom of priests and a holynation” (19:6). For this purpose, God gave them the TenCommandments, which became the religious and ethical standard for hiscovenant people (20:1–17). In the book of Deuteronomy,moreover, God’s promises were made in the form of blessings tothe obedient and of curses to the disobedient (Deut. 28). Later thesebecame the criteria by which the kings of Israel were judged todetermine whether they had lived an obedient life.

Accordingto 2 Sam. 7:11–16, God made an eternal covenant with David,promising the permanence of David’s house, kingdom, and throne.In this covenant it was also promised that his offspring would buildthe house of the Lord. The Davidic covenant was partially fulfilledat the time of Solomon, who as king built the house of the Lord, thefirst temple in Jerusalem (1Kings 8:15–25). Later, in theperiod of the classical prophets, when the hope for the Davidicthrone was endangered, the permanence of the Davidic throne andkingdom reappeared in the form of messianic prophecy (Jer. 23:5–8;Ezek. 37:24–28). This promise was ultimately fulfilled by thecoming of Jesus Christ from the line of David (Matt. 1:1–17).

Thehistory of Israel shows that although the nation repeatedly brokeGod’s covenants, he remained faithful to them. According toNum. 23:19, God’s promises are absolutely trustworthy: “Godis not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he shouldchange his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise andnot fulfill?” The trustworthiness of God’s promisesresults from his unchanging character (Ps. 110:4; Mal. 3:6–7).The almighty God has the power to fulfill his promises (Isa. 55:11).When Joshua finished conquering the land of Canaan, he confessed thatGod was faithful in keeping all his promises to his ancestors (Josh.21:45; 23:14–15). Joshua himself witnessed that trusting God’spromises is a life-and-death issue. Those who had not trusted hispromise to give them the land of Canaan perished in the wilderness,but those who had trusted his promise were allowed to enter it (Num.14:1–35).

NewTestament

Thecentral message of the NT is that God’s promises in the OT arefulfilled with the coming of Jesus Christ. Matthew’s numerouscitation formulas are evidence of this theme. In Luke 4:16–21Jesus pronounces the fulfillment of Isaiah’s promise (about theMessiah’s ministry [Isa. 61:1–3]) in his own life. Thebook of Acts specifically states that Jesus’ suffering andresurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit are the fulfillment ofthe OT promises (2:29–31; 13:32–34). Jesus’identity both as the descendant of David (Acts 13:23) and as theprophet like Moses (Acts 3:21–26; cf. Deut. 18:15–18) isalso regarded as the fulfillment of theOT.

Paul’sview of God’s promises is summarized in this statement: “Forno matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’in Christ” (2Cor. 1:20). According to Rom. 1:2–3,Paul regards the gospel as the message that God “promisedbeforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding hisSon.” In Rom. 4 Abraham’s faith is described in terms ofhis trust in God’s promises, which leads to his righteousness.He is presented as our model of faith in God’s promises. Thefamous phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1Cor.15:3–4 is, in a sense, understood by Paul as the fulfillment ofGod’s promises regarding Christ’s death and resurrection.

Inthe book of Hebrews, the concept of promise plays an important role.In Heb. 6 Abraham is presented as the exemplary man who trusted inGod’s promise. The author exhorts the Hebrew Christians tofollow Abraham’s model of trust in God’s promise(6:12–20). The author also asserts that Jesus’ newcovenant is superior to the old one because his ministry “isestablished on better promises” (8:6). In Heb. 11 the faith ofthe great OT saints is acclaimed in terms of their faith in God’spromises.

Inthe NT, God makes new promises based on the work of Christ, includingthe final resurrection and the second coming of Christ (John 5:29;11:25–26; 1Cor. 15:48–57; 2Cor. 4:14;1Thess. 4:13–18). Furthermore, the message of the gospelis presented as multiple promises, including eternal life, thefullness of life in Christ, the forgiveness of sins, the indwellingof the Holy Spirit, the peace of God, the knowledge of God, and thejoy of God (Matt. 28:18–20; John 3:16; 10:10; 14:16, 27;16:20–24; 17:25–26; Phil. 4:4–9; 1John 1:9).

HumanPromises

TheScriptures contain many cases of people making promises to otherpeople. For example, Abraham made promises to the king of Sodom andto Abimelek (Gen. 14:22–24; 21:22–24). The Israelitespies made a promise to Rahab (Josh. 2:12–21). People also makepromises to God: Jacob, Jephthah, Hannah, and the returning exiles(Gen. 28:20–21; Judg. 11:29–40; 1Sam. 1:11–20;Neh. 10:28–29). Human promises usually are accompanied by thetaking of an oath (Gen. 14:22; 21:24; Deut. 6:13; Josh. 2:12–14)or the declaration of a curse in case of its breach (Ruth 1:17;1Sam. 14:24; 2Sam. 3:35; 1Kings 2:23). It isimperative to keep the promise that one makes to a human being or toGod (Num. 30:1–2; Ps. 50:14). In Mal. 2:14–16, divorce isregarded as a breaking of the oath between husband and wife. In OTtimes, people were afraid of curses falling upon them when they brokea promise. The Bible warns of the danger of making false promises, asdoing so will bring about sin and judgment (Lev. 19:12; Deut. 23:21;Zech. 8:17). It is an axiom of the wisdom literature that one shouldnot make promises rashly or lightly (Prov. 20:25; Eccles. 5:1–7),and Jesus prohibits the taking of any oath because of the possibilityof its breach (Matt. 5:33–37).

The concepts of purity and purification are largelyunfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms oftenappear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual,and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the processneeded to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or shecould participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7).These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrainactions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in theirancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene(e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medicaladvantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]).Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simplephysical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for therange of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

OldTestament

Thelaw of Moses. Accordingto Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguishbetween the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean”and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. Godrequired that his people observe purification rites when they cameinto his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teachGod’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification ritualsfunctioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num.8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaiclaw.

Twomajor sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws ofpurification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need forpurification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one ofa number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8),scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev.15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47),and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration ofimpurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditionsdiffer, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity:(1)the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural andmore or less unavoidable; (2)it was not necessarily sinful tocontract these impurities; (3)these conditions conveyedtemporary loss of ritual purity.

Althoughsexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and thecontraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they wereunavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligatedto reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests,were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore,many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged,not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed atemporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites ofpurification. These rites included washings (a man who had adischarge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed inorder to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of achild, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certainofferings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood”[12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” manwho had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to bedeclared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house wentthrough a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance ofcleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as thepurifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the bloodon [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and toconsecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

Afinal characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded;that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impuritywas especially serious and highly contagious. One could contractcorpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the sametent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone orthe grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpseimpurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Majorimpurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven daysrather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lastedonly until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals mightcontract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whetherby touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someonedefiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseasedperson or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or dischargefrom either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23,26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“untilevening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), andone was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

TheProphets and the Writings.Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and“purification” are much less common; however, at timesthey are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity isused figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical termfor “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively toillustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands,but there is no one to comfort her.... Jerusalemhas become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and inEzek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in theirown land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Theirconduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

Itwas not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for theprophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered peoplepure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’sforgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash andmake yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stopdoing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing inkey passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you,and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impuritiesand from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “theywill no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images orwith any of their offenses, for I will save them from all theirsinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Althoughthere are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are notcleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who canpromise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they havecommitted against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellionagainst me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin withBathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity andcleanse me from my sin.... Cleanse me with hyssop,and I will be clean.... Create in me a pure heart,O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

NewTestament

Inthe NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element inJewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as inthe prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived inwholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeyingthe truth (1Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms ofpurity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts,you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping thosein distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Fatheraccepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

The concepts of purity and purification are largelyunfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms oftenappear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual,and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the processneeded to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or shecould participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7).These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrainactions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in theirancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene(e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medicaladvantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]).Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simplephysical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for therange of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

OldTestament

Thelaw of Moses. Accordingto Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguishbetween the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean”and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. Godrequired that his people observe purification rites when they cameinto his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teachGod’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification ritualsfunctioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num.8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaiclaw.

Twomajor sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws ofpurification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need forpurification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one ofa number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8),scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev.15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47),and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration ofimpurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditionsdiffer, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity:(1)the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural andmore or less unavoidable; (2)it was not necessarily sinful tocontract these impurities; (3)these conditions conveyedtemporary loss of ritual purity.

Althoughsexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and thecontraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they wereunavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligatedto reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests,were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore,many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged,not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed atemporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites ofpurification. These rites included washings (a man who had adischarge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed inorder to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of achild, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certainofferings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood”[12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” manwho had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to bedeclared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house wentthrough a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance ofcleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as thepurifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the bloodon [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and toconsecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

Afinal characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded;that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impuritywas especially serious and highly contagious. One could contractcorpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the sametent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone orthe grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpseimpurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Majorimpurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven daysrather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lastedonly until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals mightcontract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whetherby touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someonedefiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseasedperson or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or dischargefrom either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23,26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“untilevening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), andone was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

TheProphets and the Writings.Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and“purification” are much less common; however, at timesthey are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity isused figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical termfor “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively toillustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands,but there is no one to comfort her.... Jerusalemhas become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and inEzek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in theirown land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Theirconduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

Itwas not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for theprophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered peoplepure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’sforgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash andmake yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stopdoing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing inkey passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you,and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impuritiesand from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “theywill no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images orwith any of their offenses, for I will save them from all theirsinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Althoughthere are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are notcleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who canpromise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they havecommitted against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellionagainst me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin withBathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity andcleanse me from my sin.... Cleanse me with hyssop,and I will be clean.... Create in me a pure heart,O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

NewTestament

Inthe NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element inJewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as inthe prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived inwholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeyingthe truth (1Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms ofpurity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts,you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping thosein distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Fatheraccepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

The concepts of purity and purification are largelyunfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms oftenappear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual,and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the processneeded to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or shecould participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7).These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrainactions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in theirancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene(e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medicaladvantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]).Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simplephysical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for therange of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

OldTestament

Thelaw of Moses. Accordingto Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguishbetween the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean”and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. Godrequired that his people observe purification rites when they cameinto his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teachGod’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification ritualsfunctioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num.8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaiclaw.

Twomajor sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws ofpurification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need forpurification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one ofa number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8),scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev.15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47),and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration ofimpurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditionsdiffer, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity:(1)the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural andmore or less unavoidable; (2)it was not necessarily sinful tocontract these impurities; (3)these conditions conveyedtemporary loss of ritual purity.

Althoughsexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and thecontraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they wereunavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligatedto reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests,were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore,many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged,not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed atemporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites ofpurification. These rites included washings (a man who had adischarge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed inorder to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of achild, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certainofferings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood”[12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” manwho had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to bedeclared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house wentthrough a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance ofcleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as thepurifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the bloodon [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and toconsecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

Afinal characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded;that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impuritywas especially serious and highly contagious. One could contractcorpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the sametent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone orthe grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpseimpurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Majorimpurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven daysrather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lastedonly until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals mightcontract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whetherby touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someonedefiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseasedperson or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or dischargefrom either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23,26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“untilevening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), andone was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

TheProphets and the Writings.Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and“purification” are much less common; however, at timesthey are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity isused figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical termfor “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively toillustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands,but there is no one to comfort her.... Jerusalemhas become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and inEzek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in theirown land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Theirconduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

Itwas not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for theprophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered peoplepure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’sforgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash andmake yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stopdoing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing inkey passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you,and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impuritiesand from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “theywill no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images orwith any of their offenses, for I will save them from all theirsinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Althoughthere are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are notcleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who canpromise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they havecommitted against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellionagainst me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin withBathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity andcleanse me from my sin.... Cleanse me with hyssop,and I will be clean.... Create in me a pure heart,O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

NewTestament

Inthe NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element inJewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as inthe prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived inwholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeyingthe truth (1Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms ofpurity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts,you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping thosein distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Fatheraccepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

The concept of a remnant or a “remnant theology”runs throughout Scripture. Although appearing in a wide variety oftexts and contexts, the central idea of the remnant concept orremnant theology is that in the midst of seemingly total apostasy andthe consequential terrible judgment and/or destruction, God alwayshas a small, faithful group that he delivers and works through tobring blessing.

OldTestament

Earlyallusions to the idea of a remnant are introduced in the book ofGenesis. Noah and his family (Gen. 6–9) are the remnant that issaved during the flood, when all other people are destroyed injudgment. Likewise, in Gen. 45:6–7 Joseph declares to hisbrothers, “For two years now there has been famine in the land,and for the next five years there will be no plowing and reaping. ButGod sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth andto save your lives by a great deliverance.”

Theremnant theme surfaces in several other places in the OT. Forexample, when Elijah complains to God that he is the only faithfulone left, God corrects him by pointing out that he has maintained aremnant of seven thousand faithful ones in the midst of nationalapostasy (1Kings 19:10–18).

However,it is in the OT prophets that the remnant theme flowers into fullblossom. The Hebrew words for “remnant” (she’ar,she’erit)occur over one hundred times in the prophetic books. The prophetsproclaim that since Israel/Judah has broken the covenant and refusesto repent and turn back to God, judgment is coming. This judgmenttakes 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 southernkingdom, Judah, is destroyed and exiled by the Babylonians in 587/586BC. Yet the prophets also prophesy hope and restoration beyond thejudgment. They declare that many will be destroyed in the judgment,but not all. They prophesy that a remnant will survive, and that Godwill work through the remnant to bring blessings and restoration.Usually the remnant is identified as those who go into exile but wholikewise hope to return to the land. The reestablishment of theremnant is often connected with the inauguration of the messianicage.

NewTestament

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

InRom. 11 Paul is much more explicit. Not only does he use the term“remnant,” but also in Rom. 11:2–5 he connects hisargument specifically to the remnant idea in 1Kings 19:18 (“Ihave reserved for myself seven thousand”). Paul is pointing outthe similarities between the apostasy in Israel in 1Kings 19and the parallel rejection of the Messiah by Israel during Paul’sday. In both cases the nation had rejected God’s word and hissalvation plan. But in both situations, even though the nation as awhole has rejected God, God maintains a faithful remnant. Paul alsounderscores that the remnant is established by God’s grace.Thus, in Rom. 11:5 Paul explains, “So too, at the present timethere is a remnant chosen by grace.” In the early church, thatremnant consisted of Jewish Christians like Paul himself. And to thedegree that the church as a whole inherited the promises to Israel,it too could be included in the category of remnant (see again Rom.11:11–24; cf. 1Pet. 2:5–10; Rev. 7; 14). Indeed,Paul hopes that the conversion of Gentiles to Christ might make hisJewish compatriots jealous so that they may “take back”their Messiah (in Rom. 11, cf. vv. 11–12 with vv. 25–36).In that case, national Israel would become the spiritual remnant forthe very first time in Israel’s history, because “allIsrael” would be saved. That is, national Israel and spiritualIsrael would be one.

Anotherway to grasp the idea of the remnant as it unfolds throughout theBible is to use an hourglass illustration (i.e., wide, narrow, wide).Thus, God had created the world to have fellowship with him, only tohave his creation spurn that offer. To rectify this problem, Godcalls Abraham out from paganism in order that he might make of him anew people, Israel, to worship God and declare him to the nations.Alas, however, Israel in time disobeys God’s law just as thenations of the world had disobeyed God by worshiping other gods. Butthe purpose of God is not thereby thwarted, for he raises up aremnant, a faithful few who remain true to Yahweh (e.g., Elijah andthe later returnees to Israel). However, by the end of the OT thehopes of Israel now rest upon one individual, the Messiah, who willturn the hearts of Jews back to God and who will convert the nationsof the earth to the one true God. As it turns out, then, Israel’srejection of God throughout the OT actually carries along the plan ofGod as it narrows its focus, culminating in the expectation of theone Messiah. But with the advent of Jesus Christ, the focus of Godnow widens, beginning with the apostles (the beginnings of theremnant in the NT), expanding to include the church (the replacementof Israel, however temporary that may be), and one day encompassingthe world (which will bring the revelation of God full circle).

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).

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

Thispoetic justice pervades the OT in the judgment and exile of Adam andEve (Gen. 3:8–24), Cain’s sentence and blood revenge(Gen. 4:15, 24), and the worldwide flood and annihilation (Gen. 6–9)(cf. Exod. 21:20–21; Deut. 30:15–20; Josh. 7; Amos3:14–15; Mic. 2:1–3). Such stories reveal a sovereign Godacting as an external agent who exacts punishment in light of hisintentions for creation. For Israel, retribution is the exercise ofYahweh’s legal rights in an attempt to restore covenantfellowship (Lev. 26:40–45). Although serious tensionsexist—sometimes the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer—thisdoes not alter the grand scheme of Scripture (Job 33; Jer. 12:1–4).In some scenarios, only the next lifetime will fully bring justiceand reward (Ps. 49:5–15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rev.22:1–5). Deep wisdom, however, embraces mystery and understandsthe limits of human agency (Gen. 50:19–20; James 1:5).

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

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

There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin;hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, orportrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of thedriving forces of the entire Bible.

Sinin the Bible

OldTestament.Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’scommandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree ofthe knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. WhenAdam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete.They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaveswere inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with theirattempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent,Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).

Inthe midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways thatsin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised toput hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of thewoman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blowupon the offspring of the woman, the offspring ofthe womanwould defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequatecovering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implicationis that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adamand Eve, covering their sin.

InGen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on fulldisplay. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able toeradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humansgathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make aname for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them toscatter across the earth (11:1–9).

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

Despitethese provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke itscovenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under thereign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people,including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder(2Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wivesand concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods(1Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israeland Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry becamerampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judahin 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised toraise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as aguilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

AfterGod’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that thegreat prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, wereat hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remainedunder foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell ofSolomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Beforelong, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning awayfrom him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administrationof the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failedto properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).

NewTestament.During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longingfor God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last,when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it wasrevealed that he would “save his people from their sins”(Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, Johnthe Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism ofrepentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereasboth Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to bethe 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 theSuffering 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 wrathof God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. Withhis justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify allwho are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). Whatneither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, JesusChrist did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).

Afterhis resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers beganproclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus didand calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one ofyou, 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 againstthem (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believerscontinue 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 newheaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse(Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).

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

Definitionand Terminology

Definitionof sin. Althoughno definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of theconcept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conformto God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action,orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered thatGod’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character,so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather isa personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited toactions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen.4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature ashuman beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.

Terminology.TheBible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying themis not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and useof the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one ofthe following four categories.

1.Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator andruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’sself-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankindfoolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom.1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows tohumans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31).Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodlinessor impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa.9:17; 1Pet. 4:18).

2.Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from thelawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass”picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or thecrossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42;Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’slaw, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45;Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violatinghis statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result isguilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’slaw is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectivelyfeels guilt.

3.Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what isgood. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what isgood (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contraststhe upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could alsoinclude here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speakof perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequentmention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievousdeparture from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27;1Cor. 5:1–11).

4.Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individualhad to be in a state of purity before him. While a person couldbecome impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating womanwas impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity”clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek.24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Althoughit is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, inother places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7;Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).

Metaphors

Inaddition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible usesseveral metaphors or images to describe it. The following four areamong the more prominent.

Missingthe mark.In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin”have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sinis reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that aperson simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it isthat he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9;Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional ornot, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num.15:30).

Departingfrom the way.Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in thewisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of therighteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19).Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways,but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18).Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed bytheir own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).

Adultery.Since God’s relationship with his people is described as amarriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32),it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness asadultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous womanvividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them ofspiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52).When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate inidolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1Cor.6:12–20; 10:1–22).

Slavery.Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clearthat Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture ofits far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7;49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to thosewho do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything thatpleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic powerthat is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare(Rom. 7:7–25).

Scopeand Consequences

Sindoes not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage alongwith it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.

Scope.The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As aresult of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist humanefforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen.3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under theweight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2Chron.36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation aswell (Rom. 8:19–22).

Sinaffects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions,motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom.3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “totaldepravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful asthey could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is taintedby sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as asinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societalstructures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economicmarkets, to name but a few.

Consequences.Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’sneighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sinhas consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level.Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen.2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty inGod’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, andsubjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20;5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict betweenindividuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breedsmistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closestrelationships.

Conclusion

Nosubject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding ofsin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As thePuritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ willnot be sweet.”

Geography

Whereasthe principal direction in the modern world is north, in the ancientworld different cultures used a variety of orientations as theysought to describe their relationship to their geographicalenvironment. In Israel the primary direction was determined by thesunrise: east. This is reflected in Hebrew, where the main word usedto refer to east as a direction was qedem, which could also be usedto simply refer to that which was directly ahead or in front of thespeaker (e.g., Ps. 139:5). Elsewhere, east is designated by the termsmizrakh (“rising” [Josh. 11:3]) or mizrakh hashamesh(“rising of the sun” [Num. 21:11]), both of which derivefrom the direction of sunrise. By way of contrast, in Egypt theprimary direction was south, in alignment with the source of the NileRiver.

Theancient world employed the same notion of four cardinal directions,which persists to the present, and the terminology related to thesewas influenced by the choice of primary direction. Thus, in Israelnorth is often designated by “left”; south could bedesignated by “right,” and west by “behind.”In addition, directions could be specified by reference togeographical features found in those directions. North could bespecified by the word tsapon, which was derived from the name of anorthern Syrian mountain (Zaphon); south by negeb, a name for theregion south of Israel (Negev); and west by yam (“sea”),since the Mediterranean Sea lay to the west.

Symbolism

Asidefrom their purely geographical significance, the directions also cameto bear figurative significance. Some caution is warranted inassigning symbolic significance to language, for there is danger ofreading invalid meanings into texts. Furthermore, given the ambiguityinherent in the use of terms to refer to directions, which also havealternate significances, there is danger of assigning a symbolicmeaning to the direction that actually resides in the alternate. So,for example, while yam (“sea”) carries significantsymbolic overtones in the Bible, this association does not appear tohave been extended to encompass the term when used to designate awesterly direction.

Eastand west.Nonetheless, there is, for example, probably some significance in theexpulsion from Eden and progressive movement eastward to the tower ofBabel through Gen. 1–11, followed by a return to the promisedland, which was approached by reversing the easterly migration andreturning toward Eden. Eden itself was said to lie “in theeast” (Heb. miqqedem; Gen. 2:8), although the same Hebrewexpression in Pss. 74:12; 77:5, 11; 78:2; 143:5 means “inancient times,” and there is perhaps a deliberate ambiguity inthe use of the expression in Gen. 2:8. In Isa. 2:6 the east is thesource of influences on the people that lead them astray. Followingthe exile, Ezekiel sees the glory of God returning to the temple fromthe east (Ezek. 43:1–2). Thus, when used symbolically, “east”is often viewed negatively or else may be used to mark a connectionwith distant antiquity (Gen. 2:8; Job 1:3). Any symbolic significanceassigned to west appears primarily to be associated with it being theantithesis of east. The distance between east and west was usedpoetically to express vast distance (Ps. 103:12).

Northand south.North is significant for two primary reasons. First, it is thedirection from which invading armies most often descended upon Israel(Jer. 1:13) as well as from which Babylon’s destruction is saidto come (Jer. 50:3). In light of this, Ezekiel’s vision of Godapproaching from the north strikes an ominous tone of impendingjudgment (Ezek. 1:1–4). Second, in Canaanite mythology theabode of the gods, and specifically Baal, lay to the north, on MountZaphon. Thus, the king of Babylon’s plans in Isa. 14:13 amountto a claim to establish himself as one of the gods. In contrast tothis, Ps. 48:2 pre-sents Mount Zion as supplanting Mount Zaphon andthus implicitly presents Israel’s one God as supplanting theCanaanite pantheon.

Aswith west, there is little symbolic significance associated with thedirection south in the Bible, aside from its use in combination withother directions.

Thefour directions.The four directions (or sometimes just pairs of directions) are usedtogether to describe both the scattering of the Israelites as well astheir being gathered by God back to the promised land (Ps. 107:3;Isa. 43:5–6; Luke 13:29). They are also used together toexpress the extent of the promised land (Gen. 13:14) or else todescribe something that is all-encompassing (1Chron. 9:24).

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 symbol is that which stands for something beyond itself. Itis usually something material that represents something immaterial,either visually or conceptually. The implied comparison that a symbolpresents is far more universal in association than that of ametaphor. The Bible is replete with symbols, using a person, place,number, action, event, object, or image to point beyond itself toreality. As such, symbol is a powerful vehicle of communication, andit is a common feature of all religions. But a symbol may not alwaysreveal the significance to which it refers, since the reality that itrepresents may not always be apparent. A symbol is conditioned by theculture, history, and context in which it is situated and is capableof multiple meanings. Thus, to fully appreciate the significance thata symbol connotes, interpreters must pay careful attention to itslinguistic and cultural-historical background.

Examplesof the symbolic presence of God are plentiful in the Bible. In theOT, the rainbow was viewed as a symbol of God’s covenantalpromise to preserve his created being (Gen. 9:13). The bronze serpentmade by Moses symbolized God’s healing and wisdom (Num. 21:9).In Israelite worship the altar symbolized the meeting place of God;the ark, the presence of God; and the temple, the divine abode.Similarly, priestly vestments were symbolic, from the rope to theephod to the turban, which made the priest himself the extension ofGod’s presence. In the NT, Christ’s incarnation madevisible the presence of God. Christ is not a symbol, for he is theimage of God. Many Christians understand the Lord’s Supper tosymbolize Christ’s presence. The cross and the fish (ichthys,which in Greek is an anagramfor “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior”) are tworemarkable symbols, both representing the Christian faith in churchhistory.

Symbolicactions are common in the Bible. Certain actions introduce newmeaning beyond their immediate contexts. In the OT, for example, anIsraelite slave allowed his owner to pierce his ear to symbolize histotal and permanent slavery (Exod. 21:6). Also, the surrendering of ashoe symbolized the surrendering of all personal rights ofinheritance (Ruth 4:7). In the OT, circumcision was a symbol of thecovenant that God made with Abraham (Gen. 17:1–14) and ofinitiation into the covenant community (Ezek. 28:10; 31:18; 32:19).In the NT, this symbolic meaning is described by new actions. Waterbaptism had become a ritual symbol of the new covenant (Col. 2:11)and of incorporation into the Christian community (1Cor.12:13). Also, the prophetic messages were told in symbols. Theprophets performed actions to reveal the will and message of God(Isa. 20:2; Jer. 13; Ezek. 4:1–3; Acts 21:10–11). In theNT, the miracles of Jesus were not simply deeds of sympathy; theydemonstrated the coming of the kingdom of God (Luke 9:11).

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 holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.

OldTestament

SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.

Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.

Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.

Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.

Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.

Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).

NewTestament

Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.

OldTestament

SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.

Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.

Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.

Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.

Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.

Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).

NewTestament

Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nationof Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them tolive holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part,by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept ofcleanness.

OldTestament

SinceIsrael could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise thatthe law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by acommand to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is itunexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and uncleanfood, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I amholy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness(Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymouswith morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous.Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabledthat person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, yoursanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,”Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before consideringhow ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the puritylaws themselves.

Puritylaws.Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnalemission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain typesof animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e.,contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturallyand unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) weretolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as longas they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoidedat all costs or else grave consequences would result to the personand community.

Toleratedimpurities.We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major.Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touchingsomeone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make onecontagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resultedfrom touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencinga nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became“contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrificewas required.

Inorder to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removaloccurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed bywashing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water).What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whetherthrough burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat;Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansingtook time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer thetime, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eightydays following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impuritiesrequired sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkledagainst the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritualactions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who hadbeen healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, cleanbirds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixedwith water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other birdwas dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing theremoval of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num.19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those whohad touched a corpse.

Impuritiesto be avoided.Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certainobjects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people ofGod. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, evenbeing “cut off” from the community. Although it isunclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhapsexcommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimelydeath, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestorsafter death—the threat was ominous.

Oneprohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits byGod. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen.9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible landanimals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud(Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both finsand scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable forfood (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18),as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) andsome crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Otherprohibited impurities included what might be more readily identifiedas sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry(20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34)defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,”God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) orexile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasonsfor the laws.Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Somesuggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as atest of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew ofreasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protectinghis people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meatimproperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can beexplained this way. Some believe that God identified things as cleanbecause they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normallypropel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal andthus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or uncleanbased on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identifiedobjects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g.,vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it isdifficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleannessand holiness.While we may not know for certain why God chose these particularlaws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First,these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holinesscould be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeatedand stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go tothe sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Onlythe clean could approach a holy God and participate in the ritualsthat demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second,these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites aboutimpurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons,but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness,not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third,these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom theywere to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiencesprevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed.These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect oftheir lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, butalso what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse.These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who hadprovided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly andhumbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth,a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelitesseparate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoidpagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead;Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with theirpagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how thoseanimals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concernedthat his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6;14:1–3).

NewTestament

Ceremonialcleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Maryunderwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth(Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people fromleprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purificationrituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14;17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

Inone of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled adeparture from how these laws had been practiced. He announced,“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them”(Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In sayingthis, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ”(7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this sameperspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentileconversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome(Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

TheNT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to beholy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still requiredpurity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, onebecame unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess.2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example,contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy butwas to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came throughritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance ofa priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now theonce-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14;1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26;1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and bythe priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8;1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holylives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ onthe causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holypeople has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is ameans to that end.

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).

Geography

Whereasthe principal direction in the modern world is north, in the ancientworld different cultures used a variety of orientations as theysought to describe their relationship to their geographicalenvironment. In Israel the primary direction was determined by thesunrise: east. This is reflected in Hebrew, where the main word usedto refer to east as a direction was qedem, which could also be usedto simply refer to that which was directly ahead or in front of thespeaker (e.g., Ps. 139:5). Elsewhere, east is designated by the termsmizrakh (“rising” [Josh. 11:3]) or mizrakh hashamesh(“rising of the sun” [Num. 21:11]), both of which derivefrom the direction of sunrise. By way of contrast, in Egypt theprimary direction was south, in alignment with the source of the NileRiver.

Theancient world employed the same notion of four cardinal directions,which persists to the present, and the terminology related to thesewas influenced by the choice of primary direction. Thus, in Israelnorth is often designated by “left”; south could bedesignated by “right,” and west by “behind.”In addition, directions could be specified by reference togeographical features found in those directions. North could bespecified by the word tsapon, which was derived from the name of anorthern Syrian mountain (Zaphon); south by negeb, a name for theregion south of Israel (Negev); and west by yam (“sea”),since the Mediterranean Sea lay to the west.

Symbolism

Asidefrom their purely geographical significance, the directions also cameto bear figurative significance. Some caution is warranted inassigning symbolic significance to language, for there is danger ofreading invalid meanings into texts. Furthermore, given the ambiguityinherent in the use of terms to refer to directions, which also havealternate significances, there is danger of assigning a symbolicmeaning to the direction that actually resides in the alternate. So,for example, while yam (“sea”) carries significantsymbolic overtones in the Bible, this association does not appear tohave been extended to encompass the term when used to designate awesterly direction.

Eastand west.Nonetheless, there is, for example, probably some significance in theexpulsion from Eden and progressive movement eastward to the tower ofBabel through Gen. 1–11, followed by a return to the promisedland, which was approached by reversing the easterly migration andreturning toward Eden. Eden itself was said to lie “in theeast” (Heb. miqqedem; Gen. 2:8), although the same Hebrewexpression in Pss. 74:12; 77:5, 11; 78:2; 143:5 means “inancient times,” and there is perhaps a deliberate ambiguity inthe use of the expression in Gen. 2:8. In Isa. 2:6 the east is thesource of influences on the people that lead them astray. Followingthe exile, Ezekiel sees the glory of God returning to the temple fromthe east (Ezek. 43:1–2). Thus, when used symbolically, “east”is often viewed negatively or else may be used to mark a connectionwith distant antiquity (Gen. 2:8; Job 1:3). Any symbolic significanceassigned to west appears primarily to be associated with it being theantithesis of east. The distance between east and west was usedpoetically to express vast distance (Ps. 103:12).

Northand south.North is significant for two primary reasons. First, it is thedirection from which invading armies most often descended upon Israel(Jer. 1:13) as well as from which Babylon’s destruction is saidto come (Jer. 50:3). In light of this, Ezekiel’s vision of Godapproaching from the north strikes an ominous tone of impendingjudgment (Ezek. 1:1–4). Second, in Canaanite mythology theabode of the gods, and specifically Baal, lay to the north, on MountZaphon. Thus, the king of Babylon’s plans in Isa. 14:13 amountto a claim to establish himself as one of the gods. In contrast tothis, Ps. 48:2 pre-sents Mount Zion as supplanting Mount Zaphon andthus implicitly presents Israel’s one God as supplanting theCanaanite pantheon.

Aswith west, there is little symbolic significance associated with thedirection south in the Bible, aside from its use in combination withother directions.

Thefour directions.The four directions (or sometimes just pairs of directions) are usedtogether to describe both the scattering of the Israelites as well astheir being gathered by God back to the promised land (Ps. 107:3;Isa. 43:5–6; Luke 13:29). They are also used together toexpress the extent of the promised land (Gen. 13:14) or else todescribe something that is all-encompassing (1Chron. 9:24).

Because Scripture sees all things as providentially arrangedand sustained by God’s sovereign power at all times (Heb. 1:3),miracles are not aberrations in an otherwise closed and mechanicaluniverse. Nor are miracles raw demonstrations of divinity designed toovercome prejudice or unbelief and to convince people of theexistence of God (Mark 8:11–12). Still less are they cleverconjuring tricks involving some kind of deception that can beotherwise explained on a purely scientific basis. Rather, God in hisinfinite wisdom sometimes does unusual and extraordinary things tocall attention to himself and his activity. Miracles are divinelyordained acts of God that dramatically alert us to the presence ofhis glory and power and advance his saving purposes in redemptivehistory.

Terminology

Thebiblical writers describe miracles with various terms, such as“signs,” “wonders,” and “miracles”(or “powers”), which can carry various connotations. Asthe word “sign” suggests, divine miracles are significantand should cause us to think more deeply about God in a way that goesbeyond mere amazement or curiosity (Exod. 4:30–31; John 2:11).Not all of God’s signs are miraculous. Some are given as partof his ordering of the natural world (Gen. 1:14) or as anencouragement to faith that God will do as he has said (e.g., therainbow in Gen. 9:8–17; the blood of the Passover lamb in Exod.12:13). (See also Sign.)

Oftencoupled with signs are “wonders” (Jer. 32:21; John 4:48;2Cor. 12:12). If the depiction of miracles as “signs”indicates an appeal to the intellect, that of “wonders”points to the emotions. Miracles evoke astonishment and awe at theone who did them.

TheNT word “miracle” carries the meaning of power andtherefore points to the supernatural source of these events (Luke10:13; Acts 8:13).

Miraclesin the Bible

OldTestament.In the OT, miracles are not evenly distributed but rather are foundin greater number during times of great redemptive significance, suchas the exodus and the conquest of Canaan. Miracles were performedalso during periods of apostasy, such as in the days of theninth-century prophets Elijah and Elisha. Common to both of theseeras is the powerful demonstration of the superiority of God overpagan deities (Exod. 7–12; 1Kings 18:20–40).

NewTestament. Inthe NT, miracles often are acts of compassion, but more significantlythey attest the exalted status of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:22) andthe saving power of his word (Heb. 2:3–4). In the SynopticGospels, they reveal the coming of God’s kingdom and theconquest of Satan’s dominion (Matt. 8:16–17; 12:22–30;Mark 3:27). They point to the person of Jesus as the promised Messiahof OT Scripture (Matt. 4:23; 11:4–6). John shows a preferencefor the word “signs,” and his Gospel is structured aroundthem (John 20:30–31). According to John, the signs that Jesusperformed were such that only the one who stood in a uniquerelationship to the Father as the Son of God could do them.

Miraclesand faith.Just as entrenched skepticism is injurious to faith, so too is naivecredulity, for although signs and wonders witness to God, falseprophets also perform them “to deceive, if possible, even theelect” (Matt. 24:24). Christians are to exercise discernmentand not be led astray by such impostors (Matt. 7:15–20).

Therelationship between miracles and faith is not as straightforward assometimes supposed. Miracles do not necessarily produce faith, nordoes faith necessarily produce miracles. Miracles were intended tobring about the faith that leads to eternal life (John 20:31), butnot all who witnessed them believed (John 10:32). Additionally, Jesusregarded a faith that rested only on the miracle itself as precarious(Mark 8:11–13; John 2:23–25; 4:48), though better than nofaith at all (John 10:38). Faith that saves must ultimately find itsgrounding in the person of Jesus as the Son of God.

Itis also clear that although Jesus always encouraged faith in thosewho came to him for help (Mark 9:23), and that he deliberatelylimited his miraculous powers in the presence of unbelief (Mark 6:5),many of his miracles were performed on those who did not or could notexercise faith (Matt. 12:22; Mark 1:23–28; 5:1–20; Luke14:1–4).

Thefact that Jesus performed miracles was never an issue; rather, hisopponents disputed the source of his power (Mark 3:22). Argumentsabout his identity were to be settled by appeal not to miracles butto the word of God (Matt. 22:41–46).

Thefunction of miracles.Miracle accounts function in a symbolic and prophetic manner. Hence,the cursing of the fig tree was prophetic of the coming judgment(Mark 11:12–21). The unusual two-stage healing of the blind manof Bethsaida symbolized Peter’s incomplete understanding ofJesus’ messiahship (Mark 8:22–33).

Themiraculous element of Jesus’ ministry carries an eschatologicalsignificance, pointing to the order of things in the age to come. Forexample, the nature miracles (Mark 4:35–41) look forward to theredemption of creation itself, which is presently subject tofrustration and decay (Rom. 8:20–21); the healing miraclespoint to a day when disease and deformity will be abolished (Rev.21:4); and miracles in which the dead are raised to life anticipate atime when death itself will be no more (Rev. 20:14; 21:4). From thisperspective, the miracles are a gracious foretaste of a far moreglorious future.