Sermon and Worship Resources (2024)

Aaron was Moses’ older brother and his close associate during the days when God used both of them to establish his people Israel as a nation. Aaron’s particular importance came when God selected him to be the first high priest of Israel.

Aaron plays a supportive role in the Exodus account of the plagues and the departure from Egypt. He was at Moses’ side. As previously arranged, Aaron was the spokesperson, acting as a prophet to Moses, who was “like God to Pharaoh” (Exod. 7:1).

The event of greatest significance involving Aaron in the wilderness was his appointment as high priest. The divine mandate for his installation is recorded in Exod. 28. Aaron did not fare well on the one occasion when he acted independently from Moses. While Moses was on Mount Sinai receiving the two tablets of the law from the hand of God, Aaron gave in to the people’s request to make a calf idol out of golden earrings that they gave him.

In spite of Aaron’s sin, God did not remove him from his priestly responsibilities (thanks to the prayers of Moses [Deut. 9:20]), the height of which was to preside over the annual Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). The incident of the golden calf was not the only occasion when Aaron tried God’s patience. According to Num. 12, Aaron and his sister, Miriam, contested Moses’ leadership. Using his marriage to a Cush*te woman as a pretext, Moses’ siblings asserted their equality. God, however, put them in their place, affirming Moses’ primacy.

Other tribal leaders questioned Aaron’s priestly leadership, according to Num. 17. Moses told all the tribal leaders to place their walking staffs along with Aaron’s before God at the tent of testimony. God showed his favor toward Aaron by causing his staff to bud.

Both Moses and Aaron forfeited their right to enter the land of promise when they usurped the Lord’s authority as they brought water from the rock in the wilderness (Num. 20:1 13). Sick and tired of the people’s complaining, Moses wrongly ascribed the ability to make water come from the rock to himself and Aaron, and rather than speaking to the rock, he struck it twice. For this, God told them that they would die in the wilderness. Aaron’s death is reported soon after this occasion (Num. 20:22–27).

In the NT, the most significant use of Aaron is in comparison to Jesus Christ, the ultimate high priest. Interestingly, the book of Hebrews argues that Jesus far surpassed the priestly authority of Aaron by connecting his priesthood to Melchizedek, a mysterious non-Israelite priest who blesses God and Abram in Gen. 14 (see Heb. 7:1–14).

Temporary homes for seminomadic peoples as well as military personnel.

After the exodus and during the wilderness journeys, the Israelites resided in this type of settlement (Exod. 14:2, 9; Num. 33; Deut. 2:1415). Moses led the Israelites out of the camp to meet with God at Sinai (Exod. 19:16–17).

Each tribe had its own camp (Num. 2). Because of the presence of God in its midst, Israel’s camp was to be holy. Leviticus and Deuteronomy contain laws regulating camp life (Lev. 14:3, 8; Deut. 23:10–11). Any unclean person or thing was to be put outside the encampment (Num. 5:1–4; Deut. 23:14). The angel of the Lord encamped around them (Ps. 34:7). The Israelite army encamped at numerous places during the conquest of Canaan (Josh. 4:19) and the monarchical period (1Sam. 29:1).

The NT uses the Greek term parembolē to refer to the Israelite camp where animals sacrificed as sin offerings were “burned outside the camp” (Heb. 13:11–13). Since Jesus suffered outside the gate as a sacrifice for us, believers are called to join him outside the camp, “bearing the disgrace he bore.” Revelation 20:9 speaks of “the camp of God’s people.”

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hebrew term for “horn” refers to a bony protrusion on an animal’s head, like those belonging to the ram (Gen. 22:13), ox (Deut. 33:17), and goat (Dan. 8:5). More broadly the term indicates any hornlike projection, as in “ivory tusks” (qarnot shen, lit., “horns of tooth” [Ezek. 27:15]).

In the OT, horns are emblematic of vitality and strength. David praises Yahweh as “the horn of my salvation”—that is, a mighty deliverer (2Sam. 22:3= Ps. 18:2). The appellation evokes Yahweh’s special commitment to uphold the king’s horn (see 1Sam. 2:10; Pss. 89:24; 132:17). The king is similarly identified as the horn of his people (Pss. 89:1718; 148:14), denoting both his role as protector and his duty to uphold justice. As instruments of defense and dominance among animals, horns especially symbolize martial prowess (Deut. 33:17; 1Kings 22:11). This sense figures in pronouncements of judgment upon Israel (Lam. 2:3, 17) and hope for Israel’s restoration (Mic. 4:13).

In Daniel’s visions, “horn” designates rulers (7:24), and kingdoms (8:22), which figure in the schematized portrayal of history. Among them, the “large horn” (8:8, 21) signifies Alexander the Great, while the four horns (8:22) represent the dissolution of his empire following his death. The “little/small horn” (7:8; 8:9–12) signifies AntiochusIV Epiphanes (see 8:23–25). In Zechariah’s vision (1:18–21), “horn” generally indicates nations that oppress Judah.

In the NT, the Greek word keras exhibits a semantic range similar to Hebrew qeren. Jesus is “a horn of salvation” for all Israel (Luke 1:69). Revelation 9:13 mentions “the four horns of the golden altar” that stands before God; elsewhere, “horn” symbolizes the power of the Lamb or of the red dragon (5:6; 12:3) or designates eschatological rulers (17:12).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moses played a leadership role in the founding of Israel as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6). Indeed, the narrative of Exodus through Deuteronomy is the story of God using Moses to found the nation of Israel. It begins with an account of his birth (Exod. 2) and ends with an account of his death (Deut. 34). Moses’ influence and importance extend well beyond his lifetime, as later Scripture demonstrates.

Moses was born in a dangerous time, and according to Pharaoh’s decree, he should not have survived long after his birth. He was born to Amram and Jochebed (Exod. 6:20). Circumventing Pharaoh’s decree, Jochebed placed the infant Moses in a reed basket and floated him down the river. God guided the basket down the river and into the presence of none other than Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod. 2:56), who, at the urging of Moses’ sister, hired Jochebed to take care of the child.

The next major episode in the life of Moses concerns his defense of an Israelite worker who was being beaten by an Egyptian (Exod. 2:11–25). In the process of rescuing the Israelite, Moses killed the Egyptian. When it became clear that he was known to be the killer, he fled Egypt and ended up in Midian, where he became a member of the family of a Midianite priest-chief, Jethro, by marrying his daughter Zipporah.

Although Moses was not looking for a way back into Egypt, God had different plans. One day, while Moses was tending his sheep, God appeared to him in the form of a burning bush and commissioned him to go back to Egypt and lead his people to freedom. Moses expressed reluctance, and so God grudgingly enlisted his older brother, Aaron, to accompany him as his spokesperson.

Upon Moses’ return to Egypt, Pharaoh stubbornly refused to allow the Israelites to leave Egypt. God directed Moses to announce a series of plagues that ultimately induced Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to depart. After they left, Pharaoh had a change of mind and cornered them on the shores of the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds). It was at the Red Sea that God demonstrated his great power by splitting the sea and allowing the Israelites to escape before closing it again in judgment on the Egyptians. Moses signaled the presence of God by lifting his rod high in the air (Exod. 14:16). This event was long remembered as the defining moment when God released Israel from Egyptian slavery (Pss. 77; 114), and it even became the paradigm for future divine rescues (Isa. 40:3–5; Hos. 2:14–15).

After the crossing of the Red Sea, Moses led Israel back to Mount Sinai, the location of his divine commissioning. At this time, Moses went up the mountain as a prophetic mediator for the people (Deut. 18:16). He received the Ten Commandments, the rest of the law, and instructions to build the tabernacle (Exod. 19–24). All these were part of a new covenantal arrangement that today we refer to as the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant.

However, as Moses came down the mountain with the law, he saw that the people, who had grown tired of waiting, were worshiping a false god that they had created in the form of a golden calf (Exod. 32). With the aid of the Levites, who that day assured their role as Israel’s priestly helpers, he brought God’s judgment against the offenders and also interceded in prayer with God to prevent the total destruction of Israel.

Thus began Israel’s long story of rebellion against God. God was particularly upset with the lack of confidence that the Israelites had shown when the spies from the twelve tribes gave their report (Num. 13). They did not believe that God could handle the fearsome warriors who lived in the land, and so God doomed them to forty years of wandering in the wilderness, enough time for the first generation to die. Not even Moses escaped this fate, since he had shown anger against God and attributed a miracle to his own power and not to God when he struck a rock in order to get water (Num. 20:1–13).

Thus, Moses was not permitted to enter the land of promise, though he had led the Israelites to the very brink of entry on the plains of Moab. There he gave his last sermon, which we know as the book of Deuteronomy. The purpose of his sermon was to tell the second generation of Israelites who were going to enter the land that they must obey God’s law or suffer the consequences. The form of the sermon was that of a covenant renewal, and so Israel on this occasion reaffirmed its loyalty to God.

After this, Moses went up on Mount Nebo, from which he could see the promised land, and died. Deuteronomy concludes with the following statements: “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.... For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel” (Deut. 34:10, 12).

The NT honors Moses as God’s servant but also makes the point that Jesus is one who far surpasses Moses as a mediator between God and people (Acts 3:17–26; Heb. 3).

The date of Moses is a matter of controversy because the biblical text does not name the pharaohs of the story. Many date him to the thirteenth century BC and associate him with RamessesII, but others take 1Kings 6:1 at face value and date him to the end of the fifteenth century BC, perhaps during the reign of ThutmoseIII.

The mountain where Moses met with God and received the law and instructions for building the tabernacle. It is important to note that Sinai is sometimes referred to as Horeb.

The exact location of the mountain cannot be determined with certainty. Complicating matters is the fact that the desert and the peninsula on which the mountains sit are both called “Sinai.” Furthermore, although some have speculated that the mountain must be a volcano, given the description of smoke coming from the mountain and the earthquakes (Exod. 19:16, 18), this suggestion is of little specific help because many of the mountains in this region at one time were active volcanoes. Several locations for the mountain have been suggested.

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

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

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

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

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

Treasure was stored in the Jerusalem temple and palace (Josh. 6:24) and was collected from the spoils of war (Josh. 6:19), from offerings (2Kings 12:4; Mark 12:41), and from royal gifts (2Kings 12:18; 1Chron. 29:3). The temple treasury contained gold, silver, other metals, and precious stones (1Chron. 29:8). Treasuries also housed written records (Ezra 6:1). Treasure was stored in the small rooms that surrounded the sanctuary (1Chron. 28:12; see also Jer. 38:11) and was guarded by Levites (1Chron. 9:26). Several treasurers are named (1Chron. 9:26; 26:20, 22; 2Chron. 25:24). The Ethiopian eunuch who met Philip was a treasurer in the court of the Kandake (Acts 8:27). The treasury funded repairs to the temple (2Kings 12:7; Ezra 7:20).

Invading kings frequently raided the temple treasury, including Shishak of Egypt (1Kings 14:26), Jehoash of Israel (2Kings 14:14), and finally Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (2Kings 24:13; Dan. 1:2), as foretold by Jeremiah (Jer. 15:13). On other occasions, the kings of Judah drew money from the treasury to make tribute payments to foreign rulers (1Kings 15:18; 2Kings 12:18; 16:8; 18:15). “Treasury” can also refer to a private account (Prov. 8:21).

Jesus taught that his followers should store up their treasures in heaven and not on earth (Matt. 6:1921). Earthly treasures will be destroyed over time or perhaps even stolen. In this vein, he urged the rich young ruler to sell his possessions so he might have “treasure in heaven” (Matt. 19:21).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.

In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”

As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.

Old Testament

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

Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.

The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.

The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).

Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.

When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).

When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).

Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).

God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).

Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.

New Testament

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

In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).

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

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

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

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

Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).

Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.

In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?

In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).

Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.

Faith and the Church

Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).

Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.

Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).

Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2Cor. 10:15).

Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).

Temporary homes for seminomadic peoples as well as militarypersonnel. A number of Hebrew words are translated in the EnglishBible as “camp” or “encampment.”

Forexample, a tirah was a camp protected by a stone barrier or wall(Gen. 25:16; Num. 31:10; Ezek. 25:4), a ma’gal was a ring ofwagons or a circular camp (1 Sam. 17:20; 26:5, 7), and a nawahwas perhaps a nomadic pasturage camp (Ps. 68:12 NIV).

Themost frequent word for “camp,” mak­haneh, occurs overtwo hundred times in the OT and is derived from the verbal rootkhanah, meaning “to set up a camp or encampment.” Isaacand Jacob camped during their journeys (Gen. 26:17; 31:25). Afterleaving Laban and meeting the angel of God, Jacob declared the placeof the theophany to be “the camp of God” and named it“Mahanaim,” meaning “double camp” (32:1–2).In Gen. 32:21 Jacob’s camp is probably a traveling entouragecomposed of a number of tents.

Inmany cases makhaneh refers to a military camp. After the exodus andduring the wilderness journeys, the Israelites resided in this typeof settlement (Exod. 14:2, 9; Num. 33; Deut. 2:14–15). Mosesled the Israelites out of the camp to meet with God at Sinai (Exod.19:16–17).

Eachtribe had its own camp (Num. 2). Because of the presence of God inits midst, Israel’s camp was to be holy. Leviticus andDeuteronomy contain laws regulating camp life (Lev. 14:3, 8; Deut.23:10–11). Any unclean person or thing was to be put outsidethe encampment (Num. 5:1–4; Deut. 23:14). The angel of the Lordencamped around them (Ps. 34:7). The Israelite army encamped atnumerous places during the conquest of Canaan (Josh. 4:19) and themonarchical period (1 Sam. 29:1).

TheNT uses the Greek term parembolē to refer to the Israelite campwhere animals sacrificed as sin offerings were “burned outsidethe camp” (Heb. 13:11–13). Since Jesus suffered outsidethe gate as a sacrifice for us, believers are called to join himoutside the camp, “bearing the disgrace he bore.”Revelation 20:9 speaks of “the camp of God’s people.”

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).

The process of effecting a transition to holiness, the state of being fit for the presence of God. Separation, or being set apart, while not the core meaning of consecration, is an associated notion (Num. 6:8; 1 Chron. 23:13). True consecration is not merely outward and symbolic but rather involves genuine covenantal obedience to God (Num. 15:40).

Consecration is closely related to purification—the removal of defilement (Exod. 29:36), dedication (particularly of buildings), and sanctification (particularly of people). God’s glorious presence alone may render something holy (29:43–44). More commonly, a ritual act, such as washing (19:10) or anointing (29:36), serves to mark the transition to the new state.

Because God is holy (Lev. 11:44), persons or things that come into his presence must share his holiness. In Israel, the tabernacle or temple was a representation of God’s heavenly sanctuary, so this space and everything associated with it had to be consecrated (Exod. 29:36–37; 40:9), including gifts or sacrificial animals brought to the altar (Exod. 28:38; 2 Chron. 29:33). Certain times were also to be consecrated to God (Lev. 25:10). Priests, with their special garments, were to be consecrated for their role in representing the people before God (Exod. 28:3; 29:21).

At Mount Sinai, the Israelites were consecrated as God’s royal priesthood (Exod. 19:6, 10) to prepare for their encounter with God. In addition to this declaration concerning the whole people, all firstborn males in Israel were in principle to be consecrated (Exod. 13:2), though this was modified by the special role allocated to the approximately equal number of Levites, who were to belong to God (Num. 3:45).

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).

An arid environment challenging to life. Desert comprises about a third of the earth’s land surface, often overtaking verdant areas and squeezing human beings and animals into narrower oases. The deserts of the Bible—Negev, Sinai, Paran, and Zin—are part of the greater Saharo-Arabian desert system, the largest and driest in the world. Most of the land east (areas of present-day Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) and south (Egypt) of Palestine is desert. However, the desert experience of most Israelites was not vast sands but rather arid environments that could otherwise flourish with sufficient water. In this regard, the biblical “wilderness” and “desert” semantically overlap, but they are not the same environments.

With average precipitation of ten inches or less, these regions typically have sparse vegetation and little or no agriculture (Jer. 2:2). Pliny the Elder (AD 23/24–79) describes the Essenes, who lived near the Dead Sea, as having only “the company of palm trees” (Nat. 5.73). Temperatures are severe, often exceeding 110°F on summer days, but also falling below freezing on winter nights. The limited winter rains provide short-lived grass for grazing (1Sam. 17:28; Ps. 65:13; Jer. 23:10), along with thorns and briers (Judg. 8:7). Cisterns were dug to collect the precious rain (Gen. 37:22).

The severity of the environment is not conducive for animal and human life. The Bible mentions wild asses (Job 24:5; Jer. 48:6), jackals (Mal. 1:3), ostriches (Lam. 4:3), owls (Ps. 102:7), poisonous snakes (Isa. 30:6), panthers, and wolves (Hab. 1:8). The desert came to be viewed as the haunt of demons (Matt. 12:43) but also as a place for spiritual refreshment. By definition, a desert is untouched by human hands. The patterns and sounds go back to God, not the noisy neighbors of urban life. The desert therefore can facilitate communion with God because of the absence of distractions and the inevitable deepening awareness of the fragility of existence. Scarcity of resources also requires communal sharing and cooperation for survival.

Instead of in major urban centers in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Palestine, the Bible presents God as training people in the desert by testing their faith, beginning with the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50). God redeems Israel out of Egypt into the desert (Exod. 15:22; 16:1; 17:1), leading them to Sinai (Exod. 18:5; 19:1–2) and then a forty-year sojourn (Num. 14:33; 32:13; Deut. 2:7). Following seasons of testing, concerning which the people routinely fail, God provides freshwater and manna, the “grain of heaven” (Ps. 78:24). However, except on the Sabbath, people are not allowed to store the food but must cultivate complete dependence upon God’s provision for their daily bread. Elijah flees into the wilderness and is provided for by an angel (1Kings 19:1–8). He returns to Mount Sinai (Horeb) and experiences the immediate presence of God in a “thin silence” (1Kings 19:8–13; NIV: “gentle whisper”).

This pattern is repeated in the NT, beginning with John the Baptist, who dresses like a desert nomad and subsists on locusts and wild honey—foods near at hand and not subject to agricultural tithing (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6). After John’s baptism, Jesus departs into the wilderness, where he fasts and is tempted for forty days and nights among the wild beasts but is also provided for by angels (Matt. 4:1–11 pars.). Paul, after his experience on the road to Damascus, departs into Arabia (Nabatea, present-day Jordan), the place “where the nomads live” and the traditional site of Mount Sinai (Pliny the Elder, Nat. 5.72; Gal. 1:17; 4:25). (Damascus, perhaps the oldest city in the world, is an oasis bordering the Arabian Desert on a highway connecting Egypt with Mesopotamia.) The author of Revelation depicts a woman, who represents the people of God, fleeing into the wilderness to escape the red dragon, Satan (Rev. 12:1–6).

The word “eagle” may represent more than onespecies of eagle and vulture, particularly the griffon vulture. Abird of prey, the eagle is classed among the unclean birds in the OT(Lev. 11:13). The eagle was considered one of the marvels of theworld (Prov. 30:19), proverbial for its speed and power (Deut. 28:49;2Sam. 1:23; Ezek. 17:3), its inaccessibility among the highrocks (Job 39:27; Jer. 49:16), and its tutelage and protection of itsyoung (Deut. 32:11). The eagle serves to illustrate the renewedstrength of those whose hope is in God (Ps. 103:5; Isa. 40:31).

Inthe ancient world, the eagle was a symbol of transcendence over theearthly realm. In Egyptian and Mesopotamian iconography it is closelyassociated with royalty, serving to demonstrate that the king isinvited to participate in a dominion normally beyond the reach ofhuman capacity. There is a close association with warfare and withdivine protection and guarantee of success.

InExod. 19:4 God brings his royal-priestly people to himself at MountSinai “on eagles’ wings,” while in Deut. 32:10–11the eagle illustrates the divine protection of Israel. Because of itsproverbial attributes and associations, the eagle is included in anumber of visionary images (Ezek. 1:10; Dan. 7:4; Rev. 4:7; 8:13).

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).

Temporary homes for seminomadic peoples as well as militarypersonnel. A number of Hebrew words are translated in the EnglishBible as “camp” or “encampment.”

Forexample, a tirah was a camp protected by a stone barrier or wall(Gen. 25:16; Num. 31:10; Ezek. 25:4), a ma’gal was a ring ofwagons or a circular camp (1 Sam. 17:20; 26:5, 7), and a nawahwas perhaps a nomadic pasturage camp (Ps. 68:12 NIV).

Themost frequent word for “camp,” mak­haneh, occurs overtwo hundred times in the OT and is derived from the verbal rootkhanah, meaning “to set up a camp or encampment.” Isaacand Jacob camped during their journeys (Gen. 26:17; 31:25). Afterleaving Laban and meeting the angel of God, Jacob declared the placeof the theophany to be “the camp of God” and named it“Mahanaim,” meaning “double camp” (32:1–2).In Gen. 32:21 Jacob’s camp is probably a traveling entouragecomposed of a number of tents.

Inmany cases makhaneh refers to a military camp. After the exodus andduring the wilderness journeys, the Israelites resided in this typeof settlement (Exod. 14:2, 9; Num. 33; Deut. 2:14–15). Mosesled the Israelites out of the camp to meet with God at Sinai (Exod.19:16–17).

Eachtribe had its own camp (Num. 2). Because of the presence of God inits midst, Israel’s camp was to be holy. Leviticus andDeuteronomy contain laws regulating camp life (Lev. 14:3, 8; Deut.23:10–11). Any unclean person or thing was to be put outsidethe encampment (Num. 5:1–4; Deut. 23:14). The angel of the Lordencamped around them (Ps. 34:7). The Israelite army encamped atnumerous places during the conquest of Canaan (Josh. 4:19) and themonarchical period (1 Sam. 29:1).

TheNT uses the Greek term parembolē to refer to the Israelite campwhere animals sacrificed as sin offerings were “burned outsidethe camp” (Heb. 13:11–13). Since Jesus suffered outsidethe gate as a sacrifice for us, believers are called to join himoutside the camp, “bearing the disgrace he bore.”Revelation 20:9 speaks of “the camp of God’s people.”

Human Uses and Metaphors

Fire is a basic necessity for various human activities such as cooking (Exod. 12:8; Isa. 44:15–16, 19; John 21:9), warming (Isa. 44:16; Jer. 36:22; John 18:18), lighting (Isa. 50:11), manufacturing (Exod. 32:24), and refining metals (Num. 31:22–23). Fire is also an important means of maintaining the purity of God’s people, used to punish sinners (the sexually immoral [Lev. 20:14; 21:9; cf. Gen. 38:24] and the disobedient [Josh. 7:25; cf. 2Kings 23:16]) and to destroy idols (Exod. 32:20; Deut. 7:5, 25; 2Kings 10:26), chariots (Josh. 11:6, 9), and the cities of Canaan (Josh. 6:24; 8:19; 11:11; Judg. 18:27). As an essential means of worship, fire is used to burn sacrificial animals (Gen. 8:20; Exod. 29:18; Lev. 1:9; 3:3; 9:10, 13–14, 20) and grain offerings (Lev. 2:2, 9; 9:17).

The Mosaic law has several regulations concerning fire. Regarded as work, starting a fire is forbidden on the Sabbath (Exod. 35:3). It is the responsibility of the priests to keep the fire burning on the altar (Lev. 6:9, 12–13). The use of an “unauthorized fire” for sacrifice is forbidden (note Nadab and Abihu’s death [Lev. 10:1–2; cf. Num. 3:4; 26:61; 1Chron. 24:2]). Also, contrary to the Canaanite religious custom, burning children is forbidden (Deut. 18:10), though the Israelites failed to keep this command and elicited God’s judgment (2Kings 16:3; 17:17; 21:6; Jer. 7:31; 32:35; note Josiah’s ban in 2Kings 23:10).

As a metaphor, fire also signifies human anger (Ps. 39:3), wickedness (Isa. 9:18), self-reliance (Isa. 50:11), evil planning (Hos. 7:6–7), lust (Prov. 6:27–28), evil speech or tongue (Prov. 16:27; James 3:5–6), and, paradoxically, kindness to an enemy (Prov. 25:22; Rom. 12:20).

Divine Uses and Metaphors

In the Bible, God is described as the ruler of fire (Ps. 104:4; cf. 1Kings 18). Positively, God sends fire to signify his acceptance of worship (Lev. 9:24; Judg. 13:19–20; 1Kings 18:38; 2Chron. 7:1–3; cf. Luke 9:54). God also purifies his people by fire in order to provide them with abundance (Ps. 66:12), to cleanse them of their sins (Isa. 6:6–7), to refine them into the true remnant (Zech. 13:9), to restore true worship (Mal. 3:2–3), to bring forth genuine faith (1Cor. 3:13, 15; 1Pet. 1:7), and to give Christians a true joy of participating in Christ’s suffering (1Pet. 4:12). God also promises to make his people like a firepot and a flaming torch that will burn the surrounding enemies (Zech. 12:6). Negatively, God uses fire to punish the wicked and disobedient (Gen. 19:24; Exod. 9:23; Num. 11:1; 16:35; 2Kings 1:10, 12; Isa. 29:6; 34:9–10; 66:24; Ezek. 38:22; 39:6; Rev. 20:9). God is a farmer burning unfruitful trees (John 15:2, 6; cf. Matt. 3:10; 7:19; 13:40) and “thorns and briers” (Isa. 10:17). The eternal fire of hell is the place where God’s final judgment will be executed (Matt. 5:22; 25:41; Mark 9:45–49; Jude 1:7; note the “lake of fire” in Rev. 20:14–15; cf. 14:10; 21:8).

Fire is also a symbol used to image the indescribable God. It symbolizes God’s presence: a smoking firepot with a flaming torch (Gen. 15:17), the burning bush (Exod. 3:2; cf. Elijah’s expectation [1Kings 19:12]), the pillars of fire and smoke (Exod. 13:21–22; Num. 14:14), the smoke on Mount Sinai and in the tabernacle and the temple (Exod. 19:19; Num. 9:15–16; Deut. 4:11–12; Isa. 6:4). Fire marks God’s protection: the “horses and chariots of fire” (2Kings 6:17; cf. 2:11), the “wall of fire” (Zech. 2:5). Fire also represents God’s glory: God’s throne (Dan. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 1:4, 13; 10:2, 6–7), God’s form (Ezek. 1:27), the seven spirits of God before the throne (Rev. 4:5). God in his holy wrath is also likened to a burning fire (Pss. 79:5; 89:46; Isa. 5:24; 33:14; Jer. 15:14; Ezek. 21:31; 22:21; Hos. 8:5; note the expression “consuming fire” [Deut. 4:24; Isa. 33:14; Heb. 12:29]) and even to a fiery monster (Ps. 18:8; Isa. 30:33; 65:5; cf. Job 41:19–21). Fire is an important element in the description of the day of the Lord (Joel 2:3; cf. 2Pet. 3:12). God’s words in the prophet’s mouth are likened to a fire (Jer. 5:14; 20:9; 23:29).

Fire is also used to speak of Jesus. John the Baptist refers to Jesus’ baptism as one with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matt. 3:11). Jesus identifies the purpose of his coming as casting fire on earth (Luke 12:49). The returning Jesus is portrayed as coming in “blazing fire” (2Thess. 1:7), and the eyes of the glorified Christ are likened to “blazing fire” (Rev. 1:14; 2:18; cf. “flaming torches” in Dan. 10:6). In Acts 2:3 the Holy Spirit is portrayed as the “tongues of fire.”

The human foot is referred to in the Bible both literally(e.g., Exod. 21:24; Lev. 14:14; Luke 8:29) and figuratively (e.g.,Prov. 4:27; Matt. 18:8; 1Cor. 12:15), and the word “foot”is also used to represent the base of a mountain or a hill (e.g.,Exod. 19:12; Josh. 18:16).

Thecommon footwear was the sandal, which covered only the soles. Becauseroads were generally very dusty and dirty, feet needed to be washedfrequently. Figuratively, a conquering king placed his foot on theneck of the conquered leader, symbolizing dominance (Josh. 10:24).Thus, placing someone under one’s foot represented totaldominance (Ps. 110:1; 1Cor. 15:25). To “sit at the feet”of a person indicated a willingness to learn from or serve a master(Luke 10:39; James 2:3). To “fall at the feet” showed aposture of humility (1Sam. 25:24). The washing of feet was anact of hospitality (Luke 7:44) and a show of humility (John 13:4–15)demonstrated to an honored guest. To set foot in a place sometimessuggested that the person or people would take possession of it(Deut. 1:36; 11:24). The “feet of God” represent thesalvation of God’s people (Zech. 14:4).

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

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

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

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

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

Thesymbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, thetabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1Chron. 29:3),and everything associated with them, are holy and the means wherebyGod’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God.For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these toomust be holy (Lev. 11:44–45; Heb. 12:14).

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

Holinessmay be an attribute of places marked by God’s presence (Exod.3:5; Ps. 43:3). Likewise, particular times, especially the Sabbathday (Exod. 20:8), are declared holy.

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

Theprophet Zechariah envisions a time when the distinctions between holyand common will be meaningless (Zech. 14:20–21). While vestigesof the symbolic language of holiness remain in the NT (e.g., the“holy city” in Matt. 27:53), after the death andresurrection of Christ the NT no longer operates with the symbolicholiness of the OT. Rather, this language is appropriated to explainwhat true holiness entails in the lives of God’s people (Rom.12:1; Eph. 2:21). All Christians are holy (“saints” [Gk.hagioi] means “holy ones” [e.g., Rom. 1:7]), including insome sense the members of a believer’s family (1Cor.7:14). The holiness of God’s people is both definitive, byvirtue of the saving work of Christ (Heb. 13:12), and progressive, byeliciting, and empowering through his Holy Spirit, holy and righteousliving (Rom. 6:19; 1Thess. 4:7–8). Both divine initiativeand human activity with regard to holiness may be seen in texts suchas Lev. 20:8; Heb. 10:14. The objective of Christian discipline isthat we might share God’s holiness (Heb. 12:10).

A kingdom signifies the reality and extent of a king’sdominion or rule (Gen. 10:10; 20:9; Num. 32:33; 2Kings 20:13;Esther 1:22). Some kingdoms were relatively small; others wereconcerted attempts to gain the whole world. For example, there wereapproximately fifty million people under the Pax Romana (“Romanpeace”—the consolidated empire) during Augustus’sreign. Demographers estimate that the global population in the firstcentury was about 250 million. Therefore, approximately one-fifth ofthe world’s population was under the authority of a single king(Caesar). The Roman Empire (kingdom) reached its greatest extentunder Trajan (r. AD 98–117), about two million square miles.

Authorityand power. Akingdom presupposes monarchy, rule by an individual, human authority.(The Bible has little to say about democracy; that form of governmentwas developed by the Greeks, but a primarily empire mentalitydominated the context of the biblical world.) Although kings onlyhave as much authority as their armies and the general populaceallow, they nevertheless exercise an almost absolute power, whichinvites either profound humility or hubris. Royal arrogance,unfortunately, is the primary motif characterizing kings in the Bible(e.g., Dan. 3). Gaius Octavius (later Gaius Julius CaesarOctavianus), the grandnephew of Julius Caesar, ruled as emperor from31 BC to AD 14. The Roman senate declared him “Augustus”(Lat. Augusta) on January 13, 27 BC. “Augustus” thenbecame a title held by all reigning emperors except Vitellius. Thetitle means “revered or august one,” connoting superhumanqualities. Egyptian, Greek, and Roman kings were routinely veneratedas gods. By way of analogy, even the Bible presents God as a king(Pss. 5:2; 10:16; 44:4).

Akingdom may be visualized as a series of concentric circles,beginning with the throne, which is the seat of a king’s ruleand judgment, then the court and “retainer class” ofbureaucrats and aides (e.g., scribes, tax collectors), and thenradiating out to the subjects, animals, and landholdings (see Deut.17:18; Esther 1:14; Matt. 2:3). The king typically entered into apartnership with the upper classes: he provided peace and protection,and they in turn offered loyalty and a portion of their wealth.Latifundism, the dividing up of agricultural property into largeestates, enabled kings to reward political supporters and punishtheir enemies (Matt. 14:1–12 pars.). The powerless andmarginalized often found themselves outside this comfortableagreement, without property. When they threatened to change thepolitical order, they were violently crushed (see Matt. 11:7–12).

Royaltyand religion.Kingdom and religion were intertwined, so that the king was oftenhigh priest or had direct influence over the priesthood. Solomon madeZadok, a longtime loyal supporter of his father, David, high priest.His descendants dominated the office until the Seleucid crisis(1Kings 2:26–27, 35; 4:4). Herod the Great and PontiusPilate selected high priests from aristocratic families in Jerusalem.The primary capital of a kingdom was the ownership of land andrevenues from taxation. Kings also took censuses of the people fortaxation purposes. They were also generally free to tax anything inor passing through their realm. Herod Antipas taxed fishermen forusing the Sea of Galilee (see Matt. 9:9–12 pars.).

Godoriginally intended Israel to be governed as a theocracy, ruled bythe one, true, living God (but see Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:14–20).Israel was to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6), butthe people demanded a king (1Sam. 8:1–22). However, evenwhen God granted their request, God remained King over the king andeven retained ownership of the land (Lev. 25:23, 42, 55). TheIsraelite king was nothing more than God’s viceroy, withdelegated authority. With few exceptions, most of the kings of Israeland Judah were corrupted by authority and wealth and forgot God(1Sam. 13:13–14; 15:28; Matt. 14:6–11). But Godmade a covenant with David, so that one of his descendants wouldbecome a coregent in a restored theocracy, the kingdom of God (2Sam.7:1–29; Pss. 89:3; 132:11). In contrast to David’s moreimmediate descendants, this coming king would return to Jerusalemhumble and mounted on a donkey (Zech. 9:9; cf. Isa. 62:11). TheGospels present Jesus Christ as this king (Matt. 21:1–9 pars.).Those who are likewise humble will inherit the land with him (Matt.5:5).

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).

References to lightning play a significant role in varioustheologically rich portrayals of God. God is sovereign over allcreation and thus in control of the lightning. As one of God’sservants, lightning obeys his commands (e.g., Job 36:32; 37:15;38:24–25; Pss. 18:12–14; 135:7). Lightning is also calledupon to give praise to God (Ps. 148:7–8). God’s use oflightning against his enemies (Exod. 9:23–24; 2Sam.22:13–15; Pss. 78:48; 144:6) forms part of the OT picture ofGod as warrior. (Artwork from other ancient Near Easterncivilizations depicts their deities as making war on their enemiesand holding lightning bolts in their hands, ready to hurl them downto the earth.)

Varioustheophanies (appearances of God) are accompanied by lightning (Exod.19:16; 20:18). In other visionary theophanies, lightning is usedeither to describe the appearance of God’s attendant creaturesor to describe God’s own appearance (Ezek. 1:4, 13–14;Dan. 10:6; Matt. 24:27; Luke 9:29; 17:24). God’s judgments aredescribed either as being accompanied by lightning or as being likelightning (Hos. 6:5; Zech. 9:14; Rev. 4:5; 8:5; 11:19; 16:18).

Moses played a leadership role in the founding of Israel as a“kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6).Indeed, the narrative of Exodus through Deuteronomy is the story ofGod using Moses to found the nation of Israel. It begins with anaccount of his birth (Exod. 2) and ends with an account of his death(Deut. 34). Moses’ influence and importance extend well beyondhis lifetime, as later Scripture demonstrates.

Abraham’sDescendants in Egypt

Thebook of Genesis prepares the way for the story of Moses and thefounding of Israel. After recounting the creation of the world andthe fall into sin, the book eventually describes God’s choiceof Abraham as the one whose descendants he will make “a greatnation” and bring a blessing to the world (Gen. 12:1–3).However, by the end of Genesis, Abraham’s descendants have goneto Egypt in order to survive a devastating famine. Although they arein a good relationship with the Egyptian government, the hope isexpressed that God will eventually return them to the land of promise(Gen. 50:24–26).

Manyyears pass between the close of the book of Genesis and the beginningof Exodus. The Israelite population has grown from family size (aboutseventy people) to nation size. Out of fear, the Egyptians had begunto oppress them. Indeed, the size of the Israelite population soworried them that Pharaoh instituted a decree calling for the deathof all male babies born to the Israelites.

Moses’Life before the Exodus

Moseswas born in a dangerous time, and according to Pharaoh’sdecree, he should not have survived long after his birth. He was bornto Amram and Jochebed (Exod. 6:20). Circumventing Pharaoh’sdecree, Jochebed placed the infant Moses in a reed basket and floatedhim down the river. This act seems desperate, but there are similarstories from the Near East (the account of the birth of Sargon, anAkkadian king), and perhaps it was a way of placing the endangeredchild in the hands of God. God guided the basket down the river andinto the presence of none other than Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod.2:5–6), who, at the urging of Moses’ sister, hiredJochebed to take care of the child. When the infant grew older,Pharaoh’s daughter gave him a Hebrew name, “Moses,”which sounds like the Hebrew verb mashah, meaning “to draw out”(Exod. 2:10). This amazing story of Moses’ survival at birthinforms later Israel that their human savior was really provided bytheir divine savior.

Modernmovie adaptations of this story dwell on Moses’ upbringing inPharaoh’s household, but the Bible itself is essentially silenton this period of his life (apart from a reference to Moses’Egyptian education in Acts 7:22; cf. Heb. 11:24). The next majorepisode concerns his defense of an Israelite worker who was beingbeaten by an Egyptian (Exod. 2:11–25). In the process ofrescuing the Israelite, Moses killed the Egyptian. Apparently, hisrelationship to the ruler’s household would not save him frompunishment, so when it became clear that he was known to be thekiller, he fled Egypt and ended up in Midian, where he became amember of the family of a Midianite priest-chief, Jethro, by marryinghis daughter Zipporah.

Theterritory of Midian is vaguely described in the Bible, perhapsbecause its people were nomadic sheepherders. They were often foundaround the Gulf of Aqaba and sometimes farther northeast of theJordan River. The question is whether the tent of Jethro and MountSinai were on the Sinai Peninsula or on the eastern side of Aqaba inwhat is today Saudi Arabia.

AlthoughMoses was not looking for a way back into Egypt, God had differentplans. One day, while Moses was tending his sheep, God appeared tohim in the form of a burning bush and commissioned him to go back toEgypt and lead his people to freedom. Moses expressed reluctance, andso God grudgingly enlisted his older brother, Aaron, to accompany himas his spokesperson.

TheExodus and Wilderness Wandering

UponMoses’ return to Egypt, Pharaoh stubbornly refused to allow theIsraelites to leave Egypt. God directed Moses to announce a series ofplagues that ultimately induced Pharaoh to allow the Israelites todepart. After they left, Pharaoh had a change of mind and corneredthem on the shores of the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds). It was at the RedSea that God demonstrated his great power by splitting the sea andallowing the Israelites to escape before closing it again in judgmenton the Egyptians. Moses signaled the presence of God by lifting hisrod high in the air (Exod. 14:16). This event was long remembered asthe defining moment when God released Israel from Egyptian slavery(Pss. 77; 114), and it even became the paradigm for future divinerescues (Isa. 40:3–5; Hos. 2:14–15).

Afterthe crossing of the Red Sea, Moses led Israel back to Mount Sinai,the location of his divine commissioning. At this time, Moses went upthe mountain as a prophetic mediator for the people (Deut. 18:16). Hereceived the Ten Commandments, the rest of the law, and instructionsto build the tabernacle (Exod. 19–24). All these were part of anew covenantal arrangement that today we refer to as the Mosaic orSinaitic covenant.

However,as Moses came down the mountain with the law, he saw that the people,who had grown tired of waiting, were worshiping a false god that theyhad created in the form of a golden calf (Exod. 32). With the aid ofthe Levites, who that day assured their role as Israel’spriestly helpers, he brought God’s judgment against theoffenders and also interceded in prayer with God to prevent the totaldestruction of Israel.

Thusbegan Israel’s long story of rebellion against God. God wasparticularly upset with the lack of confidence that the Israeliteshad shown when the spies from the twelve tribes gave their report(Num. 13). They did not believe that God could handle the fearsomewarriors who lived in the land, and so God doomed them to forty yearsof wandering in the wilderness, enough time for the first generationto die. Not even Moses escaped this fate, since he had shown angeragainst God and attributed a miracle to his own power and not to Godwhen he struck a rock in order to get water (Num. 20:1–13).

Thus,Moses was not permitted to enter the land of promise, though he hadled the Israelites to the very brink of entry on the plains of Moab.There he gave his last sermon, which we know as the book ofDeuteronomy. The purpose of his sermon was to tell the secondgeneration of Israelites who were going to enter the land that theymust obey God’s law or suffer the consequences. The form of thesermon was that of a covenant renewal, and so Israel on this occasionreaffirmed its loyalty to God.

Afterthis, Moses went up on Mount Nebo, from which he could see thepromised land, and died. Deuteronomy concludes with the followingstatements: “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel likeMoses, whom the Lord knew face to face.... For noone has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deedsthat Moses did in the sight of all Israel” (Deut. 34:10, 12).

Legacyand Dates

TheNT honors Moses as God’s servant but also makes the point thatJesus is one who far surpasses Moses as a mediator between God andpeople (Acts 3:17–26; Heb.3).

Thedate of Moses is a matter of controversy because the biblical textdoes not name the pharaohs of the story. Many date him to thethirteenth century BC and associate him with RamessesII, butothers take 1Kings 6:1 at face value and date him to the end ofthe fifteenth century BC, perhaps during the reign of ThutmoseIII.

The mountain where Moses met with God and received the lawand instructions for building the tabernacle. It is important to notethat Sinai is sometimes referred to as Horeb. Scholars who believethat the Pentateuch is composed of sources from different periods oftime suggest that the J and P sources used the name “Sinai”while “Horeb” is used by the E and D sources, but thatthe mountain is the same one. Sinai figures prominently in thebiblical narrative between Exod. 19 and Num. 10, while the Israelitesare camped around the mountain. During this time, Moses makes severaltrips up the mountain. He first ascends the mountain alone when theIsraelites initially camp around it (Exod. 19–23). Next, Mosesalong with Aaron and the elders go up the mountain, followed anothertime by Moses and Joshua (Exod. 24). Moses then ascends for fortydays and nights, at which time he receives the instructions for thetabernacle. This ascent is ruined for Moses when he descends themountain to find the people worshiping a golden calf (Exod. 32).Moses once again climbs the mountain and receives a reiteration ofthe law (Exod. 34). All of this culminates with the descent of Godfrom the top of the mountain to take up residence within the newtabernacle (Exod. 40).

Leviticusimplies that it is a continuation of the law that Moses received onthe mountain. Finally, the first ten chapters of Numbers describe theIsraelites moving away from Sinai and toward the promised land. Themountain also plays a significant role in the book of Deuteronomy,which looks back at the earlier narrative. Sinai is also the locationof Elijah’s sojourn after his supernatural encounter with Godon another mountain, Carmel (1Kings 19). Interestingly, in theElijah narrative the same physical elements of smoke, fire,earthquake, and wind are evidenced in the story, but God is foundonly in a small whisper. Because this is the place where Mosesreceives the law from God, a mountain often is seen as a symbol ofGod’s revelation (cf. Matt. 5:1–2; 17:1–2; Rev.21:10). In Galatians, Paul uses Sinai as a symbol or type of the oldcovenant.

Theexact location of the mountain cannot be determined with certainty.Complicating matters is the fact that the desert and the peninsula onwhich the mountains sit are both called “Sinai.”Furthermore, although some have speculated that the mountain must bea volcano, given the description of smoke coming from the mountainand the earthquakes (Exod. 19:16, 18), this suggestion is of littlespecific help because many of the mountains in this region at onetime were active volcanoes. Several locations for the mountain havebeen suggested. The traditional location is Jebel Musa, in thesouthern part of the peninsula. The Greek Orthodox monastery of SaintCatherine marks this location. This is also the site of the discoveryof the Codex Sinaiticus, one of the earliest and most complete Greekversions of the Bible. Although Jebel Musa is the tallest mountain inthe area, several other mountains in this vicinity have also beensuggested. Another possible location advocated by some scholars is inthe northern part of the peninsula near Kadesh Barnea. Much of thedebate about the site has to do with the amount of time it took theIsraelites to go from the location where the Red Sea was parted tothe mountain. The northern location favors a shorter travel time,while the southern location favors a much longer trip.

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

Butmountains are also places of mystery. In the religious world of theancient Near East, gods were thought to either live or make theirpresence known on mountains—portals, as it were, between heavenand earth. The garden of Eden is regarded by Ezekiel as having beenlocated on “the holy mount of God” (Ezek. 28:13–14).God mysteriously reveals himself in a flame of fire to Moses at MountHoreb (Exod. 3), and then later from that same mountain God gives thelaw amid thunder, fire, and smoke; the people are not allowed toapproach the mountain lest they die (Exod. 19). Moses has anothertheophany on the same mountain (Exod. 33:17–34:8), and Elijahhas a very Moses-like encounter there with God as well (1Kings19).

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

Itis no wonder, then, that mountains play such a significant role inthe NT and the life of Christ. On top of a high mountain, the deviltempts Jesus to worship him (Matt. 4:8–10). Jesus proclaims thelaw of the kingdom from a mountain (5:1). On a mountain, Jesuschooses to reveal to his disciples his true glory in thetransfiguration (17:1). After his resurrection, Jesus has hisdisciples meet him at a mountain, from which he makes his declarationof authority and gives the Great Commission (28:16–20). ButJesus and the NT authors also “relocate” the place wherepeople meet with God from any particular location, mountain orotherwise, to the human spirit and to the church (John 4:21–24;Heb. 12:22–23).

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 central concept in both Testaments for understanding theway in which God’s people are to respond to him. God desiresobedience from his people, in contrast to mere lip service (Isa.29:13; Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6) or conformity to religious ritual (Hos.6:6; Mic. 6:6–8). When Saul disobeyed God by sacrificing someof the spoil from his victory over the Amalekites, Samuel the prophetresponded, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed isbetter than the fat of rams” (1Sam. 15:22).

Inthe OT, obedience is often expressed in terms of keeping (Heb. shamar[e.g., Exod. 34:11]) or doing (Heb. ’asah [e.g., Lev. 18:4])God’s commands; other times, obedience is expressed aslistening (Heb. shama’) to the voice of God (Exod. 19:5 KJV,NASB), just as a student is obedient by listening to a teacher’svoice (Prov. 5:13 KJV, NASB). When God established the Mosaiccovenant with the Israelites, he commanded that they obey the lawsset forth in the covenant. If they faithfully obeyed his laws, Godwould bless them (Deut. 28:1–13); if they were not faithful, hewould curse them (Deut. 28:15–68). The subsequent history ofIsrael sadly chronicles the disobedience of God’s chosen peopleand the ensuing destruction that they experienced (2Kings18:9–12; 2Chron. 36:11–21), even though Godrepeatedly warned the people through his prophets that thisdestruction was coming if they did not turn from their wickedness(e.g., Isa. 1:19–20; Jer. 11:1–8).

Inthe NT, focus shifts from obedience to the Mosaic law to obedience toJesus Christ. The Great Commission contains Jesus’ instructionsfor his own disciples to make disciples, teaching them to “obey”(Gk. tēreō) that which Christ had commanded (Matt.28:19–20). Jesus’ disciples’ love for him wouldlead them to obey his commands (John 14:15, 21–24; 1John5:3; 2John 6), and the disciples’obedience, in turn, would cause them to remainin Jesus’ love (John 15:10). Paul instructs children to obeytheir parents and slaves to “obey” (Gk. hypakouō)their masters in obedience to Christ (Eph. 6:1, 5–6; Col. 3:20,22).

TheNT also discusses Christ’s perfect obedience to God the Fatheras a quality to imitate (Phil. 2:5–13) and as the basis forsalvation (Rom. 5:19). Since it is only “those who obey the lawwho will be declared righteous” (Rom. 2:13), and all havesinned (Rom. 3:23), “God made him who had no sin to be sin forus, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”(2Cor. 5:21).

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

OldTestament

Earlybiblical history records clan heads offering sacrifices for theirfamilies (Gen. 12:7–8; 13:18; 22; 31:54; 46:1). Although thepatriarchs performed these duties, they are never called “priests”;the only priests mentioned from this time are foreigners such asMelchizedek, the Egyptian priest of On, and Moses’father-in-law Jethro (Gen. 14:18; 41:45, 50; 46:20; Exod. 3:1; 18:1).Whereas all Israelites could be called “a kingdom of priestsand a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6), a distinctive priesthood cameto light when God instructed Moses to prepare special priestlyclothes for Aaron and his sons (Exod. 28). The high priest wasdistinguished from the others by more magnificent clothes. By failingto wear their special clothes while serving at the tabernacle, thepriests would incur guilt and die (Exod. 28:43).

Bybeing anointed, the priests became holy like the tabernacle and itsfurnishings and thus were distinguished from their compatriots (Lev.8–9). Their holy status was to be scrupulously maintained, asit was essential for serving the congregation and ensured that theywould not die due to their close contact with God. Their prime rolewas to minister before God by offering sacrifices so that the holyplace and the people could be purified. They were also to live holylives as an example to others, assess and treat uncleanness among thepeople, discern God’s will through the Urim and Thummim,pronounce God’s blessings, and teach God’s precepts andlaws (Lev. 10:10–11; Num. 6:22–27; Deut. 33:8–11).

Likeother Levites, the priests received no land in Canaan, since God wastheir inheritance. In payment for their services, the priestsreceived a portion of the sacrifices and a tithe of the tithe givenby the Israelites for the Levites’ support.

TheBible consistently states that priests were to come from the tribe ofLevi, but it is not always clear whether all Levites or only Aaron’sdescendants could serve as priests. Some texts (particularly Exodusthrough Numbers) indicate that only those of Aaron’s linequalified to be priests (Ezek. 40:46 narrows this to Zadok’sdescendants), and that all other Levites, though more holy than theother tribes, did not. Other passages indicate that Levites at timesserved as priests, even though some contexts indicate that thisservice was inappropriate. For instance, a Levite served as priest toMicah and then the Danites (Judg. 17:7–13; 18:19–20).Viewed more positively, Samuel, a Levite from Ephraim (1Chron.6:16, 27) who served Eli while young, also acted as priest.

Afterthe division of the kingdom, JeroboamI rejected specificbiblical instructions about the priesthood by erecting shrines tocalf idols at Dan and Bethel and enlisted non-Levites as priests(1Kings 12:31; 13:33; 2Chron. 11:15). Political concernsapparently led him to cut off the northern kingdom from worship atthe temple in Jerusalem. As a result, many Levites and priestsrelocated to Jerusalem.

Ezrarecords that 341 Levites and 4,289 priests returned to Jerusalemafter the exile (Ezra 2:36–42). In line with earlier practice,the priests offered sacrifices to God and were joined by the Levitesin rebuilding the wall and teaching the law to the people. Isaiah hasa broader understanding of the priesthood, as he anticipates Israelbringing peoples of other nations as an offering to God and indicatesthat some of them would serve as priests and Levites (Isa. 66:19–21).

NewTestament

InNT times many priests exerted religious and civil power as leaders ofthe Sadducees and the Essenes. Some priests, such as Zechariah, wereportrayed as righteous men (Luke 1:5–6). Others were said tohave come to faith in Jesus (Acts 6:7). Supporting the role assignedby Moses, Jesus regularly required those whom he healed to showthemselves to the priest. Even so, most Gospel references to priestsunderscore their opposition to Jesus’ ministry and the rolethey played in his trial and crucifixion. This opposition continuedafter the resurrection, as priests challenged the witness of theapostles. When Peter and John proclaimed that a crippled beggar hadbeen healed by Jesus’ power, the priests and others jailed,interrogated, and forbade them from speaking in Jesus’ name(Acts 4:1–20). The Sanhedrin questioned Stephen about chargesof blasphemy and speaking against the temple and the Mosaic law(6:11–7:1). Saul (Paul) received a letter of authority from thehigh priest to arrest Christians (9:1–2). Later, as a followerof Jesus, he stood trial before Ananias, who charged him before Felix(24:1), and a wider group of chief priests who charged him beforeFestus (25:1–3).

Hebrewsuniquely highlights how the priesthood of Jesus surpassed the OTpriesthood. The OT priests presented sin offerings, but theirsacrifices needed to be repeated regularly, whereas Jesus, thefaithful and merciful high priest, offered a sacrifice that neverneeded repeating and was available to everyone at all times. Jesusalso surpassed the Aaronic priests because they first needed to offersacrifices for their own sins, but he never sinned. Furthermore,since he offered the perfect sacrifice of himself, all people, notjust priests, could draw near to God.

TheNT develops the idea of a priesthood of all believers by taking theconcept that Israel would be a kingdom of priests and transferring itto the church (1Pet. 2:4–9; cf. Exod. 19:6). Reflectingthe general biblical view of priesthood, believers offer spiritualsacrifices to God, represent God to the world by revealing his worksof salvation, and represent the world to God through prayer. In theNT, the priesthood of believers is corporate; a priestly office inthe church is never expressly mentioned.

A mineral cluster or rock. Although the terms “rock”and “stone” are occasionally used synonymously, “rock”usually refers to a large geological formation such as a cliff, cave,outcropping, or bedrock, while “stone” is preferred whenthe rock is small enough to be fashioned or handled by human beings.“Stone” can also function as an adjective, referring to amaterial made of stone, or as a verb, referring to the casting ofstones.

Rocksand stones were found naturally on the ground (Job 8:17; Ps. 91:12;Isa. 5:2; Mark 5:5; Luke 3:8). They could be heaped or piled up as asign of disgrace (Josh. 7:26; 8:29; 2Sam. 18:17), as a markeror memorial (Gen. 31:46–50), or as an altar (Exod. 20:25). Asingle rock or stone could also be used as a place marker (Gen.28:22; 35:14, 20; 1Sam. 7:12), especially standing stones(Deut. 27:2–8; Josh. 4:3–9). Large stones could also beused to cover a well (Gen. 29:2–3) or to seal a cave or tomb,such as at the tombs of Lazarus (John 11:38–39) and of Jesus(Matt. 27:60; Mark 16:3–4).

Stonewas used as a construction material, particularly for the temple(1Kings 5:15–18; 1Chron. 2:22; Ezra 5:8; Hag. 2:15;Mark 13:1–2). Stone was used in a building’s foundationand for the cornerstone or capstone (1Kings 5:17; Jer. 51:26;Isa. 28:16), as well as for the walls (Hab. 2:11). Psalm 118:22refers metaphorically to the stone rejected by the builders becomingthe cornerstone. In the NT, this is interpreted as referring to Jesus(Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1Pet. 2:7; cf.Eph. 2:20). Stone could also function as a writing material (Josh.8:32), such as the tablets on which the Ten Commandments wereinscribed (Exod. 24:12; Deut. 9:9–11; 1Kings 8:9; cf.2Cor. 3:3, 7). Stone was also carved, although at Sinai theIsraelites are instructed not to use cut or “dressed”stones when constructing an altar (Exod. 20:25; cf. Josh. 8:31). Thephrase “carved stone” refers specifically to idols, sincestone was one material used for crafting false gods (Lev. 26:1; cf.Deut. 4:28; 29:17; 2Kings 19:18; Isa. 37:19; Rev. 9:20); theterm “stone” itself can therefore be used to refer to anidol, especially in the phrase “wood and stone” (Jer.3:9; Ezek. 20:32).

Stoneswere used as a weapon or instrument of destruction, whether thrown byhand (Num. 35:17, 23) or flung with a sling (Judg. 20:16; 1Sam.17:40, 49–50; Prov. 26:8). The verb “to stone”refers to the throwing of stones at an individual, which typicallyfunctioned as an official manner of execution (Exod. 19:13; 21:28–29;Deut. 21:20–21; 1Kings 21:13–15; John 8:5; Acts7:58–59), although it was at times the action of an angry crowd(Exod. 17:4; 1Kings 12:18; cf. John 8:59).

Thephrases “precious stones” and “costly stones”refer to gems (2Sam. 12:30; Esther 1:6; Isa. 54:12; 1Cor.3:12). Gems were used as a display of wealth or honor (1Kings10:2, 10–11; 2Chron. 32:27; Ezek. 27:22) and fordecoration (1Chron. 3:6; Rev. 17:4; 18:16). The two stones onthe high priest’s ephod and the twelve precious stones on hisbreastpiece represented the twelve tribes (Exod. 25:7; 28:9–12,17–21), a symbolism echoed in the twelve types of preciousstones adorning the foundations of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:19–20).

Rocksand stones are used often in metaphors or similes (e.g., hard as arock, still as a stone). They can represent something that is common(1Kings 10:27; Job 5:23; Matt. 3:9; 4:3), strong (Job 6:12),hard (Job 38:30; 41:24), heavy (Exod. 15:5; Prov. 27:3), motionless(Exod. 15:16), or immovable (Zech. 12:3). A “heart of stone”describes coldheartedness (Ezek. 11:19; 36:26). A “stumblingstone,” which is literally a stone that causes one to stumble(Isa. 8:14), is used in the NT as a metaphor for an obstacle to faithin Jesus (Rom. 9:32–33; 1Pet. 2:8).

The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.

In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”

As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.

Old Testament

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

Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.

The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.

The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).

Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.

When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).

When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).

Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).

God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).

Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.

New Testament

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

In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).

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

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

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

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

Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).

Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.

In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?

In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).

Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.

Faith and the Church

Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).

Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.

Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).

Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2Cor. 10:15).

Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).

The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.

In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”

As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.

Old Testament

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

Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.

The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.

The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).

Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.

When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).

When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).

Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).

God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).

Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.

New Testament

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

In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).

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

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

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

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

Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).

Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.

In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?

In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).

Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.

Faith and the Church

Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).

Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.

Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).

Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2Cor. 10:15).

Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).

Deuteronomy concludes the Torah. It is the fifth scroll orchapter of the work traditionally ascribed to Moses. Its title isderived from the LXX and literally means “the second law.”The name is appropriate in view of the fact that in it Moses takes afinal opportunity, before the people go into the promised land and heascends Mount Nebo to die, to speak to the people about theirobligations before God. Many of the laws of the book, most notablythe Ten Commandments (compare Deut. 5 with Exod. 20), may be found inan earlier form elsewhere in the Torah, but there are also many newlaws as well (see below, “Genre and Message”). Inessence, this final sermon by Moses takes the form of a covenant bywhich the people of God reaffirm their relationship to Yahweh.

Authorand Date

Deuteronomyis the capstone of the literary work known as the Torah. WithDeuteronomy, however, a few more comments need to be made. In onesense, this book is the one most closely associated with Moses, as itcontains speeches that he made to the people of Israel before theyentered the land. However, these speeches are placed within anarrative framework that does not name an author. Some scholars dateits composition as late as the seventh century BC, long after thetime of Moses, because although 2Kings 22 describes therediscovery of a portion of the law that leads that generation tocentralize its worship, indicating that the book is Deuteronomy (cf.Deut. 12), these scholars suspect that the book was written, ratherthan found, at this time.

Morein keeping with the evidence of the book itself is the conclusionthat it originates with Moses’ speech, although we must alsoallow that it was updated and edited later in the history of Israel.

Genre,Outline, and Message

Thebook intriguingly takes the form of an ancient treaty similar totreaties formulated in countries that surround Israel. Thisobservation is in keeping with the understanding of the book as acovenant renewal, since biblical covenants are essentially treatiesbetween God and his people established through a mediator, in thiscase Moses. Such ancient treaties have the following five-partstructure, and Deuteronomy roughly follows this pattern:

I.Preamble Introducing the Parties to the Treaty (1:1–5)

II.Historical Prologue (1:6–3:29)

III.Law (4–26)

IV.Curses and Blessings (27–30)

V.Witnesses and Other Arrangements for the Future (31–34)

Therichness of Deuteronomy’s message makes it hard to summarizethe book. Yet behind the concept of a covenant/treaty stands themetaphor of God as a great king over his servant people. The variousparts of the covenant feed into this idea. The preamble introducesthe parties: God and Israel. Moses mediates the covenant between thetwo. The historical prologue then narrates the history of therelationship up to the present. The purpose is to make explicit howgracious the king has been toward his people in the past. Thishistory provides the background for the next and longest section inDeuteronomy, the law. God has established this relationship withIsrael by grace, and Israel should respond by obeying his commands.Law naturally leads to the curses and the blessings. If theIsraelites obey, they will experience God’s blessing, but ifthey disobey, they will feel his curse. Since the treaty/covenant isa legal document, there are witnesses, who will observe therelationship and, if Israel is disobedient, will confirm the justiceof the judgment. This last section simply looks to the futuremaintenance of the covenant.

TheDeuteronomic covenant is a reaffirmation of the covenant formulatedat Sinai (Exod. 19–24), and as such it emphasizes the law. Thislaw casts its long shadow over much of the biblical material thatcomes after Deuteronomy. For instance, the history that follows(Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in contrast to Chronicles) seemsto look at the history of Israel through the lens of thedistinctively Deuteronomic law. Virtually every king is evaluated asto whether he keeps the law of centralization (a law, by the way, notfound in earlier collections [Deut. 12]). Furthermore, some prophets(e.g., Jeremiah) bring their message of judgment specifically becausethe Israelites have broken the law of the covenant and thereforedeserve the curses.

Thus,the significance of Deuteronomy is hard to overestimate. It is thecapstone of the Pentateuch, and it informs the theology of much ofthe OT that follows.

ContinuingRelevance

Deuteronomyis a renewal of the covenant between God and his people at a point ofpotential crisis in the community. Their leader Moses is about todie, and the Israelites are given the opportunity to reaffirm theirallegiance to God and their determination to keep his law. As we knowfrom the history that follows, they failed to keep their word. As weread the story of Christ’s temptation (Matt. 4:1–11) inlight of Deuteronomy, we observe that Satan tries to provoke him tosin in a way similar to Israel in the wilderness by using hunger, thetesting of God, and idolatry. Jesus is obedient where the Israeliteshave been disobedient, and in resisting these temptations he quotesDeuteronomy three times. Jesus is the obedient Son of God.

Thelaw of Deuteronomy is not totally in effect today. Some of the lawsconcern rituals that are fulfilled in Christ, and other laws areshaped to address the needs of the ancient Israelite culture. Forinstance, when the roofs of houses were living areas, it made senseto promote life by requiring that barriers be built around theiredges to keep people from falling off (Deut. 22:8). Even so, thegeneral principles are still in effect, and even in regard to the lawrequiring roof barriers, we may learn that it is important to buildfences around, say, swimming pools.

Finally,it has long been noted that Deuteronomy pays special attention toprotections for the socially vulnerable in society. Widows, orphans,and resident aliens are given special consideration in the laws ofDeuteronomy.

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).

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.

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.

A lifestyle in which one abstains from marriage and sexualrelations, often for religious reasons. Celibacy is sometimesdistinguished from sexual abstinence, which may occur within marriage(e.g., Exod. 19:14–15; 1 Cor. 7:5).

Celibacywas essentially unknown in the OT, even for priests. Rather, the OTstressed the institutions of marriage and family (see Deut. 23:1). Inthe NT, while marriage is both a sacred choice and a rich metaphor,Paul speaks of celibacy as a “gift” (charisma [1 Cor.7:7]). The celibate have fewer worldly obligations and therefore mayfocus on “the Lord’s affairs” (1 Cor.7:32–35). They are to be preoccupied with the eternal kingdomschema of God (cf. Matt. 22:30).

Inreaction to Greco-Roman decadence and matter-spirit dualism, in thesecond through fourth centuries celibacy began to be highly prized bysome believers who saw it as a more spiritual way of life. While theRoman Catholic church made celibacy a requirement for priesthood,most Orthodox churches did not adopt this practice.

Terminology

Theword “law,” often referred to as “Torah,”occurs 220 times in the OT and derives from a Hebrew root that means“to teach or instruct.” Biblical law is the body ofinstructions or teachings that serve to govern and maintain thecovenant relationship between God and Israel. The distinctiverelationship that Israel enjoyed with God was unparalleled in theancient Near East. Unlike the Gentile nations, Israel received fromYahweh an instrument outlining his expectations of them, a set ofguidelines by which to sustain that covenant relationship (Deut.4:6–8). Outside the OT, the “Torah” or “Law”often refers to the first five books of the Bible, called the“Pentateuch” (Matt. 5:17–18; Luke 2:22). SecondTemple Judaism commonly referred to the Pentateuch in this way.

Theterm “Torah” is not limited to cultic or ceremonialpractice, but embraces civil and social law. In addition, the Torahrefers to the prophetic word and more broadly incorporates the ideaof parental instruction. The Hebrew word torah is employed in avariety of expressions, variously rendered in English versions: “thelaw” (Deut. 1:5; 4:8, 44; 2Kings 23:24), the “Bookof the Law” (Deut. 28:61; 29:21; Josh. 1:8; 2Kings 22:8),the “Book of the Law of Moses” (Josh. 8:31; 23:6), the“law of Moses” (Josh. 8:32; 1Kings 2:3), the “Bookof the Law of God” (Josh. 24:26), and the “law of theLord” (2Kings 10:31)—all of these indicate thedivine origin of the instructions or reinforce the association of theTorah with Moses as Israel’s mediator. The OT notes that Moses“wrote a Book of the Law,” which was placed by the arkfor reference (Deut. 31:26) and read aloud every seven years, duringthe Feast of Tabernacles, to all the assembly (Deut. 31:9–13).The book is not mentioned again until its discovery in the templeduring the reign of King Josiah (2Kings 22:8). The discovery ofthe book initiated a religious reform by Josiah that focused on thecentralization of worship and the destruction of idols.

TheOT employs a number of close synonyms for “law,”including “commandments,” “testimony,”“judgments,” “statutes,” “ordinances,”“decrees,” and “precepts.” Each of theseterms reflects varying nuances or particular aspects of the divineinstruction. Unfortunately, all these words as translated intoEnglish subtly misrepresent the “law” as an odiousexternal set of rules that inhibit human freedom and requirepunishment for disobedience. This perspective suggests that obedienceto the divine law was coerced by the threat of divine judgment.Contrary to this misconception, the people of Israel rejoiced infollowing Yahweh’s instructions because their greatest desirewas to please and live in harmony with him. Yahweh’s peopleenjoyed the privilege of receiving divine revelation consisting ofdirections that assured divine favor. Although perfect adherence tothese instructions proved to be an impossible task, Yahweh’scovenant stipulations provided an ideal toward which his people wereexpected to make progress as they constantly strived to fulfill thatideal. The Torah in its broadest sense reflects a verbal expressionof the character, nature, and will of God.

Typesof Law

Ingeneral, Torah may be subdivided into three categories: judicial,ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlapwith the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah”with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19–23)following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt,though some body of customary legislation existed before this time(Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation inother pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24,indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code ofconduct and worship for Israel not only during its wildernesswanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan followingthe conquest.

Morespecifically, the word “law” often denotes the TenCommandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “tenwords”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered toMoses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandmentsreflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided intotwo parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which theywere first recorded: the first four address the individual’srelationship to God, and the last six focus on instructionsconcerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplisticexpression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelinesextends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any andall incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thingforbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing theprohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice itsopposite good in order to be in compliance.

Judiciallaw.The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), closelyassociated with the Ten Commandments, immediately follows theDecalogue and may be subdivided into casuistic, or “case,”law (21:2–22:17) and a variety of miscellaneous laws, manywhich are apodictic, or absolute, commands. The divine instructionscannot address an infinite range of circ*mstances; consequently, thecasuistic laws describe the judicial process in light of generalsituations, which form the precedence upon which future specificjudgments can be made. Apodictic instructions, generally identifiedby imperatives or volitional forms, set forth a strict prohibitionfollowed by the consequences of disobedience. Government in earlyIsraelite history revolved around the authoritative decisions ofjudges, who declared a verdict based on custom or precedent (Exod.18:13–27). The moral emphasis of the Decalogue and the Book ofthe Covenant provides the underlying theological reasons for obeyingGod’s law and forms an important part of the ethical foundationof pentateuchal discussions and elaborations of law.

Ceremoniallaw.Ceremonial, or cultic, law includes the instructions guiding theconstruction and preparation of the tabernacle for worship combinedwith the Levitical guidelines dictating the proper execution ofritual sacrifice and cultic practice. The significance of thetabernacle as a portable sanctuary of Yahweh and its integralconnection with God’s promise to dwell among the Israelites arereinforced by the tabernacle’s association with the appearanceof Yahweh at Sinai and the inauguration of the covenant. Thetabernacle becomes the place where the people meet God through amediator and seek continued divine favor through ritual purification,sacrifice, and atonement.

Leviticussystematically outlines the procedure for priestly selection andsuccession, details the consecration of cultic vessels and priests,describes conditions for participation and the celebration of sacredfestivals (Lev. 16; 23–25), and addresses other issues such asblasphemy, sexual behavior, and false prophecy. The sacrificialregulations cover sin offerings (6:25), guilt offerings (7:1, 7),burnt offerings (6:9), grain offerings (6:14), and fellowshipofferings (7:11). The book of Leviticus also provides extensiveinstruction concerning the designation of “clean”(consecrated) and “unclean” (profane), reinforcing theseparateness of God’s chosen people (e.g., 11:46; 12:7; 13:59;14:2, 32; 15:32–33). Uncircumcised foreigners were excludedfrom participation in Israel’s sacred assemblies.

Morallaw.Economic hardship presented numerous challenges in Israelite societythat were resolved through laws concerning debt and slavery. A seriesof laws sought to protect the property and rights of those indebtedto creditors (Exod. 22:25–27; Deut. 24:6, 10–13; 2Kings4:1; Amos 2:8). Those who were enslaved in order to compensate fortheir debts had to be released after six years of service (Exod.21:2, 11; Deut. 15:12–18). Property and persons who were turnedover to creditors could often be redeemed (Lev. 25:25–28,47–55). Those who harvested crops were instructed to leave thecorners of fields and the remnants of crops for gleaning by the poor(Deut. 24:19–22; Ruth 2:2–6). The systematic mistreatmentof the marginalized in society led to widespread corruption among thejudiciary, angering Yahweh and leading to the exile (Isa. 1:15–17;Amos 2:6–7; 11–13). It is clear that this type of law wasreenacted during the postexilic period (Neh. 5:1–13; Jer.34:8–16).

Torahin Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

OTwisdom literature develops the concept of Torah as human instructionfor daily living, underscoring the dynamic character of the law andits permeation of all areas of life. Vigilant obedience to the lawresults in wise and godly conduct. In Proverbs, the son is admonishedby the father to obey the Torah (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 6:23), and the pupilis instructed by the teacher to respect the law (13:13) and to resistthe company of those who do not obey the Torah (28:4), with suchobservance resulting in God’s blessings (29:18) and answers toprayer (28:9). The wise woman familiarizes herself with the Torahbecause the responsibility for instruction of her household lies withher (31:26).

Thebook of Psalms contains three compositions typically classified asTorah psalms (1; 19; 119). In Ps. 1 continual reflection on the Torahmanifests itself in the prosperity and the wisdom of the obedient.Psalm 19 celebrates the benefits of keeping the Torah, includingwisdom, joy, enlightenment, life, and moral discernment. In a lengthyacrostic arranged according to the Hebrew alphabet, Ps. 119 exploitsthe attitudes, effects, and practicality of the Torah as exemplifiedin the life of the faithful.

Inthe prophetic material, Torah refers to teaching administered in thename of Yahweh, either by the priests or the prophets. Moral decline,manifested by the social injustice of Israel’s leader-shipcoupled with idolatry and syncretistic worship, was directlyattributed to the failure of the priests to uphold the Torah andtheir negligence in instructing the community (Jer. 2:8; 8:8; Ezek.7:26; 22:26; Hos. 8:1–12; Amos 2:4). The prophetic emphasis onjustice and righteousness as characteristic qualities of God’speople highlights the importance placed on fair and equitabletreatment (e.g., Isa. 5:23–24; 26:1–11; 48:17–19;58:6–9; 59:9–14). The Torah provided the authoritativepoint of departure in the composition of prophetic messages andteachings, undergirding the authority and genuineness of theprophetic proclamations and exhortations to the contemporaryaudience. The messages of the prophets were in fact not new, but weresimply the adaptation and transformation of pentateuchal textsalready generally accepted by the community as authoritative.

BiblicalLaw and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

Biblicallaw did not develop in isolation from other legal systems; rather, itappears to follow long-established, widespread, and standardizedpatterns of Mesopotamian law. A persuasive number of parallelsbetween customs and familial relationships addressed in the Nuzitablets and archaic elements in the patriarchal narratives seem tosuggest that the patriarchs operated under Hurrian law. The Nuzitablets clarify the subjects of adoption, marriage, and economictransactions, apparently exerting an influence on the lives of theearly OT patriarchs. The wife-sister accounts of Abram and Isaac, inwhich the marriage eligibility of Sarai and Rebekah arise (Gen. 12;26), as well as Abraham’s proposed adoption of his servantEliezer as an heir (Gen. 15:2–4) and his siring of Ishmaelthrough Sarai’s servant Hagar (Gen. 16), reflect customarypractice described in these documents.

Avast range of legal documents regulating judicial procedures providesmaterial for comparative analysis with biblical texts. Included amongthese discoveries are a number of law collections, generally namedafter the ruler who commissioned them. Archaeologists have uncoveredevidence, from as early as the twenty-first century BC, of twosurviving Sumerian legal collections affirming the ancient origins ofsocietal governance. The Laws of King Ur-Nammu, recorded during thelast great period of Sumerian literacy (2111–2095 BC), arepreserved in scribal copies from Nippur dated between 1800 and 1700BC and consist of a fragment and two partial stone tablets. Writtenin a casuistic format, the texts attest to twenty-nine stipulations,including legislation addressing weights and measures; protectionsfor widows, orphans, and the impoverished; sexual offenses; maritallaws; slavery; false testimony; and property abuses.

Asecond Sumerian law collection dating from the nineteenth century BC,that of King Lipit-Ishtar, the fifth ruler of the Isin dynasty inlower Mesopotamia, consists of a prologue, thirty-eight wholly orpartially restored laws, and an epilogue. These laws, bequeathed toLipit-Ishtar by the Sumerian deities Anu and Enlil in order to“establish justice in the land,” represent civil lawsgoverning business practices, slavery, property, family, andinadvertent injury to an individual. What appear to be an additionalthirty-eight laws, comprising the second half of the code, have beendestroyed along with part of the prologue. All these laws wererecorded in a casuistic format.

TheLaws of Eshnunna, written in Akkadian, consist of two tabletscontaining approximately sixty different laws. The authorship anddate of origin remain unknown, but historians suggest that this lawcollection, which has no prologue or epilogue, was contemporary withthe Code of Hammurabi (1728–1686 BC). Though written in acasuistic format, this artifact assigns penalties on the basis ofsocial status.

TheCode of Hammurabi, named for the sixth of eleven kings of the OldBabylonian dynasty, is perhaps the most famous and most complete ofthe ancient Mesopotamian collections. In 1902, French archaeologistsdiscovered the code on a black diorite stela, nearly eight feet tall,in what was ancient Susa. Multiple copies of the code have beenpreserved. Written in Akkadian cuneiform, the law collection consistsof 282 legal paragraphs created to promote public welfare and thecause of justice. The format of the code, which includes a prologue,an epilogue, and a category of cursings for disobedience andblessings for obedience, closely mirrors the structure of the book ofDeuteronomy. The casuistic format addresses laws governing publicorder and individual private law. The penalties prescribed forcapital offenses, of which there were thirty, were harsh and oftencruel, including bodily mutilation, multiple punishments, andvicarious punishment. Retaliatory consequences for the protection ofprivate property were exceptionally cruel, taking the form of tortureor excessive fines. Often, those who were presumed guilty would bethrown into the river; survival indicated innocence, while drowningdemonstrated guilt. A predominant feature was the lex talionis (thelaw of retaliation, or measure for measure), whereby a correspondingpenalty was exacted against the offender based on the crime. Forinstance, if a child was killed, the death of the offender’schild was required. Capital crimes included theft of property andadultery. Contrary to biblical law, Hammurabi’s code madefinancial provision for the loss of life, whereas in the OT the valueof life was immeasurable.

Theargument from silence suggests that in the absence of a full biblicallaw code, legal instructions and stipulations in the biblical textconsist primarily of codicil emendations, that is, additions andinnovations to already existing laws. For example, the discussion ondivorce in Deut. 21 describes the execution of a document withoutgiving details concerning the content or form of such a document. Thepassage also mentions a yet undiscovered “book of divorce.”The absence of legal material on commercial and business law as wellas specifics concerning inheritance and other common subjects pointsto a more comprehensive body of unwritten law reflecting preexistingsocietal norms. Israelite society was therefore indebted to itsMesopotamian predecessors for its implementation of law as a means ofprotecting citizens, and for many legal provisions eventually adaptedby the biblical text.

TheCharacter of Biblical Law

AlthoughIsraelite law was in some ways influenced by the legal codes of otherancient Near Eastern cultures, biblical law retained a distinctidentity centered on the relationship between Yahweh and his chosenpeople. Law in the OT is presented not as secular instruction butrather as divine pronouncement, receiving its authority as anexpression of the divine will. The entirety of the divine instructionoriginates with God, and he is both author and guarantor of thecovenant with his people. The people of Israel, then, are heldresponsible to God for their actions and not just to a legislativebody or human ruler. The will of the Israelite is wholly surrenderedto the will of God to such a degree that every aspect of anindividual’s life is inextricably connected to the divineteachings. God assigns the stipulations and requirements of the lawto the entire corporate body of Israel. The responsibility forcovenant fidelity does not lie solely with the community leadership;rather, it is shared by every individual in the community, whose dualrole includes ensuring both the fair execution of justice in thecommunity and personal observance of the law. God’sinstructions are proclaimed publicly and apply equally to all socialstrata without distinction, apart from specific direction concerningslaves.

Torahbecomes the corpus of teaching directed toward the entire community.The didactic purpose of the law is evident by the motive clausesappended to many apodictic and casuistic instructions that elaborateon the ethical, religious, or historical reasons for covenantfaithfulness. The pedagogical aim serves to appeal to the Israeliteconscience as a means of motivating obedience. In addition, theteaching that humanity is created in the divine image reinforces thesacredness of human life as a foundational concern of the law.Religious rather than economic values prevail, eliminating the deathpenalty for all property crimes. Individual culpability predominatesin the biblical corpus, abolishing the notion of vicarious punishmentadvocated in extrabiblical legislation. Each offender pays theconsequences of his or her behavior. Each person, created by God andenjoying equal status with all others, receives fair and equitabletreatment.

TheLaw and the New Testament

Thecontemporary significance of the Torah is recognized in the NT byJesus’ declaration that his incarnation served to fulfill thelaw (Matt. 5:17). He affirms the continued legitimacy of the law(Matt. 5:19) and appeals to the law as the governing authority forproper practice and behavior (Matt. 12:6, 42; Luke 4:1–11; Mark7:9–12; 10:17–19).

Therelationship between gospel and law in both Testaments demonstratesfar greater continuity than is recognized by many Christians.Covenant theologians affirm that the Mosaic law described a “covenantof works,” which functions differently from the NT’s“covenant of grace,” while dispensationalists often teachthat grace supersedes and abolishes the demands of the law. Theconditional nature of the Mosaic covenant differs from that of theAbrahamic covenant, since the unconditional promise of the Abrahamiccovenant suggests that the blessings promised to Abraham and his seedwould be realized not because of human obedience but rather throughdivine fidelity (Gal. 3:15–27). The Mosaic covenant, orcovenant of law, is not contrary to the promises of God (Gal. 3:21);instead, God graciously entered into relationship with the people ofIsrael, redeemed them from Egypt, and then gave them the law so thatthey would respond in humble obedience to his redeeming work. Thus,Mosaic law provided through a mediator a way for God to revealhimself to Israel. Consequently, the idea that Israelite religion waslegalistic is mistaken. It did not teach that one could earnsalvation by “keeping the law”; rather, an individualentered into the covenant with God by grace. When God established thecovenant with his people, he forgave their sins. He did not demand acertain level of attainment as a prerequisite for entering into thatrelationship, nor did Israel have to obey the law perfectly in orderto achieve salvation. Instead, the covenantal arrangement instituteda means of forgiveness through the sacrificial system, making theremoval of the barrier of sin available to the people. Israel’sobedience to the law was a response to God’s gracious andredeeming work. Law and covenant were complementary.

Ongoingdiscussions explore the question concerning the relevance of the lawfor Christians today. Many scholars from past centuries, such asMartin Luther, claimed that the believer is freed entirely from thelaw of Moses, including its moral requirements. The OT law is bindingonly insofar as it agrees with the NT and mirrors natural law. JohnCalvin, on the other hand, maintained that the moral laws of the OTare obligatory for the believer, and he asserts that this is theprincipal function of law. Calvin’s sense of keeping the morallaw does not compromise the message of grace, for keeping the morallaw, as opposed to the ceremonial or civil law, does not earnsalvation but instead forms the acceptable response of the believerto God’s grace. Other Reformation scholars suggested that thelaw was abolished with the coming of Christ, and, as a result, whilethe moral norms remain in effect, the ceremonial laws have beenfulfilled with the coming of Christ. Although the penaltiesoriginally prescribed for disobedience are no longer effective,keeping the moral law reflects the proper outcome of a life lived bythe Spirit of God. See also Ten Commandments; Torah.

Terminology

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

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

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

TheNature of the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sacraments

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

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

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

Worship

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

Serviceand Organization

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

The idea that the church and state should remain independententities in order to preserve religious and civil freedom. While thisidea has taken most of its shape from discussions in the UnitedStates, the Bible often speaks about the attitudes of God’speople toward their government.

AfterIsrael was freed from Egypt, God made it a “holy nation”(Exod. 19:5–6). All ancient Near Eastern nations weretheocracies, and Israel was no different. As a theocracy, “churchand state” were united under God’s rule, but this unionwas imperfect. Prophets frequently challenged wicked leaders (1 Sam.2:27–36; 1 Kings 18:2). Then Israel was divided (1 Kings12). Finally the exile obliterated any “church-state”unity that Israelite society had left. Daniel and his friends had toexperience the difficulty of living faithfully in foreign societies.

Butthe exiles helped Israel to understand that God’s kingdom waseternal (Dan. 2:44–45). In the face of Roman rule, Jesusannounced its appearing (Mark 1:15), but he did not advocate militaryrevolt as did the Zealots of his day (John 18:36). Following Jesus,Paul taught of a citizenship in heaven (Phil. 3:20) while affirmingsome loyalty to Rome (Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Tim. 2:1–2).Peter concurred (1 Pet. 2:11–17), though he alsoemphasized the theme of God’s judgment (2 Pet. 3:7), atheme continued against imperial Rome in Revelation. In sum, thechurch finds itself as a kingdom among kingdoms. While warfare occursin the spiritual realm (Eph. 6:12), God’s people are to conductthemselves as peaceful pilgrims as they look for a better country(Heb. 11:16).

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.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestial*ty (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); hom*osexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestial*ty (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); hom*osexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestial*ty (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); hom*osexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.

In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”

As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.

Old Testament

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

Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.

The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.

The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).

Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.

When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).

When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).

Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).

God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).

Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.

New Testament

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

In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).

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

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

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

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

Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).

Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.

In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?

In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).

Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.

Faith and the Church

Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).

Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.

Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).

Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2Cor. 10:15).

Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).

The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.

In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”

As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.

Old Testament

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

Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.

The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.

The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).

Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.

When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).

When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).

Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).

God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).

Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.

New Testament

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

In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).

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

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

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

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

Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).

Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.

In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?

In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).

Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.

Faith and the Church

Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).

Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.

Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).

Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2Cor. 10:15).

Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).

The tangible presence of God, experienced as overwhelmingpower and splendor. The main Hebrew word referring to glory, kabod,has the root meaning “heavy” (1Sam. 4:18), which inother contexts can mean “intense” (Exod. 9:3; NIV:“terrible”), “wealthy” (i.e., “heavy inpossessions” [Gen. 13:2]), and “high reputation”(Gen. 34:19; NIV: “most honored”). When used of God, itrefers to his person and his works. God reveals his glory to Israeland to Egypt at the crossing of the sea (Exod. 14:4, 17–19). Hecarefully reveals his glory to Moses after Israel’s sin withthe golden calf in order to assure him that he will not abandon them(33:12–23).

God’sglory is often associated with a cloud. Perhaps better stated, God’sglory often is intentionally obscured by a cloud so that people arenot overwhelmed by the radiance of his presence. Such is the case ontop of Mount Sinai as Moses ascends it (Exod. 24:15–18). God’sglory as associated with the cloud is also closely connected to thetabernacle and the temple. When the tabernacle is completed, Godmakes his presence known there by filling it with the cloud thatrepresents his glory (Exod. 40:34–38). Later, the temple too isfilled with God’s glory made manifest in the cloud (1Kings8:10–11). The ark of the covenant, the most potent symbol ofGod’s presence, is also seen as a manifestation of his glory(1Sam. 4:21–22).

God’sglory is overwhelming, and human beings cannot experience itsfullness and survive. Thus, glory is often connected with God’sacts of judgment. For instance, when Korah the Levite and Abiram theReubenite rebel in the wilderness, God appears ready for judgmentagainst the people in the form of the glory-cloud (Num. 16:19–21),though Moses’ intercession spares the bulk of the people fromthe judgment that comes on the leaders of the rebellion (see also16:41).

ThePsalms celebrate God’s glory. Psalm 24 is an example. Theoriginal setting of the psalm is likely the return of the ark of thecovenant from the battlefield. The priest at the head of the army,led by the ark, asks a priest or gatekeeper, “Lift up yourheads, you gates; be lifted up, you ancient doors, that the King ofglory may come in.” The priestly gatekeeper asks, “Who isthis King of glory?” eliciting the response, “The Lordstrong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle.” Many otherpsalms share this theme or call on Israel to glorify the Lord (seePss. 29:9; 34:3; 63:3; 104:31 as examples).

Theprophets have the privilege of intimate fellowship with God andprofound experiences of God’s glory. Isaiah accepts hiscommission as a prophet in a vision of the throne room of God. Hesees angelic figures calling out: “Holy, holy, holy is the LordAlmighty; the whole earth is full of his glory” (Isa. 6:3).Ezekiel reports an amazing encounter with God in his glory thatcauses him to fall facedown on the ground (Ezek.1:28).

Inthe NT the glory of God is made real in the person of Jesus Christ(John 1:14; Heb. 1:3). He is, after all, the very presence of God.When he returns on the clouds, he will fully reveal God’s glory(Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27).

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

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

OldTestament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NewTestament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the ancient world, shame and honor are two binaryopposites used to depict one’s status or behavior, which aculture approves or disapproves. The system of honor and shame servesas a primary means of social control. Thus, knowing how to act toconform to the code of social behavior expected by one’s groupis essential to the maintenance of that community.

Inthe Bible, the noun “honor” is representedby kabod (from the verb “to be heavy”) in the OT, and bytimē (from the verb “to honor”) in the NT. Thereverse of honor is shame, which is represented by a varietyof Hebrew and Greek terms, such as boshet in the OT, and aischynēin the NT.

InIsrael, the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26; cf. Num. 5:2–3;8:6–7, 14–15) is comparable to the code of honor andshame. As a covenant community, Israel has the obligation to abide bythe sanction imposed by God to attain honor (Deut. 4:6–8;26:18–19; Pss. 34:5, 8–9; 37:18–19; 127:5; cf.2Chron. 26:18; Pss. 8:5; 62:7; 84:11; Rom. 2:7–11).Israel is honored (Exod. 32:11–12; Deut. 32:26–27) beforethe nations when God’s honor is upheld (Exod. 7:5; 10:1–2;14:4, 17–18). Violation of covenantal stipulations—forexample, deceptions in trading (Deut. 25:16), acts of “abomination”(Lev. 18:17, 22–23, 26–29), idolatry (Deut. 31:20;32:15–17), and failure to perform duties prescribed in the law(Deut. 25:7–10)—results in disgrace before others (Exod.32:25) and God (Deut. 28:25–26, 37).

Thestatus of honor can be ascribed to an individual. A person is morehonorable who is the firstborn (Gen. 49:3), comes from an esteemedfamily (Ps. 45:9), or is married into a dignified family (Gen. 41:45;Ruth 4:5). This worth will last a lifetime unless the reputation ofthe family is compromised, either because of economics (Ruth 1:1–21)or violation of the codes of conduct, such as adultery and incest(Exod. 20:14; Lev. 18:20; 20:10–21; Deut. 5:18; 22:22; Prov.6:32–33), though not necessarily divorce (Deut. 24:1–4).Certain groups of people are honored because of special privilegegranted to them (Prov. 8:15–16; Dan. 2:21; Rom. 13:1–5)—forexample, priests (Exod. 28:2, 40; Ps. 110:4; Heb. 7:21), kings (Ps.2:7), sages (Prov. 3:35), Israel (Exod. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; 8:11–9:7;26:16–19), and the church (1Pet. 2:9).

Wealthsymbolizes one’s status and claims respect for its owners (Gen.12:10–20; 14:21–24; 1Kings 3:13; Prov. 3:16; 8:18;22:4; Ps. 49:16; Isa. 61:6, 12) but does not equate the state ofbeing poor with shame (cf. Ps. 12:5) unless it is a result of morallassitude (Prov. 13:18). Parts of the human body symbolize worth andvalue. Certain parts of the body are less honorable than others, andto expose them is to invite disgrace (2Sam. 10:4–5;1Chron. 19:4; Isa. 20:4; 1Cor. 12:23–24).

Thestatus of honor can also be achieved by an individual’s merits(cf. Rom. 2:7–11). Certain types of behavior are honorable—forexample, humility (Prov. 15:33; 18:12; 29:23), taking care of one’smaster (Prov. 27:18), honoring parents (Exod. 20:12; 21:15; 22:28;Prov. 19:26; Mal. 1:6; Matt. 15:4; Eph. 6:2), good service (Gen.45:13), military exploits (2Sam. 23:19–23; cf. 2Chron.32:21), almsgiving and justice (Prov. 21:21). One important aspect ofachieving honor is the pursuit of wisdom. The ways of wisdom arehonorable (Prov. 3:16–17; 4:8; 8:18), preserving a person fromdishonor (Prov. 3:16–17, 31–33, 35; 24:14), but the waysof folly, such as injustice (Prov. 1:22; 14:31) and dishonoringparents (Prov. 30:17; cf. Exod. 20:12; 21:15; Lev. 20:9; Deut.27:16), are a disgrace (Prov. 20:3; 26:1). The failure to performone’s duty (Gen. 40:1–3) or a defeat in battle (Isa.23:9; Lam. 1:8; Nah. 3:10) results in shame and, accordingly, loss ofsocial status (Isa. 16:14; 23:9; Jer. 46:12; Lam. 1:6, 8; Hos. 4:7).An ultimate form of disgrace is to be hanged for public viewing(Deut. 21:22–23; Esther 5:14; 7:7–10; Matt. 27:32–44;Mark 15:22–32; Luke 23:33–43; John 19:17–24; 1Cor.1:18–25). In a patriarchal society, the status of women isobtained through their sexual exclusiveness. Their chastity (Gen.38:24; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:13–21; cf. 2Sam. 13:13; Song8:8–9) and fertility (Gen. 16:2; 30:2; 1Sam. 1:3–8)become indicators of family and social worth.

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.

The incorporation or integration of multiple and diversegroups into one. God promised that all peoples would be blessed inAbraham and his descendants (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). Israel,as the recipient of God’s blessing, was to be a light to thenations (Isa. 49:6), a kingdom of priests mediating God’spresence to the surrounding peoples (Exod. 19:6; Ps. 67:1–2).The prophets anticipated a glorious day when the nations would flowinto God’s house and his word would go out from Jerusalem tothe nations (Isa. 2:1–5). In Christ, Gentiles have beenincluded in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and Paullonged for the fullness (ESV: “full inclusion”) of theJewish people through faith (Rom. 11:12–17). Ultimately, peoplefrom every tribe, language, people, and nation will together worshipChrist forever (Rev. 5:9).

Jesusembodied the inclusive nature of the kingdom of God in his practiceof table fellowship with the socially marginalized or despised (Luke15:2). His ministry included women, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Luke8:2–3; John 4:40; 12:20). Christ commissioned his Jewishfollowers to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), infulfillment of OT expectation (Luke 24:47). In the church,differences in ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status continue,but believers are called to a profound unity amid diversity becauseof the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26–28) and the gift of the Spirit(1Cor. 12:11).

Genderinclusiveness is an important consideration for modern Bibletranslations. It concerns the question of whether to use languagethat is not gender specific instead of masculine language when thecontext calls for it (e.g., “people” rather than “men,”and “brothers and sisters” rather than “brothers”).Some versions (e.g., TNIV, NRSV, NET, NLT, REB) prefergender-inclusive language, while others (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV)donot.

The incorporation or integration of multiple and diversegroups into one. God promised that all peoples would be blessed inAbraham and his descendants (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). Israel,as the recipient of God’s blessing, was to be a light to thenations (Isa. 49:6), a kingdom of priests mediating God’spresence to the surrounding peoples (Exod. 19:6; Ps. 67:1–2).The prophets anticipated a glorious day when the nations would flowinto God’s house and his word would go out from Jerusalem tothe nations (Isa. 2:1–5). In Christ, Gentiles have beenincluded in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and Paullonged for the fullness (ESV: “full inclusion”) of theJewish people through faith (Rom. 11:12–17). Ultimately, peoplefrom every tribe, language, people, and nation will together worshipChrist forever (Rev. 5:9).

Jesusembodied the inclusive nature of the kingdom of God in his practiceof table fellowship with the socially marginalized or despised (Luke15:2). His ministry included women, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Luke8:2–3; John 4:40; 12:20). Christ commissioned his Jewishfollowers to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), infulfillment of OT expectation (Luke 24:47). In the church,differences in ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status continue,but believers are called to a profound unity amid diversity becauseof the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26–28) and the gift of the Spirit(1Cor. 12:11).

Genderinclusiveness is an important consideration for modern Bibletranslations. It concerns the question of whether to use languagethat is not gender specific instead of masculine language when thecontext calls for it (e.g., “people” rather than “men,”and “brothers and sisters” rather than “brothers”).Some versions (e.g., TNIV, NRSV, NET, NLT, REB) prefergender-inclusive language, while others (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV)donot.

The incorporation or integration of multiple and diversegroups into one. God promised that all peoples would be blessed inAbraham and his descendants (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). Israel,as the recipient of God’s blessing, was to be a light to thenations (Isa. 49:6), a kingdom of priests mediating God’spresence to the surrounding peoples (Exod. 19:6; Ps. 67:1–2).The prophets anticipated a glorious day when the nations would flowinto God’s house and his word would go out from Jerusalem tothe nations (Isa. 2:1–5). In Christ, Gentiles have beenincluded in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and Paullonged for the fullness (ESV: “full inclusion”) of theJewish people through faith (Rom. 11:12–17). Ultimately, peoplefrom every tribe, language, people, and nation will together worshipChrist forever (Rev. 5:9).

Jesusembodied the inclusive nature of the kingdom of God in his practiceof table fellowship with the socially marginalized or despised (Luke15:2). His ministry included women, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Luke8:2–3; John 4:40; 12:20). Christ commissioned his Jewishfollowers to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), infulfillment of OT expectation (Luke 24:47). In the church,differences in ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status continue,but believers are called to a profound unity amid diversity becauseof the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26–28) and the gift of the Spirit(1Cor. 12:11).

Genderinclusiveness is an important consideration for modern Bibletranslations. It concerns the question of whether to use languagethat is not gender specific instead of masculine language when thecontext calls for it (e.g., “people” rather than “men,”and “brothers and sisters” rather than “brothers”).Some versions (e.g., TNIV, NRSV, NET, NLT, REB) prefergender-inclusive language, while others (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV)donot.

A kingdom signifies the reality and extent of a king’sdominion or rule (Gen. 10:10; 20:9; Num. 32:33; 2Kings 20:13;Esther 1:22). Some kingdoms were relatively small; others wereconcerted attempts to gain the whole world. For example, there wereapproximately fifty million people under the Pax Romana (“Romanpeace”—the consolidated empire) during Augustus’sreign. Demographers estimate that the global population in the firstcentury was about 250 million. Therefore, approximately one-fifth ofthe world’s population was under the authority of a single king(Caesar). The Roman Empire (kingdom) reached its greatest extentunder Trajan (r. AD 98–117), about two million square miles.

Authorityand power. Akingdom presupposes monarchy, rule by an individual, human authority.(The Bible has little to say about democracy; that form of governmentwas developed by the Greeks, but a primarily empire mentalitydominated the context of the biblical world.) Although kings onlyhave as much authority as their armies and the general populaceallow, they nevertheless exercise an almost absolute power, whichinvites either profound humility or hubris. Royal arrogance,unfortunately, is the primary motif characterizing kings in the Bible(e.g., Dan. 3). Gaius Octavius (later Gaius Julius CaesarOctavianus), the grandnephew of Julius Caesar, ruled as emperor from31 BC to AD 14. The Roman senate declared him “Augustus”(Lat. Augusta) on January 13, 27 BC. “Augustus” thenbecame a title held by all reigning emperors except Vitellius. Thetitle means “revered or august one,” connoting superhumanqualities. Egyptian, Greek, and Roman kings were routinely veneratedas gods. By way of analogy, even the Bible presents God as a king(Pss. 5:2; 10:16; 44:4).

Akingdom may be visualized as a series of concentric circles,beginning with the throne, which is the seat of a king’s ruleand judgment, then the court and “retainer class” ofbureaucrats and aides (e.g., scribes, tax collectors), and thenradiating out to the subjects, animals, and landholdings (see Deut.17:18; Esther 1:14; Matt. 2:3). The king typically entered into apartnership with the upper classes: he provided peace and protection,and they in turn offered loyalty and a portion of their wealth.Latifundism, the dividing up of agricultural property into largeestates, enabled kings to reward political supporters and punishtheir enemies (Matt. 14:1–12 pars.). The powerless andmarginalized often found themselves outside this comfortableagreement, without property. When they threatened to change thepolitical order, they were violently crushed (see Matt. 11:7–12).

Royaltyand religion.Kingdom and religion were intertwined, so that the king was oftenhigh priest or had direct influence over the priesthood. Solomon madeZadok, a longtime loyal supporter of his father, David, high priest.His descendants dominated the office until the Seleucid crisis(1Kings 2:26–27, 35; 4:4). Herod the Great and PontiusPilate selected high priests from aristocratic families in Jerusalem.The primary capital of a kingdom was the ownership of land andrevenues from taxation. Kings also took censuses of the people fortaxation purposes. They were also generally free to tax anything inor passing through their realm. Herod Antipas taxed fishermen forusing the Sea of Galilee (see Matt. 9:9–12 pars.).

Godoriginally intended Israel to be governed as a theocracy, ruled bythe one, true, living God (but see Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:14–20).Israel was to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6), butthe people demanded a king (1Sam. 8:1–22). However, evenwhen God granted their request, God remained King over the king andeven retained ownership of the land (Lev. 25:23, 42, 55). TheIsraelite king was nothing more than God’s viceroy, withdelegated authority. With few exceptions, most of the kings of Israeland Judah were corrupted by authority and wealth and forgot God(1Sam. 13:13–14; 15:28; Matt. 14:6–11). But Godmade a covenant with David, so that one of his descendants wouldbecome a coregent in a restored theocracy, the kingdom of God (2Sam.7:1–29; Pss. 89:3; 132:11). In contrast to David’s moreimmediate descendants, this coming king would return to Jerusalemhumble and mounted on a donkey (Zech. 9:9; cf. Isa. 62:11). TheGospels present Jesus Christ as this king (Matt. 21:1–9 pars.).Those who are likewise humble will inherit the land with him (Matt.5:5).

Terminology

Theword “law,” often referred to as “Torah,”occurs 220 times in the OT and derives from a Hebrew root that means“to teach or instruct.” Biblical law is the body ofinstructions or teachings that serve to govern and maintain thecovenant relationship between God and Israel. The distinctiverelationship that Israel enjoyed with God was unparalleled in theancient Near East. Unlike the Gentile nations, Israel received fromYahweh an instrument outlining his expectations of them, a set ofguidelines by which to sustain that covenant relationship (Deut.4:6–8). Outside the OT, the “Torah” or “Law”often refers to the first five books of the Bible, called the“Pentateuch” (Matt. 5:17–18; Luke 2:22). SecondTemple Judaism commonly referred to the Pentateuch in this way.

Theterm “Torah” is not limited to cultic or ceremonialpractice, but embraces civil and social law. In addition, the Torahrefers to the prophetic word and more broadly incorporates the ideaof parental instruction. The Hebrew word torah is employed in avariety of expressions, variously rendered in English versions: “thelaw” (Deut. 1:5; 4:8, 44; 2Kings 23:24), the “Bookof the Law” (Deut. 28:61; 29:21; Josh. 1:8; 2Kings 22:8),the “Book of the Law of Moses” (Josh. 8:31; 23:6), the“law of Moses” (Josh. 8:32; 1Kings 2:3), the “Bookof the Law of God” (Josh. 24:26), and the “law of theLord” (2Kings 10:31)—all of these indicate thedivine origin of the instructions or reinforce the association of theTorah with Moses as Israel’s mediator. The OT notes that Moses“wrote a Book of the Law,” which was placed by the arkfor reference (Deut. 31:26) and read aloud every seven years, duringthe Feast of Tabernacles, to all the assembly (Deut. 31:9–13).The book is not mentioned again until its discovery in the templeduring the reign of King Josiah (2Kings 22:8). The discovery ofthe book initiated a religious reform by Josiah that focused on thecentralization of worship and the destruction of idols.

TheOT employs a number of close synonyms for “law,”including “commandments,” “testimony,”“judgments,” “statutes,” “ordinances,”“decrees,” and “precepts.” Each of theseterms reflects varying nuances or particular aspects of the divineinstruction. Unfortunately, all these words as translated intoEnglish subtly misrepresent the “law” as an odiousexternal set of rules that inhibit human freedom and requirepunishment for disobedience. This perspective suggests that obedienceto the divine law was coerced by the threat of divine judgment.Contrary to this misconception, the people of Israel rejoiced infollowing Yahweh’s instructions because their greatest desirewas to please and live in harmony with him. Yahweh’s peopleenjoyed the privilege of receiving divine revelation consisting ofdirections that assured divine favor. Although perfect adherence tothese instructions proved to be an impossible task, Yahweh’scovenant stipulations provided an ideal toward which his people wereexpected to make progress as they constantly strived to fulfill thatideal. The Torah in its broadest sense reflects a verbal expressionof the character, nature, and will of God.

Typesof Law

Ingeneral, Torah may be subdivided into three categories: judicial,ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlapwith the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah”with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19–23)following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt,though some body of customary legislation existed before this time(Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation inother pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24,indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code ofconduct and worship for Israel not only during its wildernesswanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan followingthe conquest.

Morespecifically, the word “law” often denotes the TenCommandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “tenwords”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered toMoses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandmentsreflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided intotwo parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which theywere first recorded: the first four address the individual’srelationship to God, and the last six focus on instructionsconcerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplisticexpression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelinesextends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any andall incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thingforbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing theprohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice itsopposite good in order to be in compliance.

Judiciallaw.The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), closelyassociated with the Ten Commandments, immediately follows theDecalogue and may be subdivided into casuistic, or “case,”law (21:2–22:17) and a variety of miscellaneous laws, manywhich are apodictic, or absolute, commands. The divine instructionscannot address an infinite range of circ*mstances; consequently, thecasuistic laws describe the judicial process in light of generalsituations, which form the precedence upon which future specificjudgments can be made. Apodictic instructions, generally identifiedby imperatives or volitional forms, set forth a strict prohibitionfollowed by the consequences of disobedience. Government in earlyIsraelite history revolved around the authoritative decisions ofjudges, who declared a verdict based on custom or precedent (Exod.18:13–27). The moral emphasis of the Decalogue and the Book ofthe Covenant provides the underlying theological reasons for obeyingGod’s law and forms an important part of the ethical foundationof pentateuchal discussions and elaborations of law.

Ceremoniallaw.Ceremonial, or cultic, law includes the instructions guiding theconstruction and preparation of the tabernacle for worship combinedwith the Levitical guidelines dictating the proper execution ofritual sacrifice and cultic practice. The significance of thetabernacle as a portable sanctuary of Yahweh and its integralconnection with God’s promise to dwell among the Israelites arereinforced by the tabernacle’s association with the appearanceof Yahweh at Sinai and the inauguration of the covenant. Thetabernacle becomes the place where the people meet God through amediator and seek continued divine favor through ritual purification,sacrifice, and atonement.

Leviticussystematically outlines the procedure for priestly selection andsuccession, details the consecration of cultic vessels and priests,describes conditions for participation and the celebration of sacredfestivals (Lev. 16; 23–25), and addresses other issues such asblasphemy, sexual behavior, and false prophecy. The sacrificialregulations cover sin offerings (6:25), guilt offerings (7:1, 7),burnt offerings (6:9), grain offerings (6:14), and fellowshipofferings (7:11). The book of Leviticus also provides extensiveinstruction concerning the designation of “clean”(consecrated) and “unclean” (profane), reinforcing theseparateness of God’s chosen people (e.g., 11:46; 12:7; 13:59;14:2, 32; 15:32–33). Uncircumcised foreigners were excludedfrom participation in Israel’s sacred assemblies.

Morallaw.Economic hardship presented numerous challenges in Israelite societythat were resolved through laws concerning debt and slavery. A seriesof laws sought to protect the property and rights of those indebtedto creditors (Exod. 22:25–27; Deut. 24:6, 10–13; 2Kings4:1; Amos 2:8). Those who were enslaved in order to compensate fortheir debts had to be released after six years of service (Exod.21:2, 11; Deut. 15:12–18). Property and persons who were turnedover to creditors could often be redeemed (Lev. 25:25–28,47–55). Those who harvested crops were instructed to leave thecorners of fields and the remnants of crops for gleaning by the poor(Deut. 24:19–22; Ruth 2:2–6). The systematic mistreatmentof the marginalized in society led to widespread corruption among thejudiciary, angering Yahweh and leading to the exile (Isa. 1:15–17;Amos 2:6–7; 11–13). It is clear that this type of law wasreenacted during the postexilic period (Neh. 5:1–13; Jer.34:8–16).

Torahin Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

OTwisdom literature develops the concept of Torah as human instructionfor daily living, underscoring the dynamic character of the law andits permeation of all areas of life. Vigilant obedience to the lawresults in wise and godly conduct. In Proverbs, the son is admonishedby the father to obey the Torah (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 6:23), and the pupilis instructed by the teacher to respect the law (13:13) and to resistthe company of those who do not obey the Torah (28:4), with suchobservance resulting in God’s blessings (29:18) and answers toprayer (28:9). The wise woman familiarizes herself with the Torahbecause the responsibility for instruction of her household lies withher (31:26).

Thebook of Psalms contains three compositions typically classified asTorah psalms (1; 19; 119). In Ps. 1 continual reflection on the Torahmanifests itself in the prosperity and the wisdom of the obedient.Psalm 19 celebrates the benefits of keeping the Torah, includingwisdom, joy, enlightenment, life, and moral discernment. In a lengthyacrostic arranged according to the Hebrew alphabet, Ps. 119 exploitsthe attitudes, effects, and practicality of the Torah as exemplifiedin the life of the faithful.

Inthe prophetic material, Torah refers to teaching administered in thename of Yahweh, either by the priests or the prophets. Moral decline,manifested by the social injustice of Israel’s leader-shipcoupled with idolatry and syncretistic worship, was directlyattributed to the failure of the priests to uphold the Torah andtheir negligence in instructing the community (Jer. 2:8; 8:8; Ezek.7:26; 22:26; Hos. 8:1–12; Amos 2:4). The prophetic emphasis onjustice and righteousness as characteristic qualities of God’speople highlights the importance placed on fair and equitabletreatment (e.g., Isa. 5:23–24; 26:1–11; 48:17–19;58:6–9; 59:9–14). The Torah provided the authoritativepoint of departure in the composition of prophetic messages andteachings, undergirding the authority and genuineness of theprophetic proclamations and exhortations to the contemporaryaudience. The messages of the prophets were in fact not new, but weresimply the adaptation and transformation of pentateuchal textsalready generally accepted by the community as authoritative.

BiblicalLaw and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

Biblicallaw did not develop in isolation from other legal systems; rather, itappears to follow long-established, widespread, and standardizedpatterns of Mesopotamian law. A persuasive number of parallelsbetween customs and familial relationships addressed in the Nuzitablets and archaic elements in the patriarchal narratives seem tosuggest that the patriarchs operated under Hurrian law. The Nuzitablets clarify the subjects of adoption, marriage, and economictransactions, apparently exerting an influence on the lives of theearly OT patriarchs. The wife-sister accounts of Abram and Isaac, inwhich the marriage eligibility of Sarai and Rebekah arise (Gen. 12;26), as well as Abraham’s proposed adoption of his servantEliezer as an heir (Gen. 15:2–4) and his siring of Ishmaelthrough Sarai’s servant Hagar (Gen. 16), reflect customarypractice described in these documents.

Avast range of legal documents regulating judicial procedures providesmaterial for comparative analysis with biblical texts. Included amongthese discoveries are a number of law collections, generally namedafter the ruler who commissioned them. Archaeologists have uncoveredevidence, from as early as the twenty-first century BC, of twosurviving Sumerian legal collections affirming the ancient origins ofsocietal governance. The Laws of King Ur-Nammu, recorded during thelast great period of Sumerian literacy (2111–2095 BC), arepreserved in scribal copies from Nippur dated between 1800 and 1700BC and consist of a fragment and two partial stone tablets. Writtenin a casuistic format, the texts attest to twenty-nine stipulations,including legislation addressing weights and measures; protectionsfor widows, orphans, and the impoverished; sexual offenses; maritallaws; slavery; false testimony; and property abuses.

Asecond Sumerian law collection dating from the nineteenth century BC,that of King Lipit-Ishtar, the fifth ruler of the Isin dynasty inlower Mesopotamia, consists of a prologue, thirty-eight wholly orpartially restored laws, and an epilogue. These laws, bequeathed toLipit-Ishtar by the Sumerian deities Anu and Enlil in order to“establish justice in the land,” represent civil lawsgoverning business practices, slavery, property, family, andinadvertent injury to an individual. What appear to be an additionalthirty-eight laws, comprising the second half of the code, have beendestroyed along with part of the prologue. All these laws wererecorded in a casuistic format.

TheLaws of Eshnunna, written in Akkadian, consist of two tabletscontaining approximately sixty different laws. The authorship anddate of origin remain unknown, but historians suggest that this lawcollection, which has no prologue or epilogue, was contemporary withthe Code of Hammurabi (1728–1686 BC). Though written in acasuistic format, this artifact assigns penalties on the basis ofsocial status.

TheCode of Hammurabi, named for the sixth of eleven kings of the OldBabylonian dynasty, is perhaps the most famous and most complete ofthe ancient Mesopotamian collections. In 1902, French archaeologistsdiscovered the code on a black diorite stela, nearly eight feet tall,in what was ancient Susa. Multiple copies of the code have beenpreserved. Written in Akkadian cuneiform, the law collection consistsof 282 legal paragraphs created to promote public welfare and thecause of justice. The format of the code, which includes a prologue,an epilogue, and a category of cursings for disobedience andblessings for obedience, closely mirrors the structure of the book ofDeuteronomy. The casuistic format addresses laws governing publicorder and individual private law. The penalties prescribed forcapital offenses, of which there were thirty, were harsh and oftencruel, including bodily mutilation, multiple punishments, andvicarious punishment. Retaliatory consequences for the protection ofprivate property were exceptionally cruel, taking the form of tortureor excessive fines. Often, those who were presumed guilty would bethrown into the river; survival indicated innocence, while drowningdemonstrated guilt. A predominant feature was the lex talionis (thelaw of retaliation, or measure for measure), whereby a correspondingpenalty was exacted against the offender based on the crime. Forinstance, if a child was killed, the death of the offender’schild was required. Capital crimes included theft of property andadultery. Contrary to biblical law, Hammurabi’s code madefinancial provision for the loss of life, whereas in the OT the valueof life was immeasurable.

Theargument from silence suggests that in the absence of a full biblicallaw code, legal instructions and stipulations in the biblical textconsist primarily of codicil emendations, that is, additions andinnovations to already existing laws. For example, the discussion ondivorce in Deut. 21 describes the execution of a document withoutgiving details concerning the content or form of such a document. Thepassage also mentions a yet undiscovered “book of divorce.”The absence of legal material on commercial and business law as wellas specifics concerning inheritance and other common subjects pointsto a more comprehensive body of unwritten law reflecting preexistingsocietal norms. Israelite society was therefore indebted to itsMesopotamian predecessors for its implementation of law as a means ofprotecting citizens, and for many legal provisions eventually adaptedby the biblical text.

TheCharacter of Biblical Law

AlthoughIsraelite law was in some ways influenced by the legal codes of otherancient Near Eastern cultures, biblical law retained a distinctidentity centered on the relationship between Yahweh and his chosenpeople. Law in the OT is presented not as secular instruction butrather as divine pronouncement, receiving its authority as anexpression of the divine will. The entirety of the divine instructionoriginates with God, and he is both author and guarantor of thecovenant with his people. The people of Israel, then, are heldresponsible to God for their actions and not just to a legislativebody or human ruler. The will of the Israelite is wholly surrenderedto the will of God to such a degree that every aspect of anindividual’s life is inextricably connected to the divineteachings. God assigns the stipulations and requirements of the lawto the entire corporate body of Israel. The responsibility forcovenant fidelity does not lie solely with the community leadership;rather, it is shared by every individual in the community, whose dualrole includes ensuring both the fair execution of justice in thecommunity and personal observance of the law. God’sinstructions are proclaimed publicly and apply equally to all socialstrata without distinction, apart from specific direction concerningslaves.

Torahbecomes the corpus of teaching directed toward the entire community.The didactic purpose of the law is evident by the motive clausesappended to many apodictic and casuistic instructions that elaborateon the ethical, religious, or historical reasons for covenantfaithfulness. The pedagogical aim serves to appeal to the Israeliteconscience as a means of motivating obedience. In addition, theteaching that humanity is created in the divine image reinforces thesacredness of human life as a foundational concern of the law.Religious rather than economic values prevail, eliminating the deathpenalty for all property crimes. Individual culpability predominatesin the biblical corpus, abolishing the notion of vicarious punishmentadvocated in extrabiblical legislation. Each offender pays theconsequences of his or her behavior. Each person, created by God andenjoying equal status with all others, receives fair and equitabletreatment.

TheLaw and the New Testament

Thecontemporary significance of the Torah is recognized in the NT byJesus’ declaration that his incarnation served to fulfill thelaw (Matt. 5:17). He affirms the continued legitimacy of the law(Matt. 5:19) and appeals to the law as the governing authority forproper practice and behavior (Matt. 12:6, 42; Luke 4:1–11; Mark7:9–12; 10:17–19).

Therelationship between gospel and law in both Testaments demonstratesfar greater continuity than is recognized by many Christians.Covenant theologians affirm that the Mosaic law described a “covenantof works,” which functions differently from the NT’s“covenant of grace,” while dispensationalists often teachthat grace supersedes and abolishes the demands of the law. Theconditional nature of the Mosaic covenant differs from that of theAbrahamic covenant, since the unconditional promise of the Abrahamiccovenant suggests that the blessings promised to Abraham and his seedwould be realized not because of human obedience but rather throughdivine fidelity (Gal. 3:15–27). The Mosaic covenant, orcovenant of law, is not contrary to the promises of God (Gal. 3:21);instead, God graciously entered into relationship with the people ofIsrael, redeemed them from Egypt, and then gave them the law so thatthey would respond in humble obedience to his redeeming work. Thus,Mosaic law provided through a mediator a way for God to revealhimself to Israel. Consequently, the idea that Israelite religion waslegalistic is mistaken. It did not teach that one could earnsalvation by “keeping the law”; rather, an individualentered into the covenant with God by grace. When God established thecovenant with his people, he forgave their sins. He did not demand acertain level of attainment as a prerequisite for entering into thatrelationship, nor did Israel have to obey the law perfectly in orderto achieve salvation. Instead, the covenantal arrangement instituteda means of forgiveness through the sacrificial system, making theremoval of the barrier of sin available to the people. Israel’sobedience to the law was a response to God’s gracious andredeeming work. Law and covenant were complementary.

Ongoingdiscussions explore the question concerning the relevance of the lawfor Christians today. Many scholars from past centuries, such asMartin Luther, claimed that the believer is freed entirely from thelaw of Moses, including its moral requirements. The OT law is bindingonly insofar as it agrees with the NT and mirrors natural law. JohnCalvin, on the other hand, maintained that the moral laws of the OTare obligatory for the believer, and he asserts that this is theprincipal function of law. Calvin’s sense of keeping the morallaw does not compromise the message of grace, for keeping the morallaw, as opposed to the ceremonial or civil law, does not earnsalvation but instead forms the acceptable response of the believerto God’s grace. Other Reformation scholars suggested that thelaw was abolished with the coming of Christ, and, as a result, whilethe moral norms remain in effect, the ceremonial laws have beenfulfilled with the coming of Christ. Although the penaltiesoriginally prescribed for disobedience are no longer effective,keeping the moral law reflects the proper outcome of a life lived bythe Spirit of God. See also Ten Commandments; Torah.

Terminology

Theword “law,” often referred to as “Torah,”occurs 220 times in the OT and derives from a Hebrew root that means“to teach or instruct.” Biblical law is the body ofinstructions or teachings that serve to govern and maintain thecovenant relationship between God and Israel. The distinctiverelationship that Israel enjoyed with God was unparalleled in theancient Near East. Unlike the Gentile nations, Israel received fromYahweh an instrument outlining his expectations of them, a set ofguidelines by which to sustain that covenant relationship (Deut.4:6–8). Outside the OT, the “Torah” or “Law”often refers to the first five books of the Bible, called the“Pentateuch” (Matt. 5:17–18; Luke 2:22). SecondTemple Judaism commonly referred to the Pentateuch in this way.

Theterm “Torah” is not limited to cultic or ceremonialpractice, but embraces civil and social law. In addition, the Torahrefers to the prophetic word and more broadly incorporates the ideaof parental instruction. The Hebrew word torah is employed in avariety of expressions, variously rendered in English versions: “thelaw” (Deut. 1:5; 4:8, 44; 2Kings 23:24), the “Bookof the Law” (Deut. 28:61; 29:21; Josh. 1:8; 2Kings 22:8),the “Book of the Law of Moses” (Josh. 8:31; 23:6), the“law of Moses” (Josh. 8:32; 1Kings 2:3), the “Bookof the Law of God” (Josh. 24:26), and the “law of theLord” (2Kings 10:31)—all of these indicate thedivine origin of the instructions or reinforce the association of theTorah with Moses as Israel’s mediator. The OT notes that Moses“wrote a Book of the Law,” which was placed by the arkfor reference (Deut. 31:26) and read aloud every seven years, duringthe Feast of Tabernacles, to all the assembly (Deut. 31:9–13).The book is not mentioned again until its discovery in the templeduring the reign of King Josiah (2Kings 22:8). The discovery ofthe book initiated a religious reform by Josiah that focused on thecentralization of worship and the destruction of idols.

TheOT employs a number of close synonyms for “law,”including “commandments,” “testimony,”“judgments,” “statutes,” “ordinances,”“decrees,” and “precepts.” Each of theseterms reflects varying nuances or particular aspects of the divineinstruction. Unfortunately, all these words as translated intoEnglish subtly misrepresent the “law” as an odiousexternal set of rules that inhibit human freedom and requirepunishment for disobedience. This perspective suggests that obedienceto the divine law was coerced by the threat of divine judgment.Contrary to this misconception, the people of Israel rejoiced infollowing Yahweh’s instructions because their greatest desirewas to please and live in harmony with him. Yahweh’s peopleenjoyed the privilege of receiving divine revelation consisting ofdirections that assured divine favor. Although perfect adherence tothese instructions proved to be an impossible task, Yahweh’scovenant stipulations provided an ideal toward which his people wereexpected to make progress as they constantly strived to fulfill thatideal. The Torah in its broadest sense reflects a verbal expressionof the character, nature, and will of God.

Typesof Law

Ingeneral, Torah may be subdivided into three categories: judicial,ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlapwith the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah”with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19–23)following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt,though some body of customary legislation existed before this time(Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation inother pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24,indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code ofconduct and worship for Israel not only during its wildernesswanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan followingthe conquest.

Morespecifically, the word “law” often denotes the TenCommandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “tenwords”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered toMoses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandmentsreflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided intotwo parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which theywere first recorded: the first four address the individual’srelationship to God, and the last six focus on instructionsconcerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplisticexpression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelinesextends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any andall incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thingforbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing theprohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice itsopposite good in order to be in compliance.

Judiciallaw.The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), closelyassociated with the Ten Commandments, immediately follows theDecalogue and may be subdivided into casuistic, or “case,”law (21:2–22:17) and a variety of miscellaneous laws, manywhich are apodictic, or absolute, commands. The divine instructionscannot address an infinite range of circ*mstances; consequently, thecasuistic laws describe the judicial process in light of generalsituations, which form the precedence upon which future specificjudgments can be made. Apodictic instructions, generally identifiedby imperatives or volitional forms, set forth a strict prohibitionfollowed by the consequences of disobedience. Government in earlyIsraelite history revolved around the authoritative decisions ofjudges, who declared a verdict based on custom or precedent (Exod.18:13–27). The moral emphasis of the Decalogue and the Book ofthe Covenant provides the underlying theological reasons for obeyingGod’s law and forms an important part of the ethical foundationof pentateuchal discussions and elaborations of law.

Ceremoniallaw.Ceremonial, or cultic, law includes the instructions guiding theconstruction and preparation of the tabernacle for worship combinedwith the Levitical guidelines dictating the proper execution ofritual sacrifice and cultic practice. The significance of thetabernacle as a portable sanctuary of Yahweh and its integralconnection with God’s promise to dwell among the Israelites arereinforced by the tabernacle’s association with the appearanceof Yahweh at Sinai and the inauguration of the covenant. Thetabernacle becomes the place where the people meet God through amediator and seek continued divine favor through ritual purification,sacrifice, and atonement.

Leviticussystematically outlines the procedure for priestly selection andsuccession, details the consecration of cultic vessels and priests,describes conditions for participation and the celebration of sacredfestivals (Lev. 16; 23–25), and addresses other issues such asblasphemy, sexual behavior, and false prophecy. The sacrificialregulations cover sin offerings (6:25), guilt offerings (7:1, 7),burnt offerings (6:9), grain offerings (6:14), and fellowshipofferings (7:11). The book of Leviticus also provides extensiveinstruction concerning the designation of “clean”(consecrated) and “unclean” (profane), reinforcing theseparateness of God’s chosen people (e.g., 11:46; 12:7; 13:59;14:2, 32; 15:32–33). Uncircumcised foreigners were excludedfrom participation in Israel’s sacred assemblies.

Morallaw.Economic hardship presented numerous challenges in Israelite societythat were resolved through laws concerning debt and slavery. A seriesof laws sought to protect the property and rights of those indebtedto creditors (Exod. 22:25–27; Deut. 24:6, 10–13; 2Kings4:1; Amos 2:8). Those who were enslaved in order to compensate fortheir debts had to be released after six years of service (Exod.21:2, 11; Deut. 15:12–18). Property and persons who were turnedover to creditors could often be redeemed (Lev. 25:25–28,47–55). Those who harvested crops were instructed to leave thecorners of fields and the remnants of crops for gleaning by the poor(Deut. 24:19–22; Ruth 2:2–6). The systematic mistreatmentof the marginalized in society led to widespread corruption among thejudiciary, angering Yahweh and leading to the exile (Isa. 1:15–17;Amos 2:6–7; 11–13). It is clear that this type of law wasreenacted during the postexilic period (Neh. 5:1–13; Jer.34:8–16).

Torahin Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

OTwisdom literature develops the concept of Torah as human instructionfor daily living, underscoring the dynamic character of the law andits permeation of all areas of life. Vigilant obedience to the lawresults in wise and godly conduct. In Proverbs, the son is admonishedby the father to obey the Torah (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 6:23), and the pupilis instructed by the teacher to respect the law (13:13) and to resistthe company of those who do not obey the Torah (28:4), with suchobservance resulting in God’s blessings (29:18) and answers toprayer (28:9). The wise woman familiarizes herself with the Torahbecause the responsibility for instruction of her household lies withher (31:26).

Thebook of Psalms contains three compositions typically classified asTorah psalms (1; 19; 119). In Ps. 1 continual reflection on the Torahmanifests itself in the prosperity and the wisdom of the obedient.Psalm 19 celebrates the benefits of keeping the Torah, includingwisdom, joy, enlightenment, life, and moral discernment. In a lengthyacrostic arranged according to the Hebrew alphabet, Ps. 119 exploitsthe attitudes, effects, and practicality of the Torah as exemplifiedin the life of the faithful.

Inthe prophetic material, Torah refers to teaching administered in thename of Yahweh, either by the priests or the prophets. Moral decline,manifested by the social injustice of Israel’s leader-shipcoupled with idolatry and syncretistic worship, was directlyattributed to the failure of the priests to uphold the Torah andtheir negligence in instructing the community (Jer. 2:8; 8:8; Ezek.7:26; 22:26; Hos. 8:1–12; Amos 2:4). The prophetic emphasis onjustice and righteousness as characteristic qualities of God’speople highlights the importance placed on fair and equitabletreatment (e.g., Isa. 5:23–24; 26:1–11; 48:17–19;58:6–9; 59:9–14). The Torah provided the authoritativepoint of departure in the composition of prophetic messages andteachings, undergirding the authority and genuineness of theprophetic proclamations and exhortations to the contemporaryaudience. The messages of the prophets were in fact not new, but weresimply the adaptation and transformation of pentateuchal textsalready generally accepted by the community as authoritative.

BiblicalLaw and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

Biblicallaw did not develop in isolation from other legal systems; rather, itappears to follow long-established, widespread, and standardizedpatterns of Mesopotamian law. A persuasive number of parallelsbetween customs and familial relationships addressed in the Nuzitablets and archaic elements in the patriarchal narratives seem tosuggest that the patriarchs operated under Hurrian law. The Nuzitablets clarify the subjects of adoption, marriage, and economictransactions, apparently exerting an influence on the lives of theearly OT patriarchs. The wife-sister accounts of Abram and Isaac, inwhich the marriage eligibility of Sarai and Rebekah arise (Gen. 12;26), as well as Abraham’s proposed adoption of his servantEliezer as an heir (Gen. 15:2–4) and his siring of Ishmaelthrough Sarai’s servant Hagar (Gen. 16), reflect customarypractice described in these documents.

Avast range of legal documents regulating judicial procedures providesmaterial for comparative analysis with biblical texts. Included amongthese discoveries are a number of law collections, generally namedafter the ruler who commissioned them. Archaeologists have uncoveredevidence, from as early as the twenty-first century BC, of twosurviving Sumerian legal collections affirming the ancient origins ofsocietal governance. The Laws of King Ur-Nammu, recorded during thelast great period of Sumerian literacy (2111–2095 BC), arepreserved in scribal copies from Nippur dated between 1800 and 1700BC and consist of a fragment and two partial stone tablets. Writtenin a casuistic format, the texts attest to twenty-nine stipulations,including legislation addressing weights and measures; protectionsfor widows, orphans, and the impoverished; sexual offenses; maritallaws; slavery; false testimony; and property abuses.

Asecond Sumerian law collection dating from the nineteenth century BC,that of King Lipit-Ishtar, the fifth ruler of the Isin dynasty inlower Mesopotamia, consists of a prologue, thirty-eight wholly orpartially restored laws, and an epilogue. These laws, bequeathed toLipit-Ishtar by the Sumerian deities Anu and Enlil in order to“establish justice in the land,” represent civil lawsgoverning business practices, slavery, property, family, andinadvertent injury to an individual. What appear to be an additionalthirty-eight laws, comprising the second half of the code, have beendestroyed along with part of the prologue. All these laws wererecorded in a casuistic format.

TheLaws of Eshnunna, written in Akkadian, consist of two tabletscontaining approximately sixty different laws. The authorship anddate of origin remain unknown, but historians suggest that this lawcollection, which has no prologue or epilogue, was contemporary withthe Code of Hammurabi (1728–1686 BC). Though written in acasuistic format, this artifact assigns penalties on the basis ofsocial status.

TheCode of Hammurabi, named for the sixth of eleven kings of the OldBabylonian dynasty, is perhaps the most famous and most complete ofthe ancient Mesopotamian collections. In 1902, French archaeologistsdiscovered the code on a black diorite stela, nearly eight feet tall,in what was ancient Susa. Multiple copies of the code have beenpreserved. Written in Akkadian cuneiform, the law collection consistsof 282 legal paragraphs created to promote public welfare and thecause of justice. The format of the code, which includes a prologue,an epilogue, and a category of cursings for disobedience andblessings for obedience, closely mirrors the structure of the book ofDeuteronomy. The casuistic format addresses laws governing publicorder and individual private law. The penalties prescribed forcapital offenses, of which there were thirty, were harsh and oftencruel, including bodily mutilation, multiple punishments, andvicarious punishment. Retaliatory consequences for the protection ofprivate property were exceptionally cruel, taking the form of tortureor excessive fines. Often, those who were presumed guilty would bethrown into the river; survival indicated innocence, while drowningdemonstrated guilt. A predominant feature was the lex talionis (thelaw of retaliation, or measure for measure), whereby a correspondingpenalty was exacted against the offender based on the crime. Forinstance, if a child was killed, the death of the offender’schild was required. Capital crimes included theft of property andadultery. Contrary to biblical law, Hammurabi’s code madefinancial provision for the loss of life, whereas in the OT the valueof life was immeasurable.

Theargument from silence suggests that in the absence of a full biblicallaw code, legal instructions and stipulations in the biblical textconsist primarily of codicil emendations, that is, additions andinnovations to already existing laws. For example, the discussion ondivorce in Deut. 21 describes the execution of a document withoutgiving details concerning the content or form of such a document. Thepassage also mentions a yet undiscovered “book of divorce.”The absence of legal material on commercial and business law as wellas specifics concerning inheritance and other common subjects pointsto a more comprehensive body of unwritten law reflecting preexistingsocietal norms. Israelite society was therefore indebted to itsMesopotamian predecessors for its implementation of law as a means ofprotecting citizens, and for many legal provisions eventually adaptedby the biblical text.

TheCharacter of Biblical Law

AlthoughIsraelite law was in some ways influenced by the legal codes of otherancient Near Eastern cultures, biblical law retained a distinctidentity centered on the relationship between Yahweh and his chosenpeople. Law in the OT is presented not as secular instruction butrather as divine pronouncement, receiving its authority as anexpression of the divine will. The entirety of the divine instructionoriginates with God, and he is both author and guarantor of thecovenant with his people. The people of Israel, then, are heldresponsible to God for their actions and not just to a legislativebody or human ruler. The will of the Israelite is wholly surrenderedto the will of God to such a degree that every aspect of anindividual’s life is inextricably connected to the divineteachings. God assigns the stipulations and requirements of the lawto the entire corporate body of Israel. The responsibility forcovenant fidelity does not lie solely with the community leadership;rather, it is shared by every individual in the community, whose dualrole includes ensuring both the fair execution of justice in thecommunity and personal observance of the law. God’sinstructions are proclaimed publicly and apply equally to all socialstrata without distinction, apart from specific direction concerningslaves.

Torahbecomes the corpus of teaching directed toward the entire community.The didactic purpose of the law is evident by the motive clausesappended to many apodictic and casuistic instructions that elaborateon the ethical, religious, or historical reasons for covenantfaithfulness. The pedagogical aim serves to appeal to the Israeliteconscience as a means of motivating obedience. In addition, theteaching that humanity is created in the divine image reinforces thesacredness of human life as a foundational concern of the law.Religious rather than economic values prevail, eliminating the deathpenalty for all property crimes. Individual culpability predominatesin the biblical corpus, abolishing the notion of vicarious punishmentadvocated in extrabiblical legislation. Each offender pays theconsequences of his or her behavior. Each person, created by God andenjoying equal status with all others, receives fair and equitabletreatment.

TheLaw and the New Testament

Thecontemporary significance of the Torah is recognized in the NT byJesus’ declaration that his incarnation served to fulfill thelaw (Matt. 5:17). He affirms the continued legitimacy of the law(Matt. 5:19) and appeals to the law as the governing authority forproper practice and behavior (Matt. 12:6, 42; Luke 4:1–11; Mark7:9–12; 10:17–19).

Therelationship between gospel and law in both Testaments demonstratesfar greater continuity than is recognized by many Christians.Covenant theologians affirm that the Mosaic law described a “covenantof works,” which functions differently from the NT’s“covenant of grace,” while dispensationalists often teachthat grace supersedes and abolishes the demands of the law. Theconditional nature of the Mosaic covenant differs from that of theAbrahamic covenant, since the unconditional promise of the Abrahamiccovenant suggests that the blessings promised to Abraham and his seedwould be realized not because of human obedience but rather throughdivine fidelity (Gal. 3:15–27). The Mosaic covenant, orcovenant of law, is not contrary to the promises of God (Gal. 3:21);instead, God graciously entered into relationship with the people ofIsrael, redeemed them from Egypt, and then gave them the law so thatthey would respond in humble obedience to his redeeming work. Thus,Mosaic law provided through a mediator a way for God to revealhimself to Israel. Consequently, the idea that Israelite religion waslegalistic is mistaken. It did not teach that one could earnsalvation by “keeping the law”; rather, an individualentered into the covenant with God by grace. When God established thecovenant with his people, he forgave their sins. He did not demand acertain level of attainment as a prerequisite for entering into thatrelationship, nor did Israel have to obey the law perfectly in orderto achieve salvation. Instead, the covenantal arrangement instituteda means of forgiveness through the sacrificial system, making theremoval of the barrier of sin available to the people. Israel’sobedience to the law was a response to God’s gracious andredeeming work. Law and covenant were complementary.

Ongoingdiscussions explore the question concerning the relevance of the lawfor Christians today. Many scholars from past centuries, such asMartin Luther, claimed that the believer is freed entirely from thelaw of Moses, including its moral requirements. The OT law is bindingonly insofar as it agrees with the NT and mirrors natural law. JohnCalvin, on the other hand, maintained that the moral laws of the OTare obligatory for the believer, and he asserts that this is theprincipal function of law. Calvin’s sense of keeping the morallaw does not compromise the message of grace, for keeping the morallaw, as opposed to the ceremonial or civil law, does not earnsalvation but instead forms the acceptable response of the believerto God’s grace. Other Reformation scholars suggested that thelaw was abolished with the coming of Christ, and, as a result, whilethe moral norms remain in effect, the ceremonial laws have beenfulfilled with the coming of Christ. Although the penaltiesoriginally prescribed for disobedience are no longer effective,keeping the moral law reflects the proper outcome of a life lived bythe Spirit of God. See also Ten Commandments; Torah.

The Bible contains many references to minerals and metals.Minerals can encompass a wide array of topics, thus the focus here ison valuable minerals such as ornamental stones as well as preciousand useful metals. Gold is mentioned in the Bible as early as thegarden of Eden (Gen. 2:11) and at the end is pictured as making upthe streets of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:21). Among the metalsmentioned in Scripture are gold, silver, bronze, copper, tin, lead,and iron. Precious stones and minerals also appear in Scripture,often used to adorn items, such as the high priest’sbreastpiece (Exod. 28:15–21). Here these materials will bediscussed in chronological order of appearance.

Copper

Copperwas the first metal to be used for simple farm tools and weapons. Itwas used as early as the middle of the fourth millennium BC but wasnot in widespread use until approximately 3300 BC. Copper mines havebeen found on the Sinai Peninsula at places such as the Timna Valleyand Faynan and also extensively on the island of Cyprus, whichsupplied copper to the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman empires.

Referencesto copper within the Bible are few. Several passages discuss thebasic origins of copper, such as the gathering of ore or the smeltingprocess (Deut. 8:9; Job 28:2; Ezek. 22:18, 20; 24:11). Several NTpassages acknowledge the presence of minted copper coins as currency(Matt. 10:9; Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2). Pure copper, however, was hardto use, although it could be combined with tin to make the alloybronze.

Bronze

Theuse of bronze, an alloy made of copper and tin, in biblical landsdates to about 2300 BC. Bronze, compared to pure copper, is easier towork with and has a longer life. It can be worked with hammer andanvil or poured into a mold. It has the same available applicationsas copper; thus it was used to make all the tools and weapons thatwere made of copper. Bronze was widely used during the secondmillennium BC, encompassing the biblical time period from Abraham tothe judges, and its use continued as the raw materials wereavailable. It was the metal of choice until the advanced technologyof ironworking.

Thefirst biblical reference to bronze is found in Gen. 4:22, in which weare told that Tubal-Cain forged tools out of bronze and iron. Next,bronze is mentioned in its use in the tabernacle built in the desert.Among the bronze items included were the many bronze clasps and basesfor the tent construction (Exod. 26:11, 37; 27:10–11, 17–19).The altar and all its utensils were made of, or overlaid with, bronze(27:1–8). God also instructed Moses to make a bronze basin forwashing (30:18). Moses also made a snake out of bronze and placed iton top of his staff when the Israelites were struck with an abundanceof venomous snakes (Num. 21:9). Samson was bound with shackles ofbronze (Judg. 16:21), and Goliath wore armor and carried weapons ofbronze (1Sam. 17:5–6). Solomon used an extensive amountof bronze in his building of the temple (2Kings 25:16), andthere was bronze in the statue that Daniel dreamed of (Dan. 2:32,35). Many of the prophets used bronze as a way to discuss somethingthat was to be strong or strengthened by God (Isa. 45:2; Jer. 1:18;Ezek. 40:3).

Ironand Steel

Ironoriginally was found in meteorites and thus was scarce and worked asa precious metal. After a permanent source of iron ore was found,iron began to be worked in a few areas around 1200 BC. It increasedin popularity over time, and around 1000 BC, or roughly the time ofthe united monarchy, it was being extensively used. Phoeniciantraders were very active during this time, and they would havebrought much iron from the mines of southern Spain. Around the tenthcentury BC the technology to work iron into steel through thequenching and carbonization of the metal became commonplace. A largenumber of iron-producing sites have not been found in Palestine, andno deposits of the raw material have been located. Iron deposits havebeen found between the Jordan and the Euphrates rivers, but whetherthe ancients were aware of these deposits is unknown.

Oncethe technology to turn iron into steel became known, both becamehighly valued. At the same time, it is possible that copper hadbecome more difficult to obtain due to a change in internationaltrading routes. The first steel implement to be unearthed inPalestine was a pick found in Upper Galilee dating to the eleventhcenturyBC.

Oneof the earliest references to iron in Scripture is its use by theCanaanites to make chariots (Josh. 17:16, 18). This would have beenan early use of the metal in the Iron AgeI period (1200–1000BC). Also, Goliath’s spear, which was as big as a weaver’srod, is said to have had a head made of iron (1Sam. 17:7).Elisha’s miracle of making a borrowed ax head float (2Kings6:6) shows the continued value of the metal. In his latter days,David amassed iron among the goods to give Solomon to use in buildingthe temple (1Chron. 22:14; 29:2); Solomon later used thesematerials with the help of Huram-Abi (2Chron. 2:13–14).Ezekiel discusses the economic value of iron in the context oftrading (Ezek. 27:12, 19), and Daniel uses it as a metaphor fordiscussing strength (Dan. 2:40–41). The NT recognizes thestrength of iron when discussing Christ’s iron scepter (Rev.2:27; 19:15).

Tin

Tinwas initially used mainly to produce the copper alloy bronze. Tin wasnot used in its pure form until well into the Roman period, and eventhen seldom by itself. The sources of tin in the ancient world arecurrently debated. The tin from large deposits in Tarshish insouthern Spain (Ezek. 27:12) was available through Phoeniciantraders. Tin is also found in large deposits in Anatolia, but it iscurrently unknown whether these deposits had been discovered and usedduring biblical times. A third option is modern-day Afghanistan.Archaeologists have discovered in modern Turkey the remains of awrecked ship, dated to around 1350 BC, that was carrying ten tons ofcopper ingots and about one ton of tin ingots. These ingots possiblyoriginated in the area of modern-day Afghanistan and were bound forthe Mediterranean trade routes. Tin is mentioned only four times inScripture, always within a list of other metals (Num. 31:22; Ezek.22:18, 20; 27:12).

Lead

Leadwas used early in human history, but its applications were few. Itwould have been mined with copper and silver ore and then extractedas a by-product. The Romans used it for various implements, mostnotably wine vessels. It is referenced nine times within Scripture,either in a list or in reference to its weight. The only two times itis referenced as an object is when Job mentions a lead writingimplement (Job 19:24), and when Zechariah has the vision of a womansitting in the basket with a lead cover (Zech. 5:7, 8).

Goldand Silver

Soughtafter for much of human history, gold and silver have been worked byhumans for their ornamental value. The practical uses of these metalswithin the biblical setting were constrained mainly to their economicand ornamental value. Gold and silver jewelry were used as a form ofpayment and were minted into coins during the Greco-Roman era. Goldobjects are relatively scarce in archaeological finds, mainly becausemost gold items would have been part of a large treasury carried offas tribute or plunder. Silver appears in the archaeological recordmore frequently; a remarkable hoard of silver in lump form was foundat Eshtemoa (see 1Sam. 30:26–28). This silver has beendated to the time of the kingdom of Judah, after the northern kingdomof Israel had fallen. The silver in raw lump form was most likelyused as a monetary payment, even though it had not yet been mintedinto coins.

Goldin the ancient world came largely from Egypt and northern Africa. TheBible mentions Havilah as a land of gold (Gen. 2:11), as well asOphir (1Kings 9:28), but the exact location of both places isunknown. Silver was mined in southern Spain, along with other metals,and brought to the area through sea trading. The Athenians of theClassical period were also known for their vast silver-miningoperations.

Silverand gold are mentioned repeatedly in the OT in reference to theiruses in trading and their economic value. Most notably, theIsraelites asked their Egyptian neighbors to give them gold andsilver items just before they left Egypt (Exod. 3:22). The tabernaclewas highly ornamented with these two metals, as was the temple builtby Solomon. It is said that Solomon made the nation so wealthy thatsilver was considered as plentiful as stone (1Kings 10:27).Perhaps the most notorious articles of silver within Scripture arethose paid to Judas for his betrayal of Jesus (Matt. 26:15).

PreciousStones

Stonesof various origins were used in and around Palestine. The Bible makesfew references to their use. Like gold and silver, they were usedmainly for their ornamental value. Their scarcity made them highlyprized. One notable exception is turquoise. The Egyptian pharaohswere fascinated with turquoise, and they mined extensively for it onthe Sinai Peninsula. The remains of several turquoise mines have beenfound with Canaanite markings, indicating the presence of Canaaniteslaves working the Egyptian mines. There was also a line of fortsalong the northern edge of the Egyptian Empire, used presumably toprotect the pharaohs’ turquoise interests. Precious stones werealso found in Syria, where Phoenician traders would have been able tobring them from other parts of the known world.

Exodus28:17–21 describes twelve stones set in the breastpiece worn bythe Israelite high priest. Twelve stones likewise appear in thefoundations of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:19–20). Ezekiel usesnine of these same twelve stones to discuss the adornment of the kingof Tyre (Ezek. 28:13).

TheBible uses the blanket term “precious stones” to denote ahoard of riches, such as that owned by Solomon (1Kings 10:10).

In the NT the most common word used for “minister”is diakonos (e.g., 2Cor. 3:6), and for “ministry,”diakonia (e.g., 1Cor. 16:15 [NIV: “service”]).These words function as umbrella terms for NT writers to describe thewhole range of ministries performed by the church. They can describeeither a special ministry performed by an official functionary(1Cor. 3:5) or one performed by any believer (Rev. 2:19). Inthe early church, ministry was based not on institutional hierarchiesbut on services performed (1Tim. 3:1–13).

Theministry of Jesus.The church’s mind-set flows out of the way in which Jesusunderstood his ministry. He described his ministry pattern as that ofserving (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 13:4–17). Thus, hecalled his disciples to follow a model of leadership in the newcommunity that did not elevate them above others (Matt. 20:20–28;23:8–12; cf. 1Pet. 5:3).

Jesus’ministry provides the paradigm for the ministry of the church. The NTwriters describe the threefold ministry of Jesus as preaching,teaching, and healing (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14, 21–22, 39;Acts 10:36–38). The disciples carried on the earthly ministryof Jesus by the power of the Spirit. They too engaged in preaching,teaching, and healing (Matt. 10:7–8; 28:19–20).

Theministry of the church.The church, because it is the body of Christ, continues theseministry responsibilities. In 1Pet. 4:10–11 is a summaryof the overarching ministries of the church, which include speakingthe words of God and serving. As a priesthood of believers (Exod.19:4–6; 1Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:5–6), individualmembers took responsibility for fulfilling the various tasks ofservice. Thus, all Christians are called to minister (Rom. 15:27;Philem. 13; 1Pet. 2:16). Even when a member strayed, it wasanother believer’s responsibility to confront that waywardperson and, if necessary, involve others in the body to help (Matt.18:15–20).

Althoughministry was the responsibility of all believers, there were thosewith special expertise whom Christ and the church set apart forparticular leadership roles (Eph. 4:11–12). Christ set apartApollos and Paul for special ministries (1Cor. 3:5; Eph. 3:7).The church called on special functionaries to carry out specificministries. For example, the early church appointed seven individualsto serve tables (Acts 6:2). They appointed certain ones to carry therelief fund collected for the Jerusalem Christians (2Cor. 8:19,23). As special functionaries, Paul, Apollos, Timothy, Titus, theelders, as well as others accepted the responsibility of teaching andpreaching and healing for the whole church.

Allthe ministries of the church, whether performed by believers ingeneral or by some specially appointed functionary, were based ongifts received from God (Rom. 12:1–8; 1Cor. 12:4–26).God gave individuals the abilities necessary to perform works ofservice (Acts 20:24; Eph. 4:11; Col. 4:17; 1Tim. 1:12; 1Pet.4:11). The NT, however, makes it clear that when it comes to one’srelationship and spiritual status before God, all Christians areequal. Yet in equality there is diversity of gifts and talents. Paulidentifies some gifts given to individuals for special positions:apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11).The description here is of special ministry roles that Christ callscertain individuals to fulfill based on the gifts given to them. Theones fulfilling these roles did not do all the ministry of the churchbut rather equipped the rest of the body to do ministry (Eph.4:12–13). No one can boast in the gifts given to him or herbecause those gifts were given for ministry to others (1Cor.4:7). Thus, gifts lead to service, and in turn service results inleadership.

Itbecomes the responsibility of those who lead to equip others forministry. When others are equipped for ministry, they in turnminister and edify the whole body (Eph. 4:15–16; 2Tim.2:1–2). The goal of all ministry, according to Paul, is tobuild up a community of believers until all reach maturity in Christ(Rom. 15:15–17; 1Cor. 3:5–4:5; Eph. 4:12–16;1Thess. 2:19–20).

In the NT the most common word used for “minister”is diakonos (e.g., 2Cor. 3:6), and for “ministry,”diakonia (e.g., 1Cor. 16:15 [NIV: “service”]).These words function as umbrella terms for NT writers to describe thewhole range of ministries performed by the church. They can describeeither a special ministry performed by an official functionary(1Cor. 3:5) or one performed by any believer (Rev. 2:19). Inthe early church, ministry was based not on institutional hierarchiesbut on services performed (1Tim. 3:1–13).

Theministry of Jesus.The church’s mind-set flows out of the way in which Jesusunderstood his ministry. He described his ministry pattern as that ofserving (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 13:4–17). Thus, hecalled his disciples to follow a model of leadership in the newcommunity that did not elevate them above others (Matt. 20:20–28;23:8–12; cf. 1Pet. 5:3).

Jesus’ministry provides the paradigm for the ministry of the church. The NTwriters describe the threefold ministry of Jesus as preaching,teaching, and healing (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14, 21–22, 39;Acts 10:36–38). The disciples carried on the earthly ministryof Jesus by the power of the Spirit. They too engaged in preaching,teaching, and healing (Matt. 10:7–8; 28:19–20).

Theministry of the church.The church, because it is the body of Christ, continues theseministry responsibilities. In 1Pet. 4:10–11 is a summaryof the overarching ministries of the church, which include speakingthe words of God and serving. As a priesthood of believers (Exod.19:4–6; 1Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:5–6), individualmembers took responsibility for fulfilling the various tasks ofservice. Thus, all Christians are called to minister (Rom. 15:27;Philem. 13; 1Pet. 2:16). Even when a member strayed, it wasanother believer’s responsibility to confront that waywardperson and, if necessary, involve others in the body to help (Matt.18:15–20).

Althoughministry was the responsibility of all believers, there were thosewith special expertise whom Christ and the church set apart forparticular leadership roles (Eph. 4:11–12). Christ set apartApollos and Paul for special ministries (1Cor. 3:5; Eph. 3:7).The church called on special functionaries to carry out specificministries. For example, the early church appointed seven individualsto serve tables (Acts 6:2). They appointed certain ones to carry therelief fund collected for the Jerusalem Christians (2Cor. 8:19,23). As special functionaries, Paul, Apollos, Timothy, Titus, theelders, as well as others accepted the responsibility of teaching andpreaching and healing for the whole church.

Allthe ministries of the church, whether performed by believers ingeneral or by some specially appointed functionary, were based ongifts received from God (Rom. 12:1–8; 1Cor. 12:4–26).God gave individuals the abilities necessary to perform works ofservice (Acts 20:24; Eph. 4:11; Col. 4:17; 1Tim. 1:12; 1Pet.4:11). The NT, however, makes it clear that when it comes to one’srelationship and spiritual status before God, all Christians areequal. Yet in equality there is diversity of gifts and talents. Paulidentifies some gifts given to individuals for special positions:apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11).The description here is of special ministry roles that Christ callscertain individuals to fulfill based on the gifts given to them. Theones fulfilling these roles did not do all the ministry of the churchbut rather equipped the rest of the body to do ministry (Eph.4:12–13). No one can boast in the gifts given to him or herbecause those gifts were given for ministry to others (1Cor.4:7). Thus, gifts lead to service, and in turn service results inleadership.

Itbecomes the responsibility of those who lead to equip others forministry. When others are equipped for ministry, they in turnminister and edify the whole body (Eph. 4:15–16; 2Tim.2:1–2). The goal of all ministry, according to Paul, is tobuild up a community of believers until all reach maturity in Christ(Rom. 15:15–17; 1Cor. 3:5–4:5; Eph. 4:12–16;1Thess. 2:19–20).

A central concept in both Testaments for understanding theway in which God’s people are to respond to him. God desiresobedience from his people, in contrast to mere lip service (Isa.29:13; Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6) or conformity to religious ritual (Hos.6:6; Mic. 6:6–8). When Saul disobeyed God by sacrificing someof the spoil from his victory over the Amalekites, Samuel the prophetresponded, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed isbetter than the fat of rams” (1Sam. 15:22).

Inthe OT, obedience is often expressed in terms of keeping (Heb. shamar[e.g., Exod. 34:11]) or doing (Heb. ’asah [e.g., Lev. 18:4])God’s commands; other times, obedience is expressed aslistening (Heb. shama’) to the voice of God (Exod. 19:5 KJV,NASB), just as a student is obedient by listening to a teacher’svoice (Prov. 5:13 KJV, NASB). When God established the Mosaiccovenant with the Israelites, he commanded that they obey the lawsset forth in the covenant. If they faithfully obeyed his laws, Godwould bless them (Deut. 28:1–13); if they were not faithful, hewould curse them (Deut. 28:15–68). The subsequent history ofIsrael sadly chronicles the disobedience of God’s chosen peopleand the ensuing destruction that they experienced (2Kings18:9–12; 2Chron. 36:11–21), even though Godrepeatedly warned the people through his prophets that thisdestruction was coming if they did not turn from their wickedness(e.g., Isa. 1:19–20; Jer. 11:1–8).

Inthe NT, focus shifts from obedience to the Mosaic law to obedience toJesus Christ. The Great Commission contains Jesus’ instructionsfor his own disciples to make disciples, teaching them to “obey”(Gk. tēreō) that which Christ had commanded (Matt.28:19–20). Jesus’ disciples’ love for him wouldlead them to obey his commands (John 14:15, 21–24; 1John5:3; 2John 6), and the disciples’obedience, in turn, would cause them to remainin Jesus’ love (John 15:10). Paul instructs children to obeytheir parents and slaves to “obey” (Gk. hypakouō)their masters in obedience to Christ (Eph. 6:1, 5–6; Col. 3:20,22).

TheNT also discusses Christ’s perfect obedience to God the Fatheras a quality to imitate (Phil. 2:5–13) and as the basis forsalvation (Rom. 5:19). Since it is only “those who obey the lawwho will be declared righteous” (Rom. 2:13), and all havesinned (Rom. 3:23), “God made him who had no sin to be sin forus, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”(2Cor. 5:21).

Terminology

Theword “Palestine” is derived from the name of one of theSea Peoples (Heb. pelishtim) who migrated to the southern coastalregion of the Fertile Crescent from one or more of the coastalregions of the Mediterranean (see Philistines).

Theword “Palestine” has at times been used to refer to anarea as small as this southwestern coastal region (functioning attimes as a synonym for “Philistia”) and as large as theland on both sides of the Jordan River, including the Negev in thesouth.

MostEnglish versions of the Bible do not mention “Palestine,”although in the KJV the Hebrew word peleshet (usually rendered“Philistia” or “Philistines”) is translatedas “Palestina” in Exod. 15:14; Isa. 14:29, 31 and as“Palestine” in Joel 3:4.

Otherdesignations of this region within the Scripture include “Canaan”(Gen. 10:19; Josh. 22:9), “the land” (Gen. 13:17; Josh.2:1), “the land of Canaan” (Gen. 17:8; Num. 13:2), “theland of the Hebrews” (Gen. 40:15), “the land ...promised on oath” (Gen. 50:24; Deut. 6:23), in variouscombinations and order “the land of the Canaanites, Hittites,Amorites, Hivites, Periz-zites, Jebusites, and Girgash*tes”(Exod. 3:17; 13:5; 23:23), “the Lord’s land” (Josh.22:19), “the land of Israel” (1Sam. 13:19; Ezek.47:18), and “Trans-Euphrates,” which was “beyondthe river” from the perspective of those in Persia (Ezra 4:10;Neh. 2:7). Compare also “the tribes of Israel” (2Sam.24:2; Ezek. 47:13), “Israel and Judah” (2Sam. 5:5;2Chron. 30:6), and “from Dan to Beersheba” (Judg.20:1; 1Kings 4:25).

Inthe NT, this territory is usually designated by reference to theprovinces of Judea and Galilee (Matt. 2:22; John 7:1), whichsometimes are mentioned with the Decapolis (Matt. 4:25) and Samaria(Acts 9:31; cf. Luke 3:1).

Boundariesand Size

Boundaries.Palestine is in the southwestern portion of the Fertile Crescent(i.e., western Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel). It islocated northeast of the Nile River basin and west-southwest of thebasins of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Generallyspeaking, it is bounded by Lebanon to the north, the MediterraneanSea (=the Sea, the Great Sea, or the western sea) on the west,Wadi el-Arish (=the river of Egypt, the Wadi of Egypt) in thesouthwest, the Sinai Peninsula in the south, and the Transjordan inthe east (Gen. 15:18; Num. 34:3–7, 11–12; Deut. 1:7;11:24; 34:2; Josh. 1:4; 11:16; 2Kings 24:7). When theTransjordan is considered part of Palestine (cf. Deut. 34:1), theeastern boundary is the Syrian (Syro-Arabian) Desert. In severalbiblical texts the northeast boundary of this region is “thegreat river, the Euphrates” (Gen. 15:18; Deut. 1:7; 11:24;Josh. 1:4; 1Chron. 5:9; cf. 2Sam. 8:3).

Size.Becauseof fluidity in the use of the term “Palestine,” it isdifficult to speak precisely of the land area designated by it.Palestine west of the Jordan River is about six thousand squaremiles, similar to the land area of the state of Hawaii.

Adescription of “the whole land” viewed by Moses includedboth the Negev and Gilead, part of the Transjordan (Deut. 34:1–3).In the OT, the Negev is regularly included as one of the regions ofthe land on the west side of the Jordan (Deut. 1:7; Josh. 10:40;11:16; Jer. 17:26). The unity of the land on both sides of the Jordanis reflected in texts that focus on Israel’s inheritance ofland (Deut. 3:12–17), cities of refuge (Num. 35:14; Josh.20:7–8), and military victories (Josh. 12:1–8; 24:8–13).

Theland area of Palestine increases considerably if one includes theseareas, for the Transjordan region is about 4,000 square miles, whilethe Negev is about 4,600 square miles.

TopographicalRegions

Frequentseismic activity, the rising and falling of the landmass, anddeposits from the inundation and withdrawal of seas produced seventopographical regions current in Palestine.

Coastalplain.The coastal plain is the fertile terrain bordering the Mediterranean,though the coastline itself consists of beaches, sand dunes,wetlands, and rock cliffs.

Thesouthern portion of the coastal plain was once inhabited by thePhilistines (with the coastal cities of Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod).Moving north of the Yarkon River, we pass through the marshy Plain ofSharon and the Dor Plain. In the north, hills rise near Carmel andextend west to the central highlands. North of the Carmel range liethe Acco Plain, the Asher Plain, and the coastlands of Phoenicia(including Tyre and Sidon).

Hillcountry.The hill country is located between, and runs parallel to, thecoastal plain on the west and the Jordan Valley on the east. Thehills, ridges, plateaus, and valleys of the hill country are thesetting for most of the OT narratives.

Thehill country is bisected by the Jezreel Valley, which runs east-westfrom the Jordan Valley to the Bay of Acco (Haifa Bay), north ofCarmel.

Thehill country south of the Jezreel Valley is called “the centralhighlands,” which consist of the rough and rocky hills ofSamaria in the north (such as Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal) and themore arid (and, historically, less populated) Judean hill country inthe south. The highest hills of this area exceed three thousand feet.

InScripture the southern hill country (or portions of it) is called“the hill country of Judah/Judea” (Josh. 11:21; Luke1:39) and “the hill country of Bethel” (Josh. 16:1;1Sam. 13:2), while the northern (Samarian) hill country (orportions of it) is called “the hill country of Israel”(Josh. 11:21), “the hill country of Naphtali” (Josh.20:7), and, most frequently, “the hill country of Ephraim”(Josh. 17:15; Judg. 2:9; 1Kings 4:8).

Thehill country north of the Jezreel Valley consists of two parts, Lowerand Upper Galilee, divided by the fault through which runs Wadiesh-Shaghur. Lower Galilee has fertile basins and hills about twothousand feet above sea level. Farther north is Upper Galilee, withhills averaging about three thousand feet. It forms a transition tothe mountains of Lebanon, which lie to the north.

TheShephelah (“lowland” or “piedmont”) is theregion of gentle and rolling hills between five hundred and onethousand feet above sea level between the Judean hill country and thecoastal plain. These hills formerly were covered with sycamore treesand provided Judeans with protection against an attack from the west.

JezreelValley.The Jezreel Valley is often equated with the Plain of Esdraelon,though some distinguish the fault basin (Esdraelon) from the riftvalley (Jezreel).

Onits west side, this fertile plain begins north of Carmel at thecoast, moving east to the Jordan Valley. The central highlands lie tothe north (Galilee) and south (Samaria) of this plain.

Thefertile soil of this low-lying basin was valued for farming. Tradersand armies regularly passed through this great plain, and it wasoften the place of military conflict (cf. Judg. 6:33; 1Sam.29:1, 11; Hos. 1:5).

JordanValley.The Jordan Valley (also known as the Jordan Rift Valley or the DeadSea Rift) begins near the base of Mount Hermon in the north (9,232feet). Moving south, the rift continues to the Hula Valley, throughwhich the Jordan River flows to the Sea of Galilee (Sea ofGennesaret, Lake Kinnereth). The Sea of Galilee is about twelve mileslong and five miles wide, located within an area of hills andvalleys.

TheJordan River meanders south, flowing through a deep gorge and fallingthree thousand feet before coming to the Dead Sea (also called “theSea of the Arabah” [Deut. 4:49; Josh. 3:16] and “the SaltSea” [Num. 34:3, 12; Josh. 15:2, 5 ESV, NASB]), the lowestplace on earth. At its lowest point, the Dead Sea is more than 2,600feet below sea level.

TheJordan Valley rises as one continues south from the Dead Sea(forty-eight miles long and eight miles wide) through the arid Arabah(cf. Isa. 33:9; Zech. 14:10) to the Gulf of Aqaba.

Theterm “Arabah” is generally used to refer to the extensionof the rift south of the Dead Sea, though at one time in the historyof ancient Israel it referred to a region that included the JordanValley between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea, on both the east(Deut. 3:17; Josh. 12:1–3) and the west (Deut. 11:30; Josh.11:2; Ezek. 47:8) sides of the Jordan River.

Transjordan.TheTransjordan region is located east of the Jordan Valley and west ofthe Syrian (Syro-Arabian) Desert. Three major rivers run across thisregion, each moving from east to west. The Yarmouk (Yarmuk) and theJabbok (Zarqa) rivers empty into the Jordan River, while the ArnonRiver (Wadi el-Mujib) flows into the Dead Sea.

Inancient Israel, regions of the Transjordan, from north to south,included Bashan (Karnaim), north of the Yarmuk River; Gilead, southof the Yarmuk; Ammon, the region of modern-day Amman, southeast ofGilead; Moab, south of the Arnon River; and Edom, south of Wadiel-Hesa (Zered River [cf. Num. 21:12; Deut. 2:13–14]).

Thecapture of the territory belonging to Sihon between the Jabbok andthe Arnon rivers was a significant event in the history of ancientIsrael (Num. 21:24; Josh. 12:1–2).

Althoughthe Transjordan is often excluded from “Palestine,” therewere times in biblical history when the land on both sides of theJordan was considered a unit. For example, “the other half ofManasseh, the Reubenites and the Gadites” received their tribalinheritance east of the Jordan (cf. Josh. 13:8–32). Theyinhabited Bashan, Gilead, and the land of the Amorites (cf. Deut.3:12–17; 34:1; Judg. 20:1).

Accordingto 2Sam. 8, David established control over Moab (vv. 2, 12),the Beqaa Valley (“along the Euphrates River” [v.3GW]), Aram (v.6; vv. 12–13 MT), Ammon and Amalek (v.12),and Edom (v.14; vv. 12–13 LXX, Syriac; cf. 1Chron.18:2–13).

InScripture, the central Transjordan hill country is sometimes called“the hill country of Gilead” (Gen. 31:21, 23, 25; Deut.3:12). The southern elevated region in Edom is called “the hillcountry of Seir” (Gen. 36:8–9; Deut. 2:5).

Negev.The Negev (Negeb) is shaped like an inverted triangle with its peakat the southern city of Eilat (Elath) near the biblical Ezion Geber(cf. 1Kings 9:26). It is bounded on the north by the Judeanhill country, on the west by Sinai, and on the east by the ArabahValley (which lies along the rift south of the Dead Sea).

TheNegev is an extremely dry area, with the most rain found in thenorthern (twelve inches annually) and western (ten inches annually)sections, and the least in the Arabah Valley (two inches annually).It is a place of sand dunes, rocky desert, and brown hills thatincrease in height as one moves toward Sinai.

Althoughthe Negev is described as “a land of hardship and distress, oflions and lionesses, of adders and darting snakes” (Isa. 30:6),it was also a place of wells and springs, in addition to cities andtowns such as Beersheba (Josh. 15:21–32; 2Sam. 24:7).

Sinaipeninsula.The Sinai peninsula is about twenty-three thousand square miles. Itconsists primarily of plains, plateaus, and hills (the highest ofwhich is Jebel Yiallaq, at 3,656 feet), with a coastline along theMediterranean of 145 miles.

Thelongest river in the region is the Wadi el-Arish, which runs 155miles northward from central Sinai to the Mediterranean.

Israel’sactivities in the Desert of Sinai are often mentioned in thePentateuch (e.g., Exod. 19:1–2; Num. 1:1; 9:5).

TheDesert of Sinai is distinguished from the Desert of Sin (Exod. 16:1)and the Desert of Paran (Num. 10:12). Other arid areas within theSinai Peninsula include the Desert of Zin (Num. 34:3), the Desert ofShur (Exod. 15:22), and the Desert of Etham (Num. 33:8).

Climate

Theclimate of Palestine consists of a dry and hot season from June toAugust and a wet season from mid-October to mid-April. It is commonfor the wet season to consist of two distinct periods of heavy rain,one at the beginning and one toward the end of this period (cf.“spring and autumn rains” [Deut. 11:14; Joel 2:23; James5:7]).

Twotransitional seasons of about six weeks each bridge the wet and thedry seasons. One occurs between early September and the end ofOctober, the other between early April and the middle of June.

Averagetemperatures throughout the region range from 46.5–55 degrees(Fahrenheit) in January (both the coldest and the wettest month inPalestine) to 71.5–93 degrees in August.

Mostrainfall in Palestine occurs as cyclonic storm systems (abouttwenty-five each year) bring warm air from North Africa eastward overthe Mediterranean, clashing with cooler air from Europe and Asia. Asclouds move over the land, precipitation falls heaviest on the westside of the hills, leaving the east side of the hills with less rain.

Typically,rainfall is heaviest in the northern areas of Palestine, the regionsclosest to the Mediterranean, and in the Transjordan. The area aroundthe Dead Sea is extremely dry, with evaporation exceedingprecipitation. In contrast, the northern highlands have forty inchesof annual rainfall.

InPalestine, precipitation can also take the form of both snow (cf.2Sam. 23:20; Prov. 25:13) and, in a significant way, dew (cf.Judg. 6:37–40; Song 5:2). Dew provides moisture for agricultureespecially in the coastal plain, the central highlands, and theJezreel Valley.

Duringthe transitional seasons, desiccating winds (sometimes called siroccowinds) bring warm desert air from the east (and at times from thesouth), raising the temperature and lowering the relative humiditythroughout Palestine. These winds often bring fine dust from thedesert. The effects are most onerous in the Jordan Valley. Referencesto an east wind in Scripture are common (Gen. 41:6; Hos. 13:15; Jon.4:8; see also “south wind” in Job 37:17; Luke 12:55).

Roads

Twomajor highways passed through Palestine: “the Way of the Sea,”or Via Maris (cf. Isa. 9:1; Matt. 4:15), and “the King’sHighway” (cf. Num. 20:17; 21:22).

TheWay of the Sea moved north from Egypt through the coastal plain,heading east through the Jezreel Valley. From this point it branchedout in three directions: northwest through Phoenicia, north towardDamascus, and east to join with the King’s Highway.

TheKing’s Highway was a Transjordanian route passing from the Gulfof Aqaba in the south (cf. Deut. 2:8) through Edom, Moab, Gilead, andBashan to Damascus in the north.

Merchantsand armies used these highways to pass through Palestine, while localtraffic often used east-west roads to move throughout the area.

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.

The presence of God is one of the most significant themes inthe Bible. At the very heart of worshiping God and having arelationship with him is experiencing his presence. Related themessuch as God’s power and glory are also inextricablyinterconnected to his presence.

OldTestament

Thebiblical story begins with humankind experiencing and enjoying God’spresence in a very personal way, as God walks with Adam and Eve inthe garden. Adam and Eve, however, soon disobey God and are thusdriven out of the garden and away from the close, intimate presenceof God (Gen. 3:22–24). Throughout the rest of Scripture, Godunfolds his plan to restore this lost relationship, a relationshipthat centers on his presence.

AlthoughGod makes his presence known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Genesis,it is in Exodus that the presence of God becomes even more central tothe story. When God first calls Moses, he promises his powerfulpresence, declaring, “I will be with you” (Exod. 3:12).The power of God’s presence is revealed as God guides andprotects the fleeing Israelites in the form of a pillar of cloud byday and a pillar of fire by night (13:21–22). The presence ofGod also plays a critical role in the formal covenant relationshipthat God makes with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19). At the heart ofthe covenant is a threefold statement by God: “I will be yourGod”; “you will be my people”; “I will dwellin your midst” (cf. Exod. 6:7; Lev. 26:11–12). Followingup on his promise to dwell in their midst, God next gives the peopleexplicit instructions on how to build the tabernacle, the place wherehe will dwell (Exod. 25:8–9). Throughout the latter chapters ofExodus, God’s glory is clearly associated with his presence(33:12–23; 40:34–38); in fact, God’s presence andglory are nearly synonymous.

God’spresence resides in the tabernacle until Solomon builds the temple inJerusalem (1Kings 6–7). At that time, the presence andglory of God then fill the holy place of the temple and dwell there.Over the next four hundred years, however, Israel and Judahrepeatedly abandon God and turn to worshiping idols. The peoplerepeatedly refuse to repent and to listen to God’s prophets.Eventually, therefore, their idolatrous sin and terrible socialinjustices drive God out of their midst. Ezekiel 8–10 describesthis somber, momentous event as the glory and presence of God departfrom the temple. Before long, as the prophets warned, the Babylonianscapture Jerusalem and destroy both the city and the empty temple. Itis significant to remember that when the temple is later rebuiltduring the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, the presence and glory of Goddo not come back to fill the new temple. Thus, from the departure ofGod in Ezek. 10 until the arrival of Jesus Christ, the Jews livewithout the powerful presence of God dwelling in their midst.

Althoughthe prophets had warned Israel and Judah that they would lose thepresence of God as part of the imminent judgment, they also promiseda powerful and glorious restoration of God’s presence in themessianic future. Furthermore, both Ezekiel and Joel promise that Godwill actually put his Spirit directly within his people (Ezek.36:26–28; Joel 2:28). No longer limited to the holy of holiesin the temple, under the new covenant the presence of God willactually indwell each of his people.

NewTestament

Inthe NT, the coming of Jesus is clearly identified as the newmanifestation of God’s presence that was foretold in theprophets (Matt. 1:22–23; John 1:14). Jesus’ entry intothe temple is highly significant, therefore, because it signals areturn of the presence of God to the temple after an absence of oversix hundred years (Matt. 21:12–17; John 2:12–24).Ironically, in the temple Jesus encounters only hostility andhypocritical worship; the presence of God is rejected once again.

Afterthe death and resurrection of Jesus, the Holy Spirit falls on hisfollowers, filling them with God’s powerful presence (Acts2:1–13), thus fulfilling the prophecies of Ezekiel and Joel.This new presence of God does not come to dwell in the temple;rather, it comes upon believers to dwell within them in a much morepersonal and relational way.

Asthe biblical story reaches its culmination at the end of the book ofRevelation, God declares, “God’s dwelling place is nowamong the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be hispeople, and God himself will be with them and be their God”(21:3). The story has gone full circle: God has returned his peopleto the garden and come to dwell in their midst so that they can enjoyhis wonderful presence eternally.

In the most basic sense, a priest is mediator between God andhumanity. Although there are hints in Gen. 1–2 that Adam andEve performed a priestly role in the garden, when the OT speaks ofthe priesthood, it most frequently refers to those involved in theservice of the tabernacle or temple under the Mosaic covenant. Butbefore the formal institution of the Mosaic covenant, God commandedMoses to tell the people of Israel, “If you obey me fully andkeep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasuredpossession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me akingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:5–6). Godintends all Israel to be a conduit of his presence to a lost andrebellious world. The rest of the Pentateuch indicates that Israelwas to do this in three ways: (1)practice the law of God as anexample of his holiness; (2)proclaim the mighty deeds of God asa testimony to his power; (3)preserve the word of God as ademonstration of his faithfulness. This, then, was the responsibilityof each Israelite individually and corporately as a people.

Asthe OT unfolds, Israel clearly fails to live up to this loftycalling. But the prophet Isaiah looks forward to a day when God’sredeemed people “will be called priests of the Lord, you willbe named ministers of our God” (Isa. 61:6). This will happen asa result of the Spirit-anointed figure who brings good news to thepoor and the year of God’s favor (Isa. 61:1–4). Jesusclaims that his life, ministry, and death are the fulfillment of thispromise (Luke 4:16–21), which suggests that now is the timethat God’s people can rightly be said to be “priests ofthe Lord.”

Thisconclusion is confirmed in 1Pet. 2:4–10. In the midst ofseveral quotations of and allusions to OT passages, Peter takes upthe language of Exod. 19:6 when he says to believers, “You area chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’sspecial possession, that you may declare the praises of him whocalled you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (v.9).What Israel failed to be because of its persistent rebellion againstGod, believers are. But believers are not a royal priesthood becausethey are somehow better than Israel; they are a royal priesthoodbecause they are united to Jesus Christ. Peter emphasizes this whenearlier in the passage he refers to believers as living stones “beingbuilt into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offeringspiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ”(v.5). Because Jesus is the great high priest who offered hisown blood for the sins of his people (Heb. 9:11–14), believersmust “continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—thefruit of lips that openly profess his name. And do not forget to dogood and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God ispleased” (Heb. 13:15–16).

Thereare at least three practical ramifications of the priesthood ofbelievers. First, each believer is to be a channel through whichGod’s presence and character are made known in this world.Second, everything that the believer does, even down to eating anddrinking, should be done to reflect the character and glory of God(1Cor. 10:31; Col. 3:17). Third, each believer has a role toplay in the advancement of God’s kingdom.

In the most basic sense, a priest is mediator between God andhumanity. Although there are hints in Gen. 1–2 that Adam andEve performed a priestly role in the garden, when the OT speaks ofthe priesthood, it most frequently refers to those involved in theservice of the tabernacle or temple under the Mosaic covenant. Butbefore the formal institution of the Mosaic covenant, God commandedMoses to tell the people of Israel, “If you obey me fully andkeep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasuredpossession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me akingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:5–6). Godintends all Israel to be a conduit of his presence to a lost andrebellious world. The rest of the Pentateuch indicates that Israelwas to do this in three ways: (1)practice the law of God as anexample of his holiness; (2)proclaim the mighty deeds of God asa testimony to his power; (3)preserve the word of God as ademonstration of his faithfulness. This, then, was the responsibilityof each Israelite individually and corporately as a people.

Asthe OT unfolds, Israel clearly fails to live up to this loftycalling. But the prophet Isaiah looks forward to a day when God’sredeemed people “will be called priests of the Lord, you willbe named ministers of our God” (Isa. 61:6). This will happen asa result of the Spirit-anointed figure who brings good news to thepoor and the year of God’s favor (Isa. 61:1–4). Jesusclaims that his life, ministry, and death are the fulfillment of thispromise (Luke 4:16–21), which suggests that now is the timethat God’s people can rightly be said to be “priests ofthe Lord.”

Thisconclusion is confirmed in 1Pet. 2:4–10. In the midst ofseveral quotations of and allusions to OT passages, Peter takes upthe language of Exod. 19:6 when he says to believers, “You area chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’sspecial possession, that you may declare the praises of him whocalled you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (v.9).What Israel failed to be because of its persistent rebellion againstGod, believers are. But believers are not a royal priesthood becausethey are somehow better than Israel; they are a royal priesthoodbecause they are united to Jesus Christ. Peter emphasizes this whenearlier in the passage he refers to believers as living stones “beingbuilt into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offeringspiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ”(v.5). Because Jesus is the great high priest who offered hisown blood for the sins of his people (Heb. 9:11–14), believersmust “continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—thefruit of lips that openly profess his name. And do not forget to dogood and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God ispleased” (Heb. 13:15–16).

Thereare at least three practical ramifications of the priesthood ofbelievers. First, each believer is to be a channel through whichGod’s presence and character are made known in this world.Second, everything that the believer does, even down to eating anddrinking, should be done to reflect the character and glory of God(1Cor. 10:31; Col. 3:17). Third, each believer has a role toplay in the advancement of God’s kingdom.

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).

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestial*ty (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); hom*osexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestial*ty (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); hom*osexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

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 idea that the church and state should remain independententities in order to preserve religious and civil freedom. While thisidea has taken most of its shape from discussions in the UnitedStates, the Bible often speaks about the attitudes of God’speople toward their government.

AfterIsrael was freed from Egypt, God made it a “holy nation”(Exod. 19:5–6). All ancient Near Eastern nations weretheocracies, and Israel was no different. As a theocracy, “churchand state” were united under God’s rule, but this unionwas imperfect. Prophets frequently challenged wicked leaders (1 Sam.2:27–36; 1 Kings 18:2). Then Israel was divided (1 Kings12). Finally the exile obliterated any “church-state”unity that Israelite society had left. Daniel and his friends had toexperience the difficulty of living faithfully in foreign societies.

Butthe exiles helped Israel to understand that God’s kingdom waseternal (Dan. 2:44–45). In the face of Roman rule, Jesusannounced its appearing (Mark 1:15), but he did not advocate militaryrevolt as did the Zealots of his day (John 18:36). Following Jesus,Paul taught of a citizenship in heaven (Phil. 3:20) while affirmingsome loyalty to Rome (Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Tim. 2:1–2).Peter concurred (1 Pet. 2:11–17), though he alsoemphasized the theme of God’s judgment (2 Pet. 3:7), atheme continued against imperial Rome in Revelation. In sum, thechurch finds itself as a kingdom among kingdoms. While warfare occursin the spiritual realm (Eph. 6:12), God’s people are to conductthemselves as peaceful pilgrims as they look for a better country(Heb. 11:16).

In the ancient world, shame and honor are two binaryopposites used to depict one’s status or behavior, which aculture approves or disapproves. The system of honor and shame servesas a primary means of social control. Thus, knowing how to act toconform to the code of social behavior expected by one’s groupis essential to the maintenance of that community.

Inthe Bible, the noun “honor” is representedby kabod (from the verb “to be heavy”) in the OT, and bytimē (from the verb “to honor”) in the NT. Thereverse of honor is shame, which is represented by a varietyof Hebrew and Greek terms, such as boshet in the OT, and aischynēin the NT.

InIsrael, the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26; cf. Num. 5:2–3;8:6–7, 14–15) is comparable to the code of honor andshame. As a covenant community, Israel has the obligation to abide bythe sanction imposed by God to attain honor (Deut. 4:6–8;26:18–19; Pss. 34:5, 8–9; 37:18–19; 127:5; cf.2Chron. 26:18; Pss. 8:5; 62:7; 84:11; Rom. 2:7–11).Israel is honored (Exod. 32:11–12; Deut. 32:26–27) beforethe nations when God’s honor is upheld (Exod. 7:5; 10:1–2;14:4, 17–18). Violation of covenantal stipulations—forexample, deceptions in trading (Deut. 25:16), acts of “abomination”(Lev. 18:17, 22–23, 26–29), idolatry (Deut. 31:20;32:15–17), and failure to perform duties prescribed in the law(Deut. 25:7–10)—results in disgrace before others (Exod.32:25) and God (Deut. 28:25–26, 37).

Thestatus of honor can be ascribed to an individual. A person is morehonorable who is the firstborn (Gen. 49:3), comes from an esteemedfamily (Ps. 45:9), or is married into a dignified family (Gen. 41:45;Ruth 4:5). This worth will last a lifetime unless the reputation ofthe family is compromised, either because of economics (Ruth 1:1–21)or violation of the codes of conduct, such as adultery and incest(Exod. 20:14; Lev. 18:20; 20:10–21; Deut. 5:18; 22:22; Prov.6:32–33), though not necessarily divorce (Deut. 24:1–4).Certain groups of people are honored because of special privilegegranted to them (Prov. 8:15–16; Dan. 2:21; Rom. 13:1–5)—forexample, priests (Exod. 28:2, 40; Ps. 110:4; Heb. 7:21), kings (Ps.2:7), sages (Prov. 3:35), Israel (Exod. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; 8:11–9:7;26:16–19), and the church (1Pet. 2:9).

Wealthsymbolizes one’s status and claims respect for its owners (Gen.12:10–20; 14:21–24; 1Kings 3:13; Prov. 3:16; 8:18;22:4; Ps. 49:16; Isa. 61:6, 12) but does not equate the state ofbeing poor with shame (cf. Ps. 12:5) unless it is a result of morallassitude (Prov. 13:18). Parts of the human body symbolize worth andvalue. Certain parts of the body are less honorable than others, andto expose them is to invite disgrace (2Sam. 10:4–5;1Chron. 19:4; Isa. 20:4; 1Cor. 12:23–24).

Thestatus of honor can also be achieved by an individual’s merits(cf. Rom. 2:7–11). Certain types of behavior are honorable—forexample, humility (Prov. 15:33; 18:12; 29:23), taking care of one’smaster (Prov. 27:18), honoring parents (Exod. 20:12; 21:15; 22:28;Prov. 19:26; Mal. 1:6; Matt. 15:4; Eph. 6:2), good service (Gen.45:13), military exploits (2Sam. 23:19–23; cf. 2Chron.32:21), almsgiving and justice (Prov. 21:21). One important aspect ofachieving honor is the pursuit of wisdom. The ways of wisdom arehonorable (Prov. 3:16–17; 4:8; 8:18), preserving a person fromdishonor (Prov. 3:16–17, 31–33, 35; 24:14), but the waysof folly, such as injustice (Prov. 1:22; 14:31) and dishonoringparents (Prov. 30:17; cf. Exod. 20:12; 21:15; Lev. 20:9; Deut.27:16), are a disgrace (Prov. 20:3; 26:1). The failure to performone’s duty (Gen. 40:1–3) or a defeat in battle (Isa.23:9; Lam. 1:8; Nah. 3:10) results in shame and, accordingly, loss ofsocial status (Isa. 16:14; 23:9; Jer. 46:12; Lam. 1:6, 8; Hos. 4:7).An ultimate form of disgrace is to be hanged for public viewing(Deut. 21:22–23; Esther 5:14; 7:7–10; Matt. 27:32–44;Mark 15:22–32; Luke 23:33–43; John 19:17–24; 1Cor.1:18–25). In a patriarchal society, the status of women isobtained through their sexual exclusiveness. Their chastity (Gen.38:24; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:13–21; cf. 2Sam. 13:13; Song8:8–9) and fertility (Gen. 16:2; 30:2; 1Sam. 1:3–8)become indicators of family and social worth.

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).

The concept of Israel is a complex one in the Bible. Itconsists of political, ethnic, and spiritual aspects. In distinctionfrom Israel as a political state (the northern kingdom) or as anethnic nation (sons of Israel, also known as Hebrews or Jews), Israelmay also represent a group of people with whom God has established aspecial relationship. The nature of that relationship is that Yahwehwill be their God, and they will be his people (e.g., Exod. 6:7; Lev.26:12).

“Israel”as a word representing the people of God emerges because of God’sdealings with humankind. It begins with God’s choice of ethnicIsrael. He chooses Israel as he delivers it from Egypt to Canaan. Atfirst, his choice of Israel is a result of his relationship withAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel) and the covenant that he made withthem (see Exod. 3:6–10). At Sinai, God invites the nation ofIsrael to a covenant in which it will be a treasured possession, akingdom of priests, and a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). Thenation accepts but quickly breaks the covenant, and so God threatensto destroy the nation completely (Exod. 32). On the plains of Moab,immediately preceding the conquest of Canaan, Moses and the priestswarn the nation that it has become the people of God and so must obeyall that God has commanded (Deut. 27:9). Because of the specialrelationship that God establishes with ethnic Israel, the word“Israel” is extended to represent the people of God.

Sincethe Israelites were the people of Yahweh, he was to be their God.This aspect of God’s relationship with ethnic Israel is clearfrom the start. In Exod. 6:7 Yahweh promises to make Israel hispeople and to be their God. At the end of a long list of blessingsfor Israel’s obedience, Lev. 26:12 reads as follows: “Iwill walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people.”As the people of Yahweh, they were expected to obey what he commanded(Deut. 27:9). However, Israel would not obey. The biblical portraitof Israel’s history is marked by widespread disobedience, withfew exceptions.

Againstthis background of disobedience, the prophets spoke about the futurefor the people of God. Hosea prophesies against Israel because thepeople have abandoned Yahweh as their God, who therefore calls them“not my people” (Hos. 1:9–10); but one day thosewho are called “not my people” will be God’s people(Hos. 2:23). Jeremiah predicts a day in the future in which Israelwill be Yahweh’s people, and he will be their God (Jer. 24:7;30:22; 31:1, 33). Ezekiel likewise speaks of such a day in the future(Ezek. 11:20; 14:11; 36:28; 37:23, 27). Even though Israel is oftencalled “the people of God” in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, thesepassages show that there is some distinction made between all ethnicIsrael and Israel as the people of God.

Paulpicks up on the distinction between ethnic Israel and Israel as thepeople of God when he states that not all those who are ethnic Israel(descended from Israel) are Israel (Rom. 9:6). In other words, beinga member of ethnic Israel does not guarantee that a person is amember of the people of God. Paul states instead that there is aremnant of ethnic Israel that belongs to the people of God, alongwith some from the Gentiles (9:23–29). As Paul elaboratesfurther, the people of God are comprised of those who have attainedthe righteousness that comes from God through faith (9:30–10:13).

Theprecise relationship of ethnic Israel to spiritual Israel is a topicof much debate. The issue has far-reaching implications for theinterpretation of prophecy, the future of ethnic Israel, and therelationship between the OT and the NT. Important passages to examineinclude Rom. 9:6; 11:1; Gal. 6:16; 1Pet. 2:1–10. In thesepassages both ethnic Israel (Rom. 11:1) and the church are regardedas God’s people (Gal. 6:16; 1Pet. 2:1–10).

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheCovenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenantsin the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheCovenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenantsin the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ten Commandments are also identified as the Decalogue,meaning the “Ten Words.” These commands are part of theBible’s legal literature revealed by God to his people Israel.They are the words of the covenant (Exod. 34:28) and define Yahweh’scovenant relationship with Israel. Some biblical laws are conditionaland written in the style of case law, which employs an “if... then” personalized format (most of Exod.21:2–22:17; Deut. 21:18–19; 22:6–9; 23:21–25;24:10–12). Other laws are stated in absolute terms: “youshall...” or “you shall not...”(Exod. 22:18–23:19). The latter, second-person formatcharacterizes the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut.5:6–21).

TheTen Commandments were revealed at Mount Sinai after the exodus fromEgypt and prior to the conquest of the land (Exod. 20:1–17).These laws were restated with some variation to a second generationof Israelites approximately thirty-eight years later in Moab, east ofthe Jordan River (Deut. 5:1–5). Because the postexodusgeneration refused to believe God and enter the land, theyexperienced the wrath of God, which brought their demise over athirty-eight-year period. God then renewed his covenant with thesucceeding generation and made preparations for them to enter thepromised land (Deut. 2).

TheTen Commandments are prefaced with a staggering manifestation of God(Exod. 19) that accentuates his awesome character. This theophanyrevealed the transcendent God, who speaks his word to his people fromheaven as the Great King. At this point in redemptive history, Israelwas established as an independent nation, and the mediatorial role ofMoses was confirmed (Exod. 19:9). The declaration of divine law doesnot mean the absence of grace. The grace of redemption in the exoduspreceded the statement of law at Sinai. In both Exodus andDeuteronomy, the Decalogue is prefaced by God’s statement: “Iam the Lord your God” (Exod. 20:2; Deut. 5:6) to underscore theimportance of relationship.

InDeuteronomy, the Ten Commandments function within the overallsuzerainty treaty structure used by Moses to organize the book. Thisstructure is common in the ancient Near East, and the biblicalmaterial bears some similarity to Hittite treaties. In suzeraintreaties, the servants (vassals) are obligated to fulfill the will ofthe king (suzerain), which is reflected in Deut. 4:44–11:32. Asin Exodus, the Decalogue of Deuteronomy (5:6–21) is a summaryof the will of God.

TheDecalogue contains mainly negative commands. There are two positivecommands, those enjoining remembrance of the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8;Deut. 5:12) and honor for parents (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16). Thecommands vary in length, style, and content. Some commands includemotivational or explanatory statements. The first four commands ofthe Decalogue refer to humans’ relationship with God, and theremaining six refer to humans’ relationships with one another,especially with fellow covenant partners.

TheDecalogue is the basis for understanding all other OT laws. Theprophets used the Ten Commandments as a basis of appeal to thenation. Often, the prophetic message of the Major Prophets and theMinor Prophets is an exposition of Israel’s failure to conformto the will of its Great King declared in the law along with anappeal to return to his gracious ways.

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).

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestial*ty (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); hom*osexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestial*ty (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); hom*osexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

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).

The English term “witness” occurs in bothTestaments numerous times, with a wide range of meanings. One commonmeaning relates to someone who gives legal testimony and to thelegitimacy of that testimony (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15–16,18; Prov. 12:17; Isa. 8:16, 20). Throughout the NT the term occursprimarily in the context of someone bearing witness—especiallyGod—or testifying to something (Rom. 1:9; 2Cor. 1:23;Phil. 1:8; 1Thess. 2:5, 10), though it also has a forensicdimension in regard to one who establishes legal testimony (e.g.,Acts 6:13; 7:58; 2Cor. 13:1; 1Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28).

Centralto the concept of witness is the truthfulness of the witness. Thiswas a vital component of the OT concept of witness. Thus, in legalproceedings a lone witness was insufficient to establish testimonyagainst anyone (Deut. 17:6). This principle carries over into the NT(cf. Matt. 18:16; 2Cor. 13:1). Such truthfulness was sosignificant that the ninth commandment expressly forbids bearingfalse witness (Exod. 20:16; Deut. 5:20; cf. Prov. 19:5, 9).

Truth-tellingwas not something that the people of Israel were called to merelyamong themselves. They were to be God’s witnesses to thenations (Isa. 43:10; 44:8). As witnesses of God’s existence andholiness, they were called to be separate from the nations (Exod.19:6) and to be a light to them (Isa. 49:6). Tragically, Israelfailed in this responsibility and was deemed “blind”(Isa. 42:19).

TheNT continues the concept that the people of God are to be God’switnesses. John the Baptist is commissioned “to testifyconcerning that light” (John 1:7). It is in this context thatJesus later declares himself to be “the light of the world”(John 8:12; 9:5). Jesus himself is the exemplar of a “faithfulwitness” (Rev. 1:5). And his followers, whom he has designatedas “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14), are then calledto bear witness to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).

“Witness”is also employed in terms of a legal testimony regarding what one hasseen. That the disciples were intent on establishing such legaltestimony is evident in their stipulation that the person to replaceJudas Iscariot be someone from among those who had been with Jesusfrom the beginning of his ministry to his ascension, so that “oneof these must become a witness with us of his resurrection”(Acts 1:22). This forensic aspect of witness appears in the close ofthe Gospel of John: “This is the disciple who testifies tothese things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony istrue” (21:24). Paul demonstrates this forensic concern forwitnesses when he references Peter, the Twelve, some five hundredothers, and himself as among those who have witnessed theresurrection (1Cor. 15:3–8).

Whilelinguistically the Greek word martys(“witness”) has given rise to the English term “martyr,”at the time of the NT martysdid not connote physical martyrdom. Instead, it is likely that theuse of this term in the book of Revelation and its association withthe deaths of those who faithfully witnessed to Jesus Christ and thegospel in the face of persecution gave rise to its application in thetechnical sense of “martyr.”

ThroughoutRevelation there resides a direct link between Christians bearingwitness and suffering, and perhaps dying, as a consequence of thiswitness. This is evident in the mention of Antipas, who was martyred,and is then designated as “my faithful witness” (Rev.2:13). Also, the two unnamed witnesses in 11:1–12, whoexplicitly function as witnesses, are the subject of attack and areeventually murdered. Their murder occurs only after they havefinished “their testimony” (11:7).

Itis this association of persecution and martyrdom that likely leads tothe second-century employment of “martyr” as adesignation for those who bear witness to Christ to the point ofdeath. See also Martyr.