Sermon and Worship Resources (2024)

In the OT, the Hebrew words ruakh (“breath, spirit”) and neshamah (“blast, spirit”) are the standard terms, even collectively translated “wind.” Constructively, these terms reflect the vibrant relationship between God and humankind. However, God’s “breath” can also be an agent of judgment. So “breath/wind” is the invasive power of God—proof of his supremacy—capable of disruption or transformation of human life.

It is in human creation that God’s breath is given one of its most dynamic illustrations. Formed of “dust,” the human being must be enlivened by the Creator’s breath. In the OT, human flesh remains dormant and helplessly passive until God breathes; then a living human being is animated (Gen. 2:7; 6:17; cf. Pss. 33:6; 104:29).

“Breath/wind” is also a powerful force in God’s anger, when a “blast of breath from his nostrils” can undo and destroy (2Sam. 22:16). Similarly, a “strong east wind” rolls back the Red Sea for the Israelites’ crossing (Exod. 14:21), but the very same force is the undoing of Pharaoh’s army, which was destroyed as God, Israel’s warrior, “blew” with his “breath” (Exod. 15:10).

Not surprisingly, themes combining breath, wind, and spirit are also used to describe new creation (Ezek. 37:9). The life-generating force of the ruakh/spirit emerges in the NT as the Holy Spirit, manifested in wind, a breath, or Spirit (Gk. pneuma). At Pentecost “a violent wind came from heaven,” enacting another creation (Acts 2:2). John clearly symbolizes Jesus’ “breathing” on the disciples (John 20:22). Not only does this illustrate John’s theology of being born “from above” (3:3 NRSV), but also “he breathed” reenacts the enlivening of Gen. 2:7. The two creations are connected: God’s enlivening in Gen. 2:7 and Jesus’ creation of eternal life following his own resurrection.

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).

The tangible presence of God, experienced as overwhelming power and splendor. The main Hebrew word referring to glory, kabod, has the root meaning “heavy” (1Sam. 4:18), which in other contexts can mean “intense” (Exod. 9:3; NIV: “terrible”), “wealthy” (i.e., “heavy in possessions” [Gen. 13:2]), and “high reputation” (Gen. 34:19; NIV: “most honored”). When used of God, it refers to his person and his works. God reveals his glory to Israel and to Egypt at the crossing of the sea (Exod. 14:4, 1719). He carefully reveals his glory to Moses after Israel’s sin with the golden calf in order to assure him that he will not abandon them (33:12–23).

In the 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).

The Bible contains many references to minerals and metals. Minerals can encompass a wide array of topics, thus the focus here is on valuable minerals such as ornamental stones as well as precious and useful metals.

Copper. References to copper within the Bible are few. Several passages discuss the basic origins of copper, such as the gathering of ore or the smelting process (Deut. 8:9; Job 28:2; Ezek. 22:18, 20; 24:11). Several NT passages acknowledge the presence of minted copper coins as currency (Matt. 10:9; Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2). Pure copper, however, was hard to use, although it could be combined with tin to make the alloy bronze.

Bronze. The first biblical reference to bronze is found in Gen. 4:22, in which we are 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 bases for the tent construction (Exod. 26:11, 37; 27:1011, 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 for washing (30:18). Moses also made a snake out of bronze and placed it on top of his staff when the Israelites were struck with an abundance of venomous snakes (Num. 21:9). Samson was bound with shackles of bronze (Judg. 16:21), and Goliath wore armor and carried weapons of bronze (1Sam. 17:5–6). Solomon used an extensive amount of bronze in his building of the temple (2Kings 25:16), and there was bronze in the statue that Daniel dreamed of (Dan. 2:32, 35). Many of the prophets used bronze as a way to discuss something that was to be strong or strengthened by God (Isa. 45:2; Jer. 1:18; Ezek. 40:3).

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

Tin. Tin was initially used mainly to produce the copper alloy bronze. Tin was not used in its pure form until well into the Roman period, and even then seldom by itself. The sources of tin in the ancient world are currently debated. The tin from large deposits in Tarshish in southern Spain (Ezek. 27:12) was available through Phoenician traders. Tin is also found in large deposits in Anatolia, but it is currently unknown whether these deposits had been discovered and used during biblical times. A third option is modern-day Afghanistan. Archaeologists have discovered in modern Turkey the remains of a wrecked ship, dated to around 1350 BC, that was carrying ten tons of copper ingots and about one ton of tin ingots. These ingots possibly originated in the area of modern-day Afghanistan and were bound for the Mediterranean trade routes. Tin is mentioned only four times in Scripture, always within a list of other metals (Num. 31:22; Ezek. 22:18, 20; 27:12).

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

Gold and silver. Sought after for much of human history, gold and silver have been worked by humans for their ornamental value. The practical uses of these metals within the biblical setting were constrained mainly to their economic and ornamental value. Gold and silver jewelry were used as a form of payment and were minted into coins during the Greco-Roman era. Gold objects are relatively scarce in archaeological finds, mainly because most gold items would have been part of a large treasury carried off as tribute or plunder. Silver appears in the archaeological record more frequently; a remarkable hoard of silver in lump form was found at Eshtemoa (see 1Sam. 30:26–28). This silver has been dated to the time of the kingdom of Judah, after the northern kingdom of Israel had fallen. The silver in raw lump form was most likely used as a monetary payment, even though it had not yet been minted into coins.

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

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

Precious stones. Stones of various origins were used in and around Palestine. The Bible makes few references to their use. Like gold and silver, they were used mainly for their ornamental value. Their scarcity made them highly prized. One notable exception is turquoise. The Egyptian pharaohs were fascinated with turquoise, and they mined extensively for it on the Sinai Peninsula. The remains of several turquoise mines have been found with Canaanite markings, indicating the presence of Canaanite slaves working the Egyptian mines. There was also a line of forts along the northern edge of the Egyptian Empire, used presumably to protect the pharaohs’ turquoise interests. Precious stones were also found in Syria, where Phoenician traders would have been able to bring them from other parts of the known world.

Exodus 28:17–21 describes twelve stones set in the breastpiece worn by the Israelite high priest. Twelve stones likewise appear in the foundations of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:19–20). Ezekiel uses nine of these same twelve stones to discuss the adornment of the king of Tyre (Ezek. 28:13).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood, molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind.

In contrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of all images as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images of Yahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented by anything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form at Sinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form can adequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Bible similarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because it elevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the second commandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image of anything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:45).

By NT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but it remained an important issue for the growing church because many believers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostles included idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readers to flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols. Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linked it with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NT authors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worship the true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to the time when all idol worship would cease.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The central city and capital of ancient Israel. Throughout its history, the city has also been referred to variously as Zion, Jebus, Mount Moriah, and the City of David.

The name “Jerusalem” occurs more than 650 times in the OT, particularly in the history of Israel, and in the NT more than 140 times. The OT prophets used the city as a symbol of God’s dealing with his people and his plan. Jerusalem is viewed collectively as God’s abode, his chosen place, and his sovereignty, while its destruction is also representative of God’s judgment on apostasy among his people (e.g., Jer. 7:115; 26:18–19; Mic. 3:12). The rebuilding of the city represents the hope and grace of God (e.g., Isa. 40:1–2; 52:1, 7–8; 60–62; Jer. 30:18–19; 31:38–39; Ezek. 5:5; Hag. 2:6–8; Zech. 8:3–8). Like the writers of the OT, the NT authors spoke of Jerusalem in metaphorical and eschatological terms. Paul used Jerusalem to contrast the old and the new covenants (Gal. 4:24–26), and the writer of Hebrews used it as the place of the new covenant, sealed through the blood of Jesus (Heb. 12:22–24). In Revelation the concept of a new Jerusalem is related to the future kingdom of God (Rev. 3:12; 21:1–22:5).

Jerusalem is located in the Judean hill country, about 2,700 feet above sea level. It borders the Judean desert to the east. The city expanded and contracted in size over various hills and valleys. There are two major ridges (Eastern and Western Hills) separated by the Tyropoeon Valley. The Eastern Hill contains a saddle, the Ophel Hill, and north of this is the traditional site of Mount Moriah, where later the temple was constructed. The Eastern Hill was always occupied, since the only water source is the Gihon spring, located in the Kidron Valley. Two other ridges were important for the city, as they were used for extramural suburbs, cemeteries, and quarries. To the east is the Mount of Olives, which is separated from the Eastern Hill by the Kidron Valley. To the west of the Western Hill is the Central Ridge Route, separated by the Hinnom Valley.

Judges covers the period between the death of Joshua and the rise of the monarchy in Israel. It was a turbulent period, as the people did not seem to have any center in God. The bulk of the book narrates the stories of judges, mostly military leaders, whom God sent to Israel on those occasions when they turned to him for help (Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson). The book also includes brief mentions of judges who are not associated with violent actions against the enemy (Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon [10:15; 12:8–15]), as well as the story of an abortive attempt to establish kingship during this time (Abimelek [chap. 9]).

Indeed, the stories of the judges who were deliverers tend to follow a relatively set pattern. They begin with the sin of the people, which leads to their oppression by a foreign power. The suffering of the people shocks them into realizing that they need God, and they turn to him for help. In such instances, God responds by giving the people a judge, really a military leader, who then delivers them from the power of their oppressors. However, after a period of peace, the people sin again, and another oppressor takes control.

The two stories in the appendix of the book of Judges simply add emphasis to the dark picture painted in the body of the book. These are two accounts of family sins that expand into national tragedies. Individuals from the tribe of Levi, the priestly tribe dedicated to special service to God, play a particularly negative role in the appendix.

This phrase “in those days Israel had no king” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25) is repeated throughout the appendix of the book and alerts the reader to one of the major themes of the book. Who will be the human leader of the people of God? The imperfect judges and the fragmentary condition of the tribes as well as their sad spiritual state cause the reader to yearn for something better: the rise of divinely appointed kingship in Israel. The books of Samuel and Kings, which follow, narrate the promise and ultimate failure of kingship, which itself will lead to the expectation of something even more, the Messiah.

Of several Hebrew words for “judgment,” two are important here.

The word shepet is used of God, who brings the judgments upon the Egyptians in the plagues (Exod. 6:6; 7:4; 12:12). Ezekiel prophesies God’s judgment on Israel and other nations (e.g., Ezek. 5:10; 16:41; 25:11). The word is also applied to human beings, as the Syrians execute judgment on Israel (2Chron. 24:24).

The most frequent noun is mishpat. Abraham is noted for mishpat, “judgment/justice” (Gen. 18:19). God by attribute is just (Gen. 18:25); he shows justice toward the orphan and the widow (Deut. 10:18) and brings judgment on behalf of the oppressed (Ps. 25:9). At the waters of Marah, God makes a judgment, an ordinance for the people (Exod. 15:25). Similarly, the mishpatim, “judgments/ordinances,” become law for life in Israel (Exod. 21:1). In making judicial judgments, the Israelites are to be impartial (Lev. 19:15), and they are to use good judgment and justice in trade (Lev. 19:35; Prov. 16:11). Israel will be judged for rejecting God’s judgments (Ezek. 5:78) and worshiping false gods (Jer. 1:16). Those accused of crime will come to judgment/trial (Num. 35:12). The children of Israel come to their judges for judgment (Judg. 4:5). God will bring each person to a time of judgment regarding how his or her life is spent (Eccles. 11:9).

One key word in the NT is krisis. It has a range of meaning similar to mishpat. In the NT, judgment is rendered for thoughts and words as well as deeds (Matt. 5:21–22; 12:36). Future, eschatological judgment is a key theme for Jesus (Matt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:42), Paul (2Thess. 1:5), and other NT writers (Heb. 9:27; 10:27; 2Pet. 2:9; 3:7; 1John 4:17; Jude 15; Rev. 14:7). Jesus himself will be the judge (John 5:22). The only way to avoid condemnation is by having eternal life in the Messiah (John 5:24).

Another key word in the NT is krima. It may refer to condemnation (Matt. 7:2; Rom. 3:8) or to judgment, again including the eschatological judgment (Acts 24:25). Krima is the word most frequently used by Paul. He also often presents judgment as already realized (e.g., Rom. 2:2–3; 5:16). In the later epistles judgment may be realized as well (2Pet. 2:3; Jude 4). James points out that not many should presume to be teachers, because they will be judged more strictly (James 3:1).

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

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

Biblical Lebanon is the region that consists of two parallel mountain ranges north of Israel, whose boundaries are very similar to modern-day Lebanon. The south-southwest range is called “Lebanon,” and the north-northeast range “Anti-Lebanon” (i.e., “all Lebanon to the east” [cf. Josh. 13:5]). Between the two ranges is the Valley of Lebanon, where the city of Baal Gad was located (Josh. 11:17; 12:7). At the southern end is Mount Hermon, where the snowcapped peaks probably gave rise to its name, which in Hebrew means “to be white” (Jer. 18:14).

Important to the present discussion is the metaphorical use of the term “Lebanon,” particularly in the OT, where the term occurs over seventy times (the name does not appear in the NT). First, associated with the mountainous range in the region, Lebanon evokes images of glory, fertility, and abundance. For example, the high elevation gives Lebanon the sense of majesty and glory (Isa. 35:2; 60:13; cf. 2Kings 19:23), which is further equated with the glory of Jerusalem (Isa. 60:13; Ezek. 17:3, 22; cf. Isa. 10:34; Zech. 11:1) and the restored Israel (Zech. 10:1011; cf. Jer. 22:6). The melting snows, plus the annual rainfall, ensure abundance and fertility (Ps. 104:16; Song 4:15; Jer. 18:14; cf. Ps. 72:16). The glory of Lebanon is linked with Sharon, Bashan, and Carmel in the territory of Israel (Isa. 2:13; 35:2; cf. Isa. 33:9; Nah. 1:4).

Second, of all the coniferous trees in the forest of Lebanon, cedars receive the greatest attention and have been regularly used to indicate stature and beauty. For example, their sweet smell describes the desirability of renewed Israel (Song 4:11; Hos. 14:7), and their magnificence reminds one of the beautiful trees in Eden (Ps. 104:16; Ezek. 31:9, 16). These towering evergreens are a fitting image of humankind. The righteous people are compared to a cedar of Lebanon (Ps. 92:12–15); the legs of the bridegroom are as noble as the cedars (Song 5:15); and even kings, both Davidic (Isa. 14:8; Ezek. 17:3) and foreign (Isa. 10:34; Ezek. 31:3–18), as well as their subjects (Judg. 9:15), are likened to the cedars of Lebanon. Quite often, they are symbols of political entities (Isa. 2:13; 40:16), such as Judah (Ezek. 17:3), Assyria (Ezek. 31:3), and Tyre (Ezek. 27:5).

Third, Lebanon, together with its forest, is used to depict negative images. For example, all its glories and riches combined are not enough for a sacrificial offering to God (Isa. 40:16). The barrenness of Lebanon is the result of God’s judgment (Isa. 33:9). Prophetic oracles are often associated with Lebanon. The cutting down or withering of the choicest trees is spoken of as judgment against the proud (Isa. 2:13; 33:9; Ezek. 31:15; Nah. 1:4), against the wicked nation of Tyre (Ezek. 27:1–9), and against Judah (Jer. 22:6–7).

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1 17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 1:19; 1John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1John 2:2).

Taken together “poor,” “orphan,” and “widow” are mentioned in the NIV 280 times, evidence of God’s particular concern for those in need. “Poor” is an umbrella term for those who are physically impoverished or of diminished spirit. In biblical terms, “poor” would include most orphans and widows, though not every poor person was an orphan or widow.

The NT advances the atmosphere of kindness and nonoppression toward the poor and those in need found in the OT. The NT church was marked by such a real and selfless generosity that its members sold their own possessions and gave to “anyone who had need” (Acts 2:45). The poor were to be treated with generosity, and needs were to be addressed whenever they were discovered (Matt. 19:21; Luke 3:11; 11:41; 12:33; 14:13; 19:8; Acts 6:1; 9:36; Rom. 15:26; Gal. 2:10).

Furthermore, because of the incarnation of Christ, in which the almighty God chose to dwell with humanity, distinctions between believers on the basis of material wealth and, more specifically, favoritism toward the rich were expressly forbidden by the NT writers (1Cor. 11:2022; Phil. 2:1–8; James 2:1–4).

Other specific biblical instructions regarding people in need concern those without parents and especially those without a father. Such individuals are referred to as “fatherless.” As with the provisions made for the poor, oppression of orphans or the fatherless was strictly forbidden (Exod. 22:22; Deut. 24:17; 27:19; Isa. 1:17; 10:1–2; Zech. 7:10). Furthermore, God is often referred to as the provider and helper of the orphan or fatherless (Deut. 10:18; Pss. 10:14, 18; 68:5; 146:9; Jer. 49:11). Jesus promised not to leave his followers as “orphans,” implying that he would not leave them unprotected (John 14:18). In one of the clearest statements of how Christian belief is to manifest itself, James states, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27).

Since widows are bereft of their husbands and thus similar to orphans in vulnerability and need, they are the beneficiaries of special provisions in both Testaments. Oppression was forbidden (Exod. 22:22), provisions were to be given in similar fashion to that of the poor and orphans (Deut. 24:19–21), and ample warnings were given to those who would deny justice to widows (Deut. 27:19). Jesus raised a widow’s son from death (Luke 7:14–15), a miracle especially needed because she lacked provision after her only son’s death. The apostle Paul gave specific rules to Timothy regarding who should be placed on the list of widows to receive daily food: they must be over sixty years old and must have been faithful to their husbands (1Tim. 5:9). In the book of Revelation, a desolate city without inhabitants is aptly described as a “widow” (18:7).

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

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

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

The metrological systems employed in biblical times span the same concepts as our own modern-day systems: weight, linear distance, and volume or capacity. However, the systems of weights and measurements employed during the span of biblical times were not nearly as accurate or uniform as the modern units employed today.

Weights

Weights in biblical times were carried in a bag or a satchel (Deut. 25:13; Prov. 16:11; Mic. 6:11) and were stones, usually carved into various animal shapes for easy identification. Their side or flat bottom was inscribed with the associated weight and unit of measurement. Thousands of historical artifacts, which differ by significant amounts, have been discovered by archaeologists and thus have greatly complicated the work of determining accurate modern-day equivalents.

Beka. Approximately 1⁄5 ounce, or 5.6 grams. Equivalent to 10 gerahs or ½ the sanctuary shekel (Exod. 38:26). Used to measure metals and goods such as gold (Gen. 24:22).

Gerah. 1⁄50 ounce, or 0.56 grams. Equivalent to 1⁄10 beka, 1⁄20 shekel (Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25).

Mina. Approximately 1¼ pounds, or 0.56 kilograms. Equivalent to 50 shekels. Used to weigh gold (1Kings 10:17; Ezra 2:69), silver (Neh. 7:71 72), and other goods. The prophet Ezekiel redefined the proper weight: “The shekel is to consist of twenty gerahs. Twenty shekels plus twenty-five shekels plus fifteen shekels equal one mina” (Ezek. 45:12). Before this redefinition, there were arguably 50 shekels per mina. In Jesus’ parable of the servants, he describes the master entrusting to his three servants varying amounts—10 minas, 5 minas, 1 mina—implying a monetary value (Luke 19:11–24), probably of either silver or gold. One mina was equivalent to approximately three months’ wages for a laborer.

Pim. Approximately 1⁄3 ounce, or 9.3 grams. Equivalent to 2⁄3 shekel. Referenced only once in the Scriptures (1Sam. 13:21).

Shekel. Approximately 2⁄5 ounce, or 11 grams. Equivalent to approximately 2 bekas. The shekel is the basic unit of weight measurement in Israelite history, though its actual weight varied significantly at different historical points. Examples include the “royal shekel” (2Sam. 14:26), the “common shekel” (2Kings 7:1), and the “sanctuary shekel,” which was equivalent to 20 gerahs (e.g., Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25; Num. 3:47). Because it was used to weigh out silver or gold, the shekel also functioned as a common monetary unit in the NT world.

Talent. Approximately 75 pounds, or 34 kilograms. Equivalent to approximately 60 minas. Various metals were weighed using talents: gold (Exod. 25:39; 37:24; 1Chron. 20:2), silver (Exod. 38:27; 1Kings 20:39; 2Kings 5:22), and bronze (Exod. 38:29). This probably is derived from the weight of a load that a man could carry.

Litra. Approximately 12 ounces, or 340 grams. A Roman measure of weight. Used only twice in the NT (John 12:3; 19:39). The precursor to the modern British pound.

Linear Measurements

Linear measurements were based upon readily available natural measurements such as the distance between the elbow and the hand or between the thumb and the little finger. While convenient, this method of measurement gave rise to significant inconsistencies.

Cubit. Approximately 18 inches, or 45.7 centimeters. Equivalent to 6 handbreadths. The standard biblical measure of linear distance, as the shekel is the standard measurement of weight. The distance from the elbow to the outstretched fingertip. Used to describe height, width, length (Exod. 25:10), distance (John 21:8), and depth (Gen. 7:20). Use of the cubit is ancient. For simple and approximate conversion into modern units, divide the number of cubits in half for meters, then multiply the number of meters by 3 to arrive at feet.

1 cubit = 2 spans = 6 handbreadths = 24 fingerbreadths

Day’s journey. An approximate measure of distance equivalent to about 20–25 miles, or 32–40 kilometers. Several passages reference a single or multiple days’ journey as a description of the distance traveled or the distance between two points: “a day’s journey” (Num. 11:31; 1Kings 19:4), “a three-day journey” (Gen. 30:36; Exod. 3:18; 8:27; Jon. 3:3), “seven days” (Gen. 31:23), and “eleven days” (Deut. 1:2). After visiting Jerusalem for Passover, Jesus’ parents journeyed for a day (Luke 2:44) before realizing that he was not with them.

Fingerbreadth. The width of the finger, or ¼ of a handbreadth, approximately ¾ inch, or 1.9 centimeters. The fingerbreadth was the beginning building block of the biblical metrological system for linear measurements. Used only once in the Scriptures, to describe the bronze pillars (Jer. 52:21).

Handbreadth. Approximately 3 inches, or 7.6 centimeters. Equivalent to 1⁄6 cubit, or four fingerbreadths. Probably the width at the base of the four fingers. A short measure of length, thus compared to a human’s brief life (Ps. 39:5). Also the width of the rim on the bread table (Exod. 25:25) and the thickness of the bronze Sea (1Kings 7:26).

Milion. Translated “mile” in Matt. 5:41. Greek transliteration of Roman measurement mille passuum, “a thousand paces.”

Orguia. Approximately 5 feet 11 inches, or 1.8 meters. Also translated as “fathom.” A Greek unit of measurement. Probably the distance between outstretched fingertip to fingertip. Used to measure the depth of water (Acts 27:28).

Reed/rod. Approximately 108 inches, or 274 centimeters. This is also a general term for a measuring device rather than a specific linear distance (Ezek. 40:3, 5; 42:16–19; Rev. 11:1; 21:15).

Sabbath day’s journey. Approximately ¾ mile, or 1.2 kilometers (Acts 1:12). About 2,000 cubits.

Stadion. Approximately 607 feet, or 185 meters. Equivalent to 100 orguiai. Used in the measurement of large distances (Matt. 14:24; Luke 24:13; John 6:19; 11:18; Rev. 14:20; 21:16).

Span. Approximately 9 inches, or 22.8 centimeters. Equivalent to three handbreadths, and ½ cubit. The distance from outstretched thumb tip to little-finger tip. The length and width of the priest’s breastpiece (Exod. 28:16).

Land Area

Seed. The size of a piece of land could also be measured on the basis of how much seed was required to plant that field (Lev. 27:16; 1Kings 18:32).

Yoke. Fields and lands were measured using logical, available means. In biblical times, this meant the amount of land a pair of yoked animals could plow in one day (1Sam. 14:14; Isa. 5:10).

Capacity

Cab. Approximately ½ gallon, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1 omer. Mentioned only once in the Scriptures, during the siege of Samaria (2Kings 6:25).

Choinix. Approximately ¼ gallon, or 0.9 liters. A Greek measurement, mentioned only once in Scripture (Rev. 6:6).

Cor. Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equal to the homer, and to 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularly of flour and grains (1Kings 4:22; 5:11; 2Chron. 2:10; 27:5; Ezra 7:22). In the LXX, cor is also a measure of liquid volume, particularly oil (1Kings 5:11; 2Chron. 2:10; Ezra 45:14).

Ephah. Approximately 3⁄5 bushel (6 gallons, or 22.7 liters). Equivalent to 10 omers, or 1⁄10 homer. Used for measuring flour and grains (e.g., Exod. 29:40; Lev. 6:20). Isaiah prophesied a day of reduced agricultural yield, when a homer of seed would produce only an ephah of grain (Isa. 5:10). The ephah was equal in size to the bath (Ezek. 45:11), which typically was used for liquid measurements.

Homer. Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equivalent to 1 cor, or 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularly of various grains (Lev. 27:16; Isa. 5:10; Ezek. 45:11, 13–14; Hos. 3:2). This is probably a natural measure of the load that a donkey can carry, in the range of 90 kilograms. There may have existed a direct link between capacity and monetary value, given Lev. 27:16: “fifty shekels of silver to a homer of barley seed.” A logical deduction of capacity and cost based on known equivalences might look something like this:

1 homer = 1 mina; 1 ephah = 5 shekels; 1omer = 1 beka

Koros. Approximately 10 bushels (95 gallons, or 360 liters). A Greek measure of grain (Luke 16:7).

Omer. Approximately 2 quarts, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄10 ephah, 1⁄100 homer (Ezek. 45:11). Used by Israel in the measurement and collection of manna in the wilderness (Exod. 16:16–36) and thus roughly equivalent to a person’s daily food ration.

Saton. Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1 seah. The measurement of flour in Jesus’ parable of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:21).

Seah. Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄3 ephah, or 1 saton. Used to measure flour, grain, seed, and other various dry goods (e.g., 2Kings 7:1; 1Sam. 25:18).

Liquid Volume

Bath. Approximately 6 gallons, or 22.7 liters. Equivalent to 1 ephah, which typically was used for measurements of dry capacity. Used in the measurement of water (1Kings 7:26), oil (1Kings 5:11), and wine (2Chron. 2:10; Isa. 5:10).

Batos. Approximately 8 gallons, or 30.3 liters. A Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word bath (see above). A measure of oil (Luke 16:6).

Hin. Approximately 4 quarts (1gallon, or 3.8 liters). Equivalent to 1⁄6 bath and 12 logs. Used in the measurement of water (Ezek. 4:11), oil (Ezek. 46:5), and wine (Num. 28:14).

Log. Approximately 1⁄3 quart, or 0.3 liter. Equivalent to 1⁄72 bath and 1⁄12 hin. Mentioned five times in Scripture, specifically used to measure oil (Lev. 14:10–24).

Metretes. Approximately 10 gallons, or 37.8 liters. Used in the measurement of water at the wedding feast (John 2:6).

In the world of the Bible, a person was viewed as a unity of being with the pervading breath and thus imprint of the loving and holy God. The divine-human relationship consequently is portrayed in the Bible as predominantly spiritual in nature. God is spirit, and humankind may communicate with him in the spiritual realm. The ancients believed in an invisible world of spirits that held most, if not all, reasons for natural events and human actions in the visible world.

The OT writers used the common Hebrew word ruakh (“wind” or “breath”) to describe force and even life from the God of the universe. In its most revealing first instance, God’s ruakh hovered above the waters of the uncreated world (Gen. 1:2). In the next chapter of Genesis a companion word, neshamah (“breath”), is used as God breathed into Adam’s nostrils “the breath of life” (2:7). God thus breathed his own image into the first human being. Humankind’s moral obligations in the remainder of the Bible rest on this breathing act of God.

The OT authors often employ ruakh simply to denote air in motion or breath from a person’s mouth. However, special instances of the use of ruakh include references to the very life of a person (Gen. 7:22; Ps. 104:29), an attitude or emotion (Gen. 41:8; Num. 14:24; Ps. 77:3), the negative traits of pride or temper (Ps. 76:12), a generally good disposition (Prov. 11:13; 18:14), the seat of conversion (Ezek. 18:31; 36:26), and determination given by God (2Chron. 36:22; Hag. 1:14).

The NT authors used the Greek term pneuma to convey the concept of spirit. In the world of the NT, the human spirit was understood as the divine part of human reality as distinct from the material realm. The spirit appears conscious and capable of rejoicing (Luke 1:47). Jesus was described by Luke as growing and becoming “strong in spirit” (1:80). In “spirit” Jesus “knew” what certain teachers of the law were thinking in their hearts (Mark 2:8). Likewise, Jesus “was deeply moved in spirit and troubled” at the sickness of a loved one (John 11:33). At the end of his life, Jesus gave up his spirit (John 19:30).

According to Jesus, the spirit is the place of God’s new covenant work of conversion and worship (John 3:5; 4:24). He declared the human spirit’s dependence on God and ascribed great virtue to those people who were “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3).

Human beings who were possessed by an evil spirit were devalued in Mediterranean society. In various places in the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts, either Jesus or the disciples were involved in exorcisms of such spirits (Matt. 8:2833; Mark 1:21–28; 7:24–30; 9:14–29; 5:1–20; 9:17–29; Luke 8:26–33; 9:37–42; Acts 5:16).

The apostle Paul pointed to the spirit as the seat of conversion (Rom. 7:6; 1Cor. 5:5). He described believers as facing a struggle between flesh and spirit in regard to living a sanctified life (Rom. 8:2–17; Gal. 5:16–17). A contradiction seems apparent in Pauline thinking as he appears to embrace Greek dualistic understanding of body (flesh) and spirit while likewise commanding that “spirit, soul and body be kept blameless” (1Thess. 5:23). However, the Christian struggle between flesh and Spirit (the Holy Spirit) centers around the believer’s body being dead because of sin but the spirit being alive because of the crucified and resurrected Christ (Rom. 8:10). Believers therefore are encouraged to lead a holistic life, lived in the Spirit.

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

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

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

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

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

Worn around the neck, gold chains were a symbol of honor(Gen. 41:42; Prov. 1:9; Dan. 5:7). The temple and its furniture weredecorated with chain-like ornamentation (2 Chron. 3:5); similarmotifs are found also in non-Yahwistic cultic paraphernalia (Isa.40:19).

Prisoners(Ps. 107:10; Acts 12:6; 16:26; 21:33; Heb. 11:36) and war captives(Isa. 45:14; Jer. 40:1) were bound with chains, by the hands (Jer.40:4) or neck (Isa. 52:2). In one case, the Bible records anunsuccessful attempt to confine a demon-possessed man with chains(Mark 5:3–4). Paul often mentions the chains of hisimprisonment (Phil. 1:7, 13–17; Col. 4:3; 2 Tim. 2:9;Philem. 10, 13), once referring to himself paradoxically as an“ambassador in chains” (Eph. 6:20).

AtLachish four links of an iron chain were found. Extrabiblical recordsof the siege of Lachish suggest that such a chain was lowered fromthe city walls in an attempt to foul the Assyrian battering ram.

The primary term in Hebrew is ’apar (“looseearth, dust”), which is related to the Hebrew terms forcultivatable “soil” (’adamah [Gen. 3:19]) and“earth” (’erets [Gen. 13:16]). These terms aresemantically close enough to be used interchangeably (cf. 1Sam.4:12; 2Sam. 1:2 with Josh. 7:6; Ezek. 27:30).

Inthe OT, the imagery of dust is used to illustrate notions of quantityand abundance (Num. 23:10; 2Chron. 1:9; Job 27:16; Ps. 78:27;Isa. 40:12; Zech. 9:3). This stock of imagery is applied toannihilation (2Sam. 22:43), worthlessness (Zeph. 1:17),humiliation (Isa. 25:12), and mourning (Isa. 2:10; Rev. 18:19). Inthe OT, ’apar alone is used figuratively over sixty times torefer to judgment. Thus, “to lick the dust” (Ps. 72:9) isa sign of subjugation. The opposite is “to shake off the dust,”a sign of repudiation (Isa. 52:2; Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5;10:11; Acts 13:51). It is this figurative use of “dust”that facilitates the theological use of ’apar. Yahweh acts tohumiliate, debase, destroy, and “cast down” into the dust(Isa. 25:12); and he also restores, “lifting up” toremove the shame (1Kings 16:2; Ps. 113:7).

Thesignificance of ’apar is powerfully portrayed in the creationof humans. Whereas animals are made from the “earth,”humankind emerges from more refined material, the dust (’apar[Gen. 2:7]). In an etymological pun, the “human” (’adam)rises from the “humus” (’adamah; cf. Ps. 103:14;Job 4:19). Death comes when God withdraws the human’s “breathof life” (cf. Gen. 2:7), causing the groundling to collapseback to the ground like “crushed dust” (cf. Pss. 90:3;104:29; 146:4). Human life is fragile, dependent, and transitory.This is the teacher’s argument and also the reason that hestresses death as the inevitable end of both human and animal life(Eccles. 3:18–20). However, Daniel knows that “multitudeswho sleep in the dust of the earth will awake” (Dan. 12:2).

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).

In the NIV, “fashion” is a verb meaning “tocraft, shape, form.” Often it is used pejoratively, as in thecrafting of an idol out of wood, stone, or metal (Exod. 32:4; 2Kings19:18; Isa. 37:19; 40:19; 44:15; Hos. 13:2). Job speaks of thecunning and scheming of those who think they are wise but aregodless: “their womb fashions deceit” (Job 15:35). In apositive sense, items are fashioned for God’s purpose: Aaron’sbreastpiece is fashioned by “the work of skilled hands”(Exod. 28:15; cf. 39:8). God is the master craftsman who “fashionedand made the earth” (Isa. 45:18). But God’s fashioning isa synonym for creation rather than crafting; he fashions his work outof nothing.

Inthe KJV God’s fashioning extends to his creation of humanbeings (Job 10:8; 31:15; Ps. 119:73), his oversight of the humanheart (Ps. 33:15), his ordaining of a person’s life span (Ps.139:16), and his transformative work in the glorification ofbelievers (Phil. 3:21).

Themost common noun usage for the word “fashion” in the KJVOT is as a plan, blueprint, or specification (2Kings 16:10)—forexample, of the ark (Gen. 6:15), the tabernacle (Exod. 26:30), andthe temple (1Kings 6:38; Ezek. 43:11). “Fashion” isalso used as a synonym for “likeness, appearance, manner, form”(Exod. 37:19; Mark 2:12; Luke 9:29; 1Cor. 7:31; Phil. 2:8;James 1:11). Finally, Peter cautions believers against “fashioning[themselves] according to the former lusts” (1Pet. 1:14KJV), a warning not to model or conform to worldly desires.

Beyond its obvious literal sense, “flesh” denotesthe physicality of one’s life in this world, often in contrastto the spiritual dimension. Both the OT (Heb. she’er, basar)and NT (Gk. sarx) use “flesh” to refer to the physicaldimension of human existence, often assigning varying degrees offigurative and contextual nuances to the word. “Flesh” asthe cover term for fallen humanity and sinfulness is a distinctive NTdevelopment. For example, the expression “all flesh” inthe OT is often merely equivalent to the collective human race (e.g.,Gen. 6:12; Isa. 40:5 KJV). Even when the term is used in contrast to“spirit” (e.g., Isa. 31:3; Jer. 17:5), “flesh”is not so much “antispiritual” as “nonspiritual.”John even refers to the mystery of incarnation as the Word becomingflesh (John 1:14).

Itis mostly in Paul’s letters that we find clear depiction offlesh as the seat of the carnal and sinful nature of humanity. Theflesh stands for the totality of destructive effects of the originalsin on the human nature. Thus, the flesh is in essence the sinfulnature that Adam left for all subsequent generations to inherit (Gal.5:17). Before it is redeemed and transformed, it is “sinfulflesh” (Rom. 8:3 NRSV) waiting to be condemned by the holy Godand his law, and inevitably leading to death (7:5). It is inseparablefrom lust (Gal. 5:16; 1Pet. 4:2). In the reprobate,unregenerate state, human nature in its entirety is under the controlof the flesh (Eph. 2:3). Since corrupt humans basically sow the fleshand reap the flesh, they can neither please God nor obey the law(Rom. 8:3, 8). It is significant that salvation is expressed in termsof overcoming the flesh. In wrapping up an exhortation regardingspiritual life, Paul concludes that those who nailed their flesh tothe cross along with its passions and desires are “those whobelong to Christ Jesus” (Gal. 5:24).

The blossoms of seed-bearing plants that contain the plant’s reproductive organs. Used generally, “flowers” refers to the colorful array of blossoms that grew mostly in the open fields of the Holy Land. Numerous kinds of wild flowers could be found in the plains and mountains of Palestine. When winter rains were followed by the moderate temperatures of spring, renewal abounded (Song 2:11–12). Early spring blossoms presented an array of vibrant color and form. As early as January, cyclamen poured forth pink, white, and lilac blossoms, followed by various shades of red and pink of the crown anemones, poppies, and mountain tulips. The flowers of the diverse tuberous plants of the lily family also added to the colorful mosaic. Summer brought fields of chamomile and chrysanthemums, with their yellow and white daisylike flowers. The blossoms from plants such as mints, mustards, and other native herbaceous plants, along with those of flowering trees, shrubs, and field flowers, provided ample nectar for bees in the land of milk and honey (Num. 13:27). Healing or soothing ointments and various perfumes were produced from the essential oils extracted from the crushing of blossoms from a variety of flowers.

Flower Imagery

Traditionally, the language of flowers functions to illustrate some prominent themes, such as love and beauty. Flower imagery in descriptions of the tabernacle, of Solomon’s temple, and in the Song of Solomon develops the themes of beauty, purity, sweetness, and love (Song 2:1–5; 5:13; Isa. 28:4). The Song of Solomon is set in a garden scene where the sensuous quality of flowers—their colors, shapes, and scents, their delicate touch—are analogous to the captivating sexuality of physical love. The spring setting assures that the flowers are at their pinnacle of brilliance and the air is filled with the fragrance of vine blossoms (Song 2:12–13).

Used metaphorically, flowers can also refer to transience, pride, restoration, and the glory of the holy and eternal. Such references are found in both Testaments. The short life of flowers is representative of the brevity and fragility of human life on earth (Job 14:2; Ps. 103:15; Isa. 40:6–8; 1Pet. 1:24). After a brief moment of splendor, decline and decay are close behind. Such is the metaphor used in psalms, by the prophets, and in the NT for the life of a person who flourishes like the flower, is like the grass one day, but is gone the next day.

As surely as flower imagery points out our human mortality, it also serves to illustrate the judgment of the proud or ungodly, as when Isaiah prophesies the speedy downfall of the kingdom of Israel like flowers being trampled under-foot (Isa. 28:1–3), turned to dust (5:24), or cut off with pruning knives (18:5). Nahum sees God’s power to rebuke his enemies in his ability to dry up seas and rivers and to make the many flowers of Carmel and Lebanon wilt (Nah. 1:4). James applies the flower imagery to describe the sudden departure of the rich person, passing away as quickly as the flowers of the field, whose beauty perishes under the burning heat of the sun (James 1:10–11).

The usual contexts of this flower imagery are judgment on the proud and the wicked, whose deeds will be short-lived. The insignificant and contemptible deeds of the wicked are contrasted with God’s power; our human transience and frailty with God’s permanence (Ps. 103:15); and our human weakness with the eternal word of God (Isa. 40:6, 8; 1Pet. 1:24–25).

The flower can also represent a blessing. The righteous are compared to the flowering or flourishing of a plant (Isa. 5:24; 18:5; 28:1–4), since the flowering of a plant represents the peak of its life process, its most glorious moment. This beautifully pictures the restoration themes of the prophets as they utilize flower imagery. Isaiah’s words “The desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom; it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy” (Isa. 35:1–2; cf. 27:6) are one example of God’s restorative ability to turn a wasteland into a garden. Hosea illustrates this theme: “I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily. Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots” (Hos. 14:5). The psalmists also sing of the righteous, not the wicked, flourishing like grass or the flower (Pss. 72:7, 16; 92:12–14). Proverbs too reminds us that the righteous will “flourish,” or break forth and sprout like foliage (Prov. 14:11).

Flowers Named in the Bible

The Bible often identifies flowering plants by a more generic name rather than mentioning specific flowers. Sometimes context can help in determining more specific species. According to 1Kings 7:19–20, 26, lily blossoms, along with pomegranates, adorned the top of the bronze columns that stood before King Solomon’s temple. In a musical aspect, three psalms are identified as those to be sung to the tune “Lilies” (Pss. 45; 69; 80).

The most frequently mentioned specific flowers are traditionally translated “lily” and “rose” (though these are probably not accurate renderings since these flowers are not native to the region and so would have been unfamiliar to most readers). Many commentators believe that the phrase “lilies of the field” referred to the showy, attractive springtime flowers that grow profusely in the plains, pastures, and hills of the Carmel and Sharon regions. These flowers can include ranunculus, anemone, cyclamen, tulip, hyacinth, narcissus, crocus, iris, and orchid. The tulip, asphodel, star-of-Bethlehem, hyacinth, and related narcissus, daffodil, crocus, and iris inhabit the rocky ground and dry places of the hill country. The “lily of the valleys” of Song 2:1–2 is probably the blue hyacinth.

Consider Jesus’ words “Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these” (Matt. 6:28–29 NASB). Although these flowers may not be true lilies but rather one of the numerous showy spring flowers such as the crown anemone, Jesus proclaims that the beauty of a single flower in a meadow was more striking than all the riches of Solomon, and that the flower did not concern itself with working and getting riches to be clothed. Jesus’ comments about flowers demonstrate that their beauty was appreciated in Israel.

The flowers listed below are specifically named in various Bible versions.

Almond blossoms. The almond tree is among the first of flowering trees to bloom in the spring. Almond blossoms were part of the almond-tree design on the seven-branched lampstands of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:33–34; 37:19–20). In Eccles. 12:5, almond tree blossoms are likely an allegorical reference to an elderly person’s hair turning white like the almond tree.

Camphire flower. In Song 1:14; 4:13, the KJV refers to camphire, while the NIV and most modern versions have “henna.” The camphire is a small plant or shrub that bears highly scented, cream-colored flowers that hang in clusters and were used for orange dye.

Caperberry flower. The caperberry was a common prickly shrub with large, white flowers that produced small, edible berries. The berries had a reputation for exciting sexual desire, so the caperberry is used in Eccles. 12:5 to allude to the waning sexual potency that comes with age (NIV: “desire is no longer stirred”).

co*ckle flower. The KJV of Job 31:40 refers to a “co*ckle” (NIV: “stinkweed”), a plant whose name is spelled like the Hebrew word for “stink.” This noxious weed with purplish red flowers grew abundantly in Palestinian grain fields.

Crocus. A plant with a long yellow floral tube tinged with purple specks or stripes. The abundant blossoms of the crocus symbolize beauty and splendor (Isa. 35:1).

Fitch. Named in the KJV at Isa. 28:25, 27 (NIV: “caraway”; NRSV: “dill”) and Ezek. 4:9 (NIV: “spelt”). The flower referred to is probably the nutmeg flower, which is a member of the buttercup family; it grew wild in most Mediterranean lands. The plant is about two feet high, with bright blue flowers. The pods of the plant were used like pepper.

Lily. A symbol of fruitfulness, purity, and resurrection, this plant grows from a bulb to a height of three feet, with large white flowers. The term “lily” covers a wide range of flowers. The lily mentioned in Song 5:13 refers to a rare variety of lily that had a bloom similar to a glowing flame. The “lily of the valleys” (Song 2:1) is known as the Easter lily. The lily mentioned in Hos. 14:5 is more like an iris. The water lily or lotus was a favorite flower in Egypt and was used to decorate Solomon’s temple (1Kings 7:19, 22, 26; 2Chron. 4:5). The “lilies of the field” (Matt. 6:28) probably were numerous kinds of colorful spring flowers such as the crown anemone (see NIV: “flowers of the field”).

Mint. This aromatic plant, with hairy leaves, has dense white or pink flowers. It is listed with other spices and herbs as something that the Pharisees tithe (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).

Myrtle branch. This bush has fragrant evergreen leaves. Its scented white flowers were used for perfumes. The bush grew to considerable height (Zech. 1:8, 10) and is listed among the trees used to build shelters during the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. 8:15; see also Isa. 41:19; 55:13).

Pomegranate blossom. The blossom of the pomegranate tree is large and orange-red in color. The fruit of the tree was a symbol of fertile and productive land (Num. 13:23; Deut. 8:8; cf. Hag. 2:19) and was used to produce spiced wine (Song 8:2). Pomegranates were part of the decoration that adorned Aaron’s garments (Exod. 28:33–34) and the temple of Solomon (1Kings 7:18–20).

Rose. The Hebrew word translated as “rose” in Song 2:1 is translated as “crocus” in Isa. 35:1. Crocus was probably the family name of this flower.

Saffron. This is a species of crocus. Petals of the saffron were used to perfume banquet halls (cf. Song 4:14).

The English word “gospel” translates the Greekword euangelion, which is very important in the NT, being usedseventy-six times. The word euangelion (eu= “good,”angelion= “announcement”), in its contemporary usein the Hellenistic world, was not the title of a book but rather adeclaration of good news. Euangelion was used in the Roman Empirewith reference to significant events in the life of the emperor, whowas thought of as a savior with divine status. These events includeddeclarations at the time of his birth, his coming of age, and hisaccession to the throne. The NT usage of the term can also be tracedto the OT (e.g., Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1), which looked forward to thecoming of the Messiah, who would bring a time of salvation. This goodnews, which is declared in the NT, is that Jesus has fulfilled God’spromises to Israel, and now the way of salvation is open to all.

TheGospel Message

Theapostle Paul recognizes that the gospel is centered on the death,burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1Cor. 15:1–5). Hestates that this gospel is the power of God for the salvation ofeveryone who believes (Rom. 1:16), a sacred trust (1Tim. 1:11),the word of truth (Eph. 1:13), and an authoritative pronouncementthat requires a response (Rom. 10:16; 2Cor. 11:4; 2Thess.1:8). The declaration of this good news is found on the lips of Jesusin the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 11:5; Luke 4:18), who calls people torespond in repentance and belief (Mark 1:15). The good news is alsoin the early apostolic preaching, where it is associated with theproclamation of Christ (Acts 5:42; 8:35; 11:20).

Therecords of apostolic preaching in Acts are records of the earliestpublic declaration of this gospel. The apostle Peter gives three suchspeeches (Acts 2:14–41; 3:11–4:4; 10:34–43), whosecontent can be summarized as follows. The age of fulfillment hasdawned through the birth, life, ministry, and resurrection of JesusChrist (2:22–31), which has ushered in the “latter days”foretold by the prophets (3:18–26). Jesus, by his resurrection,has been exalted to the right hand of God as the head of the newIsrael (2:32–36), and the Holy Spirit has been given to thechurch as the sign of Christ’s present power and exaltation(10:44–48). This age will reach its consummation at the returnof Christ (3:20–21), and in response to this gospel an appealis made for repentance, with the offer of forgiveness, the HolySpirit, and salvation (2:37–41).

Thisdeclaration of the gospel is concerned primarily with what waspreached rather than what was written. Itinerant preachers of thisgospel were known as “evangelists,” which in Greek isclosely related to the term euangelion (Acts 21:8; Eph. 4:11; 2Tim.4:5). Some scholars believe that during the stage of oraltransmission, the gospel accounts developed a certain form throughrepetition, which helps explain some similarities between laterwritten accounts of the gospel.

FromOral to Written Gospel

Later,this “oral” gospel was written down, for several reasons.With the rapid spread of Christianity, as recorded in the book ofActs, a need arose for a more efficient dissemination of the messageof Jesus than was available by oral means. Furthermore, there was aneed to keep the message alive because some of the apostles had died(e.g., James in Acts 12:2) and many churches were facing oppositionand persecution. The written Gospels would facilitate catecheticaland liturgical needs and encourage persecuted Christians to continuefollowing Jesus by telling the story of his faithfulness throughgreat suffering. These written Gospels would also contain examples ofthose who persevered in following Jesus and of those who denied himand betrayed him. These accounts about Jesus and those who followedhim became foundational documents for the early church.

Itshould be noted that the gospel was not written down in order to giveit greater authority. The first-century context was largely an oralculture, in which storytelling and the rehearsal of facts wasintegral. Papias, a leader of the church in Hierapolis in Asia Minorwho died around AD 130, states his preference for oral traditionrather than written information about Jesus: “For I did notthink that information from books would help me as much as the wordof a living and surviving voice” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl.3.39.4). There is, however, a traceable trajectory from the gospelpreached by the apostles to the written accounts that bear the namesof Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is generally held that theauthors/editors of the four canonical Gospels were using oral and/orwritten sources (Luke 1:1–4), and that their respective Gospelswere written in the second half of the first century.

Themajority of biblical scholars hold that Mark was the first Gospel tobe written (c. AD 66). According to tradition, its editor/author wasJohn Mark, a close friend of the apostle Peter (1Pet. 5:13) anda part-time companion of the apostle Paul (Acts 12:12; Col. 4:10;2Tim. 4:11). This tradition is not without basis. Papias says,“Mark, who had indeed been Peter’s interpreter,accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, aboutthat which was either said or done by the Lord” (Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). This tradition is also outlined by Clement ofAlexandria, who, around AD 200, wrote, “When Peter had publiclypreached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed thegospel, then those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one whohad followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken,to make a record of what he said; and that he did this, anddistributed the Gospel among those that asked him” (Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 6.14.5–7; cf. 2.15.1–2).

Itis widely held that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of theirsources: of the material in Mark, over 97percent is repeated inMatthew and over 88percent in Luke. Matthew and Luke alsocontain material that appears to come from a common written sourcethat is not found in Mark. Scholars have named this source as “Q”(from the German Quelle= “source”), although thismay be a collection of sources rather than a single document.

Furthermore,the association of the Fourth Gospel with the apostle John goes backto Irenaeus (c. AD 180), who states, “John, the disciple of theLord, who leaned on his breast, also published the gospel whileliving at Ephesus in Asia” (Haer. 3.1.1, as cited in Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 5.8.4). By the second century, the term “gospel”is used for the written accounts of the life, death, and resurrectionof Jesus (e.g., Did. 11.3; 15.4). Justin Martyr (c. AD 140) refers tothe “memoirs of the apostles” (1Apol. 67) andIrenaeus (c. AD 180) mentions the four canonical Gospels by name(Haer. 3.11.7).

ThePurpose and Genre of the Gospels

Purpose.The Gospels were written to convey theology and to create and confirmfaith. They do not give an objectively neutral account of the life ofJesus; they enthusiastically endorse their protagonist and condemnthose who oppose him. They differ from traditional biographies inthat they give little information about the chronology of Jesus’life. Only two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, tell of the eventssurrounding Jesus’ birth. Luke alone tells of an event inJesus’ childhood (Luke 2:41–52). It is virtuallyincidental that Jesus worked as a carpenter and had brothers andsisters (Mark 6:3). A large percentage of each of the four canonicalGospels is devoted to the last week of Jesus’ life; of thesixteen chapters of Mark’s Gospel, six are devoted to the oneweek from Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem until his resurrection.

Theprimary intentions of the authors/editors of the written Gospels werenot to give biographical details but rather to lead the reader to anacknowledgment of the identity of Jesus and a belief in the purposeof his mission (Luke 1:4; John 20:31). Their theological purposes,however, do not necessarily compromise their commitment to historicalaccuracy. Jesus is presented as a real, historical figure who livedwithin a specific historical time frame. Luke appears to be moreconcerned than the other evangelists with historical details, givinga rough date for Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:1–2) and a morespecific time for Jesus’ baptism (3:1–2).

Genre.The discerning reader of the Gospels is forced to ask questionsconcerning the literary genre(s) of these texts. Such a discussion isimperative, as the interpretation of a section of any piece ofliterature will largely be determined by the function of the textwithin a certain literary genre. Prior to the 1970s, most NT scholarsbelieved that the Gospels formed a unique literary genre and weretherefore distinct from other first-century literary forms. Thisconclusion was based on the belief that the written Gospels werecollections of smaller sections sewn together by the evangelists, andthat the documents as a whole lacked coherence. Since then, thispresupposition has been challenged, largely because scholars haveseen that the Gospel writers were real editors and authors who werenot just collecting primitive source material but were using thatmaterial to write a larger story about Jesus. The written Gospelstherefore have overall coherence and purpose; they were written insuch a way as to bring about a desired response in the reader. Suchan overall intention may have stronger similarities with differentgenres in the Greco-Roman world of theNT.

TheGospels have been associated with several genres. They bear someresemblance to aretalogies, which were narratives about divinepersons in antiquity from which flowed moral instructions. Thesestories often involved miraculous events at the subject’s birthor death or during life, and they included the presence of bothdisciples and opponents. Within these aretalogies, the narrative wassecondary to the morality. An association with aretalogies,therefore, would encourage the reader to give greater attention tomoral teaching than to events in which this teaching is embedded.Similarly, others have seen the Gospels as essentially a collectionof wisdom sayings set in a historicized narrative; this view againgives priority to sayings and is doubtful of the historicity of thenarrative. Such views that downplay the narrative, and particularlythe miracles in Jesus’ life, have led others to argue theopposite extreme, which sees the Gospels, and Luke-Acts inparticular, as examples of ancient novels, with their focus onmiracle stories. Many scholars have rejected the emphasis on eithersayings or narrative, arguing that the literary genre that theGospels most closely resemble is ancient biographies (bioi). Thesecontained praise for the protagonist, rhetoric, moral philosophy, anda concern for character.

Althoughthe Gospels use different literary motifs that are reflective ofdifferent genres of the Greco-Roman world, they do not exactlyreplicate a known genre. They contain material not found in otherHellenistic literature of the time—for example, the fulfillmentof OT expectations and their desire to address particular issuesfaced by the early church, such as opposition; the Gentile mission;the need to redefine Israel in the light of Jesus’ life, death,and resurrection; and the nature of Christian discipleship. Unlikeother literature of the time, they do not name their authors, andwith the exception of Luke, they lack traditional literary devicessuch as prefaces. They are therefore to be seen as unique, or atleast as a distinct subgenre of ancient biographies.

Canonicaland Noncanonical Gospels

Theprogression from the events of Jesus’ life to the oralpreaching of this gospel to the first-century writing of the storyled to the acceptance of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark,Luke, and John into the NT canon. There is also a significant body ofliterature that is normally referred to as the noncanonical gospels.These later documents were neither widely accepted nor viewed asauthoritative, but they provide useful insights into the nature ofearly Christianity. A significant noncanonical gospel is the Gospelof Thomas, which is part of a large collection of works discovered atNag Hammadi (Egypt) in 1945. The Gospel of Thomas does not contain aresurrection account and is primarily a collection of sayings.

Thecanonical Gospels are not more authoritative than other sections ofScripture, but because they focus on Jesus’ ministry, withparticular attention to his death and resurrection, they draw theattention of the reader to the fulfillment of God’s purpose inthe life and work of Jesus, the Messiah. They are therefore of greatimportance within Scripture.

The normal foodstuff of livestock in biblical times, grassconsisted of various kinds of fast-growing, ground-covering plants(Num. 22:4; 1Kings 18:5). Several types of grass were native toIsrael, including short-lived grasses that sprang up during the rainyseason and died down shortly afterward, as well as longer-lastingdune grasses. Dried grass, or hay, does not appear to have beenharvested but needed to be removed before the new growth appeared(Prov. 27:25). The various words for “grass” can alsoindicate other vegetation, some of which was suitable for pasture,and some of which was even used for human consumption (Gen. 3:18;Matt. 13:26).

Becauseof its shallow roots, grass is quick to grow and quick to wither.This transience provides a suitable metaphor for human mortality (Ps.90:5–6; Isa. 40:6; 1Pet. 1:24), in contrast with thepermanence of God’s word. It also illustrates the fleetingsuccess of the wicked (Ps. 92:7), in contrast to the security of therighteous. Grass is the quickest indicator of changes in growingconditions, and thus it was also a barometer of God’s blessingon his people (Ps. 72:16). Grass is considered the most mundane ofplants, of little value, yet even this plant is valued by God, who issaid to clothe the grass with the splendor of lilies (Matt. 6:28–30).

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood,molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idolsare not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—evenpagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium throughwhich a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguishbetween worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahwehthrough images.

Incontrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of allimages as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images ofYahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented byanything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form atSinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form canadequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Biblesimilarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because itelevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the secondcommandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image ofanything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatryis regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because itmarks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with hispeople (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). Thiscorresponds to the fact that idol worship often included culticprostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alikeridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unableto see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these“gods” depended on humans for transportation andprotection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20).Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as thethings they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing,both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous.This is because idols lead people away from properly worshipingYahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despiteits warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israelregularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supremerevelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping agolden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society hadbecome degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan,engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy wasdivided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship topreserve the loyalty of his people (1Kings 12:25–33).Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reasonfor the exile.

ByNT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but itremained an important issue for the growing church because manybelievers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostlesincluded idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readersto flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols.Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linkedit with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NTauthors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worshipthe true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to thetime when all idol worship would cease.

Scopeand Uses of the Word “Hope”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hopeas a Biblical Theme

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

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

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

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

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

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood,molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idolsare not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—evenpagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium throughwhich a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguishbetween worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahwehthrough images.

Incontrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of allimages as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images ofYahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented byanything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form atSinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form canadequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Biblesimilarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because itelevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the secondcommandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image ofanything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatryis regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because itmarks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with hispeople (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). Thiscorresponds to the fact that idol worship often included culticprostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alikeridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unableto see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these“gods” depended on humans for transportation andprotection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20).Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as thethings they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing,both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous.This is because idols lead people away from properly worshipingYahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despiteits warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israelregularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supremerevelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping agolden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society hadbecome degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan,engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy wasdivided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship topreserve the loyalty of his people (1Kings 12:25–33).Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reasonfor the exile.

ByNT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but itremained an important issue for the growing church because manybelievers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostlesincluded idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readersto flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols.Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linkedit with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NTauthors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worshipthe true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to thetime when all idol worship would cease.

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood,molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idolsare not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—evenpagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium throughwhich a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguishbetween worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahwehthrough images.

Incontrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of allimages as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images ofYahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented byanything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form atSinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form canadequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Biblesimilarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because itelevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the secondcommandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image ofanything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatryis regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because itmarks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with hispeople (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). Thiscorresponds to the fact that idol worship often included culticprostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alikeridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unableto see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these“gods” depended on humans for transportation andprotection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20).Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as thethings they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing,both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous.This is because idols lead people away from properly worshipingYahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despiteits warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israelregularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supremerevelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping agolden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society hadbecome degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan,engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy wasdivided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship topreserve the loyalty of his people (1Kings 12:25–33).Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reasonfor the exile.

ByNT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but itremained an important issue for the growing church because manybelievers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostlesincluded idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readersto flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols.Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linkedit with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NTauthors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worshipthe true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to thetime when all idol worship would cease.

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

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

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

EarlyHistory through the United Monarchy

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

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

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

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

Fromthe Divided Monarchy to the Exile

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

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

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

FromPersian to Roman Rule

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

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

TheTime of Jesus and the First Century AD

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

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

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

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

Geographyand economy.Biblical Lebanon is the region that consists of two parallel mountainranges north of Israel, whose boundaries are very similar tomodern-day Lebanon. The south-southwest range is called “Lebanon,”and the north-northeast range “Anti-Lebanon” (i.e., “allLebanon to the east” [cf. Josh. 13:5]). Between the two rangesis the Valley of Lebanon, where the city of Baal Gad was located(Josh. 11:17; 12:7). At the southern end is Mount Hermon, where thesnowcapped peaks probably gave rise to its name, which in Hebrewmeans “to be white” (Jer. 18:14). Biblical referencesprobably have in view Mount Lebanon (Judg. 3:3), with an elevation often thousand feet. Historically, the region was not as prosperous asthe coastal Phoenician cities, although it was well known for itslumber industry. The fruits (Ps. 72:16), wine (Hos. 14:7), flowingwaters (Song 4:15), and animals (Song 4:8) are described effusivelyin the OT. The region marks the northern boundary of the promisedland (Deut. 1:7; 3:25; 11:24; Josh. 1:4; 9:1), which Joshua neverconquered (Josh. 13:5; Judg. 3:1–3). Later, Solomon seems tohave built cities in it (1Kings 9:19; 2Chron. 8:6).

Archaeologicalevidence indicates that trees found in the region, such as pine,cypress, and cedar, were greatly sought after from the time of theMiddle Bronze Age (2200–1550 BC) to the Byzantine period (AD324–638) for use in the construction of buildings and boats(cf. Ezek. 27:5). Cedar wood from the forests of Lebanon was shippedto Solomon by the king of Tyre for building the temple in Jerusalem(1Kings 4:33; 5:6–10; 2Kings 14:9; 2Chron.2:8–16; Song 3:9). When the forest belonged to the king ofPersia, he authorized cedar wood to be sent for the building of thesecond temple (Ezra 3:7).

Metaphoricaluse of “Lebanon.”Important to the present discussion is the metaphorical use of theterm “Lebanon,” particularly in the OT, where the termoccurs over seventy times (the name does not appear in the NT).First, associated with the mountainous range in the region, Lebanonevokes images of glory, fertility, and abundance. For example, thehigh elevation gives Lebanon the sense of majesty and glory (Isa.35:2; 60:13; cf. 2Kings 19:23), which is further equated withthe glory of Jerusalem (Isa. 60:13; Ezek. 17:3, 22; cf. Isa. 10:34;Zech. 11:1) and the restored Israel (Zech. 10:10–11; cf. Jer.22:6). The melting snows, plus the annual rainfall, ensure abundanceand fertility (Ps. 104:16; Song 4:15; Jer. 18:14; cf. Ps. 72:16). Theglory of Lebanon is linked with Sharon, Bashan, and Carmel in theterritory of Israel (Isa. 2:13; 35:2; cf. Isa. 33:9; Nah. 1:4).

Second,of all the coniferous trees in the forest of Lebanon, cedars receivethe greatest attention and have been regularly used to indicatestature and beauty. For example, their sweet smell describes thedesirability of renewed Israel (Song 4:11; Hos. 14:7), and theirmagnificence reminds one of the beautiful trees in Eden (Ps. 104:16;Ezek. 31:9, 16). These towering evergreens are a fitting image ofhumankind. The righteous people are compared to a cedar of Lebanon(Ps. 92:12–15); the legs of the bridegroom are as noble as thecedars (Song 5:15); and even kings, both Davidic (Isa. 14:8; Ezek.17:3) and foreign (Isa. 10:34; Ezek. 31:3–18), as well as theirsubjects (Judg. 9:15), are likened to the cedars of Lebanon. Quiteoften, they are symbols of political entities (Isa. 2:13; 40:16),such as Judah (Ezek. 17:3), Assyria (Ezek. 31:3), and Tyre (Ezek.27:5).

Third,Lebanon, together with its forest, is used to depict negative images.For example, all its glories and riches combined are not enough for asacrificial offering to God (Isa. 40:16). The barrenness of Lebanonis the result of God’s judgment (Isa. 33:9). Prophetic oraclesare often associated with Lebanon. The cutting down or withering ofthe choicest trees is spoken of as judgment against the proud (Isa.2:13; 33:9; Ezek. 31:15; Nah. 1:4), against the wicked nation of Tyre(Ezek. 27:1–9) and Judah (Jer. 22:6–7).

Fourth,exegetical traditions resulting from the metaphorical richness ofLebanon are found in later Jewish literature. For example, based onthe root (lbn) of the term “Lebanon,” which means “tobe white,” the rabbis interpreted it to refer to the temple,for it whitens the sin of Israel (b.Yoma 39a). The sweetfragrance of the cedars in Lebanon (Hos. 14:6) causes interpreters toconnect it with the smell of the youth of Israel exhaled in the lastday (b.Ber. 43b).

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translatewords meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It hasa Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family”and, eventually, “race” or “people.” TheGreek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship.In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other thanIsrael. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,”“peoples,” or “races.”

OldTestament

Ingeneral, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. Godchose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8;10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership inthe covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becomingpart of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

TheOT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessingthrough Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping thelaw, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. Thelaw is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenantthat God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5;20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6;10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss.119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Suchlaw/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OTunderstanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel,the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in andthrough Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3;17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specificallyinvolves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]).Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subjectto Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16;14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed byIsrael’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel,serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fearIsrael’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5;60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic.7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages furtherelucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in theGod of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer.12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations“flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentileparticipation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa.2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

TheServant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect thislaw/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. Theservant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19;44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14),serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6;49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separatefrom Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who haveharmed Israel.

SecondTemple Judaism and Early Christianity

SecondTemple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, theirnature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end.Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’speople defined by the law, variously understood and contested amongSecond Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’sultimate blessing activities.

SituatingJesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentilesensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread acrossthe Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God ofIsrael in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentilesexperience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

SomeChristians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought thatGentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God ofIsrael’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’sopponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from Godand his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13;1Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation,especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin,lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32;Eph. 4:17–19; 1Thess. 4:5; 1Pet. 1:14, 18).

However,various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keepthe law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’sultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, hasreplaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and hisdeath and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ bythe Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true,redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheritingGod’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25;8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7;Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentilesattain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightlybefore God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30;1Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1Thess. 4:3–8).Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles withrespect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debatesabout Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for theseissues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocalsaying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and someother NT writings.

A synonym of “strength.” “Power”often translates the Hebrew words koakh or ’az or the Greekword dynamis, all of which denote strength or might. The Hebrew wordyad (“hand”) may also denote power when it is used tospeak of the dominion of a ruler (e.g., 2Kings 17:7 [NASB:“hand of Pharaoh”; NIV: “power of Pharaoh”]).

Althoughhumans have a degree of power, God is omnipotent, all-powerful (Jer.32:17). He utilized his great power in creating the world (Jer.51:15; Rom. 1:20; Rev. 4:11). He has also displayed his power throughother mighty acts, such as delivering the Israelites from Egypt(Exod. 14:31; Deut. 9:26). The wisdom literature extols God’spower (Job 9:4; Pss. 20:6; 66:3; 147:5), as do the prophets (Isa.40:10; Jer. 27:5; Dan. 2:20; Nah. 1:3) and the letters of the NT(1Cor. 6:14; Eph. 1:18–21; Col. 2:10). God continues todisplay his power through the gospel (Rom. 1:16), not only inrescuing believers from their sins (1Cor. 1:24–25) butalso in empowering them to live holy lives (2Cor. 4:7).

TheHoly Spirit has acted and continues to act as the agent of God’spower (Judg. 14:6; 1Sam. 16:13; Acts 1:8). Just as the HolySpirit has done many powerful signs and wonders through Jesus and theapostles (Acts 10:38; Rom. 15:18–19), he gives rebirth to eachChristian through his power (Gal. 4:29). The Holy Spirit alsostrengthens Christians with power “so that Christ may dwell in[their] hearts through faith” (Eph. 3:17).

The word “root” occurs in a literal sense in Job30:4, but ordinarily it is used in a figurative sense. Its mostprevalent connotation refers to the foundation or core of a matter orone’s life (Job 28:9; Prov. 12:3, 12; Isa. 14:30). It also, byanalogy, signifies that which gives life to the plant (Matt. 13:6;Rom. 11:17). When pictured near water, roots symbolize prosperity(Job 29:19; Ezek. 31:7), even a blessing of the Lord (Job 8:17; Jer.17:8).

Theterm sometimes indicates the lowest part or depth (Job 36:30). It canalso carry the idea of origin, as in that of bitterness or evil(Deut. 29:18; 1Tim. 6:10; Heb. 12:15), or the cause of a matter(Job 19:28).

Frequently,the word is used to describe something established, as in a kingdom(Ps. 80:9, 15; Isa. 27:6; 37:31; 40:24; Jer. 12:2). It emphasizespositively that which is secure (Prov. 12:3, 12) or negatively thatwhich is uprooted or destroyed (1Kings 14:15).

Finally,the word may refer to the offspring of a family (Judg. 5:14; Ps.80:15), ultimately pointing to the coming Messiah (Isa. 11:1, 10;53:2; Rev. 5:5; 22:16) as the heir through whom the dynasty iscompleted.

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

Geography

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

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

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

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

TheSinai Desert is a large peninsula, with the modern-day Gulf of Suezto the west and the Gulf of Aqaba to the east. In the ancient NearEastern world, both bodies of water often were referred to as the“Red Sea,” which is the larger sea to the south. Inaddition to the region traditionally believed to contain the locationof Mount Sinai (its exact location is unknown), the Sinai Desert isfurther 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).

Wildernessin the Bible

Wildernessis commonly mentioned in the Bible, and although it certainly canhave neutral connotations (i.e., simply describing a location), theuninhabited places often entail both positive (e.g., as a place ofsolitude) and negative (e.g., as a place of wrath) connotations, bothin their actual geological properties and as metaphors. The veryrugged and uninhabited nature of the wilderness easily lent itself tobeing 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 rebellionsand struggles with other nations. Upon leaving Egypt, Israel spentforty years wandering the wilderness before entering Canaan,encountering numerous military conflicts along the way. Thisforty-year period was occasioned by a mass rebellion (Num. 14), hencecasting a necessarily dark cloud over that entire period, and nodoubt firming up subsequent negative connotations of “wilderness.”Similarly, “wilderness” connotes notions of exile fromIsrael, as seen in the ritual of the scapegoat (lit., “goat ofremoval” [see Lev. 16]). On the Day of Atonement, one goat wassacrificed to atone for the people’s sin, and another was sentoff, likewise to atone for sin. The scapegoat was released into thedesert, where it would encounter certain death, either by succumbingto the climate or through wild animals.

Onthe other hand, it is precisely in this uninhabited land that Godalso showed his faithfulness to his people, despite their prolongedpunishment. 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 isamply summarized in Deut. 1:30–31: “The Lord your God,who is going before you, will fight for you, as he did for you inEgypt, before your very eyes, and in the wilderness. There you sawhow the Lord your God carried you, as a father carries his son, allthe way you went until you reached this place.”

Theharsh realities of the wilderness also made it an ideal place to seeksanctuary and protection. David fled from Saul to the wilderness, theDesert 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).

Relatedsomewhat to this last point is Jesus’ own attitude toward thewilderness. It was there that he retreated when he could no longermove about publicly (John 11:54). John the Baptist came from thewilderness announcing Jesus’ ministry (Matt. 3:1–3; Mark1:2–4; Luke 3:2–6; John 1:23; cf. Isa. 40:3–5). Itwas also in the desert that Jesus went to be tempted but alsoovercame that temptation.

The Bible has much to say about works, and an understandingof the topic is important because works play a role in mostreligions. In the most generic sense, “works” refers tothe products or activities of human moral agents in the context ofreligious discussion. God’s works are frequently mentioned inScripture, and they are always good. His works include creation (Gen.2:2–3; Isa. 40:28; 42:5), sustenance of the earth (Ps. 104;Heb. 1:3), and redemption (Exod. 6:6; Ps. 111:9; Rom. 8:23). Humanworks, therefore, should be in alignment with God’s works,though obviously of a different sort. Works in the Bible usuallyreflect a moral polarity: good or evil, righteous or unrighteous,just or unjust. The context of the passage often determines the moralcharacter of the works (e.g., Isa. 3:10–11; 2Cor. 11:15).

Importantquestions follow from the existence of works and their moral quality.Do good works merit God’s favor or please him? Can good workssave at the time of God’s judgment? When people asked Jesus,“What must we do to do the works God requires?” heanswered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one hehas sent” (John 6:28–29). Without faith it is impossibleto please God (Heb. 11:6). The people from the OT commended in Heb.11 did their works in the precondition of faith. Explicitly in the NTand often implicitly in the OT, faith is the condition for truly goodworks. God elects out of his mercy, not out of human works (Rom.9:12, 16; Titus 3:5; cf. Rom. 11:2). Works not done in faith, even ifconsidered “good” by human standards, are not commendableto God, since all humankind is under sin (Rom. 3:9) and no person isrighteous or does good (Rom. 3:10–18; cf. Isa. 64:6). Workscannot save; salvation is a gift to be received by faith (Eph. 2:8–9;2Tim. 1:9; cf. Rom. 4:2–6). Even works of the Mosaic laware not salvific (Rom. 3:20, 27–28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2; 5:4). Goodworks follow from faith (2Cor. 9:8; Eph. 2:10; 1Thess.1:3; James 2:18, 22; cf. Acts 26:20). The works of those who havefaith will be judged, but this judgment appears to be related torewards, not salvation (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; 2Cor. 5:10; cf.Rom. 14:10; 1Cor. 3:13–15).

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

TheOrigin of Humankind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheNature of Humankind

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

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

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

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

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

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

BibleFormation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canonization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authorshipand Date

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

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

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

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

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

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

HistoricalBackground

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LiteraryConsiderations

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

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

Thisyields the following outline:

I.God’s Judgment on Israel (1–24)

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

III.Hope for Israel (33–48)

A.Renewal of the nation (33–39)

B.Ezekiel’s temple vision (40–48)

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

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

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

TheologicalMessage

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

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

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

NewTestament Connections

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

The first of the Major Prophets in the canon, the book of Isaiah is one of the longest books in the Bible. This, coupled with the NT’s frequent use of Isaiah, has contributed to the book’s great importance in Christian tradition. Isaiah contains some of the most memorable passages in Scripture, with its majestic poetry and evocative sermons making it a literary masterpiece. Nevertheless, it has also been characterized as a difficult book to comprehend and make sense of as a whole because the connections between different paragraphs and sections appear to be haphazard at times and are difficult to understand. However, some knowledge of the way the book was formed can aid in interpretation.

Authorship

The authorship of Isaiah has been one of the most debated issues in biblical interpretation. Ancient tradition credited the eighth-century BC prophet Isaiah with the entire sixty-six chapters. However, an early Jewish tradition in the Talmud claims that “the men of Hezekiah” compiled Isaiah, showing their awareness that the book did not come entirely from Isaiah.

Literary evidence. Isaiah son of Amoz is referred to as author in three sections of the book (1:1; 2:1; 13:1) and is featured in both third-person (chaps. 7; 20; 36–39) and first-person (chaps. 6; 8) narratives. However, chapters 40–66 have no such headings and do not even mention Isaiah. While references to Isaiah as author in specific sections may suggest that he actually did write the whole book, they may also indicate that he did not write sections that are not ascribed to him. Similarly, historical narratives referring to the prophet in the third person may suggest that someone else wrote them, although the intimate information in them (e.g., 7:3) could point to Isaianic authorship.

Another possible indication of multiple authorship is the marked difference in literary style and vocabulary found in different sections of Isaiah. While such judgments are quite subjective, both sides of the authorship debate acknowledge these stylistic differences.

Historical settings. The debate regarding the authorship of Isaiah really centers on the diverse historical settings within different sections of the book. Chapters 1–39 clearly are set during the late eighth century BC, the period when Assyria is threatening Judah. Assyria is frequently mentioned (e.g., 7:17; 8:4; 10:12; 11:11; 19:23; 20:1; 27:13; 36:1), as are Judean kings (e.g., 1:1; 6:1; 7:1; 14:28; 36:1) and the prophet Isaiah himself (e.g., 1:1; 2:1; 13:1; 20:2; 37:5).

In contrast, the historical setting of chapters 40–55 is not eighth-century BC Judah. Israel is described as in captivity and Jerusalem is referred to as ruined and deserted (44:26, 28; 52:9); there is frequent allusion to the sufferings of the exile (42:22, 25; 43:28; 47:6; 51:17; 52:5); and the coming return from exile is described as close at hand (40:2; 46:13; 48:20). Furthermore, in chapters 40–55 Babylon is Israel’s enemy, even though in Isaiah’s day they were allies. Also, Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who conquered Babylon in 539 BC (ending the exile), is mentioned with no introduction or explanation (44:28; 45:1), even though he lived 150 years after Isaiah. In sum, chapters 40–55 appear to be addressed to Judeans in Babylonian exile.

Conversely, chapters 56–66 appear to come from yet another historical period. Unlike in chapters 40–55, where the temple was destroyed and out of operation, in chapters 56–66 the temple (66:6), along with sacrifices (56:7; 66:3), offerings (57:6; 65:3; 66:3), and Sabbaths (56:2; 58:13; 66:23), is referred to. Also, Jerusalem and its walls are standing (62:6), unlike in chapters 40–55, where it is predicted that Jerusalem will be rebuilt (44:26). This seems to indicate that it addresses those who have returned to Jerusalem after the exile.

This evidence suggests that the book of Isaiah was written by several authors from different time periods. Alternatively, these diverse historical settings could be explained by supposing that Isaiah spoke to audiences in the distant future through divine inspiration. While skeptical scholars holding antisupernatural worldviews have denied this possibility, those who believe in an almighty God believe that he can reveal the distant future to his prophets. However, the question is whether that is in fact the case with Isaiah. It is significant that in chapters 40–55 Babylonian oppression is not predicted as something to come in the future but rather is presupposed as the present conditions under which the writer is living—only the release from exile is predicted. Logically, it would seem that the author lived in the situation that he presupposes and before the situation that he predicts.

Arguments for the unity of Isaiah. Some scholars still hold to the unity of Isaiah on the following grounds: (1)no ancient manuscripts show that the book ever existed in another form; (2)differences in style and vocabulary can be explained by different subject matter (besides which, the title “Holy One of Israel” unites all sections of Isaiah, as it is used thirteen times in chapters 1–39, sixteen times in chapters 40–66, and only seven times in the rest of the Bible); (3)it seems unlikely that an author as great as the one who wrote chapters 40–55 should remain anonymous; and (4)although it is logical to assume that a prophet is contemporary with what he presupposes, once a prophet makes a prediction, that prediction can become a presupposition for another prediction. Therefore, Isaiah’s prediction of exile in 39:6–7 could become the basis or presupposition on which he continued to prophesy the end to the exile.

However, these arguments are not compelling. Although no manuscripts attest to earlier versions of the book, we possess so few manuscripts from before the time of Christ (and none dating to the time during which the three sections of Isaiah are thought to have been combined) that this is insignificant. Also, the differences in subject matter do not seem great enough to explain the very different style and language in the various sections. Regarding the unlikelihood that the writer of chapters 40–55 could remain anonymous, the fact is that many biblical books are indeed anonymous (e.g., Judges, 1–2Kings, 1–2Chronicles). However, most significant are the different historical settings of the major sections of Isaiah. If Isaiah was addressing an audience in the distant future, not only would it be a situation unparalleled in the biblical prophets, but also the message would have been largely unintelligible to Isaiah’s contemporaries (especially references to Cyrus). Moreover, the text does not claim to predict these situations but only presupposes them. However, the reality of prophetic inspiration is underscored, as a later author predicts not only the end of the exile but also a suffering messiah.

First, Second, and Third Isaiah. For convenience (and not to imply that each author was named “Isaiah”), the three major sections are often referred to as First Isaiah (chaps. 1–39), Second Isaiah (chaps. 40–55), and Third Isaiah (chaps. 56–66). In light of the purposeful connections between the different sections, it is probable that the book was the product of a “school” of Isaiah’s disciples (cf. 8:16) who collected and organized Isaiah’s words and added to them over a long period of time.

In the end, the involvement of multiple authors in the composition of Isaiah does not undermine its authority as Scripture. Its authority derives not from the namesake prophet but rather from God, who inspired its writing (2Tim. 3:16).

Plan of the Book

Isaiah has a literary structure similar to that of Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Joel, and the Greek translation of Jeremiah. The first section is concerned with judgment on Israel (chaps. 1–12), the second with judgment on foreign nations (chaps. 13–23), and the third records prophecies of hope and salvation (chaps. 24–27). This structure purposefully places hopeful oracles of comfort after the judgment oracles. Some view the entire book of Isaiah as following this pattern (chaps. 1–12, judgment on Israel; chaps. 13–35, judgment on other nations; chaps. 40–66, oracles of comfort). However, both of these schemes are somewhat forced, since each section is slightly mixed (there are oracles of salvation in chaps. 1–12, prophecies against Judah in chaps. 13–23, and judgment oracles in chaps. 56–66). However, in broad outline it is helpful to recognize this structure.

Outline

I. Judgment on Judah (1–12)

II. Judgment on the Nations (13–27)

III. Warnings to Trust in the Lord (28–35)

IV. The Assyrian Crisis (36–39)

V. The Second Exodus (40–48)

VI. The Restoration of Jerusalem (49–55)

VII. The Earthly and New Jerusalem (56–66)

First Isaiah (Isa. 1–39)

Key historical events. This section of Isaiah comes from the period when the nation of Assyria was aggressively expanding its territory and terrorizing weaker nations, such as Israel and Judah. Two key historical events form the background for many oracles in chapters 1–39 and are the prominent focus there: the Syro-Ephraimite war of 734 BC and the 701 BC Assyrian invasion of Judah.

The Syro-Ephraimite war. The nations of Aram (Syria) and Israel (Ephraim) allied together against Assyria and tried to coerce Judah into joining them. They planned to replace King Ahaz with a king of their choice (7:6), which would end the Davidic dynasty. In the end, Ahaz rejected Isaiah’s advice to simply trust God (7:9) and instead appealed to the king of Assyria for aid. The Assyrians conquered Aram (732 BC) and Israel (722 BC) and assimilated them into the Assyrian empire. Judah survived but had to pay tribute to Assyria from that point onward.

The Assyrian invasion of Judah. The Assyrian king Sennacherib invaded Judah when Hezekiah, Ahaz’s son, reigned in Jerusalem. The invasion devastated Judah; however, when Jerusalem was threatened, Hezekiah, in contrast to his father, trusted God to save them, and the Assyrian army suffered massive losses and failed to take Jerusalem (37:36).

Structure and themes. The structure of chapters 1–39 is quite complex. However, the prophecies and historical narratives concerned with Isaiah’s day are roughly in chronological order (e.g., prophecies and events occurring during the reign of King Ahaz [6:1–8:22] precede those during Hezekiah’s reign [36:1–39:8]). The structure of these chapters alternates between threat and promise (e.g., chap. 1= threat; 2:1–4= promise of hope; 2:5–4:1= threat; 4:2–6= promise of hope). Analogously, the main themes of these chapters alternate between threat and promise.

Holiness. A major theme of Isaiah is God’s holiness, as evidenced in its favorite title for the Lord, “Holy One of Israel.” While the original idea underlying holiness was physical separation and did not have an ethical dimension (e.g., temple prostitutes in the ancient Near East were called “holy women”), a different concept of holiness emerges in chapter 6, the account of Isaiah’s call. Since 6:1–9:7 is the only part in the book with autobiographical narration, these chapters probably come from an original memoir of Isaiah himself. The memoir is surrounded by judgment oracles with a repeated element, “Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised” (5:25; 9:12, 17, 21; 10:4), suggesting that the memoir as a whole was inserted between these oracles to explain God’s anger recorded in 1–12. God’s mandate to Israel was to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–45), but Israel failed to follow this command. In the presence of the holy God, Isaiah realized his own sinfulness and the sinfulness of his people (6:5), connecting the concepts of holiness and righteousness.

The remnant. Already in the first chapter we see the emergence of two groups within Israel: the wicked, who will be punished, and a remnant, who will be redeemed (1:27–31). This focus on the remnant was one way in which Isaiah saw hope for Israel despite the coming judgment that he predicted. The remnant theme highlights the apparent tension between God as holy and God as redeemer: God’s holiness is upheld through the judgment on Israel, but God’s character as savior is witnessed through the remnant that is redeemed.

A coming messianic king. The section 6:1–9:7 dates from the time of the Syro-Ephraimite war, and it appears that Isaiah wrote it down (8:16) when Ahaz refused his counsel. The memoir emphasizes the rejection of the Davidic king Ahaz and predicts the birth of a royal son who would replace Ahaz and bring freedom from oppression (9:1–7). This dissatisfaction with the reigning Davidic king was the seedbed for messianic expectations and is the background for the messianic trilogy of 7:14–16; 9:2–7; 11:1–9. While some of these passages may have originally referred to Hezekiah, he falls short of these messianic expectations, leaving the community of faith awaiting another anointed one (messiah). Ominously, chapter 39 describes Hezekiah’s entertaining guests from Babylon, perhaps implying an alliance between the two nations. Hezekiah’s actions prompt Isaiah to predict the Babylonian exile (39:6–7), providing a fitting segue to chapters 40–66.

Second Isaiah (Isa. 40–55)

A message to the exiles. Second Isaiah was written near the end of the exilic period for those who were deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon. Although the exiles in Babylon were settled in communities (Ezek. 3:15) and allowed to build houses and farm the land (Jer. 29:5–7), they had no temple for worship, and many of the exiles probably saw the destruction of Jerusalem and their temple as the end of God’s action on their behalf. The gods of Babylon appeared to have won the victory. The exiles’ faith was flagging, and even those who did not abandon worship of Israel’s God simply clung to the past and expected nothing new from him.

Contrary to these expectations, Second Isaiah proclaims that God is doing something new for his people and bringing an end to the exile (40:1; 55:12). The role of Cyrus in this deliverance is highlighted, with explicit and implicit reference made to the Persian king (41:2–3, 25; 44:28; 45:1–4, 13–14). However, amid the oracles of comfort there is also a challenge to Israel, which is somehow resistant to the message. To break down this resistance, the prophecy has a sustained rhetoric against idol worship, with some quite hilarious sections ridiculing idol makers (44:9–20). Israel needed to realize that only Yahweh is God and to trust that he will redeem Israel for his purposes. Chapters 1–39 allude to the redemption of Israel (1:27; 35:9), and chapters 40–66 reveal more of how this redemption will take place: the work of “the servant.”

The servant. Several poems featuring an anonymous “servant” (42:1–9; 49:1–12; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12) are often referred to as the Servant Songs. As far back as the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:34), interpreters have struggled with how to identify “the servant.” At times, Israel is explicitly identified as the servant (Isa. 41:8–9; 42:19 [2×]; 43:10), yet the servant clearly also has individual features, suggesting that a person was to fill the role. Some have suggested Cyrus because 42:1 says that the servant “will bring justice to the nations,” and Cyrus is described as conquering nations (41:2, 25; 45:1). However, despite all the talk of Cyrus, the text never explicitly applies the term “servant” to him, which can hardly be by chance. Alternatively, the servant could be the prophet who speaks in these chapters (as the Ethiopian eunuch speculated), since he was destined for his mission before his birth (49:1) and equipped for a mission involving prophetic speech (49:2) and had received divinely revealed knowledge (50:4).

Yet the Servant Songs are also messianic and look forward to a future anointed one who will fulfill the role of the servant fully. In the NT, Jesus is presented as the new Israel (cf. Matt. 2:15 with Hos. 11:1) who truly fulfills the role of the servant (John 12:38, quoting Isa. 53:1; Matt. 8:17, quoting Isa. 53:4). However, Paul appears to hold to a collective interpretation of the songs, as he sees himself as the servant in some instances (Acts 13:47; Rom. 15:21; Gal. 1:15). Both the individual and the collective interpretations are legitimated in the NT, as both Jesus (individual) and the church (collective), which is Christ’s body, fulfill the role of the servant.

Third Isaiah (Isa. 56–66)

In 539 BC Cyrus allowed the exiles to return home to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple (Ezra 1:1–4). Despite many obstacles, the temple was finished in 515 BC. Even with this success, living in the land was challenging (see Malachi), with factions among the people, economic troubles, hypocritical worship (Isa. 58:1–14), and problems with corrupt leaders (56:9–57:13). It was for this postexilic community that Third Isaiah was written (probably before the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah in 445 BC brought lasting change to the desperate situation).

Unlike in chapters 40–55, where Israel needs to be roused from its despair by the imminent actions of God, in chapters 56–66 the people are pleading with God to help them (59:11; 62:7). In chapter 59 the prophet declares that God’s delay in helping his people is due not to his inability but rather to the sins of the people, which are described, confessed, and lamented.

In many ways, Third Isaiah unites the themes of First Isaiah and Second Isaiah. Second Isaiah emphasizes the inbreaking of a new age that contrasts with the old. The former things are remembered, but the new thing that God was doing—the return from exile—is stressed. However, in Third Isaiah the deliverance from Babylon is seen as merely a foretaste of God’s promise, which is now identified as a new heaven and earth (chaps. 65–66). Third Isaiah looks forward to the new things that are still ahead.

First Isaiah predicts a Davidic messiah who would rule in righteousness (9:1–7; 11:1–9) and a faithful remnant that would respond in trust (10:20; 28:16). Second Isaiah does not continue with these themes, instead turning attention to the “servant” whose suffering and death would atone for Israel (53:4–5). However, Third Isaiah links First Isaiah’s faithful remnant with obedient “servants” who take on the mission of the Suffering Servant in Second Isaiah. This interpretation sets the direction for the NT’s identification of the royal messiah of chapters 1–39 as the servant of chapters 40–55 (Luke 24:26; Acts 8:32). Third Isaiah thus unites and reinterprets the book as a whole.

It is fitting that Jesus read the opening verses of Isa. 61 in the synagogue at the beginning of his ministry. Like Third Isaiah, he united prophecies of both the messianic Davidic ruler of First Isaiah and the Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah, taking on both roles himself. Third Isaiah ends with a glorious future pictured for the Jewish community as they function as priests in the world (61:6). Similarly, Christ’s body, the church, now functions in these same roles in the world (cf. Acts 13:47; Rev. 5:10).

Malachi is one of the last prophetic voices in the OT. It islikely for this reason that it is the last of the twelve MinorProphets, the last book in the entire OT, at least in the Englishorder of books. In the Hebrew canon it concludes the second of threeparts of the Hebrew Bible, the Nebiim, or Prophets.

Sincethe prophet comes from the period after the judgment of the exile, itis sad to see that he addresses the sin of the people and thusthreatens further judgment. Intriguingly for the Christian, the bookends with the promise that Elijah will come before that great day ofjudgment, a promise that the NT authors see fulfilled in the personof John the Baptist, whose ministry comes as a prelude to theappearance of Jesus Christ (Matt. 3; Mark 1:1–8; Luke 3; John1:19–34).

HistoricalBackground

Thesuperscription of the book (1:1) names Malachi as the vehicle throughwhom God addresses his people. The fact that the prophet isidentified by name and not by place of birth or parentage has ledsome to suggest that “Malachi” is not a person’sreal name but refers simply to “my messenger,” which isthe meaning of the Hebrew. Messenger is a theme in the book, as theprophecy later promises a future messenger who will prepare the wayfor the coming of the Lord (3:1; 4:5). However, since the rest ofbiblical prophecy makes a point of identifying its oracles with aparticular person, it is best to think of “Malachi” as areal person’s name.

Thesuperscription also lacks a historical indicator—for instance,the names of kings during whose reign the prophet ministered.Nonetheless, internal indications point to the Persian period,probably sometime in the years 475–460 BC, before the work ofEzra and Nehemiah.

LiteraryConsiderations and Outline

Thesuperscription describes the contents of the book as “aprophecy” and “the word of the Lord.” The book’scontents support this genre identification, as the author bringscharges against the religious and ethical behavior of the people ofGod and also looks forward to the future day of judgment, which leadsto the redemption of the faithful.

Theprophecy’s structure is based on a series of disputations orchallenges directed toward God’s sinful people. The sixdisputations have a common structure. God begins by asserting a truthabout the nature of his relationship with his people. In the seconddisputation (1:6–2:9), for instance, God asserts that he is thepriests’ master and father and asks why they treat him withcontempt (1:6). The response comes in the form of a question, in thiscase “How have we shown contempt for your name?” (1:6).God then responds by listing the ways they have done so.

Sixsuch disputes are framed by a superscription announcing the oracleand by a conclusion in which God demands observance of the law andannounces the future coming of Elijah:

I.Superscription: God’s Prophecy through Malachi (1:1)

II.Dispute about God’s Love for His People (1:2–5)

III.Dispute about the Contempt That the Priests Show God (1:6–2:9)

IV.Dispute about Israel’s Breaking of the Covenant (2:10–16)

V.Dispute about God’s Justice (2:17–3:5)

VI.Dispute about Repentance (3:6–12)

VII.Dispute about Harsh Words against God (3:13–4:3)

VIII.Conclusion: Observe the Law, Watch for Elijah (4:4–6)

TheologicalMessage

Asis typical of the biblical prophets, the covenant is at the center ofMalachi’s prophetic proclamation. Three covenants in particularare cited: the covenant with Levi (2:8), the covenant of the fathers(2:10), and the covenant of marriage (2:14). God’s people haveviolated these covenants. God loves them in a special way, but theydo not return that love. Their sin breaks their covenantrelationship; thus the prophet warns them of the possibility offuture judgment. Even so, God is also a redeemer, and so Malachi alsopresents a vision of future restoration. He foresees a day when Godwill intervene in the world, bringing victory to those who obey God’slaws and punishment to those who do not (3:1–5; 4:1–6).

NewTestament Connections

Malachichallenges the people of God today to examine their lives and askwhether their behavior matches their belief. Do Christiansacknowledge God’s love for them (1:2–5)? Do they honorand respect God as they should (1:6–2:9)? Do they honor theirrelational commitments, particularly those made in the covenant ofmarriage (2:15–16)? These are just some of the issues that theancient prophet raises for modern Christian reflection andapplication.

Markbegins his Gospel with a quotation that combines Mal. 3:1 with Isa.40:3, announcing the messenger who will precede the coming of theLord. In the last chapter of Malachi, this messenger is identifiedwith Elijah, who will precede the Lord on the day of victory andjudgment. John the Baptist fulfills the role, thus implying thatJesus is the Lord who brings victory and judgment. Jesus himselflater identifies John as Elijah, whose heralding role is anticipatedin Malachi (Matt. 11:7–19; cf. Luke 7:18–35). Thus, thefuture hopes of the book of Malachi find their fulfillment in theGospels.

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

BibleFormation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canonization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love for those who suffer. If we love others by denyingourselves for their sake, so that they might please God and liveabundantly, we show them compassion by doing this when they are inpain. We respond with friendship, healing, and encouragement justwhen others might keep their distance. The compassionate person alsoturns sin-sick people away from evil, longing to see Christ formed intheir character and life. Accordingly, compassion, like love ingeneral, is an active force. It does not merely “feel someone’spain”; it gets involved whenever and wherever possible.

CompassionShown by God

TheOT often refers to God’s compassion, especially toward thosewho, because of their sinfulness, deserve the opposite treatment. InExod. 33:19 Yahweh takes pity on the Israelites after they haverebelled, making an idol for themselves and praising it for theirdeliverance. He renews his covenant with them, but he reminds them ofhis sovereignty in doing so: “I will have mercy on whom I willhave mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will havecompassion” (cf. Rom. 9:15). No one deserves God’s mercy,yet the people often receive it, even when suffering from deservedharm. In the book of Judges, Israel’s history cycles from sinand wrath to compassion and deliverance, thus emphasizing Yahweh’spatience and love. The people “wouldn’t listen to theirjudges; they prostituted themselves to other gods—worshipedthem!” but God later “was moved to compassion when heheard their groaning because of those who afflicted and beat them”(2:17–18 MSG). David’s plea for mercy in Ps. 51 relies onYahweh’s compassion for the self-destructive sinner: “Havemercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according toyour great compassion blot out my transgressions” (v. 1).In fact, God’s tendency to show mercy appalls Jonah, whocomplains, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I wasstill at home? . . . I knew that you are a gracious andcompassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God whor*lents from sending calamity” (Jon. 4:2). Isaiah 40–66dwells frequently on this aspect of God’s nature (e.g.,49:10–15; 54:7–10; 63:7, 15).

TheNT points to God’s compassion at significant junctures in theGospels and the Epistles. Jesus himself has compassion for the crowdswho “were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd”(Matt. 9:36). He takes pity on the crowds, healing their sick andfeeding them miraculously (14:14–21; cf. 15:32). The sameconnection between compassion and healing occurs in Matt. 20:34; Mark1:41, this time on an individual level. The apostle Paul underscoresthis attribute of God, raising it to a title of sorts. The Father ofour Lord Jesus Christ is “the Father of compassion and the Godof all comfort” (2 Cor. 1:3). James says that the Lord is“full of compassion and mercy” (5:11), and John depictsGod as one who will wipe away every tear caused by persecution andtrial (Rev. 7:17; 21:4). Because God is always dealing with brokensinners, his compassion for them coincides with his love (see Ps.145:8); and this rescuing of the guilty sets an example for hispeople. They must go and do likewise, loving the unlovely, unwise,and even unrighteous.

CompassionRequired by God

BecauseGod loves the suffering person, even those with self-inflictedwounds, he calls upon his people to show similar compassion. Parentsought to show compassion toward their own children, as 1 Kings3:26; Ps. 103:13 imply (cf. Ezek. 16:5). No one must keep a debtor’sgarment in pledge, Yahweh says, “because that cloak is the onlycovering your neighbor has. What else can they sleep in? When theycry out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate” (Exod.22:27). According to Hos. 6:6, a familiar verse quoted by Jesus, Godrequires compassion: “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, andacknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings” (cf. Matt.12:7). Micah 6:8 draws the same contrast between outward formalismand genuine righteousness, including displays of compassion: “Hehas shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord requireof you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with yourGod.” Given the OT emphasis on the compassion of God, we mighthave expected it to become Israel’s duty as well, though it issometimes withheld in judgment (see Deut. 7:5–6; 13:8; 19:13;Ps. 109:12).

TheNT also portrays mercy or compassion as a duty. Matthew 5:7 is afamiliar example: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will beshown mercy.” Of course if Jesus demonstrates compassion towardthose who suffer, we ought to do so as well. In 2 Cor. 1 the“Father of compassion” comforts us (v. 3) “sothat we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort weourselves receive from God” (v. 4). Ephesians 4:32 is adirect command that associates compassion with mercy toward sinners:“Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving eachother, just as in Christ God forgave you.” The comfort given tous by Christ sets the tone for each believer in Phil. 2: if there isany “tenderness and compassion” in him (v. 1), wemust follow his example. Similarly, we must “clothe [ourselves]with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience”(Col. 3:12). Peter makes the same connection between humility andcompassion: “Finally, all of you, be like-minded, besympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble”(1 Pet. 3:8).

TheBible connects compassion and mercy with humility for understandablereasons, given the common association of distress and dishonor. Wewant always to keep up appearances, since others might be affected byour own troubles and the troubled company we keep. Suffering peopleare burdensome and sometimes unlovely. Their sins may provide a readyexcuse to keep one’s distance, but just as God the Savior hasshown us compassion, we must love others when they hurt.

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

Termsfor Insects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Functionsof Insects in Scripture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ScripturalTruths about Insects

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

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

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

Whether animal or human, “creature” assumescreator. God’s unique creative activity is showcased in hismajestic work: “creatures” (Heb. bar’a, “tocreate” [Gen. 1:1, 27]; Heb. nepesh hayah, “livingcreature” [Gen. 1:24; cf. 2:7]). While the infinite God is notconfined in the lives of his creatures, both are linked in arelationship of fidelity (Ps. 104).

Acreature is a gift and has an obligation of service (Ps. 150).Scripture celebrates divine rule and creaturely dependence (Ps. 96).Creatures have roles, and the liturgy of doxology revels in a cosmicand eschatological drama (Ps. 148; Isa. 40:12–31; 65:17–25).Humans are caretaking creatures (Ps. 8).

In systematic theology, “foreknowledge” usuallyrefers to the doctrine that God knows all things, events, and personsbefore they exist or occur and that this knowledge has been his fromall eternity. No single Hebrew term in the OT corresponds to theEnglish term; the concept is expressed rather on the phrase orsentence level. In the NT, the Greek verb proginōskō andnoun prognōsis are translated “foreknow” and“foreknowledge,” respectively. Recently in evangelicalcircles there has been intense debate as to whether foreknowledge andomniscience are in fact taught in the biblical texts.

OldTestament

Inthe OT narratives, especially in the Pentateuch, there are numerousinstances that indicate some limitations to God’s knowledge ingeneral and his foreknowledge in particular. God appears to besomewhat surprised by how wicked humanity has become before hedecides to send the flood (Gen. 6:5). God comes down and discoversthat the inhabitants of Babel have started to build a tower andconsiders how to stop the activity (11:5–7). God comes down toascertain whether the outcry that has come to his ears about the sinof Sodom and Gomorrah is actually as bad as the reports wouldindicate (18:20–21). God tests Abraham by commanding him tooffer Isaac as a sacrifice, and when Abraham begins to do so, hedeclares that now he knows that Abraham really fears him (22:1–18).

Often,narratives such as these are regarded by theologians as cases ofanthropomorphism, statements made about God that speak of him as ifhe had human characteristics—in this case, limited knowledge.And certainly there are many other narratives in the Pentateuch thatappear to give the opposite picture. God asks Cain where his brotherAbel is, though he apparently already knows the answer (Gen. 4:9–10).God relates to Abraham the course that Israelite history will takefor the next several hundred years (15:13–16). God seems to bein a real-time chess match with Pharaoh, but in actuality God knowsall the moves that both he and Pharaoh will make before the game everbegins (Exod. 3:19–22; 4:21–23; 7:1–5).

Giventhis data, perhaps the better explanation for what is happening inthese texts is not that the biblical narrator is employinganthropomorphism but rather that God is accommodating himself both tothe characters in the narrative and to the narrator of the stories.That is, at this stage of revelatory history God is not yet revealinghimself as fully omniscient and prescient of the future in itsentirety. In the conceptual world of the ancient Near East, deitieswere regularly portrayed as being interactive—deliberating,investigating, discovering, making decisions, and so forth. Godtherefore may well have accommodated himself to the larger milieu inrevealing himself to the patriarchs and earliest biblical narrators.

Whateverthe case may be, later biblical revelation certainly seems to presentGod as fully omniscient and prescient. “Death and Destructionlie open before the Lord—how much more do human hearts!”(Prov. 15:11). Before words reach our tongues, God knows themcompletely (Ps. 139:4). No one has ever had to keep God informed orprovide him with counsel (Isa. 40:13–14). There are no limitsto his understanding (Ps. 147:5). The God of Israel challenges allidols and all other gods to a foreknowledge contest: if they areable, let them tell what is going to happen, as Yahweh does (Isa.42:9; 44:6–8; 48:3–8). God alone makes the end known fromthe beginning (Isa. 46:10), and he has been doing so from ancienttimes (Acts 15:17–18). God knew Jeremiah long before he wasever a fetus (Jer. 1:5). Our prayers do not make God finally aware ofour situation; he already knows what our needs are (Matt. 6:8).Indeed, God answers our prayers before they are even prayed (Isa.65:24). “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’ssight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare” before his eyes(Heb. 4:13).

NewTestament

Oneespecially important exegetical question for the NT involves theprecise meaning of the aforementioned Greek words, proginōskō(“foreknow”) and prognōsis (“foreknowledge”).The question concerns whether these words, in their contexts, aremerely cognitive terms, indicating simply that God knows thingsbefore they happen, or whether the terms are volitional terms and/oraffective terms. That is, do they indicate foreordaining and/orforeloving? Are they terms that have basically the same meaning as“election” and “predestination”?

Givingcredence to this position is the fact that in some of the passageswhere these words occur there are other words that definitely referto God willing things to happen. In Acts 2:23, Peter declares thatJesus was handed over to his crucifiers by “God’sdeliberate plan and foreknowledge.” The verse can hardly meanthat God decided to do this because he already knew it was going tohappen. Rather, the terms “deliberate plan” and“foreknowledge” act together to convey the single idea ofGod’s complete control, planning, and sovereignty in the deathof Jesus. Likewise, in 1Pet. 1:20 the word does not mean thatthe Son was simply “foreknown” before the foundation ofthe world, but rather that he was “chosen” (NIV),“destined” (NRSV), “foreordained” (KJV).

InRom. 11:2, Paul states that God has not rejected “his people,whom he foreknew.” Again, it is hard to read this as being onlycognitive. Rather, the use of the term appears to imply some kind of“affective” foreknowing, a “setting his love upon”(cf. Deut. 7:7–8), a choosing. It is important to note that thetext says God foreknew not things but people. On the one hand, Godforeknew all people who would ever exist, but in this passage theforeknowing refers to a particular people. And the foreknowing mostlikely takes its sense from the use of the word “know” inthe OT, which on numerous occasions refers to the relationship ofacknowledgment and love between God and his people.

Inthe same way, in Rom. 8:29 “those God foreknew he alsopredestined,” “foreknew” again appears to be avolitional, affective term—that is, “those whom God sethis love upon.” That it means that God knew how these peoplewould respond to the gospel and then chose them seems to be excludedby passages such as Rom. 9:11–12, where God’s purposes inelection are not determined by people’s actions. Finally, in1Pet. 1:1–2 the “elect” to whom Peter iswriting are elect according to “foreknowledge of God”;not that God foreknew things about them, but that God foreknew them.This understanding of the terms in context seems preferable.

In systematic theology, “foreknowledge” usuallyrefers to the doctrine that God knows all things, events, and personsbefore they exist or occur and that this knowledge has been his fromall eternity. No single Hebrew term in the OT corresponds to theEnglish term; the concept is expressed rather on the phrase orsentence level. In the NT, the Greek verb proginōskō andnoun prognōsis are translated “foreknow” and“foreknowledge,” respectively. Recently in evangelicalcircles there has been intense debate as to whether foreknowledge andomniscience are in fact taught in the biblical texts.

OldTestament

Inthe OT narratives, especially in the Pentateuch, there are numerousinstances that indicate some limitations to God’s knowledge ingeneral and his foreknowledge in particular. God appears to besomewhat surprised by how wicked humanity has become before hedecides to send the flood (Gen. 6:5). God comes down and discoversthat the inhabitants of Babel have started to build a tower andconsiders how to stop the activity (11:5–7). God comes down toascertain whether the outcry that has come to his ears about the sinof Sodom and Gomorrah is actually as bad as the reports wouldindicate (18:20–21). God tests Abraham by commanding him tooffer Isaac as a sacrifice, and when Abraham begins to do so, hedeclares that now he knows that Abraham really fears him (22:1–18).

Often,narratives such as these are regarded by theologians as cases ofanthropomorphism, statements made about God that speak of him as ifhe had human characteristics—in this case, limited knowledge.And certainly there are many other narratives in the Pentateuch thatappear to give the opposite picture. God asks Cain where his brotherAbel is, though he apparently already knows the answer (Gen. 4:9–10).God relates to Abraham the course that Israelite history will takefor the next several hundred years (15:13–16). God seems to bein a real-time chess match with Pharaoh, but in actuality God knowsall the moves that both he and Pharaoh will make before the game everbegins (Exod. 3:19–22; 4:21–23; 7:1–5).

Giventhis data, perhaps the better explanation for what is happening inthese texts is not that the biblical narrator is employinganthropomorphism but rather that God is accommodating himself both tothe characters in the narrative and to the narrator of the stories.That is, at this stage of revelatory history God is not yet revealinghimself as fully omniscient and prescient of the future in itsentirety. In the conceptual world of the ancient Near East, deitieswere regularly portrayed as being interactive—deliberating,investigating, discovering, making decisions, and so forth. Godtherefore may well have accommodated himself to the larger milieu inrevealing himself to the patriarchs and earliest biblical narrators.

Whateverthe case may be, later biblical revelation certainly seems to presentGod as fully omniscient and prescient. “Death and Destructionlie open before the Lord—how much more do human hearts!”(Prov. 15:11). Before words reach our tongues, God knows themcompletely (Ps. 139:4). No one has ever had to keep God informed orprovide him with counsel (Isa. 40:13–14). There are no limitsto his understanding (Ps. 147:5). The God of Israel challenges allidols and all other gods to a foreknowledge contest: if they areable, let them tell what is going to happen, as Yahweh does (Isa.42:9; 44:6–8; 48:3–8). God alone makes the end known fromthe beginning (Isa. 46:10), and he has been doing so from ancienttimes (Acts 15:17–18). God knew Jeremiah long before he wasever a fetus (Jer. 1:5). Our prayers do not make God finally aware ofour situation; he already knows what our needs are (Matt. 6:8).Indeed, God answers our prayers before they are even prayed (Isa.65:24). “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’ssight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare” before his eyes(Heb. 4:13).

NewTestament

Oneespecially important exegetical question for the NT involves theprecise meaning of the aforementioned Greek words, proginōskō(“foreknow”) and prognōsis (“foreknowledge”).The question concerns whether these words, in their contexts, aremerely cognitive terms, indicating simply that God knows thingsbefore they happen, or whether the terms are volitional terms and/oraffective terms. That is, do they indicate foreordaining and/orforeloving? Are they terms that have basically the same meaning as“election” and “predestination”?

Givingcredence to this position is the fact that in some of the passageswhere these words occur there are other words that definitely referto God willing things to happen. In Acts 2:23, Peter declares thatJesus was handed over to his crucifiers by “God’sdeliberate plan and foreknowledge.” The verse can hardly meanthat God decided to do this because he already knew it was going tohappen. Rather, the terms “deliberate plan” and“foreknowledge” act together to convey the single idea ofGod’s complete control, planning, and sovereignty in the deathof Jesus. Likewise, in 1Pet. 1:20 the word does not mean thatthe Son was simply “foreknown” before the foundation ofthe world, but rather that he was “chosen” (NIV),“destined” (NRSV), “foreordained” (KJV).

InRom. 11:2, Paul states that God has not rejected “his people,whom he foreknew.” Again, it is hard to read this as being onlycognitive. Rather, the use of the term appears to imply some kind of“affective” foreknowing, a “setting his love upon”(cf. Deut. 7:7–8), a choosing. It is important to note that thetext says God foreknew not things but people. On the one hand, Godforeknew all people who would ever exist, but in this passage theforeknowing refers to a particular people. And the foreknowing mostlikely takes its sense from the use of the word “know” inthe OT, which on numerous occasions refers to the relationship ofacknowledgment and love between God and his people.

Inthe same way, in Rom. 8:29 “those God foreknew he alsopredestined,” “foreknew” again appears to be avolitional, affective term—that is, “those whom God sethis love upon.” That it means that God knew how these peoplewould respond to the gospel and then chose them seems to be excludedby passages such as Rom. 9:11–12, where God’s purposes inelection are not determined by people’s actions. Finally, in1Pet. 1:1–2 the “elect” to whom Peter iswriting are elect according to “foreknowledge of God”;not that God foreknew things about them, but that God foreknew them.This understanding of the terms in context seems preferable.

A soldier who goes ahead of the main army as a scout, or aherald who travels ahead of a political delegation to announce thearrival in a city of an important figure such as a king. In theapocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon, “forerunner” is usedto describe ravaging wasps that God sends ahead of Israel’sarmy as it invades to conquer the promised land (Wis. 12:8).

Theonly instance of “forerunner” in the NT is Heb. 6:20.Here the word is used to describe Jesus Christ’s entrance intothe heavenly holy of holies by virtue of his sacrificial death. As aforerunner, Jesus enters into the fullness of God’s presence onbehalf of everyone who trusts in him.

Althoughthe specific word is not used, the concept of a forerunner is seenclearly in the ministry of John the Baptist. The OT prophets spoke ofa messenger (Mal. 3:1; cf. 4:5–6) and herald (Isa. 40:3–9)who would come announcing salvation and the establishment of God’skingdom on earth prior to the coming of the Messiah. The NT clearlyindicates that John the Baptist is this herald (Matt. 3:1–12;11:10; Mark 1:2–8; Luke 1:76; 3:1–18; see also John1:6–8, 19–34). Using the language of the prophets, theGospels describe John’s ministry as one of preparation for theministry of Jesus Christ, a preparation focused primarily on personaland corporate repentance. John’s vivid preaching and effectiveministry led to him being mistaken for the Messiah (Luke 3:15–16).John makes it clear that he is simply the forerunner (John 1:20, 23),the one who comes to “prepare the way for the Lord” (Isa.40:3; cf. Mal. 3:1), the Lord who himself will usher in God’skingdom in its fullness.

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translatewords meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It hasa Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family”and, eventually, “race” or “people.” TheGreek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship.In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other thanIsrael. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,”“peoples,” or “races.”

OldTestament

Ingeneral, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. Godchose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8;10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership inthe covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becomingpart of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

TheOT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessingthrough Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping thelaw, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. Thelaw is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenantthat God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5;20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6;10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss.119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Suchlaw/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OTunderstanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel,the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in andthrough Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3;17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specificallyinvolves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]).Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subjectto Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16;14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed byIsrael’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel,serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fearIsrael’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5;60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic.7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages furtherelucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in theGod of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer.12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations“flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentileparticipation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa.2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

TheServant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect thislaw/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. Theservant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19;44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14),serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6;49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separatefrom Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who haveharmed Israel.

SecondTemple Judaism and Early Christianity

SecondTemple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, theirnature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end.Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’speople defined by the law, variously understood and contested amongSecond Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’sultimate blessing activities.

SituatingJesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentilesensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread acrossthe Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God ofIsrael in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentilesexperience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

SomeChristians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought thatGentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God ofIsrael’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’sopponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from Godand his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13;1Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation,especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin,lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32;Eph. 4:17–19; 1Thess. 4:5; 1Pet. 1:14, 18).

However,various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keepthe law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’sultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, hasreplaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and hisdeath and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ bythe Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true,redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheritingGod’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25;8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7;Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentilesattain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightlybefore God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30;1Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1Thess. 4:3–8).Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles withrespect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debatesabout Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for theseissues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocalsaying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and someother NT writings.

The English word “gospel” translates the Greekword euangelion, which is very important in the NT, being usedseventy-six times. The word euangelion (eu= “good,”angelion= “announcement”), in its contemporary usein the Hellenistic world, was not the title of a book but rather adeclaration of good news. Euangelion was used in the Roman Empirewith reference to significant events in the life of the emperor, whowas thought of as a savior with divine status. These events includeddeclarations at the time of his birth, his coming of age, and hisaccession to the throne. The NT usage of the term can also be tracedto the OT (e.g., Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1), which looked forward to thecoming of the Messiah, who would bring a time of salvation. This goodnews, which is declared in the NT, is that Jesus has fulfilled God’spromises to Israel, and now the way of salvation is open to all.

TheGospel Message

Theapostle Paul recognizes that the gospel is centered on the death,burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1Cor. 15:1–5). Hestates that this gospel is the power of God for the salvation ofeveryone who believes (Rom. 1:16), a sacred trust (1Tim. 1:11),the word of truth (Eph. 1:13), and an authoritative pronouncementthat requires a response (Rom. 10:16; 2Cor. 11:4; 2Thess.1:8). The declaration of this good news is found on the lips of Jesusin the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 11:5; Luke 4:18), who calls people torespond in repentance and belief (Mark 1:15). The good news is alsoin the early apostolic preaching, where it is associated with theproclamation of Christ (Acts 5:42; 8:35; 11:20).

Therecords of apostolic preaching in Acts are records of the earliestpublic declaration of this gospel. The apostle Peter gives three suchspeeches (Acts 2:14–41; 3:11–4:4; 10:34–43), whosecontent can be summarized as follows. The age of fulfillment hasdawned through the birth, life, ministry, and resurrection of JesusChrist (2:22–31), which has ushered in the “latter days”foretold by the prophets (3:18–26). Jesus, by his resurrection,has been exalted to the right hand of God as the head of the newIsrael (2:32–36), and the Holy Spirit has been given to thechurch as the sign of Christ’s present power and exaltation(10:44–48). This age will reach its consummation at the returnof Christ (3:20–21), and in response to this gospel an appealis made for repentance, with the offer of forgiveness, the HolySpirit, and salvation (2:37–41).

Thisdeclaration of the gospel is concerned primarily with what waspreached rather than what was written. Itinerant preachers of thisgospel were known as “evangelists,” which in Greek isclosely related to the term euangelion (Acts 21:8; Eph. 4:11; 2Tim.4:5). Some scholars believe that during the stage of oraltransmission, the gospel accounts developed a certain form throughrepetition, which helps explain some similarities between laterwritten accounts of the gospel.

FromOral to Written Gospel

Later,this “oral” gospel was written down, for several reasons.With the rapid spread of Christianity, as recorded in the book ofActs, a need arose for a more efficient dissemination of the messageof Jesus than was available by oral means. Furthermore, there was aneed to keep the message alive because some of the apostles had died(e.g., James in Acts 12:2) and many churches were facing oppositionand persecution. The written Gospels would facilitate catecheticaland liturgical needs and encourage persecuted Christians to continuefollowing Jesus by telling the story of his faithfulness throughgreat suffering. These written Gospels would also contain examples ofthose who persevered in following Jesus and of those who denied himand betrayed him. These accounts about Jesus and those who followedhim became foundational documents for the early church.

Itshould be noted that the gospel was not written down in order to giveit greater authority. The first-century context was largely an oralculture, in which storytelling and the rehearsal of facts wasintegral. Papias, a leader of the church in Hierapolis in Asia Minorwho died around AD 130, states his preference for oral traditionrather than written information about Jesus: “For I did notthink that information from books would help me as much as the wordof a living and surviving voice” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl.3.39.4). There is, however, a traceable trajectory from the gospelpreached by the apostles to the written accounts that bear the namesof Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is generally held that theauthors/editors of the four canonical Gospels were using oral and/orwritten sources (Luke 1:1–4), and that their respective Gospelswere written in the second half of the first century.

Themajority of biblical scholars hold that Mark was the first Gospel tobe written (c. AD 66). According to tradition, its editor/author wasJohn Mark, a close friend of the apostle Peter (1Pet. 5:13) anda part-time companion of the apostle Paul (Acts 12:12; Col. 4:10;2Tim. 4:11). This tradition is not without basis. Papias says,“Mark, who had indeed been Peter’s interpreter,accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, aboutthat which was either said or done by the Lord” (Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). This tradition is also outlined by Clement ofAlexandria, who, around AD 200, wrote, “When Peter had publiclypreached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed thegospel, then those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one whohad followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken,to make a record of what he said; and that he did this, anddistributed the Gospel among those that asked him” (Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 6.14.5–7; cf. 2.15.1–2).

Itis widely held that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of theirsources: of the material in Mark, over 97percent is repeated inMatthew and over 88percent in Luke. Matthew and Luke alsocontain material that appears to come from a common written sourcethat is not found in Mark. Scholars have named this source as “Q”(from the German Quelle= “source”), although thismay be a collection of sources rather than a single document.

Furthermore,the association of the Fourth Gospel with the apostle John goes backto Irenaeus (c. AD 180), who states, “John, the disciple of theLord, who leaned on his breast, also published the gospel whileliving at Ephesus in Asia” (Haer. 3.1.1, as cited in Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 5.8.4). By the second century, the term “gospel”is used for the written accounts of the life, death, and resurrectionof Jesus (e.g., Did. 11.3; 15.4). Justin Martyr (c. AD 140) refers tothe “memoirs of the apostles” (1Apol. 67) andIrenaeus (c. AD 180) mentions the four canonical Gospels by name(Haer. 3.11.7).

ThePurpose and Genre of the Gospels

Purpose.The Gospels were written to convey theology and to create and confirmfaith. They do not give an objectively neutral account of the life ofJesus; they enthusiastically endorse their protagonist and condemnthose who oppose him. They differ from traditional biographies inthat they give little information about the chronology of Jesus’life. Only two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, tell of the eventssurrounding Jesus’ birth. Luke alone tells of an event inJesus’ childhood (Luke 2:41–52). It is virtuallyincidental that Jesus worked as a carpenter and had brothers andsisters (Mark 6:3). A large percentage of each of the four canonicalGospels is devoted to the last week of Jesus’ life; of thesixteen chapters of Mark’s Gospel, six are devoted to the oneweek from Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem until his resurrection.

Theprimary intentions of the authors/editors of the written Gospels werenot to give biographical details but rather to lead the reader to anacknowledgment of the identity of Jesus and a belief in the purposeof his mission (Luke 1:4; John 20:31). Their theological purposes,however, do not necessarily compromise their commitment to historicalaccuracy. Jesus is presented as a real, historical figure who livedwithin a specific historical time frame. Luke appears to be moreconcerned than the other evangelists with historical details, givinga rough date for Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:1–2) and a morespecific time for Jesus’ baptism (3:1–2).

Genre.The discerning reader of the Gospels is forced to ask questionsconcerning the literary genre(s) of these texts. Such a discussion isimperative, as the interpretation of a section of any piece ofliterature will largely be determined by the function of the textwithin a certain literary genre. Prior to the 1970s, most NT scholarsbelieved that the Gospels formed a unique literary genre and weretherefore distinct from other first-century literary forms. Thisconclusion was based on the belief that the written Gospels werecollections of smaller sections sewn together by the evangelists, andthat the documents as a whole lacked coherence. Since then, thispresupposition has been challenged, largely because scholars haveseen that the Gospel writers were real editors and authors who werenot just collecting primitive source material but were using thatmaterial to write a larger story about Jesus. The written Gospelstherefore have overall coherence and purpose; they were written insuch a way as to bring about a desired response in the reader. Suchan overall intention may have stronger similarities with differentgenres in the Greco-Roman world of theNT.

TheGospels have been associated with several genres. They bear someresemblance to aretalogies, which were narratives about divinepersons in antiquity from which flowed moral instructions. Thesestories often involved miraculous events at the subject’s birthor death or during life, and they included the presence of bothdisciples and opponents. Within these aretalogies, the narrative wassecondary to the morality. An association with aretalogies,therefore, would encourage the reader to give greater attention tomoral teaching than to events in which this teaching is embedded.Similarly, others have seen the Gospels as essentially a collectionof wisdom sayings set in a historicized narrative; this view againgives priority to sayings and is doubtful of the historicity of thenarrative. Such views that downplay the narrative, and particularlythe miracles in Jesus’ life, have led others to argue theopposite extreme, which sees the Gospels, and Luke-Acts inparticular, as examples of ancient novels, with their focus onmiracle stories. Many scholars have rejected the emphasis on eithersayings or narrative, arguing that the literary genre that theGospels most closely resemble is ancient biographies (bioi). Thesecontained praise for the protagonist, rhetoric, moral philosophy, anda concern for character.

Althoughthe Gospels use different literary motifs that are reflective ofdifferent genres of the Greco-Roman world, they do not exactlyreplicate a known genre. They contain material not found in otherHellenistic literature of the time—for example, the fulfillmentof OT expectations and their desire to address particular issuesfaced by the early church, such as opposition; the Gentile mission;the need to redefine Israel in the light of Jesus’ life, death,and resurrection; and the nature of Christian discipleship. Unlikeother literature of the time, they do not name their authors, andwith the exception of Luke, they lack traditional literary devicessuch as prefaces. They are therefore to be seen as unique, or atleast as a distinct subgenre of ancient biographies.

Canonicaland Noncanonical Gospels

Theprogression from the events of Jesus’ life to the oralpreaching of this gospel to the first-century writing of the storyled to the acceptance of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark,Luke, and John into the NT canon. There is also a significant body ofliterature that is normally referred to as the noncanonical gospels.These later documents were neither widely accepted nor viewed asauthoritative, but they provide useful insights into the nature ofearly Christianity. A significant noncanonical gospel is the Gospelof Thomas, which is part of a large collection of works discovered atNag Hammadi (Egypt) in 1945. The Gospel of Thomas does not contain aresurrection account and is primarily a collection of sayings.

Thecanonical Gospels are not more authoritative than other sections ofScripture, but because they focus on Jesus’ ministry, withparticular attention to his death and resurrection, they draw theattention of the reader to the fulfillment of God’s purpose inthe life and work of Jesus, the Messiah. They are therefore of greatimportance within Scripture.

Mark’s Gospel is a fast-paced, action-packed narrativethat portrays Jesus as the mighty Messiah and Son of God, who suffersand dies as the servant of the Lord—a ransom price for sins.Mark’s purpose is to provide an authoritative account of the“good news” about Jesus Christ and to encourage believersto follow Jesus’ example by remaining faithful to their callingthrough persecution and even martyrdom. A theme verse is Mark 10:45:“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but toserve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

NarrativeStructure (Plot) and Main Themes

Mark’snarrative may be divided into two main parts. The first half of thestory demonstrates that Jesus is the mighty Messiah and Son of God(1:1–8:26); the second half reveals that the Messiah’srole is to suffer and die as a sacrifice for sins (8:27–16:8).

Messiahand Son of God.Unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark does not begin with stories of Jesus’birth but instead moves directly to his public ministry. As in theother Gospels, John the Baptist is the “messenger” whoprepares the way for the Messiah (cf. Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1). Johnpreaches a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins andannounces the “more powerful” one, the Messiah, who willcome after him (1:7). When Jesus is baptized by John, the Spiritdescends on him, empowering him for ministry. After his temptation(or testing) by Satan in the desert, Jesus returns to Galilee andlaunches his ministry, proclaiming the “good news”(gospel) that “the time has come.... Thekingdom of God has come near” (1:15).

Duringhis Galilean ministry, Jesus demonstrates extraordinary authority inteaching, healing, and exorcism. He calls fishermen from theiroccupation, and they drop everything and follow him (1:16–20).He claims authority to forgive sins (2:10) and authority over theSabbath command (2:28). He reveals power over natural forces, calmingthe sea (4:35–41), walking on water (6:45–52), andfeeding huge crowds with a few loaves and fishes (6:30–44;8:1–13). The people stand “amazed” and “astonished”(a major theme in Mark) at Jesus’ teaching and miracles, andhis popularity soars.

Jesus’authority and acclaim provoke opposition from the religious leadersof Israel, who are jealous of his influence. The scribes andPharisees accuse him of claiming the prerogative of God (2:7),associating with undesirable sinners (2:16), breaking the Sabbath(2:24), and casting out demons by Satan’s powers (3:22). Theyconspire to kill him (3:6).

Asense of mystery and awe surrounds Jesus’ identity. When hecalms the sea, the disciples wonder, “Who is this?”(4:41), and King Herod wonders if this might be John the Baptistrisen from the dead (6:16). Adding to this sense of mystery is whathas come to be called the “messianic secret.” Jesussilences demons who identify him as the Messiah and orders those heheals not to tell anyone what has happened. This secrecy is not, assome have claimed, a literary device invented by Mark to explainJesus’ unmessianic life; rather, it is Jesus’ attempt tocalm inappropriate messianic expectations and to define his messianicmission on his own terms.

Messiah’srole to suffer and die. Thecritical turning point in the narrative comes in 8:27–33, whenPeter, as representative of the disciples, declares that Jesus is theMessiah. The authority that Jesus has demonstrated up to this pointconfirms that he is God’s agent of salvation. Yet Jesusstartles the disciples by announcing that his messianic task is to goto Jerusalem to suffer and die. Peter rebukes him, but Jesusresponds, “Get behind me, Satan! ... You do nothave in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns”(8:33). Jesus will accomplish salvation not by crushing the Romanoccupiers, but by offering his life as a sacrifice for sins.

Inthe second half of the Gospel, Jesus journeys to Jerusalem, threetimes predicting that he will be arrested and killed (8:31–32;9:31; 10:33–34). The disciples repeatedly demonstrate pride,ignorance, and spiritual dullness (8:33; 9:32–34; 10:35–41),and Jesus teaches them that whoever wants to be first must becomelast (9:35); that to lead, one must serve (10:45); and that to beJesus’ disciple requires taking up one’s cross andfollowing him (8:34).

Whenhe comes to Jerusalem, Jesus symbolically judges the nation byclearing the temple of merchants (11:15–17) and by cursing afig tree (representing Israel), which subsequently withers (11:12–14,20–21). He engages in controversies with the religious leaders(chaps. 11–12) and teaches the disciples that Jerusalem and thetemple will be destroyed (chap. 13). Judas Iscariot, one of Jesus’own disciples, betrays him. Jesus is arrested and brought to trialbefore the Jewish Sanhedrin, which finds him guilty of blasphemy.That council turns Jesus over to the Roman governor Pilate, whoaccedes to his crucifixion (chaps. 14–15).

Thecrucifixion scene in Mark is a dark and lonely one. Jesus is desertedby his followers, unjustly condemned, beaten by the soldiers, andmocked by all. Apparently deserted even by God, Jesus cries out fromthe cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”(15:34). Yet the reader knows by this point in the story that Jesus’death is not the tragedy that it seems. This is God’s means ofaccomplishing salvation. Upon Jesus’ death, the curtain of thetemple is torn, opening a new way into God’s presence. TheRoman centurion at the cross cries out, “Surely this man wasthe Son of God!” (15:39). The death of the Messiah is not adefeat; it is an atoning sacrifice for sins. Three days later Jesusrises from the dead, just as he has predicted. When Jesus’women followers come to the tomb, the angel announces, “He hasrisen! He is not here” (16:6). Jesus the Messiah has turnedtragedy into victory and has defeated sin, Satan, and death.

LiteraryFeatures

Markwrites with a rough Semitic style characterized by colorful detailand dramatic effect. He emphasizes Jesus’ actions rather thanextended teaching. For its length, Mark’s Gospel records moremiracles and less teaching than the other Gospels. The author’sfondness for the term “immediately” (euthys) and use ofthe Greek historical present tense give the narrative a fast-paced,vivid, and realistic style.

Oneof Mark’s favorite literary techniques is intercalation, asandwiching method whereby one episode is interrupted by another,with the two mutually interpreting each other. One example of this isthe clearing of the temple, which is sandwiched between the cursingand withering of the fig tree (11:12–25). Both episodessymbolically represent Israel’s spiritual failure and comingjudgment. Other intercalations appear in 3:20–35; 5:21–43;6:7–30; 14:53–72.

Markis also fond of groups of three, or triads. Three boat scenesillustrate the disciples’ lack of faith and comprehension(4:35–41; 6:45–52; 8:14–21). In three cycles ofevents, Jesus predicts his death and then teaches his disciples aboutservant leadership (8:31–38; 9:31–37; 10:32–45). Inthe Olivet Discourse, Jesus three times tells his disciples to bealert (13:33, 35, 37), and then three times he finds them sleeping inGethsemane (14:37, 40, 41). Peter denies Jesus three times (14:68,70, 71), and three three-hour intervals are mentioned during thecrucifixion (15:25, 33, 34). These and other literary devices providecolor to Mark’s narrative and carry the story forward.

Authorship

Earlychurch tradition identifies the author of this Gospel as John Mark,son of Mary (Acts 12:12), cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10), missionarycompanion of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:5), and later companion ofPeter (1Pet. 5:13). Church tradition claims that Mark becamePeter’s interpreter while working with him in Rome and put intowriting Peter’s version of the Gospel.

Mostscholars consider Mark to have been the first Gospel written andthink that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as one of their sources.

Audience,Life Setting, and Date

Thespecific audience of Mark’s Gospel is uncertain, although theauthor’s tendency to explain Jewish customs and terms suggestsa primarily non-Jewish (Gentile) readership. Mark also sometimesprovides Latin equivalents for Greek terms. This would agree with thechurch tradition that the Gospel was composed by John Mark in Romeand was intended for the Roman church.

ARoman setting and destination also fit well with the theme offaithfulness through suffering that runs through Mark’s story.Many scholars place the origin of Mark’s Gospel in Rome in themid-60s AD, in the context of the emperor Nero’s persecution ofChristians. Mark writes to encourage his readers to endure sufferingfor the gospel, to take up their crosses and follow Jesus, for “eventhe Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to givehis life as a ransom for many” (10:45).

Outline

I.The Preparation of the Son of God (1:1–13)

II.The Authoritative Ministry of the Son of God in and around Galilee(1:14–8:26)

A.The kingdom authority of the Son of God (1:14–3:12)

B.The disciple family of the Son of God and those outside (3:13–6:6)

C.The mission of the Son of God (6:7–8:26)

III.The Suffering of the Son of God as Servant of the Lord (8:27–16:8)

A.The confession of Peter and the servant Messiah (8:27–10:52)

B.The Son of God confronts Jerusalem (11:1–13:37)

C.Climax: The death of the Son of God (14:1–15:47)

D.Resolution: The resurrection of the Son of God (16:1–8)

E.Appendix (16:9–20)

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translatewords meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It hasa Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family”and, eventually, “race” or “people.” TheGreek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship.In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other thanIsrael. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,”“peoples,” or “races.”

OldTestament

Ingeneral, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. Godchose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8;10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership inthe covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becomingpart of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

TheOT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessingthrough Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping thelaw, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. Thelaw is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenantthat God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5;20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6;10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss.119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Suchlaw/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OTunderstanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel,the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in andthrough Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3;17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specificallyinvolves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]).Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subjectto Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16;14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed byIsrael’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel,serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fearIsrael’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5;60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic.7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages furtherelucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in theGod of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer.12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations“flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentileparticipation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa.2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

TheServant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect thislaw/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. Theservant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19;44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14),serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6;49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separatefrom Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who haveharmed Israel.

SecondTemple Judaism and Early Christianity

SecondTemple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, theirnature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end.Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’speople defined by the law, variously understood and contested amongSecond Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’sultimate blessing activities.

SituatingJesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentilesensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread acrossthe Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God ofIsrael in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentilesexperience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

SomeChristians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought thatGentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God ofIsrael’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’sopponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from Godand his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13;1Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation,especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin,lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32;Eph. 4:17–19; 1Thess. 4:5; 1Pet. 1:14, 18).

However,various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keepthe law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’sultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, hasreplaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and hisdeath and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ bythe Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true,redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheritingGod’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25;8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7;Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentilesattain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightlybefore God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30;1Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1Thess. 4:3–8).Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles withrespect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debatesabout Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for theseissues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocalsaying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and someother NT writings.

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood,molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idolsare not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—evenpagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium throughwhich a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguishbetween worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahwehthrough images.

Incontrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of allimages as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images ofYahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented byanything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form atSinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form canadequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Biblesimilarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because itelevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the secondcommandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image ofanything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatryis regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because itmarks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with hispeople (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). Thiscorresponds to the fact that idol worship often included culticprostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alikeridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unableto see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these“gods” depended on humans for transportation andprotection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20).Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as thethings they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing,both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous.This is because idols lead people away from properly worshipingYahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despiteits warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israelregularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supremerevelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping agolden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society hadbecome degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan,engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy wasdivided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship topreserve the loyalty of his people (1Kings 12:25–33).Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reasonfor the exile.

ByNT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but itremained an important issue for the growing church because manybelievers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostlesincluded idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readersto flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols.Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linkedit with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NTauthors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worshipthe true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to thetime when all idol worship would cease.

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

Termsfor Insects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Functionsof Insects in Scripture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ScripturalTruths about Insects

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

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

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

In biblical and systematic theology, “inspiration”is one of several descriptions of God’s involvement in theproduction of Scripture. It is not an exhaustive description of themany ways in which divine revelation is mediated.

Takenas a description of “all Scripture” (as in 2Tim.3:16), inspiration must necessarily encompass such diverse modes ofrevelation as words audibly spoken or dictated by God and writtendown by humans (i.e., dictation: “the Lord said to Moses,”“thus says the Lord”), words spoken by angels, texts inwhich a divine or angelic voice is entirely obscured by the voice andidentity of the human author (e.g., the letters of Paul), and, in thevast majority of cases, texts that are essentially anonymous,invoking no human author or divine author in particular. Moreover,any catalog of divinely inspired texts must include not only directquotations of God’s speech but also occasional letters (the NTEpistles), prayers directed to God by humans (the Psalter), divineoracles given through prophets, the results of historical research(e.g., Luke 1:1–4; 1Kings 14:19), and anthological textsthat were collected and edited over a long period of time, often byunnamed individuals or groups of individuals.

Thus,the inspiration of Scripture must be regarded as a concept that isapplied in the broadest possible way to the materials of Scripture.While the doctrine of inspiration constitutes a strong statementconcerning the authority and divine authorship of Scripture, it mustremain highly flexible with regard to the particular modes andliterary products of divine revelation in Scripture.

God-Breathed(theopneustos)in 2 Timothy 3:16

Theidea of divine inspiration is stated most clearly in 2Tim.3:16–17: “All Scripture is God-breathed [theopneustos]and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training inrighteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equippedfor every good work.” Here, the fact of divine inspirationserves the apostle’s interest in the authority and relevance ofScripture, especially as Scripture undergirds Timothy’sreligious education (2Tim. 3:14–15). This sole biblicaluse of the term theopneustos says little about how inspiration isaccomplished, and the emphasis is entirely on the consequences of thefact. Because it is inspired, all Scripture is useful andauthoritative for a variety of purposes.

Insome older English translations, the key term, theopneustos, wastranslated as “inspired,” following the ancient traditionof rendering the term in Latin as divinitus inspirata. Strictlyspeaking, “inspiration” is not a biblical term. In oneclassic Protestant evangelical exposition of the text and doctrine,B.B. Warfield noted that the Greek word denotes not so much a“breathing in” as a “breathing out” on God’spart. Scripture is not simply a container into which God has breathedhis word (so that Scripture merely “contains” God’sword), nor is Scripture only “inspiring,” in the sensethat it works an effect on the reader (taking theopneustos in anactive rather than a passive sense: “God-breathing”rather than “God-breathed”). Scripture is not the productof inspiration, as if produced by inspired authors but not itselfinspired. Rather than all these things, it is most correct to saythat Scripture is, in the strictly literal sense of the word,“expired”—breathed out by God himself. This view ofthe matter is reflected in, among other places, the NIV translationof theopneustos as “God-breathed.”

Thetranslation by the NIV—“all Scripture is God-breathed andis useful...”—takes theopneustos as agrammatical predicate. Others have suggested that theopneustos can beunderstood attributively: “all God-breathed Scripture isuseful.” This interpretation remains a minority position,especially among evangelical scholars, both on grammatical groundsand because it implies a distinction between inspired and noninspiredScriptures. There is little other evidence for such a notion in theNT.

Theapplication of the notion of inspiration to the whole of theChristian canon (OT and NT) inevitably involves some extension of theoriginal meaning of 2Tim. 3:16. By no account were the NTwritings either composed or collected prior to the writing of2Timothy, and the final shape of the Christian OT canon mayalso have been undecided at the time 2Tim. 3:16 was written. Inpostbiblical Christian theology, however, what is said of “allScripture” (pāsa graphē) in 2Tim. 3:16 isapplied to all Christian Scripture, regardless of what was directlyin view when the verse was written. It is likely that by “allScripture,” the apostle meant nothing more than the ChristianOT—that is, the books that lay before Timothy as he waseducated in the faith from his infancy (2Tim. 3:14–15).In systematic theology, the application of inspiration and otherdescriptors of “Scripture” to the NT writings owes muchto a comment in 2Pet. 3:16 that places the letters of Paul inthe same class as “the other Scriptures” (tas loipasgraphas).

Why“Inspiration”?

Thesheer diversity of the modes of revelation described in the Bibleraises a question: Why is “inspiration” (or, as Warfieldargued, “expiration” or “breathing out”) aparticularly appropriate description of God’s involvement inthe production of the scriptural text? At the root of theopneustos,Greek pneuma (as well as its Hebrew cognate, ruakh) denotes severalrelated concepts ranging from “wind” or “breath”to “spirit,” as in “the Holy Spirit.” It isfrom this complex of meanings that the relevance of theopneustos isevident.

Physiologically,several of the speech organs are also organs of respiration, so thatthe spoken word can be thought of as a kind of breathing, as in Acts9:1: “Saul was still breathing out [empneuōn] murderousthreats against the Lord’s disciples.” To speak ofScripture as “God-breathed,” then, is simply to identifyit as God’s spoken utterance or word, as in the many biblicaltexts that introduce a scriptural utterance as “the word of theLord” or with the phrase “thus says the Lord.” Tothe extent that 2Tim. 3:16 has in view the physiologicaldimension of “breathing,” it extends these explicitstatements of divine speaking to the whole of Scripture. In onesense, theopneustos is an anthropomorphism: God does not speak as ahuman, with lungs, throat, and mouth. Scripture is not God-breathedas opposed to being written by humans; the figurative breathing orspeaking of God does not circumvent other processes of textualproduction. Again, the idea of inspiration pertains more to theauthority of Scripture as revelation than to the mode of themediation of God’s word.

Aswith the concept of “inspiration” itself, to speak ofScripture as the “word of God” specifies its divineauthority without exhaustively describing how that word is mediatedto the human author who then commits it to writing. To speak ofScripture as the “breathing out” of God is to invoke thebroader concept of God’s (anthropomorphic) breath, and thus toplace scriptural production among the other phenomena that are sodescribed. These include the divine creation of life (Gen. 2:7; Job33:4; Ezek. 37:5) and the cosmos (Ps. 33:6), divine judgment anddestruction (Job 4:9; Isa. 30:33; 2Thess. 2:8), the impartationof divine wisdom (Job 32:8), the impartation of the Holy Spirit (John20:22), and the continuing action of God in creation (Exod. 15:10;Job 37:10; Isa. 40:7). In contrast to the living God of Israel, theidols lack breath (ruakh) and are therefore false gods (Jer. 10:14).

Equallyimportant as the anthropomorphic description of God’s role asexhalation or speaking is the fact that pneuma refers not only tobodily breathing but also to the spirit of God—that is, theHoly Spirit. The inspiration of scriptural revelation is theparticular work of the Holy Spirit, as comes to light particularly in2Pet. 1:20–21: “You must understand that noprophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s owninterpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in thehuman will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they werecarried along by the Holy Spirit.” Unlike 2Tim. 3:16,this verse gives a description of the mechanism by which God isinvolved in scriptural production: the Holy Spirit “carriesalong” humans speaking from God. Again, however, if this is tobe taken as a description of the entirety of the Christian Bible, itmust encompass a wide variety of literary phenomena.

Asin 2 Tim. 3:16, the emphasis is on the authority and divine origin ofScripture rather than on the worldly history of the Bible. Like theadjective “God-breathed,” the Holy Spirit’s“carrying along” of the prophets is figurative andanthropomorphic, and the expression leaves many questions unansweredregarding the mode of revelation. Nevertheless, the specific mentionof the role of the Holy Spirit as the divine agent of scripturalproduction sheds light on the term theopneustos in 2Tim. 3:16.This is consistent with the citation formula in Acts 4:25, whichquotes Ps. 2:1–2 by saying, “You [God] spoke by the HolySpirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David.”This verse highlights several facets of the notion of the inspirationof Scripture: its character as divine speech, the agency of the HolySpirit, and the concurrence of divine and human authorship.

An eighth-century BC prophet who prophesied during the periodjust before and after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel tothe Assyrians in 722 BC. Isaiah lived in Judah, specifically inJerusalem.

Isaiahbegan his prophetic work in the year that King Uzziah died,approximately 733 BC (Isa. 6:1). His ministry continued through thereigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. The latter began his rule in727 BC and ended in 698 BC, but since Isaiah was with him during theAssyrian incursion of 701 BC (see below), the prophet was activeuntil late in his reign. He may have lived into the reign ofHezekiah’s wicked son Manasseh. Tradition states that he diedas a martyr, being sawn in half.

Isaiahwas married to a prophetess and had at least two sons (Isa. 7:3;8:3). His sons had names with symbolic import. The first was“Shear-Jashub,” meaning “a remnant will return”;the second was “Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz,” meaning “quickto the plunder, swift to the spoil.”

Apartfrom such glimpses, readers do not learn as much about Isaiah theperson as they do about Jeremiah or even Ezekiel. But his propheciesare clearly connected to the big events of his day. Many of hisprophecies have the Syro-Ephraimite war as their background. The kingof Syria, Rezin, and the king of Israel, Pekah, tried to enlist thehelp of the king of Judah, Ahaz, against the encroachment of theAssyrian king Tiglath-pileserIII in the middle of the eighthcentury BC. Ahaz refused, and Isaiah supported that decision.However, Ahaz did not really trust God in this matter, for againstthe wishes of Isaiah he wrote to Tiglath-pileser asking for helpagainst Rezin and Pekah, since they had decided to try to replace himwith a more amenable person. As a result of his appeal,Tiglath-pileser took Syria, and his successors eventually took thenorthern kingdom in 722 BC. Ahaz and the kings of Judah who followedhim were forced to become vassals.

In701 BC the current Assyrian king, Sennacherib, moved militarilyagainst Judah to incorporate it into his empire. Isaiah again was atthe side of the Judean king, now Hezekiah, encouraging him to dependon God and not submit. In contrast to Ahaz, Hezekiah did not submit,and God delivered him from the Assyrians.

Theseevents are the background and the situations into which Isaiah spoke,but his prophetic vision extended far beyond his lifetime. He saw notonly the future defeat of Judah and Jerusalem at the hands of theBabylonians but also their restoration (see esp. Isa. 40–66).The NT cites Isaiah more frequently than any other OT book, findingthe ultimate fulfillment of many of his oracles in the person andwork of Jesus Christ.

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesusfollowers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christembodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in humanhistory.

Introduction

Name.Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title“Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). Thename “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was acommon male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ”is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh(“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually werenamed after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry ofJesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah(Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources.From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesusconstitute the turning point in human history. From a historicalperspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed,both Christian and non-Christian first-century and earlysecond-century literary sources are extant, but they are few innumber. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initialresistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Romanhistorian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,”since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailingworldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sourcestherefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christiansources.

TheNT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry ofJesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels),and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four SourceHypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as asource by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (fromGerman Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their ownindividual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additionalsources.

Theearly church tried to put together singular accounts, so-calledGospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionitesrepresents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Anotherharmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was producedaround AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning thelife of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, thePauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John.Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come,God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4).The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was apassion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. Thefirst extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’sletters (1Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognizedfrom the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1Cor.15:13–14).

Amongnon-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in aletter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governorof Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentionsChristians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about thehistory of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius,wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Romebecause of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Somescholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of“Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

TheJewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a storyabout the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus(Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in adifferent part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus isthe Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). Themajority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic butheavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source,the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but thesereferences are very late and of little historical value.

NoncanonicalGospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospelof Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel ofJames, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, theEgerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these maycontain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most partthey are late and unreliable.

Jesus’Life

Birthand childhood. TheGospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehemduring the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesuswas probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’sdeath (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of avirginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18;Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governorQuirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place inBethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at thetime of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars.Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to eitherconfirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must bedetermined on the basis of one’s view regarding the generalreliability of the Gospel tradition.

Onthe eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keepingwith the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus”(Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home ofhis parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel ofLuke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth instrength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke alsocontains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesuswas born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered atemple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford tosacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, ormetal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth wasnot a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground.Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently commonfirst-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Cananything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesuswas also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy weresurely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnantbefore her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only theintervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal(Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem,far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinshiphospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay withdistant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcomebecause of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Maryhad to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feedingtrough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later inNazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son”(Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming himas one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewiserejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucifyhim!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21;John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled(Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter,vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71;Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His ownsiblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamedof his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his motherinto the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27)rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism,temptation, and start of ministry.After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring tohim as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instantministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into thewilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11;Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that thetemptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Lukeidentify three specific temptations by the devil, though their orderfor the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesuswas tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine interventionafter jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’skingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation,quoting Scripture in response.

Matthewand Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum inGalilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13;Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirtyyears of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity orperhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of theLevites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning ofJesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples andthe sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’public ministry: chronology.Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28,and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple hadbeen forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as thetemple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out themoney changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding andexpansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during theeighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry ofJohn the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius(Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From thesedates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of thereign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset ofJesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

TheGospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast inJohn 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended overthree or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a halfyears. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came ona Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death wastherefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and hisJudean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry inGalilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galileanministry.The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and aroundGalilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that thekingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment ofprophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ firstteaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30);the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for hiscalling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection andsuffering.

AllGospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in hisGalilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioningof the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers isrecorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministryis the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, inparticular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synopticsfocus on healings and exorcisms.

DuringJesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with hisidentity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority(Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family(3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner ofBeelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesustold parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growingkingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humblebeginnings (4:1–32).

TheSynoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful.No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority orability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized manydemons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fedfive thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark6:48–49).

Inthe later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew andtraveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are notwritten with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns toGalilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey toJerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fearresolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee,where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ discipleswith lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed thePharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents(7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demandinga sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, whoconfessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus didprovide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesuswithdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician womanrequested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sentonly to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans hadlong resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality thatallotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere“crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Eventhe dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,”Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-muteman in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’sconfession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The citywas the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judeanministry.Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry ashe resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually ledto his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem intothree phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27).The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of thejourney. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, andthe demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem(Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45;Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journeytoward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvationand judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase ofthe journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are themain themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Socialconflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposteinteractions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel(Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomicfeathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who hadlittle value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16;Luke 18:15–17).

PassionWeek, death, and resurrection. Eachof the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with thecrowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Lukedescribes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during whichJesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

InJerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17).Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because thewhole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “beganlooking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segmentof Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions(12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation(12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s owndestruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, JudasIscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’arrest (14:10–11).

Atthe Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a newcovenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29;Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned thedisciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and laterhe prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agonyand submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42;Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial,crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15;Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18).Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission bymaking disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8)and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return(Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

TheIdentity of Jesus Christ

Variousaspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels,depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses toJesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning andexamining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70;23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritualrealm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). AtJesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved(Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus wastransfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voiceaffirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and otherguards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf.Mark 15:39).

Miracleworker.In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers werepart of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs andmiracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of Godover various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature,and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus hisidentity.

Nochallenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miraclesand signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed astorm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13;Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised thedead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16;8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculousfeedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44;8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked onwater (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

ThePharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterousgeneration asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4).The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—hisdeath and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice,taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher.Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbisor Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguishedhim was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28,32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathereddisciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to joinhim in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4;Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesusused a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables(Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35;21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18;12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15,19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33),used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons(Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Majorthemes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the costof discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, hisidentity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings,observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’skingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come tofulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. Theseconflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions inwhich the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus usedthese interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gavereplies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’swill, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels,Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. TheSynoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations ofviolating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answersto such accusations often echoed the essence of 1Sam. 15:22,“To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as“I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). Anoverall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’public teaching.

TheSermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than”ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outwardobedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equalto murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfullyamounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revengingwrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesusvalued compassion above traditions and customs, even those containedwithin the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter ofthe law.

Jesus’teachings found their authority in the reality of God’simminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9),necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence(Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—thefamily of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged,“Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness”(Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among propheticteachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his owngrounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt.10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examplesof a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include theoccasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesusused an aphorism in response to accusations about his associationswith sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor,but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners”(Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking thelaw, he pointed to an OT exception (1Sam. 21:1–6) todeclare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also appliedthe “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, sincewomen suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly becameoutcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, andeschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internaltransformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring onlove (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus tobless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesustaught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father isperfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as yourFather is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” onesin Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful,and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godlycharacter.

Somescholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic”for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end oftime. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of histeachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words willnever pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah.The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore theglories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability wascommon in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babyloniancaptivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace andprotection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer,one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice andrighteousness (2Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16;Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2;Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whosesuffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle ofexpectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianicimages in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearerscalled him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt.12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesusas the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). Inline with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesusfocused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regenerationthrough his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatologicalprophet.Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewishapocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God tointervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom ofGod. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ propheciesconcerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2,15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). Inaddition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representativeof the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30).Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images ofcoming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt.24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

SufferingSon of God.Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth wasparadigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa.61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so herevealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptlyportrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ ownteachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13,31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “TheSon of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give hislife as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly careerended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewishcomponents (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65;15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24;18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt.27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror,bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyonehanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with acrucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed asa lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referredto this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed ofthe gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

ExaltedLord.Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23;20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46).The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of JesusChrist indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday(Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) andrisen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus waswitnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples(Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on theroad to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appearedto as many as five hundred others (1Cor. 15:6). He appeared inbodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43;John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesusascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

Asmuch as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory overdeath was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost,Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises(Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31).Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through hisresurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his lifeand work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him asLord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31;Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification(Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and hisintercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascensionsignaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return inglory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt.19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom(1Cor. 15:24; 2Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’Purpose and Community

Inthe Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, whopreaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent(4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter thekingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, onemade in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

Inthe prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identityof Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidingsof salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of thegospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Lukelikewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose ofJesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is thekingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John theBaptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesusanswered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen andheard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosyare cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good newsis proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, aspresented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery ofsight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God alreadypresent in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20;8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

Inthe Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signsthroughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, hisidentity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah,the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundantlife is lived out in community.

Inthe Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community ofGod (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but theycontinued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout hisministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a callto loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38;Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50;Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock Iwill build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call tocommunity. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community wasreplaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’sfamily—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained byadopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through theinitiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16;10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

TheQuests for the Historical Jesus

Thequest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from ahistorical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary byscholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding ofthe church.

Thebeginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecturenotes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously.Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus thatrejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. Heconcluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles,prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’sconclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry ofrationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continuedthroughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “firstquest” for the historical Jesus.

In1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of theHistorical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: EineGeschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of thefirst quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-centuryresearchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming thehistorical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching aninoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’sconclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest.Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was aneschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days inJerusalem.

Withthe demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as RudolfBultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historicalJesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’sformer students launched what has come to be known as the “newquest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). Thisquest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was stilldominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels islargely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

Asthe rebuilding years of the post–World WarII era wanedand scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeologicalfinds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on towhat has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeksespecially to research and understand Jesus in his social andcultural setting.

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

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

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

Ministry

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

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

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

Message

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

TheSynoptic Gospels portray Jesus and John as allies in announcing thekingdom. It has been argued that the Fourth Gospel has ananti-Baptist polemic. Because of historical elements (in Ephesus?),it may be more accurate to say that the Fourth Gospel strives toclarify the Baptist’s place in salvation history. He issubordinate to Jesus by divine design (John 1–5) and by deed(John 10:41). He was the Elijah who was to come before the Christ(Matt. 11:14).

The 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).

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 founder of what became known as the movement of Jesusfollowers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christembodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in humanhistory.

Introduction

Name.Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title“Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). Thename “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was acommon male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ”is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh(“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually werenamed after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry ofJesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah(Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources.From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesusconstitute the turning point in human history. From a historicalperspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed,both Christian and non-Christian first-century and earlysecond-century literary sources are extant, but they are few innumber. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initialresistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Romanhistorian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,”since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailingworldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sourcestherefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christiansources.

TheNT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry ofJesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels),and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four SourceHypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as asource by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (fromGerman Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their ownindividual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additionalsources.

Theearly church tried to put together singular accounts, so-calledGospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionitesrepresents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Anotherharmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was producedaround AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning thelife of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, thePauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John.Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come,God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4).The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was apassion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. Thefirst extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’sletters (1Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognizedfrom the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1Cor.15:13–14).

Amongnon-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in aletter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governorof Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentionsChristians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about thehistory of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius,wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Romebecause of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Somescholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of“Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

TheJewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a storyabout the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus(Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in adifferent part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus isthe Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). Themajority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic butheavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source,the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but thesereferences are very late and of little historical value.

NoncanonicalGospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospelof Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel ofJames, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, theEgerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these maycontain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most partthey are late and unreliable.

Jesus’Life

Birthand childhood. TheGospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehemduring the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesuswas probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’sdeath (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of avirginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18;Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governorQuirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place inBethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at thetime of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars.Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to eitherconfirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must bedetermined on the basis of one’s view regarding the generalreliability of the Gospel tradition.

Onthe eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keepingwith the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus”(Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home ofhis parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel ofLuke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth instrength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke alsocontains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesuswas born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered atemple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford tosacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, ormetal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth wasnot a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground.Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently commonfirst-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Cananything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesuswas also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy weresurely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnantbefore her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only theintervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal(Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem,far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinshiphospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay withdistant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcomebecause of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Maryhad to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feedingtrough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later inNazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son”(Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming himas one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewiserejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucifyhim!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21;John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled(Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter,vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71;Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His ownsiblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamedof his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his motherinto the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27)rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism,temptation, and start of ministry.After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring tohim as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instantministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into thewilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11;Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that thetemptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Lukeidentify three specific temptations by the devil, though their orderfor the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesuswas tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine interventionafter jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’skingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation,quoting Scripture in response.

Matthewand Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum inGalilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13;Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirtyyears of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity orperhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of theLevites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning ofJesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples andthe sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’public ministry: chronology.Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28,and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple hadbeen forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as thetemple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out themoney changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding andexpansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during theeighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry ofJohn the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius(Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From thesedates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of thereign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset ofJesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

TheGospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast inJohn 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended overthree or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a halfyears. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came ona Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death wastherefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and hisJudean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry inGalilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galileanministry.The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and aroundGalilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that thekingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment ofprophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ firstteaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30);the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for hiscalling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection andsuffering.

AllGospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in hisGalilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioningof the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers isrecorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministryis the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, inparticular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synopticsfocus on healings and exorcisms.

DuringJesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with hisidentity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority(Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family(3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner ofBeelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesustold parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growingkingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humblebeginnings (4:1–32).

TheSynoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful.No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority orability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized manydemons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fedfive thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark6:48–49).

Inthe later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew andtraveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are notwritten with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns toGalilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey toJerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fearresolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee,where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ discipleswith lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed thePharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents(7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demandinga sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, whoconfessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus didprovide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesuswithdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician womanrequested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sentonly to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans hadlong resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality thatallotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere“crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Eventhe dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,”Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-muteman in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’sconfession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The citywas the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judeanministry.Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry ashe resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually ledto his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem intothree phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27).The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of thejourney. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, andthe demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem(Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45;Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journeytoward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvationand judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase ofthe journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are themain themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Socialconflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposteinteractions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel(Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomicfeathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who hadlittle value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16;Luke 18:15–17).

PassionWeek, death, and resurrection. Eachof the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with thecrowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Lukedescribes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during whichJesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

InJerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17).Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because thewhole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “beganlooking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segmentof Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions(12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation(12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s owndestruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, JudasIscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’arrest (14:10–11).

Atthe Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a newcovenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29;Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned thedisciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and laterhe prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agonyand submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42;Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial,crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15;Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18).Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission bymaking disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8)and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return(Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

TheIdentity of Jesus Christ

Variousaspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels,depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses toJesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning andexamining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70;23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritualrealm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). AtJesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved(Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus wastransfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voiceaffirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and otherguards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf.Mark 15:39).

Miracleworker.In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers werepart of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs andmiracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of Godover various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature,and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus hisidentity.

Nochallenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miraclesand signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed astorm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13;Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised thedead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16;8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculousfeedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44;8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked onwater (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

ThePharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterousgeneration asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4).The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—hisdeath and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice,taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher.Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbisor Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguishedhim was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28,32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathereddisciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to joinhim in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4;Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesusused a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables(Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35;21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18;12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15,19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33),used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons(Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Majorthemes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the costof discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, hisidentity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings,observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’skingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come tofulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. Theseconflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions inwhich the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus usedthese interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gavereplies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’swill, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels,Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. TheSynoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations ofviolating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answersto such accusations often echoed the essence of 1Sam. 15:22,“To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as“I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). Anoverall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’public teaching.

TheSermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than”ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outwardobedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equalto murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfullyamounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revengingwrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesusvalued compassion above traditions and customs, even those containedwithin the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter ofthe law.

Jesus’teachings found their authority in the reality of God’simminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9),necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence(Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—thefamily of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged,“Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness”(Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among propheticteachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his owngrounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt.10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examplesof a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include theoccasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesusused an aphorism in response to accusations about his associationswith sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor,but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners”(Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking thelaw, he pointed to an OT exception (1Sam. 21:1–6) todeclare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also appliedthe “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, sincewomen suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly becameoutcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, andeschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internaltransformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring onlove (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus tobless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesustaught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father isperfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as yourFather is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” onesin Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful,and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godlycharacter.

Somescholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic”for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end oftime. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of histeachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words willnever pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah.The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore theglories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability wascommon in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babyloniancaptivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace andprotection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer,one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice andrighteousness (2Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16;Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2;Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whosesuffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle ofexpectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianicimages in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearerscalled him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt.12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesusas the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). Inline with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesusfocused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regenerationthrough his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatologicalprophet.Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewishapocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God tointervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom ofGod. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ propheciesconcerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2,15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). Inaddition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representativeof the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30).Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images ofcoming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt.24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

SufferingSon of God.Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth wasparadigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa.61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so herevealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptlyportrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ ownteachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13,31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “TheSon of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give hislife as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly careerended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewishcomponents (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65;15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24;18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt.27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror,bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyonehanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with acrucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed asa lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referredto this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed ofthe gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

ExaltedLord.Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23;20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46).The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of JesusChrist indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday(Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) andrisen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus waswitnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples(Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on theroad to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appearedto as many as five hundred others (1Cor. 15:6). He appeared inbodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43;John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesusascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

Asmuch as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory overdeath was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost,Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises(Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31).Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through hisresurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his lifeand work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him asLord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31;Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification(Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and hisintercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascensionsignaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return inglory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt.19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom(1Cor. 15:24; 2Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’Purpose and Community

Inthe Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, whopreaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent(4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter thekingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, onemade in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

Inthe prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identityof Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidingsof salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of thegospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Lukelikewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose ofJesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is thekingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John theBaptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesusanswered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen andheard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosyare cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good newsis proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, aspresented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery ofsight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God alreadypresent in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20;8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

Inthe Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signsthroughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, hisidentity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah,the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundantlife is lived out in community.

Inthe Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community ofGod (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but theycontinued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout hisministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a callto loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38;Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50;Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock Iwill build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call tocommunity. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community wasreplaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’sfamily—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained byadopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through theinitiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16;10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

TheQuests for the Historical Jesus

Thequest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from ahistorical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary byscholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding ofthe church.

Thebeginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecturenotes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously.Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus thatrejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. Heconcluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles,prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’sconclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry ofrationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continuedthroughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “firstquest” for the historical Jesus.

In1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of theHistorical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: EineGeschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of thefirst quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-centuryresearchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming thehistorical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching aninoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’sconclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest.Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was aneschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days inJerusalem.

Withthe demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as RudolfBultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historicalJesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’sformer students launched what has come to be known as the “newquest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). Thisquest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was stilldominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels islargely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

Asthe rebuilding years of the post–World WarII era wanedand scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeologicalfinds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on towhat has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeksespecially to research and understand Jesus in his social andcultural setting.

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

TheOrigin of Humankind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheNature of Humankind

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

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

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

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

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

Theterm “predestination” means “to determine or decidesomething beforehand.” Some form of the Greek verb proorizō(“to determine beforehand”)occurs six times in the NT (Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29, 30; 1Cor.2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11). It is practically synonymous with the concept offoreordination and is closely related to divine foreknowledge (Acts2:23; Rom. 8:29; 1Pet. 1:1–2, 20). Various Scripturesindicate that God the Father is the one who predestines (John17:6–10; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:3–5; 1Pet. 1:2).

Thespecific objects of predestination are humans, angels, and theMessiah. These divine predeterminations occurred before the creationof the world and were motivated by the love of God (Eph. 1:4–5).In regard to humans, this means that in eternity past, God determinedthat some individuals would be the recipients of his salvation.However, this determination does not rule out the necessity of humanchoice, responsibility, and faith. The decision to predestine someindividuals for salvation was based not upon anything good or bad inthe recipients, but solely on God’s good pleasure and accordingto his holy, wise, and eternal purpose (Isa. 46:10; Acts 13:48; Rom.11:33).

Predestinationas Part of God’s Larger Plan

Thescope of God’s plan. Predestinationis a part of God’s all-encompassing eternal plan (Isa.40:13–14; Rom. 11:34; Eph. 1:11). Several terms express God’splan. Among these are his “decree” (Ps. 2:7), “eternalpurpose” (Eph. 3:11), “foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23),and “will” (Eph. 1:9, 11). God’s plan involves allthings that come to pass, including major and insignificant events,direct and indirect causes, things appointed and things permitted. Ittherefore encompasses both good and evil (Ps. 139:16; Prov. 16:4;Isa. 14:24–27; 22:11; 37:26–27; 46:9–10; Acts 2:23;4:27–28; Eph. 1:11; 2:10).

Theinclusion of evil in the plan of God does not mean that he condones,authorizes, or commits moral evil. The apostle John stresses that Godis light and that there is no darkness in him at all (1John1:5). He is absolutely holy and cannot be charged with the commissionof sin (Hab. 1:13). When addressing the topic of God’s plan andpurpose, the biblical authors are careful to distinguish betweendivine causation and human responsibility. Both fall under thepurview of God’s plan. There is divine certainty about whatwill happen, but moral agents are never under compulsion to commitevil (see Acts 4:28; Rom. 9:11; 1Cor. 2:7; 11:2; Heb. 2:5,10–16; 1Pet. 1:2, 20; 2Pet. 3:17). For example,when Luke refers to the greatest miscarriage of justice in thehistory of the world, the crucifixion of Christ, he indicates that itwas predestined by God, but the moral turpitude of the act isattributed to “wicked men” (Acts 2:23). The dual natureof such events is aptly reflected in Joseph’s statement to hisbrothers who sold him into slavery: “You meant evil against me,but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20 NASB).

Whereasthe all-encompassing plan of God relates to his sovereign controlover all things, predestination appears to be restricted primarily tocertain divine decisions affecting humans, angels, and the Messiah(Isa. 42:1–7; Acts 2:23; 1Tim. 5:21; 1Pet. 1:20;2:4). With reference to humans, Paul states, “In him we werealso chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him whoworks out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will”(Eph. 1:11). Some scholars limit predestination to those things “inhim,” thus linking this work of God to his purpose insalvation. Others argue that the following phrase, “who worksout everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,”demonstrates that all things fall under the purview of God’scontrolling and guiding purpose (Eph. 1:11). It seems best to see thephrase “in him” as indicating the sphere in whichbelievers are chosen and the term “predestinated” as onecrucial aspect of the greater plan of God.

Divineforeknowledge and election. Sometheologians argue that election and predestination are merely basedupon God’s foreknowledge of those who will believe in him.Although God surely knows all those who will believe, the term“foreknowledge” connotes much more than simply knowingahead of time who will come to faith. It means that God hassovereignly chosen to know some individuals in such an intimate waythat it moved him to predestine them to eternal life (Rom. 8:29).Whereas the term “election” refers to God’ssovereign choice of those individuals, “predestination”looks forward toward the goal of that selection. Both predestinationand election occur in eternity past (Eph. 1:4–5).

Thepurpose of predestination. Whereaselection refers to God’s choice of individuals, predestinationlooks toward the purpose and goal of that choice. NT believers aredesignated as chosen by God and appointed to eternal life (Acts13:48; Eph. 1:4). The express purpose is that they be adopted as hischildren (Eph. 1:5) and, as beloved children, become “conformedto the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29). The idea is that thosewhom God has chosen are predestined in view of the purpose that hedesires to fulfill in them, that of becoming his children who areconformed to the image of his Son. The ultimate purpose behind thisplan is to bring glory to God (Eph. 1:5–6, 11–12).

Predestinationand Reprobation

Inhis plan, God has chosen some individuals, nations, groups, andangels to fulfill special purposes, implying that other individuals,nations, groups, and angels have not been selected for those samepurposes (2Thess. 2:13; 2Tim. 2:10; 1Pet. 1:2).With regard to God’s choice in salvation, this has led sometheologians to argue that those not chosen for salvation are bydefault chosen for eternal damnation. They maintain thatpredestination applies not only to individuals whom God plans tosave, but also to those whom he does not plan to save (Prov. 16:4;Matt. 26:23–24; Rom. 9:10–13, 17–18, 21–22;2Tim. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:8; 2Pet. 2:3, 9; Jude 4; Rev.13:8; 20:15). This is sometimes called “reprobation.” Thebelief in the combined concepts of election and reprobation has beencalled “double predestination.”

Whilesome scholars in the history of the church have argued that God isjust as active in determining the reprobate as he is the elect,others have pointed out that God’s condemnation of the nonelectis based solely upon their sin and unbelief. A real distinctionexists in the level of divine involvement with regard to the destinyof one class as compared with the other. God does not appear to havethe same relationship to every event or thing in his creation. Thedegree of divine causation in each case differs. Scripture recognizesa difference between God’s direct working and his permissivewill. In this view, God directly chooses some to be saved; however,he does not choose the others to be damned but rather passes them by,allowing them to continue on their own way and eventually suffer thejust punishment that their sins deserve.

Whicheverview one takes, it seems that the Scripture does not teachreprobation in the same way it teaches predestination leading toeternal life. Whereas the assignment to eternal death is a judicialact taking into account a person’s sin, predestination untoeternal life is purely an act of God’s sovereign grace andmercy not taking into account any actions by those chosen. Carryingthe teaching of reprobation to the extreme threatens to view God ascapricious, which clearly is not scriptural (1John 1:5).

Predestinationand Human Responsibility

Godwas in no way obligated or morally impelled to choose or predestineanyone to eternal life. His determination not to choose everyone inno way impinges upon his holy and righteous character (Rom. 9:13). Onthe contrary, justice would demand that all receive the punishmentthat they have rightly earned for their sins (Rom. 3:23; 6:23).Therefore, the predestination of some to become like his Son requiredthat God exercise grace and mercy in providing for the cleansing oftheir sin, which he accomplished through the sacrifice of his belovedSon, Jesus Christ (Acts 2:23).

God’spredetermined plan does not force individuals to respond inpredetermined ways, either to accept him or to reject him. In the onecase, the sinner is drawn by God to himself but must also choose toplace trust in Christ (John 6:37, 44). Even in the radicalintervention of God in the life of Saul on the road to Damascus,where the divine call was indeed overpowering, Saul was givenopportunity to respond either positively or negatively. In the caseof those who are headed for eternal judgment, God’s working isnot fatalistic or mechanistic in the sense that a person may want tochoose God but God’s predetermined plan will not allow such aresponse. To the contrary, all are invited to come to Christ (Matt.11:28; John 3:16). The apostle John clarifies, “Whoever comesto me I will never drive away” (John 6:37 [cf. Matt. 11:28]).Those who do not come to God refuse to do so by their own volition(Matt. 23:37; John 5:40). They are not merely unable to come to Godbut unwilling to do so (John 5:40; 6:65; Rom. 3:11). The NT teachesthat Christ died for their sins (John 3:16), pleadingly warns them torepent, and cites their transgressions as the reason for theircondemnation (1Pet. 2:8; 2Pet. 2:21–22; Jude 8–16).When all aspects of the issue are considered, there is indeed amystery that lies outside the boundaries of our comprehensionregarding God’s sovereign working and human choice.

The act of repudiating sin and returning to God. Implicit inthis is sorrow over the evil that one has committed and a completeturnabout in one’s spiritual direction: turning fromidols—anything that wrests away the affection that we oweGod—to God (1Sam. 7:3; 2Chron. 7:14; Isa. 55:6;1Thess. 1:9; James 4:8–10).

Terminology.TwoHebrew word groups are associated with the concept of repentance:nakham and shub. Nakham means “to pant, sigh, groan, howl.”When used with respect to the circ*mstances of others and the feelingof sympathy that they engender, it refers to compassion. When used inreference to feelings generated by one’s own actions, it means“grief” or “remorse.” In this regard, nakhampredominantly has God as the subject. The KJV translates it aboutforty times as “repent.” While one of the senses ofnakham is that of grief over one’s actions, those actions areethically neutral: it does not presuppose that they are inherentlyevil. The NIV is correct, therefore, in never translating nakham as“repent” where God is the subject. In most cases whereGod is its subject, the term highlights God’s compassion andcomfort for the afflicted (Isa. 40:1–2; 49:13), or his griefover the dire consequences brought upon or intended for thedisobedient and his subsequent commutation of their punishment (Exod.32:12–14; Judg. 2:18; 2Sam. 24:16; Jon. 3:10), or hisgrief over human self-ruinous obstinacy (Gen. 6:6–7; 1Sam.15:11). Even in the few cases where nakham has human subjects, itneed not always be rendered “repent,” their concern forchange of heart notwithstanding (cf. Exod. 13:17; Judg. 21:6).

Theconcept of repentance is better conveyed by the Hebrew verb shub(“to turn, return back, restore, reverse, bring back”) orits noun form in rabbinic Judaism, teshubah (“repentance”).While shub has many nonreligious uses, its theological significancederives from the sense of either “turning away from God”(apostasy [cf. Hos. 11:7; Jer. 11:10]) or “turning to God”(repentance [cf. 1Sam. 7:3–4; Hos. 14:1]). Our concern iswith the latter sense, which normally would be followed by God’sreturn to his people (Zech. 1:3; Mal. 3:7).

Inthe OT, shub is central to the concept of repentance. It is the keyterm employed in the entreaty to God’s people to return to him(2Chron. 30:6; Isa. 44:22; Ezek. 14:6). The outward signs ofrepentance in the OT include fasting, mourning (sometimes whilesitting in dust or pouring ashes or dust upon one’s head),rending garments, wearing sackcloth, and offering sacrifices (Lev.5:5–12; 2Kings 22:11, 19; Neh. 9:1; Joel 2:12–17).The Israelites became so preoccupied with these outward forms thatGod told them repeatedly that he no longer had interest in them, butrather sought contrition of the heart (Ps. 34:18; Isa. 1:10–16;58; 66:2; Joel 2:13).

Inthe NT, the dominant terms used for repentance are the verb metanoeōand the cognate noun metanoia; the overwhelming majority of theseoccur in Luke-Acts. These terms are used to expressthe complete turnaround in one’s way of life, includingconversion,faith, and regeneration (Acts 2:28; 3:19; 5:31; 20:21). Occasionallythese two terms are complemented by epistrephō to stress thepositive side of repentance, that of turning from sin oridols to God (Acts 9:35; 11:21; 26:20).

Elementsof repentance.The constituent elements of biblical repentance include thefollowing: (1)A recognition of one’s sin, its damagingeffects on life and nature, its affront to God’s word andauthority, and its dire consequences (Ezek. 18:4; Rom. 3:23; 8:19–22;Rev. 21:8). (2)Personal outrage and remorse over one’ssin, grief at one’s helplessness, and a deep longing forforgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration. (3)A personalresponse to God’s grace in choosing a new spiritual directionby breaking with the past and returning to God. This includesconfession and renunciation of sin, and prayer for God’sforgiveness (Lev. 5:5; Prov. 28:13; 1John 1:9). (4)Insome circ*mstances, repentance may require restitution (Exod.22:1–15; 1Sam. 12:3; 2Sam. 12:6; Luke 19:8). (5)Atit* core, repentance is a rejection of the autonomous life and thesurrender of oneself to the lordship of Christ (Jer. 3:22; Mark8:34–38). (6)The proof of true repentance is the worthyfruit of a changed life (Luke 3:7–14; Eph. 4:17–32; Col.1:10).

Righteousness is an important theme in both Testaments of theBible. The concept includes faithfulness, justice, uprightness,correctness, loyalty, blamelessness, purity, salvation, andinnocence. Because the theme is related to justification, it hasimportant implications for the doctrine of salvation (see alsoJustification).

OldTestament

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

Humanrighteousness. Relatedto humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite ofwickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, whereit relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of theworld as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). Godreigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humansshould align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousnesscan be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “myrighteousness” (2Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “theirrighteousness” (1Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found inpoetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust areparallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).

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

NoncanonicalJewish documents from the intertestamental period, while varyinggreatly in individual perspective, generally affirm OT views of humanand divine righteousness. In these documents righteousness often isassociated with mercy, goodness, justness, and concern for the poorand is contrasted with wickedness.

InGreco-Roman society, righteousness was one of the cardinal virtuesand thus had an important influence in society. Greco-Romanrighteousness did have some measure of abstractness as a kind ofexternal norm, but this abstractness should not obscure the fact thatrighteousness often had a relational component in Greco-Romanliterature and life. Righteous and unrighteous behaviors often wereembedded in interpersonal relationships. Unrighteous deeds not onlyviolated “transcendent” standards of righteousness, butalso impacted humans.

NewTestament

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

TheNT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In theSermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7), Jesus extends the requirementsof righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, ashocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners ratherthan the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitlyquestions the righteousness of the “righteous.” Insimilar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness ofone’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke18:9).

Divinerighteousness. TheNT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to Godhimself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf.Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commandsand laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge(2Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does notcompromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26).The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness andwickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation inrighteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g.,Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52;22:14; 1Pet. 3:18; 1John 2:1, 29). He fulfilledrighteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating completeconformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1Pet. 3:18). Healso fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his savingactivity toward humans (e.g., 2Pet. 1:1).

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

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

InRom. 10:3 Paul comments that the Israelites are ignorant of “therighteousness of God”; they are seeking to establish their ownrighteousness because they are not submitting to “therighteousness of God.” The Israelites certainly knew of God’srighteousness in terms of his character, judgments, and expectationsof his people. The lack of submission to “the righteousness ofGod” occurs in the context of the Jewish rejection of Jesus(e.g., 9:32–33; 10:9–13). And Jesus is the key tounderstanding “the righteousness of God” in the othertexts also.

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

The blossoms of seed-bearing plants that contain the plant’s reproductive organs. Used generally, “flowers” refers to the colorful array of blossoms that grew mostly in the open fields of the Holy Land. Numerous kinds of wild flowers could be found in the plains and mountains of Palestine. When winter rains were followed by the moderate temperatures of spring, renewal abounded (Song 2:11–12). Early spring blossoms presented an array of vibrant color and form. As early as January, cyclamen poured forth pink, white, and lilac blossoms, followed by various shades of red and pink of the crown anemones, poppies, and mountain tulips. The flowers of the diverse tuberous plants of the lily family also added to the colorful mosaic. Summer brought fields of chamomile and chrysanthemums, with their yellow and white daisylike flowers. The blossoms from plants such as mints, mustards, and other native herbaceous plants, along with those of flowering trees, shrubs, and field flowers, provided ample nectar for bees in the land of milk and honey (Num. 13:27). Healing or soothing ointments and various perfumes were produced from the essential oils extracted from the crushing of blossoms from a variety of flowers.

Flower Imagery

Traditionally, the language of flowers functions to illustrate some prominent themes, such as love and beauty. Flower imagery in descriptions of the tabernacle, of Solomon’s temple, and in the Song of Solomon develops the themes of beauty, purity, sweetness, and love (Song 2:1–5; 5:13; Isa. 28:4). The Song of Solomon is set in a garden scene where the sensuous quality of flowers—their colors, shapes, and scents, their delicate touch—are analogous to the captivating sexuality of physical love. The spring setting assures that the flowers are at their pinnacle of brilliance and the air is filled with the fragrance of vine blossoms (Song 2:12–13).

Used metaphorically, flowers can also refer to transience, pride, restoration, and the glory of the holy and eternal. Such references are found in both Testaments. The short life of flowers is representative of the brevity and fragility of human life on earth (Job 14:2; Ps. 103:15; Isa. 40:6–8; 1Pet. 1:24). After a brief moment of splendor, decline and decay are close behind. Such is the metaphor used in psalms, by the prophets, and in the NT for the life of a person who flourishes like the flower, is like the grass one day, but is gone the next day.

As surely as flower imagery points out our human mortality, it also serves to illustrate the judgment of the proud or ungodly, as when Isaiah prophesies the speedy downfall of the kingdom of Israel like flowers being trampled under-foot (Isa. 28:1–3), turned to dust (5:24), or cut off with pruning knives (18:5). Nahum sees God’s power to rebuke his enemies in his ability to dry up seas and rivers and to make the many flowers of Carmel and Lebanon wilt (Nah. 1:4). James applies the flower imagery to describe the sudden departure of the rich person, passing away as quickly as the flowers of the field, whose beauty perishes under the burning heat of the sun (James 1:10–11).

The usual contexts of this flower imagery are judgment on the proud and the wicked, whose deeds will be short-lived. The insignificant and contemptible deeds of the wicked are contrasted with God’s power; our human transience and frailty with God’s permanence (Ps. 103:15); and our human weakness with the eternal word of God (Isa. 40:6, 8; 1Pet. 1:24–25).

The flower can also represent a blessing. The righteous are compared to the flowering or flourishing of a plant (Isa. 5:24; 18:5; 28:1–4), since the flowering of a plant represents the peak of its life process, its most glorious moment. This beautifully pictures the restoration themes of the prophets as they utilize flower imagery. Isaiah’s words “The desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom; it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy” (Isa. 35:1–2; cf. 27:6) are one example of God’s restorative ability to turn a wasteland into a garden. Hosea illustrates this theme: “I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily. Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots” (Hos. 14:5). The psalmists also sing of the righteous, not the wicked, flourishing like grass or the flower (Pss. 72:7, 16; 92:12–14). Proverbs too reminds us that the righteous will “flourish,” or break forth and sprout like foliage (Prov. 14:11).

Flowers Named in the Bible

The Bible often identifies flowering plants by a more generic name rather than mentioning specific flowers. Sometimes context can help in determining more specific species. According to 1Kings 7:19–20, 26, lily blossoms, along with pomegranates, adorned the top of the bronze columns that stood before King Solomon’s temple. In a musical aspect, three psalms are identified as those to be sung to the tune “Lilies” (Pss. 45; 69; 80).

The most frequently mentioned specific flowers are traditionally translated “lily” and “rose” (though these are probably not accurate renderings since these flowers are not native to the region and so would have been unfamiliar to most readers). Many commentators believe that the phrase “lilies of the field” referred to the showy, attractive springtime flowers that grow profusely in the plains, pastures, and hills of the Carmel and Sharon regions. These flowers can include ranunculus, anemone, cyclamen, tulip, hyacinth, narcissus, crocus, iris, and orchid. The tulip, asphodel, star-of-Bethlehem, hyacinth, and related narcissus, daffodil, crocus, and iris inhabit the rocky ground and dry places of the hill country. The “lily of the valleys” of Song 2:1–2 is probably the blue hyacinth.

Consider Jesus’ words “Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these” (Matt. 6:28–29 NASB). Although these flowers may not be true lilies but rather one of the numerous showy spring flowers such as the crown anemone, Jesus proclaims that the beauty of a single flower in a meadow was more striking than all the riches of Solomon, and that the flower did not concern itself with working and getting riches to be clothed. Jesus’ comments about flowers demonstrate that their beauty was appreciated in Israel.

The flowers listed below are specifically named in various Bible versions.

Almond blossoms. The almond tree is among the first of flowering trees to bloom in the spring. Almond blossoms were part of the almond-tree design on the seven-branched lampstands of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:33–34; 37:19–20). In Eccles. 12:5, almond tree blossoms are likely an allegorical reference to an elderly person’s hair turning white like the almond tree.

Camphire flower. In Song 1:14; 4:13, the KJV refers to camphire, while the NIV and most modern versions have “henna.” The camphire is a small plant or shrub that bears highly scented, cream-colored flowers that hang in clusters and were used for orange dye.

Caperberry flower. The caperberry was a common prickly shrub with large, white flowers that produced small, edible berries. The berries had a reputation for exciting sexual desire, so the caperberry is used in Eccles. 12:5 to allude to the waning sexual potency that comes with age (NIV: “desire is no longer stirred”).

co*ckle flower. The KJV of Job 31:40 refers to a “co*ckle” (NIV: “stinkweed”), a plant whose name is spelled like the Hebrew word for “stink.” This noxious weed with purplish red flowers grew abundantly in Palestinian grain fields.

Crocus. A plant with a long yellow floral tube tinged with purple specks or stripes. The abundant blossoms of the crocus symbolize beauty and splendor (Isa. 35:1).

Fitch. Named in the KJV at Isa. 28:25, 27 (NIV: “caraway”; NRSV: “dill”) and Ezek. 4:9 (NIV: “spelt”). The flower referred to is probably the nutmeg flower, which is a member of the buttercup family; it grew wild in most Mediterranean lands. The plant is about two feet high, with bright blue flowers. The pods of the plant were used like pepper.

Lily. A symbol of fruitfulness, purity, and resurrection, this plant grows from a bulb to a height of three feet, with large white flowers. The term “lily” covers a wide range of flowers. The lily mentioned in Song 5:13 refers to a rare variety of lily that had a bloom similar to a glowing flame. The “lily of the valleys” (Song 2:1) is known as the Easter lily. The lily mentioned in Hos. 14:5 is more like an iris. The water lily or lotus was a favorite flower in Egypt and was used to decorate Solomon’s temple (1Kings 7:19, 22, 26; 2Chron. 4:5). The “lilies of the field” (Matt. 6:28) probably were numerous kinds of colorful spring flowers such as the crown anemone (see NIV: “flowers of the field”).

Mint. This aromatic plant, with hairy leaves, has dense white or pink flowers. It is listed with other spices and herbs as something that the Pharisees tithe (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).

Myrtle branch. This bush has fragrant evergreen leaves. Its scented white flowers were used for perfumes. The bush grew to considerable height (Zech. 1:8, 10) and is listed among the trees used to build shelters during the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. 8:15; see also Isa. 41:19; 55:13).

Pomegranate blossom. The blossom of the pomegranate tree is large and orange-red in color. The fruit of the tree was a symbol of fertile and productive land (Num. 13:23; Deut. 8:8; cf. Hag. 2:19) and was used to produce spiced wine (Song 8:2). Pomegranates were part of the decoration that adorned Aaron’s garments (Exod. 28:33–34) and the temple of Solomon (1Kings 7:18–20).

Rose. The Hebrew word translated as “rose” in Song 2:1 is translated as “crocus” in Isa. 35:1. Crocus was probably the family name of this flower.

Saffron. This is a species of crocus. Petals of the saffron were used to perfume banquet halls (cf. Song 4:14).

The blossoms of seed-bearing plants that contain the plant’s reproductive organs. Used generally, “flowers” refers to the colorful array of blossoms that grew mostly in the open fields of the Holy Land. Numerous kinds of wild flowers could be found in the plains and mountains of Palestine. When winter rains were followed by the moderate temperatures of spring, renewal abounded (Song 2:11–12). Early spring blossoms presented an array of vibrant color and form. As early as January, cyclamen poured forth pink, white, and lilac blossoms, followed by various shades of red and pink of the crown anemones, poppies, and mountain tulips. The flowers of the diverse tuberous plants of the lily family also added to the colorful mosaic. Summer brought fields of chamomile and chrysanthemums, with their yellow and white daisylike flowers. The blossoms from plants such as mints, mustards, and other native herbaceous plants, along with those of flowering trees, shrubs, and field flowers, provided ample nectar for bees in the land of milk and honey (Num. 13:27). Healing or soothing ointments and various perfumes were produced from the essential oils extracted from the crushing of blossoms from a variety of flowers.

Flower Imagery

Traditionally, the language of flowers functions to illustrate some prominent themes, such as love and beauty. Flower imagery in descriptions of the tabernacle, of Solomon’s temple, and in the Song of Solomon develops the themes of beauty, purity, sweetness, and love (Song 2:1–5; 5:13; Isa. 28:4). The Song of Solomon is set in a garden scene where the sensuous quality of flowers—their colors, shapes, and scents, their delicate touch—are analogous to the captivating sexuality of physical love. The spring setting assures that the flowers are at their pinnacle of brilliance and the air is filled with the fragrance of vine blossoms (Song 2:12–13).

Used metaphorically, flowers can also refer to transience, pride, restoration, and the glory of the holy and eternal. Such references are found in both Testaments. The short life of flowers is representative of the brevity and fragility of human life on earth (Job 14:2; Ps. 103:15; Isa. 40:6–8; 1Pet. 1:24). After a brief moment of splendor, decline and decay are close behind. Such is the metaphor used in psalms, by the prophets, and in the NT for the life of a person who flourishes like the flower, is like the grass one day, but is gone the next day.

As surely as flower imagery points out our human mortality, it also serves to illustrate the judgment of the proud or ungodly, as when Isaiah prophesies the speedy downfall of the kingdom of Israel like flowers being trampled under-foot (Isa. 28:1–3), turned to dust (5:24), or cut off with pruning knives (18:5). Nahum sees God’s power to rebuke his enemies in his ability to dry up seas and rivers and to make the many flowers of Carmel and Lebanon wilt (Nah. 1:4). James applies the flower imagery to describe the sudden departure of the rich person, passing away as quickly as the flowers of the field, whose beauty perishes under the burning heat of the sun (James 1:10–11).

The usual contexts of this flower imagery are judgment on the proud and the wicked, whose deeds will be short-lived. The insignificant and contemptible deeds of the wicked are contrasted with God’s power; our human transience and frailty with God’s permanence (Ps. 103:15); and our human weakness with the eternal word of God (Isa. 40:6, 8; 1Pet. 1:24–25).

The flower can also represent a blessing. The righteous are compared to the flowering or flourishing of a plant (Isa. 5:24; 18:5; 28:1–4), since the flowering of a plant represents the peak of its life process, its most glorious moment. This beautifully pictures the restoration themes of the prophets as they utilize flower imagery. Isaiah’s words “The desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom; it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy” (Isa. 35:1–2; cf. 27:6) are one example of God’s restorative ability to turn a wasteland into a garden. Hosea illustrates this theme: “I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily. Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots” (Hos. 14:5). The psalmists also sing of the righteous, not the wicked, flourishing like grass or the flower (Pss. 72:7, 16; 92:12–14). Proverbs too reminds us that the righteous will “flourish,” or break forth and sprout like foliage (Prov. 14:11).

Flowers Named in the Bible

The Bible often identifies flowering plants by a more generic name rather than mentioning specific flowers. Sometimes context can help in determining more specific species. According to 1Kings 7:19–20, 26, lily blossoms, along with pomegranates, adorned the top of the bronze columns that stood before King Solomon’s temple. In a musical aspect, three psalms are identified as those to be sung to the tune “Lilies” (Pss. 45; 69; 80).

The most frequently mentioned specific flowers are traditionally translated “lily” and “rose” (though these are probably not accurate renderings since these flowers are not native to the region and so would have been unfamiliar to most readers). Many commentators believe that the phrase “lilies of the field” referred to the showy, attractive springtime flowers that grow profusely in the plains, pastures, and hills of the Carmel and Sharon regions. These flowers can include ranunculus, anemone, cyclamen, tulip, hyacinth, narcissus, crocus, iris, and orchid. The tulip, asphodel, star-of-Bethlehem, hyacinth, and related narcissus, daffodil, crocus, and iris inhabit the rocky ground and dry places of the hill country. The “lily of the valleys” of Song 2:1–2 is probably the blue hyacinth.

Consider Jesus’ words “Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these” (Matt. 6:28–29 NASB). Although these flowers may not be true lilies but rather one of the numerous showy spring flowers such as the crown anemone, Jesus proclaims that the beauty of a single flower in a meadow was more striking than all the riches of Solomon, and that the flower did not concern itself with working and getting riches to be clothed. Jesus’ comments about flowers demonstrate that their beauty was appreciated in Israel.

The flowers listed below are specifically named in various Bible versions.

Almond blossoms. The almond tree is among the first of flowering trees to bloom in the spring. Almond blossoms were part of the almond-tree design on the seven-branched lampstands of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:33–34; 37:19–20). In Eccles. 12:5, almond tree blossoms are likely an allegorical reference to an elderly person’s hair turning white like the almond tree.

Camphire flower. In Song 1:14; 4:13, the KJV refers to camphire, while the NIV and most modern versions have “henna.” The camphire is a small plant or shrub that bears highly scented, cream-colored flowers that hang in clusters and were used for orange dye.

Caperberry flower. The caperberry was a common prickly shrub with large, white flowers that produced small, edible berries. The berries had a reputation for exciting sexual desire, so the caperberry is used in Eccles. 12:5 to allude to the waning sexual potency that comes with age (NIV: “desire is no longer stirred”).

co*ckle flower. The KJV of Job 31:40 refers to a “co*ckle” (NIV: “stinkweed”), a plant whose name is spelled like the Hebrew word for “stink.” This noxious weed with purplish red flowers grew abundantly in Palestinian grain fields.

Crocus. A plant with a long yellow floral tube tinged with purple specks or stripes. The abundant blossoms of the crocus symbolize beauty and splendor (Isa. 35:1).

Fitch. Named in the KJV at Isa. 28:25, 27 (NIV: “caraway”; NRSV: “dill”) and Ezek. 4:9 (NIV: “spelt”). The flower referred to is probably the nutmeg flower, which is a member of the buttercup family; it grew wild in most Mediterranean lands. The plant is about two feet high, with bright blue flowers. The pods of the plant were used like pepper.

Lily. A symbol of fruitfulness, purity, and resurrection, this plant grows from a bulb to a height of three feet, with large white flowers. The term “lily” covers a wide range of flowers. The lily mentioned in Song 5:13 refers to a rare variety of lily that had a bloom similar to a glowing flame. The “lily of the valleys” (Song 2:1) is known as the Easter lily. The lily mentioned in Hos. 14:5 is more like an iris. The water lily or lotus was a favorite flower in Egypt and was used to decorate Solomon’s temple (1Kings 7:19, 22, 26; 2Chron. 4:5). The “lilies of the field” (Matt. 6:28) probably were numerous kinds of colorful spring flowers such as the crown anemone (see NIV: “flowers of the field”).

Mint. This aromatic plant, with hairy leaves, has dense white or pink flowers. It is listed with other spices and herbs as something that the Pharisees tithe (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).

Myrtle branch. This bush has fragrant evergreen leaves. Its scented white flowers were used for perfumes. The bush grew to considerable height (Zech. 1:8, 10) and is listed among the trees used to build shelters during the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. 8:15; see also Isa. 41:19; 55:13).

Pomegranate blossom. The blossom of the pomegranate tree is large and orange-red in color. The fruit of the tree was a symbol of fertile and productive land (Num. 13:23; Deut. 8:8; cf. Hag. 2:19) and was used to produce spiced wine (Song 8:2). Pomegranates were part of the decoration that adorned Aaron’s garments (Exod. 28:33–34) and the temple of Solomon (1Kings 7:18–20).

Rose. The Hebrew word translated as “rose” in Song 2:1 is translated as “crocus” in Isa. 35:1. Crocus was probably the family name of this flower.

Saffron. This is a species of crocus. Petals of the saffron were used to perfume banquet halls (cf. Song 4:14).

The term “salvation” is the broadest one used torefer to God’s actions to solve the plight brought about byhumankind’s sinful rebellion and its consequences. It is one ofthe central themes of the entire Bible, running from Genesis throughRevelation.

OldTestament

Inmany places in the OT, salvation refers to being rescued fromphysical rather than spiritual trouble. Fearing the possibility ofretribution from his brother Esau, Jacob prays, “Save me, Ipray, from the hand of my brother Esau” (Gen. 32:11). Theactions of Joseph in Egypt saved many from famine (45:5–7;47:25; 50:20). Frequently in the psalms, individuals pray forsalvation from enemies that threaten one’s safety or life (Pss.17:14; 18:3; 70:1–3; 71:1–4; 91:1–3).

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

Butthese examples of national deliverance had a profound spiritualcomponent as well. God did not save his people from physical dangeras an end in itself; it was the necessary means for his plan to savethem from their sins. The OT recognizes the need for salvation fromsin (Pss. 39:8; 51:14; 120:2) but, as the NT makes evident, does notprovide a final solution (Heb. 9:1–10:18). One of the clearestplaces that physical and spiritual salvation come together is Isa.40–55, where Judah’s exile from the land and prophesiedreturn are seen as the physical manifestation of the much morefundamental spiritual exile that resulted from sin. To address thatfar greater reality, God announces the day when the Suffering Servantwould once and for all take away the sins of his people (Isa.52:13–53:12).

NewTestament

Asin the OT, the NT has places where salvation refers to being rescuedfrom physical difficulty. Paul, for example, speaks of being savedfrom various physical dangers, including execution (2Cor.1:8–10; Phil. 1:19; 2Tim. 4:17). In the midst of a fiercestorm, Jesus’ disciplescry out, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!”(Matt. 8:25). But far more prominent are the places in the Gospelsand Acts where physical healings are described with the verb sōzō,used to speak of salvation from sin. The healing of the woman withthe hemorrhage (Mark 5:25–34), the blind man along the road(Luke 18:35–43), and even the man possessed by a demon (Luke8:26–39), just to name a few, are described with the verb sōzō.The same verb, however, is also used to refer to Jesus forgivingsomeone’ssins (Luke 7:36–50) and to his mission to save the lost fromtheir sins (Luke 19:10). Such overlap is a foretaste of the holisticsalvation (physical and spiritual) that will be completed in the newheaven and earth (Rev. 21–22). The NT Epistles give extensivedescriptions of how the work of Jesus Christ saves his people fromtheir sins (see below).

Components

Inseveral passages (e.g., Rom. 5:1–11; Eph. 2:1–10; Titus3:4–7) “salvation” is clearly a summary term forthe totality of what God has done for his people in and throughChrist. Salvation is such a rich and multifaceted work of God that ittakes a variety of terms to bring out its fullness. “Regeneration”refers to the new life that God imparts, bringing a person fromspiritual death to spiritual life (John 3:3–8; Eph. 2:4–7;Titus 3:4–7). “Justification” speaks of Goddeclaring a person not guilty in his court of law on the basis ofChrist’s sacrificial death and life of perfect obedience (Rom.3:21–5:12; Gal. 2:14–21). “Atonement”describes Christ’s payment for sin and resulting forgiveness(Rom. 3:21–26; Heb. 2:17). “Redemption” capturesthe reality of God paying the price to bring his people out of theirslavery to sin and into the freedom of the Spirit (Gal. 4:1–7;5:1). “Reconciliation” refers to God turning hardenedrebels and enemies into his friends (Rom. 5:10–11; 2Cor.5:18–21; Col. 1:20–22). “Adoption” extendsthat reality into the astonishing truth that God makes those whom hereconciles not just his friends but his sons and daughters (Rom.8:14–25; Gal. 4:1–7). In “sanctification” Godsets his people apart for his special purposes and progressivelychanges them into the image of Christ (1Cor. 1:30 ESV, NRSV,NASB; cf. Rom. 8:29). The final component is “glorification,”when God brings to completion the work of salvation by granting hispeople resurrection bodies, removing every last stain of sin, death,and the curse and placing them in a new heaven and earth (Rom. 8:30;1Cor. 15:35–57; Rev. 21–22).

Prepositionsof Salvation

Anotherway that the Bible fills out the nature of salvation is through thevarious prepositions connected to it. The prepositions in thefollowing list are among the more significant.

From.Since the basic idea of salvation is rescue from danger, it is notsurprising that Scripture describes that from which believers aresaved. David cries out to God, “Save me from all mytransgressions” (Ps. 39:8). Salvation from sin is possible onlythrough Jesus, for it is he who “will save his people fromtheir sins” (Matt. 1:21). Reflecting on the work of Jesus onthe cross, Paul claims that because of the sacrificial death ofChrist believers are saved from God’s wrath (Rom. 5:9–10).At the same time, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus savedpeople from their slavery to sin (Rom. 6:1–11). As a result ofthese and other things from which Christ has saved people, on the dayof Pentecost Peter exhorts his audience to be saved “from thiscorrupt generation” (Acts 2:40). Thus, the unanimous testimonyof Scripture is that believers have been saved from their sin and itsconsequences.

To/into.Believers are saved not merely from something; they are saved to/intocertain states or conditions. Whereas they were once slaves,believers have now been saved “into the freedom and glory ofthe children of God” (Rom. 8:21 [cf. Gal. 5:1]). Through thecross God “has rescued us from the dominion of darkness andbrought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Col. 1:13).Another way of stating this reality is to speak of the peace intowhich believers now have been brought as a result of Christ’swork on their behalf (John 14:27).

By.Scripture frequently uses the preposition “by” to expressthe instrument of salvation. Stated negatively, “It is not bysword or spear that the Lord saves” (1Sam. 17:47). In thebroadest sense, believers are saved from their sins by the gospel(1Cor. 15:1–2). More specifically, salvation is by thegrace of God (Eph. 2:5, 8). The preposition “by” can alsoexpress the agent of salvation. A distinguishing feature of Israelwas that it was saved from its enemies by God (Deut. 33:29; Isa.45:17). The same thing is meant when Scripture speaks of God savinghis people by his right hand (Ps. 17:7) or his name (Ps. 54:1).

Through.The consistent testimony of the Bible is that salvation comes throughfaith (e.g., Eph. 2:8–9). Through faith, believers have beenjustified (Rom. 3:22; 5:1–2) and made children of God (Gal.3:26). It is not righteousness based on the law that matters, “butthat which is through faith in Christ” (Phil. 3:9). Theremarkable actions of God’s people throughout history have beenaccomplished through faith (Heb. 11:1–40).

In.Especially in Paul’s writings the various components ofsalvation (see above) are modified with the phrase “in Christ”or “in him.” Believers are chosen (Eph. 1:4), redeemed(Eph. 1:7), justified (Gal. 2:17), and sanctified (1Cor. 1:2)in Christ. Indeed, God has blessed believers “in the heavenlyrealms with every spiritual blessing in Christ” (Eph. 1:3).

With.Many of the components of salvation that believers experience aresaid to happen “with Christ.” Believers are united withChrist in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:4–11;Gal. 2:20). With Christ, believers have been made alive, raised up,and seated in the heavenly realms (Eph. 2:4–6; Col. 2:13).Because of their union with Christ, believers share in hisinheritance (Rom. 8:16–17; Gal. 3:29; 1Pet. 1:4). Eventhe very life of the believer is said to be currently “hiddenwith Christ in God” (Col. 3:3).

Tensesof Salvation

TheBible speaks of salvation in the past, present, and future tenses.Pointing to a definitive experience in the past, Paul tells believersthat “in this hope we were saved” (Rom. 8:24). Yet he canalso speak of himself and other believers as those “who arebeing saved” (1Cor. 1:18; 2Cor. 2:15), pointing toa process that is ongoing. Just a few sentences after assuringbelievers that they have been justified already (Rom. 5:1–2),he can still say that believers will “be saved from God’swrath” through Christ (Rom. 5:9–10).

Theuse of these three tenses reflects the “already and not yet”dynamic of salvation. Through the obedience, death, resurrection, andascension of Jesus, God has rescued his people from their sins. Butthe final and complete realization of all the benefits of salvationmust still await the return of Christ and the establishment of a newheaven and earth (Rev. 19–22).

Conclusion

Withouta proper understanding of humankind’s plight as a result of itsrebellion, the Bible’s repeated emphasis on salvation makeslittle sense. Because sin is humanity’s greatest problem,salvation is humanity’s greatest need. Given the breadth,width, and depth of what God has done to save his people from theirsins through Jesus Christ, it is no wonder that the author of Hebrewsasks, “How shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?”(2:3).

Since the early apologists’ first attempts to defendthe Christian faith against contemporary Greco-Roman philosophers,explanations of God’s sovereignty have found support fromPlatonic, Neoplatonic, and Aristotelian categories. This unfortunate“marriage” pushed theologians to identify God’spower in static and absolute categories that explained God as unmovedand impassible. God’s sovereign will must be perfect and cannotbe affected by the world or by human suffering. In his perfection,God is necessarily apatheia (Aristotle), beyond joy or sorrow(Plato). This notion led medieval and Reformation theologians toassert that Jesus suffered in his human nature, but not in his divinenature. To protect God’s integrity (incapability ofcorruption), the biblical emphasis on God’s passionateinvolvement with his creation and people (e.g., Isa. 34:2; Zeph.3:17) was squelched.

Christianspeculation on God’s sovereignty followed the Neoplatonicprinciple of plenitude, in which the created universe is little morethan the divine being’s necessary overflow of temporaldiversity. God’s perfection requires the unlimitedactualization of all possibilities. For Augustine, this meant thatall human experience is foreclosed in God’s eternity; forAnselm, it gave an ontological argument for God’s existence;for Abelard, it meant that God cannot do or leave undone anythingother than what he has done; for Beza (Calvinism), doublepredestination was a given; for Schleiermacher, humanself-consciousness had its roots in the divine being; for Tillich, a“God above God” was the ground of all being; and we couldadd many others. “Sovereignty,” in these delineations,expresses the necessary manifestation of God’s perfection andabsolute power.

Thebiblical language of sovereignty does not parallel such logic.Broadly speaking, the Bible describes sovereignty as God’sdivine authority to rule his creation in general and Israel inparticular. He is the Lord of all creation and the King of Israel. Heis almighty (sovereign) to accomplish his purpose, which is torestore his kingdom on earth through Christ (1Tim. 6:14–15),to whom he now has given all authority (Matt. 28:18). Rather than analoof divinity of perfection, God is presented in the Bible asintensely personal and superbly engaged in the affairs of hiscreation. He remains outside his creation as its supreme, infiniteCreator (transcendence), while allowing his love to instruct both hisjustice and his power (immanence). He creates not because thenecessity of his perfection requires it but rather out of sovereignfreedom and love. He is both protective of his position as Lord ofcreation and concerned for his people’s welfare (Deut.6:13–19). His sovereignty displays his moral character (Exod.15:11–18) while demanding reciprocal love and relationalobedience from his people.

Assovereign, God has power and rule that are above all other powers andrulers (Pss. 22:28; 103:19; Dan. 5:21). His providential care for allcreation exhibits his loving kingship and confirms his essentialgoodness. God’s sovereignty affirms that human life has meaningand purpose; he does not leave us alone to create our own happiness,nor are we subject to whatever misery presses upon us (1Chron.29:11). Rather than an indivisible attribute, God’s power issubject to his control and expresses itself relationally. This samerelationality lies behind the biblical understanding of God’swill and unchangeable character (James 1:17; cf. Ps. 102:25–27;Isa. 40:8). As a comparison of 1Sam. 15:11 with 15:29 shows,God’s sovereignty does not militate against his freedom tochange his mind. Rather, God remains unchangeably faithful and trueto his character even when humans prove faithless and false (2Tim.2:13).

Thisrelational quality of God’s sovereignty is rooted in histriunity. His existence is coexistence as Father, Son, and HolySpirit. This makes love the distinctive mark of his sovereignty. Thedoctrine of the Trinity safeguards against metaphysicalunderstandings of God that make light of his self-revelation inChrist. Opposite the self-expanding god of philosophicalspeculations, the biblical God manifests his sovereignty through theself-limiting and self-denying Christ (Phil. 2:5–11), whor*veals God’s absolute power as the servant of his absolutelove.

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).

In NT studies, “Synoptic” refers to the Gospelsof Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which, due to their similarities, can becompared side by side (synoptic= seeing together). Althoughcoined earlier, the term “Synoptic” did not become thecommonly used reference to the first three Gospels until thenineteenth century.

Synopticalcomparisons reveal texts that are similar in wording (e.g., Matt.19:13–18// Mark 10:13–16// Luke 18:15–17),order (e.g., Matt. 12:46–13:58// Mark 3:31–6:6a//Luke 8:19–56), and parenthetical material (e.g., Matt. 9:6//Mark 2:10// Luke 5:20). Most interestingly, the Synoptics agreein their quotation of the OT even when they differ from the Hebrew OTtext itself (compare Matt. 3:3// Mark 1:3// Luke 3:4 toIsa. 40:3). Beyond such similarities, significant differences prevailthat raise difficult questions. How, for example, could Mark escapeany reference to the Sermon on the Mount (including the Lord’sPrayer), which holds such a prominent position in Matthew?

Relationshipsamong the three Gospels.Due to these and other factors, multiple theories on the SynopticGospels’ relationship to one another have arisen. Yet none havefound universal acceptance. Historically, based primarily onAugustine’s claim, the church affirmed Matthew as the firstGospel, with Mark as his abridgment and Luke as employing both. TheGerman text critic J.J. Griesbach developed this thesis ofMatthean priority in his 1774 Synopsis, arguing that Luke was thefirst to use Matthew, and Mark was drawing from both. The GriesbachHypothesis continues to have advocates.

Matthewcovers the substance of 97.2percent of Mark’s 661 verses,while 88.4percent reappear in Luke. Although such statisticscould be explained as Mark’s combination and abbreviation ofMatthew and Luke, in fact Matthew generally shortens Mark where theycover the same material. In search of explanations that bettervalidate the evidence, NT scholars proposed the Two SourceHypothesis, arguing that Mark wrote first, and that Matthew and Lukedrew from Mark and from another, unknown source (which scholars call“Q,” from German Quelle, meaning “source”).H.J. Holzmann gave significant credence to this theory in 1863,and after B.H. Streeter’s persuasive publication in 1924it became the leading theory. Rather than the reverse, it seemseasier to understand Matthew and Luke as expansions of Mark’snarrative, just as evidence suggests that they “cleaned up”Mark’s poorer Greek and more difficult readings. Furthermore,although Matthew and Luke often disagree with each other bothverbally and in their order of events, they rarely agree with oneanother against Mark. This suggests that in the triple tradition(passages in all three Synoptic Gospels), Matthew and Luke are notborrowing from each other but are independently using Mark.

Thesuggestion of the unknown source Q (which could be either written ororal) proved necessary to make sense of the significant agreementsbetween Matthew and Luke in material not covered by Mark. Streetersuggested further that the material that was unique to Matthew andLuke respectively came from sources designated as “M” and“L.”

Althoughthe Two Source Hypothesis remains the working theory preferred bymost scholars, others claim that the issue is far from unresolved. Toreconstruct the precise development of the Synoptic Gospels hasproven extremely difficult. Each Gospel may have been influenced by avariety of sources. Rather than being well defined, the processlikely was fluid, bringing together commonly known and acceptedmemorizations of specific Jesus sayings, repeated retellings ofspecific sequences of events (shorter and longer) that had turnedinto strings of established tradition among early churches, writtenrecords made by disciples such as Matthew, oral preaching of apostlessuch as Peter, accounts possibly from Mary the mother of Jesus (cf.Luke 2:19), and other things.

Mark’sGospel has historically been considered a written condensation ofPeter’s preaching, but as C.H. Dodd showed in his 1936Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, Mark shaped his Gospelaccording to a common apostolic pattern observable in the speeches inActs. Except for a few parables and the action-filled apocalypse inchapter 13, Mark’s Gospel consists almost exclusively ofdescriptive narrative that delineates the power and purpose of Jesus,the Son of God. Mark is kerygma, preaching about Jesus. Q, or thematerial common to Matthew and Luke absent in Mark, consists almostexclusively of teaching material, Jesus sayings.It is didachē, teaching from Jesus.

Distinctivesof each Gospel.Griesbach’s “synoptic” approach of placing thesethree Gospels side by side for comparison has prompted new scholarlyapproaches such as redaction criticism and has provided beginningstudents with a helpful way to recognize specific emphases of eachGospel. As noted above, Mark is a fast-paced narrative (“immediately”occurs nine times in chap. 1 alone) with vivid picturesque detail(e.g., 14:51–52). Matthew writes for a Jewish audience. Heweaves his narrative around five major teaching discourses (chaps.5–7; 10; 13; 18; 24–25) while highlighting Jesus’relationship to Abraham (chap. 1), his mission to “the lostsheep of Israel” (chaps. 10; 15), and his birth and death asthe “King of the Jews” (chaps. 2; 27) and using theJewish expression “kingdom of heaven.” Luke, whileportraying the comprehensive scope of Jesus’ mission byrelating Jesus directly to Adam and God (3:38) and placing the eventsin secular history (chap. 2), reveals a special interest in thedowntrodden (women, poor, children, Samaritans), prayer (nineprayers), the Holy Spirit, and joyfulness.

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).

Until the twentieth century, traveling farther than a week’sdistance from home was dangerous and expensive. We should notoverstate the difficulty or risks of travel then, but certainly itwas unlike today. Since virtually every region had its own currency,travelers carried cash and were at risk from thieves, money changers,innkeepers, slavers, and others who preyed upon travelers, as well asfrom the natural dangers of storms, floods, early snows, and soforth. Outside of cities, there was little law enforcement for thetypical traveler (Ezra 8:22). Family was often one’s onlydefender against injustice (Gen. 14:12–16; Ps. 127:3–5).

Fortravelers in the biblical world, improvement was slow and gradual.During the time of the patriarchs, travelers faced poor roads,bandits, and no security other than what they could providethemselves (Gen. 14:14). Later Assyrian documents complain ofdifficult roads. SargonII (r. 722–705 BC) boasted, “Iadvanced over inaccessible paths (in) steep and terrifying places”(ARAB 2:25–26). Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC) tells ofhaving to travel on foot because the road was too steep for hislitter (ARAB 2:122–23). Persian roads improved modestly, butHerodotus probably is exaggerating the improvements (Hist. 8.98), asXenophon seems to indicate (Anab. 1.2.25). Many sources speak ofbandits (Ezra 8:31; Hos. 6:9). Thus, safe travel or good roads becamea metaphor for peace. When ancient kings bragged, it often was aboutroads they had built or how the roads were now safe. The arrival ofthe kingdom of God was symbolized by repairing the road (Isa. 40:3–5;Luke 3:4–6).

Majorimprovements came with the Roman Empire. For the first (and last)time, a traveler could go from the Euphrates to Egypt to Britain onwell-policed roads and sea lanes under one’s own government.Enforced law and standardized, trustworthy coinage had distinctadvantages (Isa. 33:8; Matt. 22:15–22).

Runningempires required traveling. Envoys (Jer. 27:3), tax collectors (Dan.11:20), and overseers (1Kings 5:13–17), as well asarmies, moved about on imperial business. While farmers and localmerchants traveled limited distances to sell their wares (usually tothe closest large city), fortunes could be made by the moreadventuresome merchant willing to take the greater risks of travelingfarther distances (Gen. 37:28; 1Kings 10; Job 6:19; Prov.31:14; Isa. 23:8; Matt. 13:45). The ancient world also sawindividuals doing a great deal of local travel (less than sixtymiles), usually connected to business (Prov. 31:14), religiousfestivals (1Sam. 1; John 10), and family (Gen. 50:1–14;2Kings 8:29; Luke 1:39; John 2:1); often the three were woventogether.

Travelin the ancient world was by sea or land. Except for the wealthy, thismeant booking passage or walking. Sentimental images of a pregnantMary riding a donkey to Bethlehem or of the apostle Paul doingmissionary travels on horseback are likely fiction. Although there issome evidence of women traveling on donkeys (Josh. 15:18; 1Sam.25:20, 23; 2Sam. 16:1–2), the stories are of prominentwomen or unusual occasions; it should not be assumed to be normative.Obviously, the infirm rode when required to travel, but theypreferred not to travel (2Sam. 19:26–37). The wealthiestused private transport (Acts 8:27–28). We have references totravel by donkey, mule, camel, horse, cart, litter, and chariot, butordinary people walked. Typically, a good day’s walk was twentymiles; sea travel was by daylight and averaged roughly the same.Calculating how long it took someone to travel, though, is not merelya matter of math. Both sea and land travelers were fair-weathertravelers, usually between June and September. On a long journey, onehad to plan where to “winter.” Ancient travelers had tomake their travel plans around the seasons.

Travelby Land

Roads.Until the Romans, a “road” was merely a cleared path.They were ungraded and often impassable in wet weather. Nonetheless,they followed a distinct route, marked by “guideposts”(Jer. 31:21). In the ancient world, major roads ran east-west fromSyria into Mesopotamia. North-south roads connected Syria to Egypt,through Palestine. The Assyrian army invaded Israel by traveling weston the road as far as Syria and then turning south. The battlesfought in Gen. 14 were to control the north-south road (and thustrade). Solomon built wealth by controlling this trade (2Chron.9:14). Three major roads ran north-south through Israel. (1)TheKing’s Highway (Num. 20:17) ran through the eastern region,from Damascus through the eastern highlands of the Transjordan anddown to the Gulf of Aqaba, where Solomon maintained a port (2Chron.8:17). (2)The central (or Sinai) road ran from Sidon south toTyre, Akko, Shechem, Jerusalem, Hebron, Beersheba, Kadesh Barnea,into the Negev, and on to Egypt. (3)The Sea Road (Via Maris)ran from Damascus to Hazor through the Valley of Jezreel (the Plainof Esdraelon through the Megiddo Pass), down the coast of Israelthrough Gaza and into Egypt. Taking Megiddo meant controlling thisroad and the trade. The Egyptians (ThutmoseIII) defeated theCanaanites and took this road around 1468 BC. David captured it about1000 BC. Josiah died defending this road against the Egyptians(NechoII) in 609 BC.

TheGreeks extended a major road connecting through Asia Minor to theancient road running into Mesopotamia. The Romans built roads of flatstone placed upon foundations. Parts of these roads are still in usetoday. From Rome they built to the sea (Via Ostiensis, ViaPortuensis), to the south (Via Appia), to the west (Via Aurelia), tothe north (Via Flaminia), to the Adriatic (Via Salaria, Via Valeria),and to the east (Via Ignatia) connecting Rome to Greece and thus tothe rest of the biblical world.

Lodgings.Land travel necessitated lodgings. The wealthy near Rome often hadhomes along the common routes that they plied. Slaves ran ahead toannounce that the master was coming. Friends and those on themaster’s business likely used these homes as well whentraveling. When off the normal route, an aristocrat traveled with aretinue of servants, wagons, and tents to enable a well-equipped (andsecure) camp each evening. The ordinary traveler had no extra homesor entourages. Groups large enough for safety could camp near town.Individuals relied upon hospitality in town. Those individualtravelers unfortunate to lack any kinship with townsfolk often had norecourse but inns. Petronius (Sat. 94–97) tells a seamy storyof misadventures in the roadside inns of his day. Archaeology andliterature describe ill-kept dumps involving disreputableproprietors, questionable guests, and plenty of loose morals. AncientHebrews and early Christians emphasized hospitality (Gen. 19:1–2;Judg. 19:11–20; Rom. 12:13; 1Pet. 4:9; 3John 8).

Distanceand duration.Using the distances between ancient stopping places, travel records,and comments in literary sources, scholars generally agree that anormal walking traveler could expect to cover twenty miles in a day.Peter’s trip from Joppa to Caesarea (about forty miles) tooktwo days (Acts 10:23–30). Travelers using beasts of burdengenerally covered the same distance. Chariots averaged a bit better,perhaps twenty-five to thirty miles per day. Whether they actuallytraveled farther or just stopped earlier for the night is debatable.Horseback was intended for speed and could easily average fifty milesper day. Yet we must avoid the mistake of calculating travel timebetween places by simple math. While such calculations generally holdtrue for one- or two-day journeys (Acts 10), longer journeysencountered delays. Towns along main roads were commonly spaced aday’s walk apart. Yet it is unwise to assume that a traveleralways left the next morning after an overnight stay. Jesus warnedhis traveling preachers against such rudeness (Luke 10:5–7).Moreover, the host likely provided the food supplies and extra fundsfor the traveler’s next walk (3John 5–8; Did.11.5–6). Certainly, Jewish travelers were affected by Sabbathsand feasts. Not only would they not travel on those days, but alsothey likely would delay or rush to reach a particular location (Acts20:2–5, 16; 1Cor. 16:8). Ancients traveled according to adifferent tempo than modern Westerners.

Seasonscaused more serious delays. When traveling season ended, travelerswere forced to spend the winter wherever they were at that time. Ifpossible, they did not leave this to chance but rather planned whereto “winter” (Jer. 36:22; Acts 27:12; 1Cor. 16:6;Titus 3:12). Terrain was a serious consideration. Mountain passes andriver fords were obvious factors, and ancients often took the easier(or safer) though longer path. Hence, there were three roads leadingfrom Perga to Pisidian Antioch, the longest (western) being thesafest and easiest. Uphill journeys, snow-blocked passes, and flashfloods slowed ancient travelers, sometimes stranding them longer thantheir planned supplies would last (2Cor. 6:5).

Travelingin groups. Sincetravelers carried money, they avoided traveling alone or in verysmall groups. (The so-called wise men of Matt. 2:1–12 almostcertainly would have been waylaid had there been only three of them.)Commonly, travelers gathered in the agora (marketplace) early in themorning looking for fellow travelers heading their way, thus makingtraveling companions of those with whom they might not normallyassociate (Luke 9:57; 14:25). It was also common for travelers tojoin others along the road (Luke 24:13–16; Acts 8:27–30).

Travelby Sea

Ships.Almost all ancient ships were wooden. A “fast ship” wasnot necessarily a sleeker mode, but a dry one. Ideally, ships werestored out of the water during winter. Waterlogged ships werenaturally slower.

Nobiblical empire was worth its salt unless it had naval supremacy inthe Mediterranean Sea. Sailing vessels were at the mercy of the wind,so military ships meant galley ships. Rowing allowed captains to movewithout the wind. Today, we tend to imagine rowers like the “galleyslaves” of the Middle Ages. Ancient rowers, however, werehonored soldiers. Ships rammed each other in battle, and skill at theoar often meant the difference between victory and death. Once theenemy was rammed, rowers sprang up from their oars and fought hand tohand.

Piracyand commerce.No one could claim dominance of the sea without controlling piracy.The Roman navy, for the first time in history, managed to virtuallyeliminate piracy. Roman archers and slingers rained destruction asthey drew near pirate vessels. Catapults later were added for heavyartillery. Finally, firepots slung out on long poles set fire to theenemy’s ship, which the Romans then rammed and boarded.

Withthe taming of the Mediterranean, commercial shipping exploded ingrowth. Transporting cargo, passengers, and dispatches becameprofitable business. Smaller ships (like a Galilean fishing boat)depended upon oars, with a small sail as an auxiliary. Largermerchant ships depended more on sails. Sailing ships, with favorablewinds, probably averaged between two and four miles per hour, butonly half that with unfavorable winds. Ancient ships huggedcoastlines and avoided bad weather.

Commoncargo ships carried an average of about 250 tons of cargo and/orpassengers and ranged from 70 to 150 feet in length. Those carrying350 to 500 tons were considered large but not rare. It is thoughtthat the grain ships in Paul’s day (as in Acts 27) routinelywere three-decked, 180 feet long, carried 1,300 tons, and took over aweek to unload.

Travelingby ship.Although cargo ships also carried passengers, some ships wereprimarily for passengers. Josephus, on an unsuccessful attempt tosail to Rome, was on a ship with six hundred passengers (Josephus,Life 15). Sallust, a Roman historian, mentions a cohort (about 600men) traveling on one transport ship (Hist. 3.8). Paul’s shipto Rome had 276 aboard (Acts 27:37). Acts gives the impression thatthis ship left too late in the season. Aside from those compelled byRome, likely only the brave or the desperate would book such passage.Thus, we should not assume that the ship was fully booked.

Likeland travel, however, sea travel also was restricted by season. Inthe eastern half of the Mediterranean, the wind blows from thenorthwest toward the southeast persistently from June to September,marking the favorable sailing season. Vegetius (Mil. 4.39) writes,“From the 6th day before the kalends of June [May 27] until therising of Arcturus, that is until the 18th before the kalends ofOctober [Sept. 14], is believed to be the safe period ofnavigation.... From then up to the 3rd before theides of November, navigation is uncertain.... Fromthe 3rd before the ides of November to the 6th before the ides ofMarch, the seas are closed.” Many ancient writers indicatedthat sea travel in the winter was trecherous.

Aperson traveling by sea went first to the docks to inquire aboutships headed to the desired destination. Harbor managers, dockhands,sailors, or others pointed inquirers toward appropriate ships. Afternegotiating with a particular ship’s purser, whose job was tobook passengers (and guard against stowaways), a passenger was toldwhat day and time to be aboard. The lowest level of ships held theballast (usually sand or stone) and the bilgewater. Decking over itheld cargo. Some ships berthed the cheapest passengers in this area,what we now refer to as steerage (Lucian observes that suchpassengers were “not even able to stretch their legs on thebare boards alongside the bilgewater” [Jupp. trag. 48]). Largerfreighters had another deck above this that may have housed somepassengers. In general, however, travelers in Paul’s day (likeall travelers up until modern times) camped above deck (some withtents). Only the very wealthy rented cabins (P.Zen. 10). Shipwrecksand pirates were not the only dangers. A man cautioned his wife,“When you come, bring your gold ornaments, but do not wear themon the boat” (P.Mich. 3.214 [see also 8.468]). Then as now,tossing someone overboard left a clean crime scene (Jon. 1:15; cf.Acts 20:3).

Summary

Mostbiblical characters, like their peers, rarely traveled far from home.It is commonly estimated that Jesus’ ministry encompassed adistance no greater than one hundred miles from his home. Hisapostles, though, took advantage of the travel benefits of the RomanEmpire. Paul was a far more experienced traveler than most, both byland and sea (Acts 27:9–10, 30–32), although he appearsto have pushed the limits of safety on occasion. He mentions“sleepless nights and hunger” (2Cor. 6:5) as wellas being “in danger from rivers” and bandits (2Cor.11:26). In addition to what is reported in Acts 27, Paul wasshipwrecked at least three other times (2Cor. 11:25). Whetherby land or sea, travel in ancient times was not for the fainthearted.

Until the twentieth century, traveling farther than a week’sdistance from home was dangerous and expensive. We should notoverstate the difficulty or risks of travel then, but certainly itwas unlike today. Since virtually every region had its own currency,travelers carried cash and were at risk from thieves, money changers,innkeepers, slavers, and others who preyed upon travelers, as well asfrom the natural dangers of storms, floods, early snows, and soforth. Outside of cities, there was little law enforcement for thetypical traveler (Ezra 8:22). Family was often one’s onlydefender against injustice (Gen. 14:12–16; Ps. 127:3–5).

Fortravelers in the biblical world, improvement was slow and gradual.During the time of the patriarchs, travelers faced poor roads,bandits, and no security other than what they could providethemselves (Gen. 14:14). Later Assyrian documents complain ofdifficult roads. SargonII (r. 722–705 BC) boasted, “Iadvanced over inaccessible paths (in) steep and terrifying places”(ARAB 2:25–26). Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC) tells ofhaving to travel on foot because the road was too steep for hislitter (ARAB 2:122–23). Persian roads improved modestly, butHerodotus probably is exaggerating the improvements (Hist. 8.98), asXenophon seems to indicate (Anab. 1.2.25). Many sources speak ofbandits (Ezra 8:31; Hos. 6:9). Thus, safe travel or good roads becamea metaphor for peace. When ancient kings bragged, it often was aboutroads they had built or how the roads were now safe. The arrival ofthe kingdom of God was symbolized by repairing the road (Isa. 40:3–5;Luke 3:4–6).

Majorimprovements came with the Roman Empire. For the first (and last)time, a traveler could go from the Euphrates to Egypt to Britain onwell-policed roads and sea lanes under one’s own government.Enforced law and standardized, trustworthy coinage had distinctadvantages (Isa. 33:8; Matt. 22:15–22).

Runningempires required traveling. Envoys (Jer. 27:3), tax collectors (Dan.11:20), and overseers (1Kings 5:13–17), as well asarmies, moved about on imperial business. While farmers and localmerchants traveled limited distances to sell their wares (usually tothe closest large city), fortunes could be made by the moreadventuresome merchant willing to take the greater risks of travelingfarther distances (Gen. 37:28; 1Kings 10; Job 6:19; Prov.31:14; Isa. 23:8; Matt. 13:45). The ancient world also sawindividuals doing a great deal of local travel (less than sixtymiles), usually connected to business (Prov. 31:14), religiousfestivals (1Sam. 1; John 10), and family (Gen. 50:1–14;2Kings 8:29; Luke 1:39; John 2:1); often the three were woventogether.

Travelin the ancient world was by sea or land. Except for the wealthy, thismeant booking passage or walking. Sentimental images of a pregnantMary riding a donkey to Bethlehem or of the apostle Paul doingmissionary travels on horseback are likely fiction. Although there issome evidence of women traveling on donkeys (Josh. 15:18; 1Sam.25:20, 23; 2Sam. 16:1–2), the stories are of prominentwomen or unusual occasions; it should not be assumed to be normative.Obviously, the infirm rode when required to travel, but theypreferred not to travel (2Sam. 19:26–37). The wealthiestused private transport (Acts 8:27–28). We have references totravel by donkey, mule, camel, horse, cart, litter, and chariot, butordinary people walked. Typically, a good day’s walk was twentymiles; sea travel was by daylight and averaged roughly the same.Calculating how long it took someone to travel, though, is not merelya matter of math. Both sea and land travelers were fair-weathertravelers, usually between June and September. On a long journey, onehad to plan where to “winter.” Ancient travelers had tomake their travel plans around the seasons.

Travelby Land

Roads.Until the Romans, a “road” was merely a cleared path.They were ungraded and often impassable in wet weather. Nonetheless,they followed a distinct route, marked by “guideposts”(Jer. 31:21). In the ancient world, major roads ran east-west fromSyria into Mesopotamia. North-south roads connected Syria to Egypt,through Palestine. The Assyrian army invaded Israel by traveling weston the road as far as Syria and then turning south. The battlesfought in Gen. 14 were to control the north-south road (and thustrade). Solomon built wealth by controlling this trade (2Chron.9:14). Three major roads ran north-south through Israel. (1)TheKing’s Highway (Num. 20:17) ran through the eastern region,from Damascus through the eastern highlands of the Transjordan anddown to the Gulf of Aqaba, where Solomon maintained a port (2Chron.8:17). (2)The central (or Sinai) road ran from Sidon south toTyre, Akko, Shechem, Jerusalem, Hebron, Beersheba, Kadesh Barnea,into the Negev, and on to Egypt. (3)The Sea Road (Via Maris)ran from Damascus to Hazor through the Valley of Jezreel (the Plainof Esdraelon through the Megiddo Pass), down the coast of Israelthrough Gaza and into Egypt. Taking Megiddo meant controlling thisroad and the trade. The Egyptians (ThutmoseIII) defeated theCanaanites and took this road around 1468 BC. David captured it about1000 BC. Josiah died defending this road against the Egyptians(NechoII) in 609 BC.

TheGreeks extended a major road connecting through Asia Minor to theancient road running into Mesopotamia. The Romans built roads of flatstone placed upon foundations. Parts of these roads are still in usetoday. From Rome they built to the sea (Via Ostiensis, ViaPortuensis), to the south (Via Appia), to the west (Via Aurelia), tothe north (Via Flaminia), to the Adriatic (Via Salaria, Via Valeria),and to the east (Via Ignatia) connecting Rome to Greece and thus tothe rest of the biblical world.

Lodgings.Land travel necessitated lodgings. The wealthy near Rome often hadhomes along the common routes that they plied. Slaves ran ahead toannounce that the master was coming. Friends and those on themaster’s business likely used these homes as well whentraveling. When off the normal route, an aristocrat traveled with aretinue of servants, wagons, and tents to enable a well-equipped (andsecure) camp each evening. The ordinary traveler had no extra homesor entourages. Groups large enough for safety could camp near town.Individuals relied upon hospitality in town. Those individualtravelers unfortunate to lack any kinship with townsfolk often had norecourse but inns. Petronius (Sat. 94–97) tells a seamy storyof misadventures in the roadside inns of his day. Archaeology andliterature describe ill-kept dumps involving disreputableproprietors, questionable guests, and plenty of loose morals. AncientHebrews and early Christians emphasized hospitality (Gen. 19:1–2;Judg. 19:11–20; Rom. 12:13; 1Pet. 4:9; 3John 8).

Distanceand duration.Using the distances between ancient stopping places, travel records,and comments in literary sources, scholars generally agree that anormal walking traveler could expect to cover twenty miles in a day.Peter’s trip from Joppa to Caesarea (about forty miles) tooktwo days (Acts 10:23–30). Travelers using beasts of burdengenerally covered the same distance. Chariots averaged a bit better,perhaps twenty-five to thirty miles per day. Whether they actuallytraveled farther or just stopped earlier for the night is debatable.Horseback was intended for speed and could easily average fifty milesper day. Yet we must avoid the mistake of calculating travel timebetween places by simple math. While such calculations generally holdtrue for one- or two-day journeys (Acts 10), longer journeysencountered delays. Towns along main roads were commonly spaced aday’s walk apart. Yet it is unwise to assume that a traveleralways left the next morning after an overnight stay. Jesus warnedhis traveling preachers against such rudeness (Luke 10:5–7).Moreover, the host likely provided the food supplies and extra fundsfor the traveler’s next walk (3John 5–8; Did.11.5–6). Certainly, Jewish travelers were affected by Sabbathsand feasts. Not only would they not travel on those days, but alsothey likely would delay or rush to reach a particular location (Acts20:2–5, 16; 1Cor. 16:8). Ancients traveled according to adifferent tempo than modern Westerners.

Seasonscaused more serious delays. When traveling season ended, travelerswere forced to spend the winter wherever they were at that time. Ifpossible, they did not leave this to chance but rather planned whereto “winter” (Jer. 36:22; Acts 27:12; 1Cor. 16:6;Titus 3:12). Terrain was a serious consideration. Mountain passes andriver fords were obvious factors, and ancients often took the easier(or safer) though longer path. Hence, there were three roads leadingfrom Perga to Pisidian Antioch, the longest (western) being thesafest and easiest. Uphill journeys, snow-blocked passes, and flashfloods slowed ancient travelers, sometimes stranding them longer thantheir planned supplies would last (2Cor. 6:5).

Travelingin groups. Sincetravelers carried money, they avoided traveling alone or in verysmall groups. (The so-called wise men of Matt. 2:1–12 almostcertainly would have been waylaid had there been only three of them.)Commonly, travelers gathered in the agora (marketplace) early in themorning looking for fellow travelers heading their way, thus makingtraveling companions of those with whom they might not normallyassociate (Luke 9:57; 14:25). It was also common for travelers tojoin others along the road (Luke 24:13–16; Acts 8:27–30).

Travelby Sea

Ships.Almost all ancient ships were wooden. A “fast ship” wasnot necessarily a sleeker mode, but a dry one. Ideally, ships werestored out of the water during winter. Waterlogged ships werenaturally slower.

Nobiblical empire was worth its salt unless it had naval supremacy inthe Mediterranean Sea. Sailing vessels were at the mercy of the wind,so military ships meant galley ships. Rowing allowed captains to movewithout the wind. Today, we tend to imagine rowers like the “galleyslaves” of the Middle Ages. Ancient rowers, however, werehonored soldiers. Ships rammed each other in battle, and skill at theoar often meant the difference between victory and death. Once theenemy was rammed, rowers sprang up from their oars and fought hand tohand.

Piracyand commerce.No one could claim dominance of the sea without controlling piracy.The Roman navy, for the first time in history, managed to virtuallyeliminate piracy. Roman archers and slingers rained destruction asthey drew near pirate vessels. Catapults later were added for heavyartillery. Finally, firepots slung out on long poles set fire to theenemy’s ship, which the Romans then rammed and boarded.

Withthe taming of the Mediterranean, commercial shipping exploded ingrowth. Transporting cargo, passengers, and dispatches becameprofitable business. Smaller ships (like a Galilean fishing boat)depended upon oars, with a small sail as an auxiliary. Largermerchant ships depended more on sails. Sailing ships, with favorablewinds, probably averaged between two and four miles per hour, butonly half that with unfavorable winds. Ancient ships huggedcoastlines and avoided bad weather.

Commoncargo ships carried an average of about 250 tons of cargo and/orpassengers and ranged from 70 to 150 feet in length. Those carrying350 to 500 tons were considered large but not rare. It is thoughtthat the grain ships in Paul’s day (as in Acts 27) routinelywere three-decked, 180 feet long, carried 1,300 tons, and took over aweek to unload.

Travelingby ship.Although cargo ships also carried passengers, some ships wereprimarily for passengers. Josephus, on an unsuccessful attempt tosail to Rome, was on a ship with six hundred passengers (Josephus,Life 15). Sallust, a Roman historian, mentions a cohort (about 600men) traveling on one transport ship (Hist. 3.8). Paul’s shipto Rome had 276 aboard (Acts 27:37). Acts gives the impression thatthis ship left too late in the season. Aside from those compelled byRome, likely only the brave or the desperate would book such passage.Thus, we should not assume that the ship was fully booked.

Likeland travel, however, sea travel also was restricted by season. Inthe eastern half of the Mediterranean, the wind blows from thenorthwest toward the southeast persistently from June to September,marking the favorable sailing season. Vegetius (Mil. 4.39) writes,“From the 6th day before the kalends of June [May 27] until therising of Arcturus, that is until the 18th before the kalends ofOctober [Sept. 14], is believed to be the safe period ofnavigation.... From then up to the 3rd before theides of November, navigation is uncertain.... Fromthe 3rd before the ides of November to the 6th before the ides ofMarch, the seas are closed.” Many ancient writers indicatedthat sea travel in the winter was trecherous.

Aperson traveling by sea went first to the docks to inquire aboutships headed to the desired destination. Harbor managers, dockhands,sailors, or others pointed inquirers toward appropriate ships. Afternegotiating with a particular ship’s purser, whose job was tobook passengers (and guard against stowaways), a passenger was toldwhat day and time to be aboard. The lowest level of ships held theballast (usually sand or stone) and the bilgewater. Decking over itheld cargo. Some ships berthed the cheapest passengers in this area,what we now refer to as steerage (Lucian observes that suchpassengers were “not even able to stretch their legs on thebare boards alongside the bilgewater” [Jupp. trag. 48]). Largerfreighters had another deck above this that may have housed somepassengers. In general, however, travelers in Paul’s day (likeall travelers up until modern times) camped above deck (some withtents). Only the very wealthy rented cabins (P.Zen. 10). Shipwrecksand pirates were not the only dangers. A man cautioned his wife,“When you come, bring your gold ornaments, but do not wear themon the boat” (P.Mich. 3.214 [see also 8.468]). Then as now,tossing someone overboard left a clean crime scene (Jon. 1:15; cf.Acts 20:3).

Summary

Mostbiblical characters, like their peers, rarely traveled far from home.It is commonly estimated that Jesus’ ministry encompassed adistance no greater than one hundred miles from his home. Hisapostles, though, took advantage of the travel benefits of the RomanEmpire. Paul was a far more experienced traveler than most, both byland and sea (Acts 27:9–10, 30–32), although he appearsto have pushed the limits of safety on occasion. He mentions“sleepless nights and hunger” (2Cor. 6:5) as wellas being “in danger from rivers” and bandits (2Cor.11:26). In addition to what is reported in Acts 27, Paul wasshipwrecked at least three other times (2Cor. 11:25). Whetherby land or sea, travel in ancient times was not for the fainthearted.

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheCovenant Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenantsin the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The biblical writers proclaim that only one God exists, yetthey also refer to three persons as “God.” The Father,the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. Furthermore, these threepersons relate to one another as self-conscious individuals. Jesusprays to the Father (John 17). The Father speaks from heavenconcerning the Son (Matt. 3:17; Luke 3:22). Jesus vows to send theSpirit as “Advocate” after his ascension, and he will dowhat Jesus himself did while he was among us (John 16:7–8). Thechallenge of Christian theology, therefore, is to formulate adoctrine of God that captures all these elements, each of whichsurfaces in both Testaments.

OldTestament

Inthe OT, evidence for the Trinity appears mostly at the implicitlevel. Yahweh is called “Father” in Isaiah (63:16; 64:8),Jeremiah (3:4, 19; 31:9), and Malachi (2:10). Isaiah declares, “Butyou are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israelacknowledge us; you, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of oldis your name” (Isa. 63:16). Yahweh identifies himself as“Father” implicitly when he claims Israel as his “son”(Hos. 11:1), and the same principle applies to Ps. 2:7, where Goddeclares to his anointed, “You are my son; today I have becomeyour father.” These cases do not compare in numbers with the NTevidence, but a person thought of as “God the Father”certainly appears in the OT.

Messianictexts of the OT introduce us to God the Son. In Isa. 9:6 a “childis born” who will be called “Wonderful Counselor, MightyGod, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” The day of“Immanuel,” or “God with us,” is foreshadowedin Isa. 7:14 (cf. Matt. 1:22), while Isa. 40:3–5 anticipatesthe appearance of the Lord “in the wilderness” (cf. Matt.3:3). Daniel sees “one like a son of man, coming with theclouds of heaven” being given “authority, glory andsovereign power” (Dan. 7:13–14). In Ps. 110:1 Yahweh saysto David’s “Lord,” “Sit at my right handuntil I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

Similarly,the OT seems to distinguish the Spirit of God from Yahweh whileimplying the Spirit’s own personality. Genesis 1:2 makes thatcase, as does Exod. 31:3, where Yahweh fills Bezalel with the “Spiritof God” (cf. Exod. 35:31; Num. 11:29). In 1Sam. 16:14 acontrast is made between the “Spirit of the Lord” thatleaves Saul and an “evil spirit from the Lord” thattorments him; also we find a repentant David pleading that God wouldnot take away his “Holy Spirit” (Ps. 51:11). The Spiritcan be put on persons by God, with the result that they prophesy(Isa. 61:1; Joel 2:28–29) and do what pleases him (Ezek.36:26–27). In the OT, therefore, we see two persons (the Sonand the Holy Spirit) who are both God and also distinguishable fromone to whom they answer and by whom they are sent.

NewTestament

TheNT contains abundant evidence for “God the Father,” oftenbecause of Jesus’ teaching. The “Father” appearsseveral times in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., Matt. 5:16; 6:6–9,14, 18, 26, 32; 7:11). Matthew 7:21 stands out because of Jesus’reference to “my Father who is in heaven,” by which heidentifies himself as the Son (see also Matt. 15:13; 16:17; 18:10;and Luke 24:49). Paul’s greetings normally come from God theFather and the Lord Jesus Christ, as seen in Rom. 1:7: “Graceand peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ”(also 1Cor. 1:3; 2Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:1–3; 1Tim.1:2; 2Tim. 1:2). Paul introduces the Father and the Son in1Cor. 8:6: “For us there is but one God, the Father, fromwhom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord,Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live”(see also 1Cor. 15:24; 2Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; Phil.2:22). Other significant texts include Heb. 1:5; 1Pet. 1:2–3;in the latter, the scattered believers are those “who have beenchosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through thesanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ andsprinkled with his blood.... Praise be to the Godand Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” The NT evidence for “Godthe Father” is clear.

Biblicaltexts that point to the deity of Christ supply evidence for thesecond claim: the Son is God. Some of the texts listed above say asmuch, but one can take this case further. In context, John’sprologue refers to Jesus as the “Word” and proclaims thathe was “with God” and “was God” (John 1:1).Jesus also relates to the Father in ways that imply his own deity, ashe declares in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.”After significant doubting, Thomas confesses the deity of Christ inJohn 20:28: “My Lord and my God!” NT passages thatidentify Jesus as the “Son of God” point to his deity, asPeter does in Matt. 16:16: “You are the Messiah, the Son of theliving God.” Even demons identify Jesus as the Son. They callout, “What do you want with us, Son of God? ...Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”(Matt. 8:29; cf. Mark 5:7). The so-called Christ Hymn of Phil. 2:6–11puts Jesus on the level with God, saying that he did not consider“equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”The author of Hebrews declares that Jesus is “the radiance ofGod’s glory and the exact representation of his being”(1:3). Colossians 1:15–16 says that Jesus is the “imageof the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” and theone by whom “all things were created,” and Col. 1:19states that “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell inhim.” According to Titus 2:13, Jesus is “our great Godand Savior.” The entire sequence of Rev. 4–5 highlightsthe deity of Christ, culminating in the praise “To him who sitson the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory andpower, for ever and ever!” as both the Enthroned One and theLamb are worshiped as God (5:13–14).

TheNT writers underscore both the deity and the distinctive personalityof the Holy Spirit. Jesus is conceived in Mary’s womb by theSpirit’s power (Matt. 1:18–20), and when Jesus isbaptized, the Spirit descends upon him as a dove (Matt. 3:16; Mark1:10). Jesus drives out demons by the Spirit, and one dare not speakagainst the Spirit when he does so (Matt. 12:28–32). Luke’sGospel puts added emphasis on the ministry of the Spirit, as we alsosee in Acts. He empowers various people to praise and prophesy (Luke1:41, 67) and to be witnesses for Christ (Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17–18,38). Sinners can lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3, 9), and the HolySpirit bears witness along with the apostles to the risen Christ(5:32). In John’s Gospel, the Spirit becomes the counselor andteacher of the disciples, reminding them of their Lord’sinstructions (John 14:26; 16:13). The Spirit brings assurance ofsonship (Rom. 8:16) and helps disciples when they pray (8:26). Thisperson even knows the very thoughts of God (1Cor. 2:11).Accordingly, the Great Commission requires baptism in the name of theFather, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). All three membersof the Trinity have a part in the advancement of the kingdom, theSpirit no less than the Father and the Son.

Relationshipsbetween Father, Son, and Spirit

Theevidence considered thus far demonstrates that three persons arecalled “God” in Scripture: the Father, the Son, and theHoly Spirit. But the Scriptures also point to a chain of command intheir relationship to one another. The Son obeys the Father, and theSpirit proceeds from the Father and the Son to apply the work of thecross to the church. This “functional subordination” ofthe Son to the Father, some might argue, would follow simply from theanalogy chosen by God to reveal himself to us. The “Son”would obey his “Father,” not vice versa, though theyshare a common dignity as God, just as a human father and son share acommon humanity. But the NT writers expressly tell us that theyrelate to each other in this way. In Matt. 11:27 (cf. Luke 10:22)Jesus announces, “All things have been committed to me by myFather” (cf. John 3:35; 5:22). The latter transfers authorityto the former as his subordinate. The Father even (for a season)knows more than the Son regarding the last days: “About thatday or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,but only the Father” (Matt. 24:36), though he also dignifiesthe Son: “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all hedoes” (John 5:20). The Son’s commitment to please hisheavenly Father is a prominent theme of the NT, as Jesus declares inJohn 5:19: “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do onlywhat he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does theSon also does.” No text brings out this dependence of the Sonupon the Father more clearly than Heb. 5:7–8, where the Son issaid to have “offered up prayers and petitions with ferventcries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he washeard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, helearned obedience from what he suffered.” It is debated bytheologians whether this functional subordination relates only to theperiod of the Son’s earthly ministry, or whether it is aneternal subordination.

TheSpirit, though equal in personality and dignity with the Father andthe Son, proceeds from them to apply the work of the cross andempower the church for ministry. In John 14:26 Jesus says, “TheAdvocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, willteach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said toyou.” In John 15:26 Jesus announces that he also sends theSpirit out: “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to youfrom the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from theFather—he will testify about me.” The Spirit only conveyswhat he has received: “He will not speak on his own; he willspeak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come”(John 16:13). The same “chain of command” appears in John16:15, where Jesus says, “All that belongs to the Father ismine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he willmake known to you.”

TrinitarianHeresies

TheFather, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, while beingdistinguishable persons. The Son obeys the Father; and these twopersons of the Trinity send out the Holy Spirit to implement ourdeliverance from sin. A defensible explanation of the Trinity willrespect all these dynamics, taking special care not to illustratethem with misleading images or simply lapse into various forms ofpolytheism. One of the earliest heresies of the church came fromMarcion, a second-century theologian who distinguished the Father ofJesus from the supposedly vindictive God of the OT, which leaves uswith more than one God. Later came the heresies of modalism andsubordinationism (or Arianism). Modalists claimed that the persons ofthe Trinity are no more than guises worn by the one person of God.One minute God is the Father, the next he is the Son or the HolySpirit. Subordinationists such as Arius (died AD 336) went beyond thefunctionality of the NT’s chain of command, arguing that theSon and the Holy Spirit are not themselves God but are essentiallysubordinate to him. Jehovah’s Witnesses have fallen into thislatter error, suggesting that Jesus is “a god” but notthe Creator God.

Theseearly heresies pressed the church to refine its understanding of theTrinity. In his response to Marcion’s error, Tertullian coinedprecise language to describe the persons of the Godhead, so thatGod’s “threeness” and “oneness” arepreserved. He used the Latin term trinitas to describe the ChristianGod and argued that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit sharethe same “substance.” The Son (also, then, the HolySpirit) is not simply of “like substance” (Gk.hom*oiousios) with God the Father, but rather is “consubstantial”(Gk. hom*oousios) with him: the Son is God, and so is the Holy Spirit.The Nicene Creed of AD 325 incorporated this explanation and, in sodoing, also set aside the idea that either the Son or the Holy Spiritwas created by God, as the Arian heresy requires. Nicaea alsorejected adoptionism, which regards Jesus as a man whom God promotedby endowing him with supernatural powers.

Eachof these heresies—plus, say, the strict monotheism ofIslam—attempts to relieve the tension seen among the claimsthat constitute the Trinity; however, orthodox Christians willremember that tensions and paradoxes are not automaticcontradictions. No philosopher or theologian has ever expresslydemonstrated that the Trinity entails logical nonsense, andChristianity’s detractors carry the burden of proof in thiscase. It is one thing to allege that an idea is contradictory, andquite another thing to show with an argument that it is so. On thepositive side, the Trinity must remain a central doctrine of thechurch because it affects all the others, especially the entire workof redemption. If God is not triune, then Jesus is not God; and if heis not God, then he cannot save us, nor can we worship him as ourLord. The sacrifice that he offers for our sin would not, in thatcase, be supremely valuable. Consider also the application to us ofwhat Christ has done. If the Holy Spirit is not God, then he cannotspeak for God as one who knows perfectly his thoughts and gives usthe word of God, our Bible. Scripture indicates that God is triune,and sinners need him to be so.

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).